RE-ARCHITECTURE capitellum

Lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage

PROEFONTWERP

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de

Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, op gezag van de
Rector Magnificus, prof.dr.ir. C.J. van Duijn, voor een
commissie aangewezen door het College voor
Promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen
op dinsdag 27 november 2007 om 16.00 uur

door

Ana Rita Gomes Mendes Martins Pereira Roders

geboren te Lissabon, Portugal

a
De documentatie van het proefontwerp is goedgekeurd door de promotoren:

prof.ir. J.M. Post

en
prof.dr.arch. J.M. Aguiar

Copromotor:
dr.ir. P.A. Erkelens

Published by
Bouwstenen Publicatieburo
Postbus 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven
The Netherlands
Telephone: +31 (0) 40 4442293

Copyright © 2007 Ana Pereira Roders

RE-ARCHITECTURE: Lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage, capitellum / by Ana Pereira

Roders, Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 2007
ISBN-10: 90-386-1786-0
ISBN-13: 978-90-386-1786-2

Keywords: adaptation, built environment, built heritage, cultural values, design process,
design support system, intervention, life-cycle, lifespan, refurbishment, rehabilitation,
renovation, sustainable

Cover design: Bert Lammers, Graphic Studio, TU/e, Faculteit Bouwkunde (production)
Ana Pereira Roders, TU/e, Faculteit Bouwkunde (photos, concept)
Printed by University Press Facilities, TU/e, Eindhoven

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be photocopied, reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means whether, electronic, mechanical,
or otherwise; without the prior written permission of the author.

b
 para a minha mãe Elisabete que me encaminhou,
en voor mijn man Martin die met mij het pad bewandeld heeft

c
 Table of contents colomna

Summary / Samenvatting / Sumário

Introduction

RE-ARCHITECTURE basis
book I

Acknowledgements
Summary / Samenvatting / Sumário
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Scientific Method
Chapter 3 Framing the Field Universe
Appendices

RE-ARCHITECTURE scapus
book II

Acknowledgements
Summary / Samenvatting / Sumário
Chapter 4 Developing the Prototype
Appendices

RE-ARCHITECTURE capitellum
book III

Acknowledgements
Summary / Samenvatting / Sumário
Chapter 5 Producing the Prototype
Chapter 6 Testing the Prototype
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Discussion
Appendices

i
ii
 Summary colomna
We are the citizens of a brand-new XXI century, who inherited from earlier
generations, not only their fortunes, but also their depths towards the world environment. We
can either, close our eyes and continue with our lives, just as we have been living them,
following the market waves; or we can dare to look out of Plato’s cave, and aim to understand
the problems of our world. Trying to overpass the cave entry, this research faced two different
realities that can be quite alike. First, the planet is demanding for ecological concerns,
regarding the use, transformation and waste of resources, especially the non-renewable; with
neither restrictive control, nor consciousness of its impact on the future generations.
Second, the building stock is “breaking down in the seams”, with too many
unoccupied buildings, while still new construction rates increase consistently, as well as the
rate of existing buildings being intervened or demolished, in order to reuse the profitable land
property. Such interventions are often self-centred in short term achievements, supported by
cultural values, which aim beyond the preservation of both built and natural heritage. This
regards not only the promoters and property owners, but the designers themselves, when
focusing on present achievements, neglecting the past and the future in their designs.
Within a building there are many forms, components and materials that could still be
reused, reprocessed or even recycled, but designers simply waste such built resources,
probably due to other priorities and aims. This unconsciousness does not signify a present,
but a future consequence, because most of those resources could still be used. Also, the
existing buildings can be culturally significant, but time does not allow us, now, to appreciate
what next generations might consider as valuable. Nonetheless, instead of being aware and
responsible, the choice to neglect both past and future is the most common solution,
especially if the building is not listed at any safeguard institution.
Probably this way of apprehending the world’s reality is mainly due to the fact that the
cultural values regent in our society are mainly ruled by economic and political values. This
brings consequences of over-considering the effective capacity of built heritage; especially
because involved actors are often not fully aware of the consequences of their actions and
choices.
However, the regent cultural values change continuously in our society, as well as the
aims that conduct such interventions. Designers responsible for rehabilitation designs can
subvert this reality and show to all other involved actors that, at least, within their limited
range of actions and decisions, they are very well able and willing to proclaim such lifespan
consciousness.
But, is it possible to develop lifespan conscious rehabilitations of built heritage? Is our
generation of designers prepared for such a challenge? This research aimed to answer this
question positively. And for that purpose, RE-ARCHITECTURE®, a design process support
system was developed, tested and verified with architecture students and architects, involved
in rehabilitation interventions. Therefore, all designers committed in developing rehabilitation
designs, which effectively evidence the consciousness and attention for the building lifespan:
past, present and future; can now easily find technical sustenance.

iii
 Samenvatting zuil
Wij zijn de bevolking van de splinternieuwe 21ste eeuw, die niet alleen rijkdommen
van eerdere generaties heeft geërfd, maar ook de dieptepunten wat betreft natuur en milieu.
We kunnen onze ogen hiervoor sluiten, doorgaan met leven zoals wij daarvoor deden en de
marktfluctuaties volgen, of we kunnen proberen een kijkje te nemen buiten Plato’s grot en
proberen de problemen van onze wereld te begrijpen. In de poging de grot uit te komen, heeft
dit onderzoek twee verschillende realiteiten onder ogen gezien, die toch behoorlijk veel
raakvlakken kunnen hebben. Allereerst vereist onze Planeet ecologische bezorgdheid wat
betreft gebruik, transformatie en verbruik van natuurlijke bronnen, vooral de eindige, waarbij
geen beperkende controle, of bewustzijn van de invloed op de toekomstige generatie
aanwezig is.
Ten tweede barst de bestaande gebouwenvoorraad uit zijn voegen, met teveel
ongebruikte gebouwen, terwijl het percentage nieuwbouw gestaag stijgt, evenals het aantal
bestaande gebouwen dat wordt gerenoveerd of gesloopt, met als doel het winstgevende
grondbezit te hergebruiken. Dergelijke ingrepen zijn meestal het middelpunt van huidige
prestaties, gebaseerd op culturele waarden die een ander doel hebben dan behoud van het
gebouwde en natuurlijke erfgoed. Het betreft niet alleen vastgoed vertegenwoordigers en
eigenaren, maar ook de ontwerpers zelf, wanneer zij zich alleen richten op actuele resultaten,
zonder het verleden en de toekomst in hun ontwerpen te beschouwen.
In een gebouw zijn vele vormen, componenten en materialen te vinden die nog
hergebruikt, herbewerkt, of gerecycled zouden kunnen worden, maar de ontwerpers
verspillen simpelweg dergelijke toegepaste materialen, waarschijnlijk vanwege andere
prioriteiten. Dit onbewustzijn resulteert niet zozeer in directe gevolgen, maar wel in gevolgen
voor de toekomst, omdat het merendeel nog gebruikt had kunnen worden. Ook kunnen de
bestaande gebouwen cultureel zeer belangrijk zijn, maar de tijd staat ons niet toe, nu, te
waarderen wat volgende generaties in de toekomst zullen gaan waarderen. Niettemin is de
keuze om zowel het verleden als de toekomst te verwaarlozen de meest gangbare, in plaats
van alert en verantwoordelijk te zijn. Vooral als het gaat om een gebouw dat niet bij een
beschermende instantie geregistreerd staat. Waarschijnlijk wordt deze houding ten aanzien
van op de wereldrealiteit veroorzaakt doordat de culturele waarden in onze maatschappij
vooral worden beïnvloed door de economische en politieke waarden. Dit zorgt voor
overwaardering van de capaciteit van het gebouwde erfgoed, vooral omdat de betrokken
actoren zich vaak niet geheel bewust zijn van de consequenties van hun acties en keuzes.
Echter, de regerende culturele waarden veranderen continu in onze maatschappij, evenals de
doelen die zulke ingrepen sturen. Ontwerpers verantwoordelijk voor renovatieontwerpen
kunnen deze realiteit verwerpen en aan de andere actoren laten zien, dat zij, in ieder geval
binnen hun eigen beperkte reeks van acties en beslissingen, zeer goed in staat kunnen zijn
en de wil kunnen tonen om een dergelijke levensduurbewustheid uit te dragen.
Maar, is het mogelijk om levensduurbewuste renovaties van gebouwd erfgoed te
ontwikkelen? Is onze generatie van ontwerpers voorbereid op zo’n uitdaging? Dit onderzoek
is gericht op een positief antwoord op deze vraag. Voor dit doel is RE-ARCHITECTURE®,
een ontwerpproces ondersteunend systeem, ontwikkeld, getest en geverifieerd met
architectuurstudenten en architecten, die betrokken waren bij renovatie-ingrepen. Daarom
kunnen nu alle ontwerpers eenvoudig technische ondersteuning vinden, wanneer zij
betrokken zijn bij de ontwikkeling van renovatieontwerpen, die het bewustzijn en aandacht
voor de levensduur van het gebouw: verleden, heden en toekomst, weerspiegelen.

iv
 Sumário coluna
Somos os cidadãos do novo século XXI, que herdaram das gerações anteriores; não
só as suas fortunas, mas também as suas dívidas para com o ambiente mundial. Podemos
fechar os nossos olhos e continuar com as nossas vidas, exactamente como as temos vivido,
seguindo as oscilações do mercado; ou podemos ousar observar fora da caverna de Platão,
aspirando compreender os problemas do nosso mundo. Tentando trespassar a entrada da
caverna, esta investigação deparou-se com duas realidades diversas, que podem ser
bastante idênticas. Primeiro, o planeta reclama por atenções ecológicas, no que diz respeito
ao uso, transformação e desperdício de recursos; especialmente os não renováveis; sem
controlo restritivo, nem consciência do seu impacto nas gerações futuras.
Segundo, o parque edificado está a “arrebentar pelas costuras”, com demasiados
edifícios desocupados; quando os valores da construção nova continuam a aumentar
medianamente; assim como os valores de edifícios existentes, alvo de intervenções ou
demolições, para que tão lucrativas propriedades possam ser reutilizadas. Frequentemente
centradas em realizações a curto prazo, estas intervenções sustentam-se em valores
culturais, com ambições que ultrapassam a preservação do património construído e natural.
Isto diz respeito, não só aos promotores e proprietários, mas também aos próprios
projectistas, quando concentrados somente em realizações presentes, negligenciando o
passado e o futuro nos seus projectos.
Num edifício existem muitas formas, componentes e materiais, que poderiam
perfeitamente ser reutilizados, reprocessados ou até reciclados, mas os projectistas
simplesmente desperdiçam-nos, provavelmente devido a outras prioridades e ambições.
Esta inconsciência não representa uma consequência para o presente, mas para o futuro; já
que grande parte destes recursos poderia ainda ser usado. Também, o edifício pode ser
relevante culturalmente, mas o tempo não nos permite, agora, apreciar o que futuras
gerações poderão vir a valorizar no futuro. Mesmo assim, em vez de atentos e conscientes, a
escolha para negligenciar o passado e futuro é a solução mais corrente, sobretudo quando o
edifício não está classificado por qualquer instituição de salvaguarda. Provavelmente, esta
forma de apreender a realidade do mundo deve-se ao facto de que os valores culturais
regentes na nossa sociedade sejam maioritariamente dominados pelos valores económicos
e políticos. Isto traz consequências, sobrestimando a efectiva capacidade do património
construído; especialmente porque, frequentemente, os actores envolvidos não estão cientes
das consequências das suas acções e escolhas.
Felizmente, os valores culturais regentes na nossa sociedade mudam
constantemente, assim como as ambições que conduzem estas intervenções. Os
projectistas responsáveis por projectos de reabilitação podem subverter esta realidade e
mostrar a todos os outros actores envolvidos, de que, pelo menos, no seu limitado raio de
acção e decisão, são muito bem capazes de promulgar tal consciência temporal. Mas, será
possível desenvolver reabilitações conscientes da temporalidade do património construído?
Estará a nossa geração de projectistas preparada para tamanho desafio? Esta investigação
ambicionou responder positivamente a esta pergunta. RE-ARCHITECTURE®, um sistema de
apoio à metodologia projectual foi desenvolvido, testado e verificado com estudantes de
arquitectura e arquitectos, quando envolvidos em intervenções de reabilitação. Desta forma,
todos os projectistas realmente empenhados em desenvolver projectos de reabilitação que,
efectivamente evidenciem atenção e consciência pela temporalidade do edifício: passado,
presente e futuro; podem agora facilmente encontrar sustentação técnica para tal.

v
vi
 Introduction colomna
RE-ARCHITECTURE: Lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage is a doctoral research,
funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), Portugal; and hosted by the
Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e), Unit Architectural Design + Engineering (ADE),
during the period January 2004 – December 2007.
Prof. Jouke Post, Chairman of the ADE Unit, is the First Promoter; together with the
Co-promoter Dr. Peter Erkelens, Associate Professor and Research Coordinator in the same
Unit. Prof. José Aguiar, Associate Professor at the Technical University of Lisbon, Faculty of
Architecture, Portugal, is the Second Promoter.
Graduated in 2002, at the University Lusíada of Lisbon, Portugal; with the “Best
Architecture Student” prize (2001/2002); the researcher has become officially an Architect, at
the Order of Architects (OA), Portugal; just before starting this doctoral research.
The research proposal approved by both Fund and Host Institution was developed
within the research program framework of the former Building Technology Group, BUILD –
Towards New Technologies. It combined two research guidelines:1

1. Research into the composition of buildings and its environment in relation to

planned lifespan, industrial production, flexible use and autarchic properties, and
2. Research into potential values and architectural and technical possibilities for
rehabilitation and re-use of existing buildings and their environment.

This research had a challenging main question and the strong aim to achieve a
positive answer, when reaching the final stage of this doctoral research. However, such
question, obviously, can not be answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Therefore the main research question – Is it possible to develop lifespan conscious
rehabilitations of built heritage? – was divided into three sub-questions, not less complex than
the first one.

WHAT is built heritage?

HOW should a lifespan conscious rehabilitation be done?
WITH which design process, technologies or materials could a lifespan
conscious rehabilitation be done?

In order to find the answers to these three questions, a research method was
developed, where in successive stages all these important issues could be approached,
questioned, analysed and discussed. The research period was divided into three main
phases: the design theory, the design product, and the design result (vide Figure 1).
The design theory includes LEVEL 1, where the background theory is presented and
the problem field is explained, in order to introduce the phenomena of Heritage and
Interventions; and LEVEL 2, where the theory directly connected to the problem is framed,
and the definitions regarding Built heritage (WHAT) and Lifespan rehabilitation (HOW) start
shaping the research taxonomy.

1 BTO (2003) BUILD – Towards New Technologies, Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

a
 The design product, including LEVEL 3, LEVEL 4 and LEVEL 5, deals with the third
and last sub-question, theorizing a lifespan design process for rehabilitation interventions and
producing a design process support system (DPSS) which could guide and/or accompany the
designer in his design developments, whenever aiming for lifespan consciousness (WITH).
In LEVEL 3 the research focuses on the prototype development. This is, in fact, the
period for creating the DPSS, inclusive the consolidation of its theoretical model and the
identification of the adequate content (guidelines and tools), to support architects involved in
rehabilitation designs.
Relevant literature survey, four case studies and two trimesters with architecture
students (Portuguese and Dutch), have been the factual support for the prototype
development. Two architectural offices; Victor Mestre Sofia Aleixo, Portugal and XX
Architecten, the Netherlands; have attentively accepted to expose their design processes
regarding two rehabilitation designs of heritage buildings, from the turn of the last century
(XIX – XX); one unlisted and other listed (Safeguard Institution classification).
During the development of LEVEL 3, among other small activities/workshops, two
trimesters were organized and implemented with two groups of Portuguese and Dutch
students, in order to identify faults and/or lacking stages in the theoretical model. Also, the
researcher could retrieve the adequate information a designer normally requires during his
rehabilitation design process. The prototype underwent several evolutions along all those
experiences (vide Appendix 0), as it was meant to be a dynamic and creative process.

Figure 1 – The research method (adapted from Philips, 2000)2

2 Philips, E.M. (2000) How to get a PhD: A handbook for students and their advisors, 3rd ed., Buckingham: Open

University Press, p. 88

b
 LEVEL 4 includes the data collection and the prototype production of the DPSS,
named RE-ARCHITECTURE®3. The researcher first had to simulate its interface and inherent
functions; develop its global structure, the databases and carefully select the content of both
website and database. However, for its effective production, the researcher had the helpful
assistance of two TU/e students and two reviewers (vide Acknowledgements on scapus -
book II).
LEVEL 5 includes the pre-test and test, regarding the verification of the prototype as a
useful DPSS. The two trimesters method was implemented again (vide LEVEL 3); but now,
the students had free access to use RE-ARCHITECTURE® during their rehabilitation design
developments (Pre-test). Also several architects, mostly practising in Portugal and the
Netherlands, were invited to use RE-ARCHITECTURE® (Test).
The design result includes LEVEL 6, where all conclusions and recommendations are
exposed. If the students in the pre-test period, as well as the architects in the test period
showed interest and declared RE-ARCHITECTURE® as a useful DPSS, this research can
prove its contribution to raise lifespan consciousness in rehabilitation design developments.
Possible remarks or errors found during the entire research process will also be mentioned,
so that other researchers will not repeat the same mistakes.
It is the belief of the researcher that, by providing such DPSS to a field where
technical knowledge and expertise is lacking, as concluded in the problem field (vide book I –
basis), wise designers will take advantage of it. They might choose to use it thoroughly, step-
by-step, or only for specific consulting moments, e.g. building elements database,
assessment tools, etc. They are free to use it in their own particular way.
Rehabilitation interventions might be developed by field experts, but also by
designers, who usually develop design proposals for both new and existing building
interventions. Therefore, field of expertise, even if a useful assistance; is not a mandatory
requirement to use RE-ARCHITECTURE®. All designers can retrieve useful information and
knowledge.
Field experts will see it as an instrument that aims, together with them, for the
proliferation of lifespan consciousness and consequently, for the preservation of natural and
built heritage. Other designers, however, will see it as an entrance door to the rehabilitation
field of expertise. RE-ARCHITECTURE® does not aim to be a “House of Knowledge”, but just
a useful door.
The most important concern, within this doctoral research, was to contribute
methodologically to the rehabilitation design processes of the designers, as well as, to
provide them a sample of such broad universe of expertise knowledge. ‘Rome was not built in
one day’, hence, if designers and/or respective designs become more lifespan conscious than
they were before getting acquainted with the DPSS and/or the theoretical model, this doctoral
research can already be considered worthwhile.

3Pereira Roders, A. (2006) RE-ARCHITECTURE trial, Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, available at:
http://www.bwk.tue.nl/re-architecture/ (accessed on 24-09-2006)

c
d
Table of contents capitellum

Acknowledgements capitellum a

Summary capitellum c

Samenvatting kapiteel d

Sumário capitel e
Chapter 5 Producing the prototype 1
5.1 Introduction 2
5.2 Framework 3
5.3 Interface 9
5.3.1 Header 10
5.3.1.1 New user 10
5.3.1.2 Pre-Survey 11
5.3.1.3 Login / Logout 14
5.3.2 Top black menu 15
5.3.3 Top blue menu 17
5.3.3.1 New design 18
5.3.3.2 Open design 19
5.3.4 Left menu 21
5.3.4.1 Search engine 21
5.3.4.2 Sitemap 21
5.3.4.3 Main navigation system 23
5.3.4.4 Post-Survey 23
5.3.5 Content 26
5.3.5.1 Guidelines 27
5.3.5.2 Tools 29
5.3.6 Footer 38
5.4 Tentative discussion 39
Chapter 6 Testing the prototype 41
6.1 Introduction 42
6.2 Testing the design theory 43
6.2.1 The preceding design processes 43
6.2.1.1 Method 46
6.2.1.2 Motivation and assumptions 47
6.2.1.3 Results 50
6.2.2 The lifespan rehabilitation design process 71
6.2.2.1 Method 72
6.2.2.2 Motivation and assumptions 75
6.2.2.3 Results 79
6.3 Testing the design product 105
6.3.1 The lifespan rehabilitation design process 105

a
 6.3.1.1 Method 107
6.3.1.2 Motivation and assumptions 110
6.3.1.3 Results 115
6.4 Tentative discussion 161
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Discussion 163
7.1 Introduction 164
7.2 Concerning Introduction 165
7.3 Concerning Scientific Method 167
7.4 Concerning Framing the Field Universe 169
7.5 Concerning Developing the prototype 171
7.6 Concerning Producing the prototype 173
7.7 Concerning Testing the prototype 175
7.8 Overall conclusions and discussion 177
7.9 Further recommendations 179

Appendix 1: The evolution of the prototype 183

Appendix 2: The inconsistencies of the preliminary prototype 187

Appendix 3: Questionnaire A1 191

Appendix 4: Questionnaire A2 191

Appendix 5: Questionnaire A3 191

Appendix 6: Notices on RE-ARCHITECTURE® 211

Appendix 7: The team work method 217

Appendix 8: Process Mining 219

b
 Acknowledgements capitellum
Having now the three books almost fully revised, it is time to have a break and
dedicate some time to the acknowledgements, where I can freely express my eternal
gratitude to all those who have contributed to the success of this doctoral research, voluntarily
or involuntarily. The acknowledgments have been arranged similar to the structure of this
doctoral research – basis, scapus and capitellum – .
First, basis acknowledges all those who have been my true foundations; before and
during this challenging last four years of my existence. Second, scapus acknowledges all
colleagues and field experts that have inspired me with their informal talks, designs, writings,
presentations, etc. Last, capitellum acknowledges all those who have been involved in the
challenging development, construction and test of RE-ARCHITECTURE®.
Starting with the four case studies, I would like to thank XX Architecten (The
Netherlands) and Victor Mestre Sofia Aleixo (Portugal), who have attentively accepted to
spend some of their precious time exposing their design processes.
The dedication Sonja van der Meer, who partially filled in the database of building
components, concluded and revised by Martin Roders was priceless. Also, my gratitude to
Daniel Muñoz Alonso who constructed the preliminary prototype of RE-ARCHITECTURE®,
tutored by Prof. Dr. Michael Franssen; and to Peter van den Brand who constructed the final
prototype. Dr. Eng. Ana Karla de Medeiros was tireless explaining me what necessary about
Process Mining techniques and helping the conversion of the “pure” data into “workable” data.
My gratitude to the tutors Dr. Ad Vermeltfoort, André Walraven and Isabel Valverde
who co-oriented and co-supervised the architecture students, from TU/e and ISMAT; during
their rehabilitation design developments in both test periods of 2005/2006 and 2006/2007.
They were always coherent and contributed to the level of accuracy achieved at the results of
such test periods. The trainees involved in this doctoral research have also, at their own
scale, contributed to its success and achievements. Those were respectively, Bruno Godinho,
Chiara Bonsignori and Josué Eliziário. Except for Chiara, both Bruno and Josué assisted also
on the education activities, planned for this research.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all students that contributed to this
doctoral research both in 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. Especially from 2005/2006, I would like
to highlight Matthijs Stoffels and Laura Mol; Cristovão Gonçalves and Josué Eliziário; who,
even after the trimester finished maintained contact and gladly contributed to the organization
of the Exhibitions RE-ARCHITECTURE 05/06. Sergio Nave also cooperated with the
development of a work layout and João Candeias supported all internet communications,
presentations and exchange of work.
From 2006/2007, I would like to highlight Hannah Frederiks, Monique Blacha, and
Bram Bus, as well as Tânia Farias, AlexAndré Mendes and José Nabiça. As group
representatives, they helped motivating the other students. Also, my true appreciation goes to
Daniel Tulp and to Sanne van den Berg; for developing the work layout.
Thank you to both professional Associations (OA and BNA), to the magazines who
published the Articles and News challenging the architects and two all those who have
accepted the challenge to cooperate with this doctoral research, by registering, filling in the
Pre-Survey and accessing the universe of knowledge and tools available at RE-
ARCHITECTURE®. Even if only a minority actually used it and later returned to fill in the Post-
Survey; their will to cooperate was evidently illustrative.
Thank you! Without you all, I would have never passed the boundaries of theory!

a
 Summary capitellum
Due to the extensive literature review and the level of knowledge achieved within the
prototype development phase (LEVEL 3), the decision was made to divide the production of
this doctoral research into three books. The Latin term columna (column) was used as a
metaphor to illustrate the entire production. Consequently, book I was named basis (base),
book II scapus (shaft) and book III capitellum (capital).
Fundamentally, basis refers to the design theory phase, enclosing the problem field,
scientific method and taxonomy (LEVEL 1 and 2). There, one can find the researcher’s
evolution process, when; surveying the problem field, identifying the main research question,
developing a scientific method and defining the research taxonomy regarding the WHAT and
HOW.
Scapus refers to the design product phase, enclosing the prototype development
(LEVEL 3). The case studies considered in this level will be reported in capitellum. With a
more didactic approach then basis and capitellum, scapus gives an overview of both building
and design processes, so that the designer can better understand the background and
assumptions of the design process theorised for lifespan rehabilitation interventions.
At last, capitellum refers to the design product and result phase (LEVEL 4 – 6);
enclosing both stages of test (theory and product), respective results analysis, validation and
recommendations. There, not only the validation of the theorized design process will be
revealed; but also the research method used for its development; as well as, the
transformation of the theorized design process into a design process support system (DPSS).
Capitellum is the disclosure of this doctoral research. Away from its theoretical
content, capitellum reveals two other prominent dimensions of RE-ARCHITECTURE®: its
framework and its interface. The framework regards the background structure, whilst the
interface is the appearance of what accessible at RE-ARCHITECTURE®. On both dimensions
there have been three distinctive phases: the conceptual, preliminary and final prototype.
Moreover, it presents all tests – methods, motivations & assumptions, and results –
on both design theory and product. Capitellum is an ‘open book” to the whole experimental
procedure undertaken during this doctoral research. Its purpose was exactly to reveal all its
stages; so that by the conclusions, all could be clearly correlated and the respective
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysed based on facts.
During both tests, this doctoral research had the privilege to step upwards and “stand
on the shoulder of giants”, while confronting the theorised taxonomies and design process.
From the Netherlands and Portugal; challenging architects and architecture students at
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven and Instituto Superior Manuel Teixeira Gomes truly
enabled such worthy disclosure.
Capitellum shall reveal to interested field experts, designers and students, accurate
conclusions on the factual contribution of this doctoral research and further recommendations
to the raise of lifespan consciousness in rehabilitation interventions of built heritage. Even if
the researcher is aware that this is just the beginning of a long and challenging journey, it is
fundamental to go further with a clear perspective on how RE-ARCHITECTURE® exactly can
pay a contribute to such crucial expertise field.
Built heritage shall not stop aging and natural heritage shall not get less affected,
unless something is done. Every line designers draw or erase has a direct effect on both built
and natural heritage. It is up to them that such effect is more positive than negative. And it is
up to us, scientific community, to sustain them better and better with the fundamentals.

c
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Samenvatting kapiteel
Vanwege het uitgebreide literatuuronderzoek en het niveau van vergaarde kennis in de
ontwikkelingsfase van het prototype (NIVEAU 3), is er besloten om de output van dit
promotieonderzoek onder te verdelen in drie boeken. De Latijnse term columna (zuil) is
gebruikt als metafoor om de gehele productie te illustreren. Boek I is daarom basis
(basement) genoemd, boek II scapus (schacht) en boek III capitellum (kapiteel).
In essentie verwijst basis naar de fase van de ontwerptheorie, welke het
probleemgebied, de onderzoeksmethode en de taxonomie omvat (NIVEAU 1en 2). Hier kan
het ontwikkelingsproces van de onderzoeker worden onderscheiden, waar het
probleemgebied wordt onderzocht, de onderzoeksvraag wordt bepaald, de
onderzoeksmethode wordt ontwikkeld en waar de onderzoekstaxonomie met betrekking tot
het WAT en HOE wordt ontwikkeld.
Scapus verwijst naar de productontwikkelingsfase, welke de ontwikkeling van het
prototype omvat (NIVEAU 3). De in deze fase beschouwde case studies zullen beschreven
worden in capitellum. Met een meer didactische benadering dan basis en capitellum, geeft
scapus een overzicht van zowel de bouw- als ontwerpprocessen, zodat de ontwerper de
achtergrond en aannames van het ontwerpproces, zoals uitgelegd voor
levensduurgeoriënteerde renovaties, beter kan begrijpen.
Als laatste verwijst capitellum naar de ontwerpproduct- en resultaatsfase (NIVEAU 4
t/m 6), welke beide testfases (van de theorie en het product), de bijbehorende
resultaatsanalyses, bewijsvoering en aanbevelingen omvat. Hier wordt niet alleen de
bewijsvoering van het getheoretiseerde ontwerpproces geleverd, maar ook de
ontwerpmethode die gebruikt is voor de ontwikkeling ervan en de transformatie van het
theoretische ontwerpproces in een ontwerpproces ondersteunend systeem (DPSS).
Capitellum is de bekroning van dit onderzoek. Naast de inhoud worden twee andere
vooraanstaande dimensies van RE-ARCHITECTURE® onthuld: de achtergrondstructuur en
de interface, die weergeeft wat toegankelijk is in RE-ARCHITECTURE®. Beide dimensies zijn
drie afzonderlijke fases van het conceptuele, voorlopige en definitieve prototype gepasseerd.
Verder presenteert Capitellum alle testgegevens – methodes, motieven & aannames
en resultaten – van zowel het ontwerp van de theorie als het ontwerp van het product.
Capitellum is een “open boek” met de volledige experimentele procedure die in dit
onderzoek doorlopen is. Het doel was om alle stadia te laten zien, zodat in de conclusies
alles helder gecorreleerd zou kunnen worden.
Gedurende beide tests heeft dit onderzoek het privilege gehad zich op te richten en
“op de schouders van de reus te gaan staan”, tijdens het behandelen van de ontwikkelde
taxonomieën en het ontwerpproces. Uitdagende architecten uit Nederland en Portugal en
architectuurstudenten van de Technische Universiteit Eindhoven en het Instituto Superior
Manuel Teixeira Gomes hebben deze waardige ontknoping mogelijk gemaakt.
Capitellum zal geïnteresseerde velddeskundigen, ontwerpers en studenten accurate
conclusies bieden over de bijdrage van dit onderzoek en aanbevelingen geven voor de
toename van levensduurbewustheid van herbestemmingsingrepen in gebouwd erfgoed. Het
gebouwde erfgoed zal niet ophouden met verouderen en het natuurlijke erfgoed zal niet
minder aangetast worden, tenzij er iets gedaan wordt. Iedere lijn die ontwerpers trekken of
uitvegen heeft een directe invloed op zowel het gebouwde als het natuurlijke erfgoed. Het is
aan hen om te zorgen dat dit effect meer positief dan negatief is. En het is aan ons,
wetenschappelijke gemeenschap, om hen steeds beter te ondersteunen met de grondslagen.

d
 Sumário capitel
Após uma extensa revisão de literatura e dado o nível de conhecimento atingido na
fase de desenvolvimento do protótipo (NÍVEL 3), decidiu-se dividir o produto deste
doutoramento em três livros. O termo em latim columna foi usado como metáfora, ilustrando
a completa produção. Consequentemente, o livro I foi nomeado basis (base), o livro II scapus
(fuste) e o livro III capitellum (capitel).
Basicamente, basis descreve a fase teórica do projecto de investigação, incluindo o
seu âmbito, método científico e taxonomia (NÍVEL 1 e 2). Ali, pode descobrir-se o processo
evolutivo da investigadora, quando examinou o âmbito da investigação, definiu o seu
problema principal, desenvolveu o método científico, e definiu a taxonomia do QUÊ e COMO.
Scapus descreve a fase produtiva da investigação, incluindo o desenvolvimento do
protótipo (NÍVEL 3). Os casos de estudo considerados neste nível serão relatados no
capitellum. Com uma abordagem mais didáctica do que basis e capitellum, scapus oferece
uma visão global de processos metodológicos de construção e projecto, de modo a que o
projectista possa compreender melhor o enquadramento e princípios inerentes à metodologia
projectual teorizada para reabilitações conscientes da temporalidade do edifício. Por último,
capitellum descreve a fase produtiva e resultante do projecto de investigação (NÍVEL 4 – 6),
incluindo ambas fases de teste (teoria e produto), respectiva análise dos resultados,
validação e recomendações. Ali, não é apenas apresentada a validação da metodologia
projectual teorizada, mas também o método científico adoptado para o seu desenvolvimento,
assim como, a transformação da metodologia projectual teorizada num sistema de apoio à
metodologia projectual (DPSS).
Capitellum é o desfecho do doutoramento. Longe do seu conteúdo teórico, capitellum
revela outras duas dimensões proeminentes de RE-ARCHITECTURE®: sua estrutura e
interface. A estrutura expõe a organização de fundo, enquanto o interface a aparência do
que acessível em RE-ARCHITECTURE®. Em ambas dimensões houve três fases distintas: o
protótipo conceptual, preliminar e final. Além disso, apresenta todos os testes – métodos,
motivações & suposições, e resultados – no desenho da teoria e produto. Capitellum é um
“livro aberto” ao procedimento empírico seguido no doutoramento. Sua finalidade era
precisamente revelar todas as suas fases; de forma a tudo poder ser claramente
correlacionado e as falhas e virtudes analisadas nas conclusões, fundamentadas em factos.
Durante os testes, esta tese de doutoramento teve o privilégio de subir e
“permanecer nos ombros dos gigantes”, ao confrontar as taxonomias e processo projectual.
Dos Países Baixos e Portugal, desafiantes arquitectos e estudantes de Arquitectura da
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven e Instituto Manuel superior Teixeira Gomes realmente
permitiram esse digno desfecho. Capitellum irá revelar aos especialistas, aos projectistas e
aos estudantes interessados, conclusões na contribuição factual deste doutoramento e
futuras recomendações para o aumento da consciência da temporalidade em reabilitações
no património construído. Mesmo se a investigadora sabe de que este é o começo de uma
longa e desafiante viagem, é essencial avançar com uma clara perspectiva de como o RE-
ARCHITECTURE® pode contribuir exactamente para tão crucial temática.
O património construído não parará de envelhecer e o património natural não deixará
de estar menos lesado, a menos que algo seja feito. Qualquer linha desenhada ou apagada
pelos projectistas tem efeito directo no património construído e natural. É da
responsabilidade deles que tal efeito seja mais positivo que negativo. E é responsabilidade
nossa, comunidade científica, sustentá-los cada vez melhor e melhor com o fundamental.

e
Chapter 5 Producing the prototype

1
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

5.1 Introduction

Chapter 5 illustrates the production process of the prototype, developed in this doctoral
research. As earlier referenced, RE-ARCHITECTURE® is the prototype of a design process
support system (DPSS) that aims to effectively support architects and architecture students,
when developing or simulating rehabilitation interventions in built heritage.
RE-ARCHITECTURE® sustains the importance of lifespan consciousness – regarding
the building’s past, present and future – in rehabilitation design developments, through a
more theory-based approach introduced in the design process and the respective design
developments. Therefore, such approach requires a considerable range of knowledge
available and a dynamic work environment which designers can easily access, while
performing their own design processes.
As in many other sciences, such as Medicine, experts have learned to use
computerised work environments, where they can easily access field-related knowledge e.g.
symptoms, treatments, medicines, etc. Such work environments are time-saving and have
proved to help experts to systematise processes, increasing the quality of their results.
Technical books, journals, magazines, etc. can equally sustain experts; however, they
are much more time-consuming; especially when it is still necessary to search among the
relevant literature for the right reference. Inversely, when its content is computerised, the
knowledge of several experts can be inter-complemented and quickly accessed by all
interested experts, whenever required.
RE-ARCHITECTURE® comprises a dynamic database with an online interface to store
all relevant knowledge. Designers should be able to access the respective guidelines; but
also, they should be able to create their own design process through the available tools and
store all relevant data and information.
During the production period there have been three distinctive stages, named
conceptual, preliminary and final prototype. Those stages are illustrated in the following
chapters. Chapter 5.2 starts describing the background of RE-ARCHITECTURE®,
framework, and its respective evolution along the three versions of the prototype:
conceptual, preliminary and final.
Instead, Chapter 5.3 describes the foreground of RE-ARCHITECTURE®, interface,
and its respective evolution through the three stages. The six distinctive areas that structure
the interface are presented in the following chapters. Those are effectively the: header (vide
Chapter 5.3.1), top black menu (vide Chapter 5.3.2), top blue menu (vide Chapter 5.3.3), left
menu (vide Chapter 5.3.4), content (vide Chapter 5.3.5) and footer (vide Chapter Error!
Reference source not found.).
Last, Chapter 5.4 explores the potential of such framework and interface, presenting
some final remarks. Those shall be readdressed in the Conclusions and Discussion related to
producing the prototype (vide Chapter 7.6), after having tested it and being scientifically
entitled of verifying its degree of effectiveness and usefulness.

2
 Framework

5.2 Framework

The framework of RE-ARCHITECTURE® has been developed with the aim to provide
a clear and consistent structure that organizes the content for the website. In such design
process support system the researcher not only developed a consistent framework that hosts
what relevant to sustain the users theoretically. She also developed a dynamic database that
supports users, when producing and storing their developments, along the different activities
of their design process.
The framework and subsequent database are accessible through an internet website
– www.re-architecture.eu – especially and exclusively created for this research. TU/e
provided space on their servers to store the data that forms the background of the website.
Three versions of the prototype have been produced: conceptual, preliminary and
final. As earlier referenced, the conceptual prototype was simulated during November-
December 2005. Then, the preliminary prototype was produced during the first semester of
2006 and the final prototype was mainly produced during the last trimester of 2006 (vide book
I – basis).

Access is the Microsoft Office “database management program that gives you an
improved user experience and an expanded ability to import, export, and work with
XML data files.” 4

The framework of the conceptual prototype was first simulated by the researcher with
the Microsoft Office program Access; so that the three supervisors; Prof. Post, Prof. Dr.
Aguiar and Dr. Erkelens; as well as, Prof. Dr. Aerts, from the Faculty of Informatics (TU/e)
could better understand the aims targeted for RE-ARCHITECTURE® (vide Figure 2).
Since the beginning of the prototype’s production, there have been two types of
tables planned to incorporate in this design process support system. The fixed (f) ones that
would be filled previously by the researcher and respective assistants; and the dynamic (d)
ones that would be filled by the user; directly, whenever creating and progressing within his
own design process; or indirectly, by the system itself, which would log all workflow data.
In total, the framework of the conceptual prototype consisted of twenty-three tables.
Accordingly, there was a main table that would store the registration information of all users
(tb01 user). Each user could create an infinite number of design processes (tb02 design)
and would be asked to fill in a post-survey (tb06 survey), enabling the researcher to control
his judgment regarding the framework, interface, content, most/least useful utilities, and the
degree of efficiency of RE-ARCHITECTURE® to support the implementation of lifespan
ideologies into the design processes of rehabilitation design developments.
To support the registration of the users and the registration of the design processes,
secondary tables were made, regarding the birth year (tb00 year) and the country where
users would be working (tb00 country). For the registration of the design process, another
secondary table was made, providing the months (tb02 months). For the assessment of the
parameters raised from the Post-Survey, a secondary table was made, containing the scale
of five values (tb00 value).

4 Microsoft Cooperation (2007) Introducing Microsoft Office Access 2003, Reading: Microsoft Cooperation, available

at: http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/access/HA010714971033.aspx (accessed in 04-06-2007)

3
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 2 – The relationships between the tables (conceptual prototype)

This table would be also connected to evaluation activities and respective

environment, significance and condition assessments. An example of this type of evaluation
tables, referring particularly to the environment assessment, was created to illustrate the
researcher’s intention (tb04 environment). At this stage of the research, the environment had
other parameters than the final naturals and unnaturals. They were respectively, the
geographical, physical and anthropological.

4
 Framework

Both previous and following tables were simulated directly related to each design
process. They would allow the user to store, in each stage, sub-stage and activity of his
design process, all related information and access it worldwide, through the internet. At this
level, there were two main groups of tables: the tables that structured the database of
guidelines and the tables that structured the database of components.
First, the database of guidelines was structured among eight tables: the one that
would list the selections of the designer (tb02 guideline list), the table that would store all
guidelines (tb03 guideline) indexed per stage (tb03 stage), sub-stage (tb03 sub-stage),
activity (tb03 activity) and sub-activity (tb03 sub-activity). Last, but not least, each guideline
would have named the document from which the reference was quoted (tb03 document) and
the respective category of document (tb03 category).
Second, the database of components would be structured among five tables. The
main table (tb05 component) would store all information related to the component life,
maintenance and replacement cycle and respective complementary information provided by
the Stichting Bouwresearch (SBR), as well as, the related rating recognized by the Building
Research Environment (BRE).
All inventoried components would be similarly indexed, through two related tables
ordered according to the CI/SfB indexing manual. The CI/SfB indexing structure would be
divided in two related tables, regarding the second (tb05 (00)) and the third (tb05 (000))
CI/SfB level. Attached to this main table, a secondary table would list all information (tb05
info) filtered accordingly to its type of information (tb05 info type). Finally, each component
could be added into a list (tb02 component list) by the user, according to his aims for the new
existence of the building being rehabilitated.
No knowledge would be introduced, which had not been researched and published in
acknowledged technical references; providing only trustful and credible technical knowledge.
Especially, the SBR reference has been fully translated from Dutch into English, and also the
respective CI/SfB codes were revised. SBR used the NL-SfB codes (CI/SfB adapted to the
Netherlands) and in some occasions those codes differed from the original CI/SfB codes.

“PHP, which stands for "PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor" is a widely-used Open Source
general-purpose scripting language that is especially suited for Web development and
can be embedded into HTML. Its syntax draws upon C, Java, and Perl, and is easy to
learn. The main goal of the language is to allow web developers to write dynamically
generated web pages quickly, but you can do much more with PHP.”5

“PhpMyAdmin is a tool written in PHP intended to handle the administration of MySQL

over the Web. Currently it can create and drop databases, create / drop / alter tables,
delete / edit / add fields, execute any SQL statement, manage keys on fields, manage
privileges, export data into various formats and is available in 52 languages.”6

As Access databases are often considered as inconsistent by the IT expertise, when

simultaneously used by multiple users; the one created by the researcher was converted into
a PHP dynamic database, accessed through another support program, PhpMyAdmin.

5Olson, P. et al. (2007) PhP Manual: Preface, Country unknown: The PHP Group, available at:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/preface.php (accessed in 04-06-2007)
6 PhpMyAdmin Devel Team (2007) PhpMyAdmin, Boston: Free Software Foundation, available at:

http://www.phpmyadmin.net/home_page/index.php (accessed in 04-06-2007)

5
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The main differences between the frameworks of the conceptual and the preliminary
prototype, are predominantly visible in the Pre-Survey and Post-Surveys; the info boxes, the
database of components and the report. This evolution represents an increase of tables in the
database to a total number of forty-one tables (vide Figure 3).

Figure 3 – The interface of PhpMyAdmin at RE-ARCHITECTURE® database (preliminary prototype)

First, the post-survey included more questions that could provide evidences on the
raise of lifespan consciousness, after getting acquainted with RE-ARCHITECTURE®. For this
reason, one table was created to store all questions (questions b) and a group of fourteen
tables was created to log all answers provided by the users when filling in the Pre-Survey
(survey b11:b16) and the Post-Survey (survey b21:26).
Second, the information available on the website in the introductory info boxes, first
simulated in PowerPoint, was also converted into a table (site). Third, the database of
components was complemented with three other tables; one regarding the first (tb05 (0-))
CI/SfB level, and other two regarding respectively the CI/SfB index of materials (tb05 (a)
material) and the CI/SfB index of works (tb05 (A) work), describing how the component was
constituted. These tables provided more dynamics into the database, as components can be
ordered and filtered according to these specific parameters.
Fourth, the report was an application simulated in the conceptual prototype and
materialised during the preliminary prototype. It comprised two tables; one listing the different
tools available (tools available) and the other logging the list of results achieved by the
users, when making use of the available tools.

6
 Framework

When the preliminary prototype was finished, there were too many inconsistencies;
which would certainly compromise the results of this doctoral research (vide Appendix 2).
Eng. van den Brand agreed to cooperate and fix most complex incongruencies, while the
researcher would fix the least complex ones. Eng. Peter van den Brand has also re-produced
all applications, which had been simplified to the capacity level of the IT trainee. The
framework of the final prototype functions with a total of sixty-six tables (vide Figure 4).

Figure 4 – The interface of PhpMyAdmin at RE-ARCHITECTURE® database (final prototype)

First improvement of the final prototype was the application to log all workflow data
and store it in a table of the RE-ARCHITECTURE® database (accesslog). This application
registered not only the workflow of the registered users; but, of everyone who would access
the website. Second improvement was the introduction of a fourth type of tool, the “log book”,
to support the inventories and surveys undertaken during both pre-design and design stages.
Several tables were produced to implement the “log book” for twelve activities, within
the theorised design process. Specifically, to support the activities within the analysis sub-
stages (pre-design and design); documentary, oral and physical inventories; six tables were
produced to list: the primary and secondary documents (documents); the primary and
secondary actors (oral_actors); the primary and secondary locations (document_locations
and oral_locations); and last, related to the physical inventory, the categories
(survey_categories_pi) and guidelines (survey_guidelines_pi).
Similar tables were created to provide the categories and guidelines of the activities;
within the synthesis sub-stages: environment, significance and condition surveys. Then, a last
table would log all data inserted by the users, respectively identified per activity, categories
and guidelines (surveys_responses).

7
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The third increase of quality regards the application of the forgotten password. Not
so technological, but very user friendly, this application would send an e-mail to the user
(configurations) in case he/she had forgotten the password used to access RE-
ARCHITECTURE®. Furthermore, the search engine has been also implemented, enabling
the user to search for keywords of interest, within the content of all guidelines. The search
engine required a total number of twenty four tables (vide Appendix 1).
Moreover, fourteen tables, produced during the preliminary prototype to log the
answers of the users on the Pre-Survey and Post-survey, were converted into one single
table (answers). Also the activities inherent in the Evaluation sub-stages were all joined in
one single table (assessments), counting with one extra table to log all assessment results
inserted by the users (assessment_responses).
In its final version, the framework of RE-ARCHITECTURE® became much more
consistent and accurate. As aimed in the conceptual prototype, it surpassed the level of fixed
database that simply supplies technical and useful data to its users. The framework of the
final prototype not only supplies such expertise, but also requires the interest of the user to
build his design process and register, step by step, all progresses achieved during his design
developments.

8
 Interface / Header

5.3 Interface

The interface of RE-ARCHITECTURE® has been developed, with the aim to provide a
“functionalistic”, clear and consistent composition throughout the website; which users would
be able to identify easily how to navigate through its menus and contents of interest.
Parallel to the process of evolution described in the production of the prototype’s
framework, its interface has also passed through three versions: the conceptual, the
preliminary and the final prototype. The reference to the conceptual and preliminary versions
will be made, together with the final version of the prototype; so that the evolution of the
interface is clear. The structure of the interface was subdivided into six distinctive areas
presented in the following chapters (vide Figure 5). Those are the:

1. Header (vide Chapter 5.3.1),

2. Top black menu (vide Chapter 5.3.2),
3. Top blue menu (vide Chapter 5.3.3),
4. Left menu (vide Chapter 5.3.4),
5. Content (vide Chapter 5.3.5) and
6. Footer (vide Chapter 5.3.6).

2
3
4 5

Figure 5 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: The composition of the interface

9
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

5.3.1 HEADER
The header has two distinctive areas: the area aligned at the left and the area aligned
at the right (vide Figure 6). The area aligned at the left contains the hyperlinked logo of the
Technische Universiteit Eindhoven (www.tue.nl); the respective reference to the Faculty of
Building and Planning and the Unit Architectural Design and Engineering, host institution of
this doctoral research.
At the right, the user finds the hyperlinked logo of RE-ARCHITECTURE® (www.re-
architecture.eu) and the top left blue menu, where the user finds two utilities: login/logout,
new user and one text-based link contact. Whenever the user is logged in, a Welcome
message, with the name of the user, appears below the top left blue menu. Except for the last
one, the previous mentioned features are available on every page of the website.
In the conceptual stage the top left blue menu had more three utilities, than the
preliminary and the final prototype. Those were: the report preview, report reset and sitemap.
During the preliminary prototype the first two were already moved to the left menu and in the
final prototype the sitemap was also moved to the left menu, below the search engine (vide
Chapter 5.3.4).

5.3.1.1 NEW USER

THE BEGINNING OF A PROGRESSIVE JOURNEY

When aiming to use RE-ARCHITECTURE®, designers need to first register

themselves as new users and fill in the required personal information, sub-divided in three
stages. At the first stage (1/3), users are asked to fill in their e-mail, password, and repeat
password (vide Figure 6). This information is quite important for future visits at the website, as
users will have to fill it in, every time they want to login on RE-ARCHITECTURE®, so that the
framework system recognises them and provides their respective information, submitted
under their user code (vide Chapter 5.3.1.3).
They should also agree with the Terms and Conditions. Among other clauses, they
should agree with the fact that their access to RE-ARCHITECTURE® shall be conceded for a
temporary period of four months and that this doctoral research is authorized to use their
personal information for characterizing the sample of users, as well as their work material to
monitor their use of the developed prototype.7
Plus, they should also agree to fill in the Pre- and Post-Survey; which would allow the
researcher to monitor their initial level of lifespan consciousness (Pre-Survey) and respective
progress, after three months of use (Post-Survey). Their work flow, during the three months of
use would also be objectively monitored, making use of process mining techniques (vide
Appendix 8).

7Pereira Roders, A. et al. (2007) RE-ARCHITECTURE: Reality or Utopia?, Haupt, T. & Milford, R. (eds.)
Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress 2007: Construction for Development, Cape Town: CIB, p. 2619-
2626

10
 Interface / Header

Figure 6 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: New user 1/3

At the second stage (2/3), users should provide their full name, user name (the name
to appear at the Welcome message), year of birth, gender, professional title (e.g. architect,
engineer, building surveyor, etc.), occupation (e.g. designer, researcher, lecturer, etc.) and
respective country (vide Figure 7). This information would help determining the different
groups of users. The main difference in the final prototype is the third stage (3/3), where all
users, are asked to fill in the Pre-Survey (vide Figure 8), “before exploring the RE-
ARCHITECTURE® world”.

5.3.1.2 PRE-SURVEY
THE METHOD TO TRACK THE USERS BEFORE THE STIMULUS

The Pre-Survey was created in the preliminary prototype to control the user’s initial
degree of lifespan consciousness. Therefore, the user would be asked to fill in the Pre-Survey
before getting acquainted with RE-ARCHITECTURE®. When the results of the Pre-Survey
would be compared with the results from the Post-Survey, undertaken after acquainted with
RE-ARCHITECTURE®, approximately three months later; the differences between their
arguments would support the researcher determining the effective contribution of RE-
ARCHITECTURE® to the user’s raise of lifespan consciousness.
Figure 9 illustrates the first step of the Pre-Survey, in the final prototype. First
established in the preliminary prototype, its framework and consistency were considerably
improved in the final prototype. Instead, its aesthetics and questions were mostly maintained.

11
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 7 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: New user 2/3

Figure 8 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: New user 3/3

12
 Interface / Header

Figure 9 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Pre-Survey 1/7

Figure 10 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Pre-Survey 2/7

13
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The first question of the Pre-Survey would ask the users about their earlier
experience in rehabilitation designs. When answering positively, the users would be
submitted to the second step of the questionnaire, subdivided in seven steps, and asked to
describe one representative rehabilitation design (vide Figure 10). Inversely, when answering
negatively, users would pass immediately to the seventh and last stage and only answer
about their expectations towards RE-ARCHITECTURE® (vide Figure 11).
The style of the interface chosen for the Pre-Survey (questionnaire B1) was similar to
the one chosen for the Post-Survey (questionnaire B2). The researcher tried to maintain the
same style used previously in the paper-based questionnaires A1:A3.

Figure 11 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Pre-Survey 7/7

5.3.1.3 LOGIN / LOGOUT

THE PROGRESSIVE JOURNEY

After filling in the Pre-Survey, users would be redirected to the content of RE-
ARCHITECTURE® and their access would be automatically granted for four months.
Therefore, the login / logout system allows the user to access it on a personal level.
Unless the user provides the information that allows him to access RE-
ARCHITECTURE® – the e-mail address and password with which he first registered – to
other users, sharing the same work environment is not possible. RE-ARCHITECTURE®
aimed to provide a private environment where the user can store all design process-related
information with security.

14
 Interface / Header

The login system has two more utilities: remind me next visit, the utility that allows
the computer to remember the e-mail and the password of the user on a next visit, as long as
he selects that option on the present visit and visits RE-ARCHITECTURE® on the same
computer; and I forgot my password, the utility that sends an e-mail to the user with the
registered password, in case he has forgotten his own password (vide Figure 12).
Below the utility I forgot my password, a new user can also find a shortcut to the
new user utility.

5.3.2 TOP BLACK MENU

Similar to the structure that organised the production of this doctoral research, the top
black menu consists of nine text-based links. They provide to the new user, before
registering, access to some basic information regarding RE-ARCHITECTURE research:
Home, Scientific Method, Built Heritage, Lifespan Rehabilitation, Design Process,
Tests, Conclusions, Contributors and Acknowledgements.
This basic information is readable in an info box when clicking the respective button in
the centre of the interface. It is accessible from every location within RE-ARCHITECTURE®.
The idea of providing basic information, regarding the doctoral research to the new users,
before registering, has been there since the conceptual prototype.
The only major change between the preliminary and the final prototype (vide Figure
13) was that the Home page became a secondary page and the logo gained a new place at
the Start page, with the development of a RE-ARCHITECTURE® logo, to be officially
registered as a European trademark.
Home provides a brief introduction to RE-ARCHITECTURE® as a design process
support system that “aims to effectively assist architects and architecture students, interested
in achieving higher levels of lifespan consciousness, when developing or simulating
rehabilitation interventions in built heritage”.
Scientific Method explains the specific research method followed during this doctoral
research “with a first phase of design theory (problem field, taxonomy); then, a second phase
of design product (development, production, tests); and finally, a third phase of design results
(theory and product validation, assumptions, recommendations).”
Built Heritage and Lifespan Rehabilitation present the two main definitions that
have guided the production of such design process support system. Built heritage as all
buildings older than 25 years, “potential suppliers of manufactured resources, which should
not be wasted without an accurate technical assessment”; and Lifespan Rehabilitation as
the rehabilitation that, independent of classification, “respects the building’s past, present and
future”; reflected on the decisions involving what and why to subtract, remain and add.
Design Process provides a brief elucidation to those who might be interested in
registering as a new user, describing the theorised design process as a “coordinated set of
stages, which aims to improve the traditional experience-related approach; where design
problems are solved, based on individual practice or idealism, to a more conscious and
theory-based approach; based on technical knowledge and attentive to potential alternatives.”
Tests explains the two different stages where architecture students, in both the
Netherlands and Portugal; have been challenged to “pre-test the research theory and product
model, in 2005/2006; and to test the research product, in 2006/2007”; this last stage, together
with a limited number of architectural offices.

15
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 12 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Login

Figure 13 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Startpage

16
 Interface / Top black menu

Conclusions emphasises on the aims of this doctoral research to “contribute, directly

to the quality of rehabilitation designs, and indirectly to the preservation of both natural and
built heritage”. But, also reminds the responsibility of the designer to “effectively raise such
lifespan consciousness”.
Contributors list the group of experts involved in the production of RE-
ARCHITECTURE®: first, the researcher; second, the supervisors, third, the IT experts,
trainee, and tutor; and fourth, the student assistant and final reviser.
Acknowledgements lists the several Institutions involved in this doctoral research.
The first nominated are the Foundation for Science and Technology and Eindhoven
University of Technology (TU/e). Second, TU/e Docu-center Bouwtechniek, which provided
data for the database of components; together with the publishers Stichting Bouwresearch,
James and James Science Publishers, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and Taylor & Francis Group.
Moreover, there are also more acknowledged companies of building components (accessible
in PDF), whose figures were selected to be integrated in the database.

5.3.3 TOP BLUE MENU

After filling in the Pre-Survey (at the first visit) or every time after logging in, the user
faces the emergence of a secondary menu, below the top black menu, named top blue menu.
This menu provides to the user one text-based link: Introduction and two utilities: New
design and Open design.
Introduction invites the user to create his design processes; but recommends “the
new user to first go through the universe of the guidelines, before starting to use the available
tools. The frequent user however, will mostly make use of the available tools, to register
his/her design process and respective developments.”
At the first visit, when no new design has been created, and the user just finished his
Pre-Survey, an acknowledgement message emerges; explaining that from that moment on,
the user is entitled to create his “first design process (new design) and explore the RE-
ARCHITECTURE world.” It also reminds that on next visits, users can either “create new
design processes or go further with the previously created design processes (open design)”.
There are only few differences between the top blue menu from the conceptual,
preliminary and final prototype (vide Figure 14). In the conceptual prototype, there were more
utilities available. However, these utilities should only be available when a design is open
(e.g. close design).
Furthermore, with the removal of the text-based link User Survey (conceptual
prototype) and the removal of the text-based link Contact us (preliminary prototype) of the
left menu moving to the header, there was no logical motive to have it there, available without
any text-based links. The same rule goes for the search engine located in this menu; as
without a design process opened, it should not be possible yet to search for keywords.
The utility Close design, from the conceptual prototype, is not to be found in the top
blue menu, from the final prototype; even when the user has already accessed one of his
design processes. It was considered irrelevant as the user would not need to use it, when
moving to another design and to exit he could simply logout. The only utility that does
emerge, whenever the user accesses one of his design processes, is the Delete design.

17
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 14 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: New / Open design (final prototype)

5.3.3.1 NEW DESIGN

THE BEGINNING OF A UNIVERSE OF DESIGN PROCESSES

When aiming to create a new design, the user has to fill in some basic information; so
the system can create a new entry in the database, connected to the user information. There
is no limit for the number of design processes a designer can create. Moreover, no other user
than the one that created the design process, may have access to his own work environment
and respective design process results.
As indicated in the Terms and Conditions, it is the responsibility of each user to
control exactly who has access to his design processes. Accordingly, “The user is not only
responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of his/her password and account; but also, for
any activity that might occur under his/her account.”
The system will register each entry and will join three fields of information: year
(2004), month (December) and address (Pisanostraat 258), to provide the user with a code
for each design process (0412_Pisanostraat 258). This code shall always be visible at the
right side of the footer; so that the designer does not get confused; whenever working in more
than one design process in the same period.
Besides year, month and address, the user is also asked to fill in other fields of
information, such as the country and the city where the building is located (vide Figure 15).

18
 Interface / Top blue menu

Figure 15 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: New design (final prototype)

5.3.3.2 OPEN DESIGN

THE UNIVERSE OF DESIGN PROCESSES

Whenever the user is not willing to create new designs, but just to login and open a
design which is being developed at the moment without further interruptions, he can just
select the Open Design utility and choose the design of interest among the list of designs.
Some users might have a long list of design processes in which they are working
simultaneously; others may be only be working on one design process at a time. It all
depends on the users and their work methods.
The Open design utility suffered no evolution since conceptual prototype. It has
always been there in the way it is presented, providing a centralised info box, where the
available design processes would be listed for the user.
Figure 16 illustrates the final prototype and the respective list of design processes
available to be opened by this specific user.
When selecting the design process of interest, the user finally accesses the whole
design process which consists of guidelines and tools (vide Figure 17). From this moment,
also the Left menu emerges together with all its inherent utilities. But, these shall be further
explained in the following Chapter 5.3.4.
By opening the design process; the user is in fact entering the RE-ARCHITECTURE®
world. In earlier presented stages, most procedures were officious and not design process
related. From this moment, the work environment is available, personal to each user.

19
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 16 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Open Design

Figure 17 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Introduction

20
 Interface / Left menu

5.3.4 LEFT MENU

The left menu provides access to five fundamental utilities: the search engine, which
promptly finds the keywords of interest throughout the guidelines, the sitemap providing the
global structure of the guidelines, the main navigation system and respective links to each
sub-stage and activity of the theorised design process, the shortcut for the report system
and the link to the Post-Survey.
Except for the report system, further explained in Chapter 5.3.5.2, the interface of all
other four utilities shall be illustrated in the following chapters. There, regarding one utility
after another, the differences between the distinctive interfaces, along the three prototypes
shall be particularly identified and illustrated.

5.3.4.1 SEARCH ENGINE

THE MECHANICAL DISCOVERY

The search engine is the first utility of the left menu; located right at the top of the
menu. This utility was simulated in the conceptual prototype and implemented in the final
prototype. As the guidelines would be opened as PDF document in the preliminary prototype,
there would be no need for the production of a private search engine; since the program
Adobe Acrobat Reader provides that function already among its list of utilities.
Figure 18 illustrates the search engine of the final prototype. The user writes the
keyword(s) of interest (e.g. values) in the white box and clicks on the arrow on the right, to go
further. Then, a new page opens in the content area with another white box and all the links
listed, to the pages within the universe of guidelines which contain the relevant keyword(s)
that the engine has found.

5.3.4.2 SITEMAP
THE MANUAL DISCOVERY

The sitemap is a manual version of the search engine. Like the table of contents of a
book, the sitemap provides to the user the full structure of the html pages and respective links
to re-direct the user straight to the one he is interested to visit and read its content; within the
universe of guidelines. Similarly to the search engine, the sitemap has been part of the
interface since its simulation in the conceptual prototype; but, was only implemented in the
final prototype (vide Figure 19).
First, the text-based link to the sitemap was located at the header, next to the login /
logout utilities (conceptual and preliminary prototype). However, the researcher has decided
to relocate it below the search engine, because there was no need to have the sitemap
always accessible, especially when the user has not been logged in yet and being enabled of
free access to all guidelines and tools.

21
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 18 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Search engine

Figure 19 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Sitemap

22
 Interface / Left menu

5.3.4.3 MAIN NAVIGATION SYSTEM

THE THEORISED DESIGN PROCESS

The main navigation system comprises a set of text-based links which redirect the
user to the pages of the various sub-stages and activities from the theorised design process.
In the conceptual prototype there were respectively eleven text-based links: the
Introduction, the stage Pre-Design with its respective sub-stages of Analysis, Synthesis,
Evaluation, and Decision / Report; the stage Design with its respective sub-stages of:
Analysis, Synthesis, Simulation, Evaluation, and Decision / Report. Moreover, a kind of
pull-out menu was simulated as a sub-navigation system that would open as a white window,
when pointing on the respective item from the main navigation system.
This secondary navigation system, which had not been produced in the preliminary
prototype, but only in the final prototype (vide Figure 20), would lead the user to the activities
within each respective sub-stage. For example, in the Analysis sub-stage, the user would be
able to find the text-based links to the Documentary Inventory, the Oral Inventory and the
Physical Inventory. The main difference between the conceptual and the final prototype is,
that more five text-based links were introduced to the Introduction and Conclusion, of both
Pre-design and Design stages, to the overall Conclusion; and a shortcut to the Report utility
(vide Chapter 5.3.5.2).

5.3.4.4 POST-SURVEY
THE METHOD TO TRACK THE USERS AFTER THE STIMULUS

As earlier explained, when first simulated in the conceptual prototype, the Post-
Survey exclusively aimed to assess RE-ARCHITECTURE®; its framework, interface, content,
most/least useful utilities and the degree of efficiency of RE-ARCHITECTURE® supporting the
implementation of lifespan ideologies; through the opinion of its users.
Similar to the first question of the Pre-Survey, the first question of the Post-Survey
asked the users about their experience in rehabilitation designs, but now supported by RE-
ARCHITECTURE®. When answering positively, the users would be submitted to the second
step of the questionnaire, subdivided in nine steps, and asked to describe one representative
rehabilitation design (vide Figure 22). Inversely, when answering negatively, users would
pass immediately to the eighth stage and only answer about their consideration towards RE-
ARCHITECTURE® (vide Figure 23).
Only later, during the production process of the preliminary prototype and few
meetings with field experts, the Post-Survey became more complete, ending in the final
prototype, with a total number of nine steps; comprising twenty-one main questions and
twenty-eight sub-questions (vide Figure 21).
Different from the Pre-Survey, which would have to be answered as a pre-requisite to
the access of the full content of RE-ARCHITECTURE®, the infill of the Post-Survey would
have to be taken forward, voluntarily by the user, after using it for more than three months.
Several strategies were developed and implemented to remind the user about the Post-
Survey. Those were: the countdown of the post-survey / trial deadlines at the right side of the
footer (vide Chapter 5.3.6), the warning message when logging in and the sending of a
reminder e-mail, during the fourth and last month of use.

23
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 20 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Main navigation system

Figure 21 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Post Survey 1/9

24
 Interface / Left menu

Figure 22 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Post Survey 2/9

Figure 23 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Post Survey 8/9

25
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

5.3.5 CONTENT
The content is the central area of the interface where all selections become
accessible to the user; including the guidelines and tools. In the conceptual prototype, the
model of the theorised design process was at the top of the page, followed by the theory
(texts, tables and figures) below, explaining and illustrating each stage, sub-stage and
activity. In the preliminary prototype, the theory became accessible through text-based links,
which would open de respective PDF documents.
The final prototype evolves from the preliminary prototype, but brings back some
ideas from the conceptual prototype (vide Figure 24). One attribute that has always remained
is the model of the theorised design process, highlighting the stage where the user is. To
facilitate the understanding of the importance of the guidelines related to the tools, and to
facilitate its usage; the researcher has decided to divide the content in two distinctive areas:
the guidelines (vide Chapter 5.3.5.1) and the tools navigation system (vide Chapter 5.3.5.2),
respectively at the left and the right side of the content area.
Basically, this means that, whenever clicking on the various stages, sub-stages and
activities available in the left menu, the user would perceive simultaneously the respective
guidelines and tools available for each stage, sub-stage and activity. Moreover, whenever he
would select a tool at the tools navigation system, the content area at the left side – normally
reserved for the guidelines – would provide interface of the selected tool.

Figure 24 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Content

26
 Interface / Content

5.3.5.1 GUIDELINES
THE THEORETICAL GUIDANCE

The universe of the guidelines and inherent technical knowledge is fundamental for
the users of RE-ARCHITECTURE®, especially in their initial period. Otherwise, when starting
first by the tools, the user can get the wrong impression that the theorised design process is
too complex and difficult. When consulting the guidelines, the user can get acquainted with
the respective fundamental parameters, theorised in each stage, sub-stage and activity.
Then, the user just has to determine how detailed his design process will be and start.
Even if the theorised design process describes the ideal stages and respective fundamental
parameters; the user can decide which ones to survey and access.
To provide a clearer impression of a visit to the guidelines, the researcher chose an
example from the Analysis sub-stage (3AN). When initiating it, the user could visit the
guidelines available to sustain the Documentary Inventory (3AN 3DI) and read what is
theorised about it (vide Figure 25). While scrolling through the guidelines, the user shall verify
that there are always specific parameters, ordered according to the decimal structure (1:9),
illustrated in dynamic tables (vide Figure 26). These parameters are very important, as they
are also used in the tools that sustain these specific activities.
In this case, the primary locations are the illustrated parameters. As earlier
referenced, most of those tables are dynamic and the user can click further and learn more
about the selected parameter. Figure 27 illustrates the case when the user is interested in the
primary location, Energy supplier (3DI PL8).

Figure 25 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Guidelines / Documentary Inventory (3DI)

27
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 26 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Guidelines / Primary Locations (3DI PL1:PL9)

Figure 27 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Guidelines / Energy Supplier (3DI PL8)

28
 Interface / Content

5.3.5.2 TOOLS
THE PRACTICAL SUPPORT

The tools were produced to support the implementation of the theorised design
process, into the daily activities of the designers who became RE-ARCHITECTURE® users.
Four different types of tools were developed and produced to support specific activities: the
log book to support activities of inventory and survey; the evaluation system to support
activities of assessment, the database of components to support activities of design; and
the report to support activities of report.

Log book

The first tool, named as log-book, supports the user registering chronologically the
various inventories and surveys developed regarding the building and respective environment
(vide Figure 28). The log book provides better control on the durations, sources of
information, related parameters, retrieved informations, usefulness level, etc. It is particular
useful, not only to organize information from current design; but also to preview work load for
future designs. So, the more frequent the user registers, the better his time management
becomes.
After clicking the button “edit” on the right, information can been inserted and saved
(vide Figure 29). Figure 30 illustrates the list of activities undertaken by a user, making use of
the Documentary Inventory tool.

Figure 28 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Log book / Documentary Inventory (3DI)

29
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 29 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Log book / Documentary Inventory / edit (3DI)

Figure 30 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Log book / Documentary Inventory / save (3DI)

30
 Interface / Content

Evaluation system

The second tool, named as evaluation system, was first simulated in the conceptual
prototype and did not suffer major changes in the preliminary prototype. Nonetheless, these
first two versions were quite static. Moreover, the users would have to rate all parameters in
order to save the rates in the system.
An evolution emerged at the final prototype; with the support of the IT expert (vide
Figure 31). Besides the table of scales that already existed in the previous versions; a new
table was added, presenting the respective parameters that are target of assessment. Not all
illustrated parameters need to be surveyed, nor assessed by the user. He can assess a
minimum of three parameters and a maximum of nine parameters.
When the user would select the assessment rates at the table of scales, the
parameters would be highlighted automatically by the respective colour of the assessment
rate. The colours are in order from worst till best score: red = one; orange = two; yellow =
three; green = four and blue = five. Then, the user would only have to save his assessment
rates, storing it at the database, connected to his account and respective design process
(vide Figure 32).
Particularly, for the significance assessments, in both Pre-Design and Design stages,
a utility was produced and implemented to check the demolition risk for the building(s), based
on the rates inserted by the user, regarding the cultural values. In this case, the scale of
colours was inverted, as due to the language of colours the highest risk is clearly better
understood when highlighted in red; rather than when highlighted in blue (vide Figure 33).
Respectively, high risk became orange, reasonable yellow, low green and very low blue.

Figure 31 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Evaluation system / Significance Assessment

31
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 32 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Evaluation system / Significance Assessment / save

Figure 33 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Evaluation system / Significance Assessment / check risk

32
 Interface / Content

The database of components

The third tool, named database of components, has been simulated since the
conceptual prototype and has enhanced at both preliminary and final prototypes. The
researcher considered fundamental to provide lifespan-related knowledge to the users, at the
preliminary design, in the sub-stage of simulation, in order to sustain their design decisions.
The table of components (vide Figure 34), accessible through the tools navigation
system, was ordered according to the first level of the CI/SfB index manual. The user only
needs to select the family of components he is interested to survey, e.g. structure, primary
elements.
To complement the lifespan-related data; e.g. life, maintenance and replacement
cycle values referenced from Huffmeijer (1998); six others technical books (vide book II –
Chapter 4.4.4.2), were selected to provide information referring to the identified components
and respective materials, e.g. ecological ratings, advantages and disadvantages,
observations, etc. All this technical knowledge is available, free of charge, to the user in a
matter of seconds, independent from the complexity of his choices.
Since the conceptual prototype, the database of components has always had an
initial page where the components would appear listed. Difference was on the selected fields
of interest. In the conceptual prototype the fields were six and covered a representative
photo of the component, the component’s CI/SfB code, material, characteristics of the
component and the two utilities compare the selected components and add/remove to the
report the chosen ones. The possibility to filter the components according to their code, the
fields and sort ascending / descending was also considered by then.
Instead, the preliminary prototype renames the component’s CI/SfB code to (00|00)
Aa, which comprises already the component, material and characteristics (work) converted
into the CI/SfB index system. Also, the filter options are reduced to the first level of the CI/SfB
(0-) and the material (-a), remaining unchanged during this research.
The summary table gained few fields at the preliminary prototype; life, maintenance
and replacement values, as well as, the BRE rating. The final prototype only gained the
application that allows the introduction of the same component more than once in the design
process report; either as subtractions, remainings and/or additions (vide Figure 35).
Moreover, the text-based link named more info located below the photo, leads the user to
more information (vide Figure 36).
More info presents the user a group of tables with the fields of the summary table,
plus some other fields. First, the CI/SfB code is fragmented in its five dimensions and
respective descriptions: (0-); (00); (00|00); (A-); (-a); other description and other materials.
The description of the components and respective materials, which the researcher referenced
from Huffmeijer (1998) could not be found directly among the standard CI/SfB descriptions.
Furthermore, the user can find at more info the references of the six technical books
and the respective technical knowledge filtered, according to its type: characteristics,
observations, advantages, disadvantages, maintenance and replacement. These six
types of technical characteristics are not available for all components that are listed. They will
only appear if they have been found by the researcher, during the data collection.
In the summary table, there was also the option to compare the technical knowledge
of similar components (minimum two, maximum five), before choosing one specific
component as addition (vide Figure 37). Then, the user makes his decision and can choose
which component to subtract, remain or add based on the objective and sustained arguments
available in the database of components, rather than on subjective and superficial arguments.

33
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 34 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Database of components / access

Figure 35 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Database of components / summary table

34
 Interface / Content

Figure 36 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Database of components / more info

Figure 37 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Database of components / compare

35
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Report system

The fourth and last tool, named report system, has been developed and produced to
support the two sub-stages of decision, each at the pre-design and design stages. This tool
allows the user to create several reports, dependent on the stage which he is currently
working in and on the type of results he is willing to present.
Only the results that the designer has registered, with the previously described tools,
shall be available at the list of results. From the list of available results, the designer only
needs to choose the ones that he wants to add to his report. Promptly the tool produces a
report that the designer can print or save as PDF document.
Unlike the report at the preliminary prototype, there was no choice possible for the
user, at the conceptual prototype, for. Accordingly, when the user would introduce information
into the system, the same system would frame it immediately in the report.
The preliminary prototype brought the advantage into the report system that the
designer could chose what results he wanted to add and/or remove from the report (vide
Figure 38). In such way, the user would never become constrained by his design process
results. Each user would determine what and when exactly he would like to print or store as
PDF. He could even store a report, any time he would have to present his progresses to the
other actors involved in the design process; and or every time he would finish a particular
stage; as part of a broader time management strategy.
Figure 39 illustrates the preview of a report in the final prototype, where the chosen
results were the ones resulting from the activities of the Pre-Design / Analysis / Oral inventory
and from the activities within the Pre-Design / Evaluation / Significance Assessment.
The header of the report is produced on base of the data related to each specific
design process. Therefore, the logo of RE-ARCHITECTURE® and respective reference to the
trial prototype is accompanied with few identification information, such as the user’s name,
the design’s code and the date, when the report was produced. In such way, there is little
risk for misunderstandings or for unreferenced reports. When using RE-ARCHITECTURE®
with frequency it could even be interesting to compare reports, from different building(s).

36
 Interface / Content

Figure 38 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Report / list of results

Figure 39 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Report / preview

37
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

5.3.6 FOOTER
Without considerable evolutions since the conceptual prototype, the footer is divided
into three areas: the area aligned to the left, the area aligned to the centre and the area
aligned to the right (vide Figure 40).
First, the area aligned to the left contains the two indicative dates: the number of days
left until the trial expiration date and the number of days left until the Post-Survey. The idea
was to help the user remembering his agreement with the conditions to fill in the Post-Survey
and the ending of his trial period.
Second, the area aligned to the centre contains information that refers to three
important informations: the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, funding institution of this
doctoral research; the researcher as the exclusive copyright holder of RE-ARCHITECTURE®;
and the Terms and Conditions, which all users had to agree with before accessing RE-
ARCHITECTURE®. When clicking on the text-based link Terms and Conditions, a new
window opens and the users can remind themselves of what they first agreed.

Figure 40 – RE-ARCHITECTURE®: Footer (final prototype)

Third and last, the area aligned to the right contains the design’s code, the same one
that appears at the reports, whenever the user wants to print or store them. As earlier
explained, such code is produced by the system, joining three fields of information that is
being provided by the user: the year, month and address of the building being target of
rehabilitation intervention.

38
 Interface / Content

5.4 Tentative discussion

The production of RE-ARCHITECTURE® was one of the most challenging tasks the
researcher had to accomplish during this doctoral research. Coming from a background with
experience in IT mostly from the viewpoint of the user; the researcher had no previous
formation on programming. So, some hours of study and training were essential to learn the
necessary programs and get acquainted with the language, required to produce such
frameworks and interfaces.
Nevertheless, the inherent effort was considered worthwhile by the researcher, when
keeping in mind what would be gained in return. The implementation of the design process
into a design process support system would bring this doctoral research one step further. RE-
ARCHITECTURE® was always seen by the researcher as a mean to sustain designers
raising the level of lifespan consciousness, in their daily practices when involved in
rehabilitation design developments.
As any other theoretical supports, the researcher feared that the theorised design
process might end up having the same destiny as all other disperse guidelines, found among
the relevant literature survey. Instead, such design process support system could open a new
perspective of support which the researcher was very willing to experiment. She believed that
it would facilitate the introduction of theory-based activities to designers, used to perform
empirically. Moreover, the points of failure and success resultant from this doctoral research
would be fundamental for further research.
Due to time constraints, but also due to a methodological strategy, the researcher has
chosen not to survey designers on their aims for a support system that would sustain their
design processes in rehabilitation design developments, before actually developing RE-
ARCHITECTURE®. The researcher was willing to test her concepts, and only later, verify if
such idealised support system would be proved useful by the designers.
The preliminary prototype of RE-ARCHITECTURE® was produced while the
researcher was still developing the theorised design process. There were even particular
moments when the support system has revealed improvements for the design process.
Probably, if such tasks would have been divided in time as it happened during the final
prototype, the researcher might not have had the opportunity to cross the outputs from the
three creative processes: framework, content and interface.
The content was the creative processes which ended up gaining more attention,
respectively followed by the interface and framework. The responsibility of developing a
consistent framework was shared with the IT trainee and expert that have cooperated with the
production of RE-ARCHITECTURE®. Instead, the interface was left at the consideration of the
researcher.
The researcher has chosen to produce an honest “functionalistic” support system that
would clearly denounce the theorised design process as the whole modelling structure, with
the respective stages, sub-stages and activities as the inter-dependent sections one would
have to go through in order to fulfil a specific purpose. Purposely, no efforts were taken to
research on marketing or diffusion techniques to delude the complexity of the design process
and create a more dynamic and user-friendly environment.
Aligned with the “functionalistic” intentions, the work environment was structured in
two universes; the universe of the guidelines and the universe of the tools. In the first

39
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

universe, the user would be expected to play a passive role and only read and retrieve
theoretical knowledge of interest. At this point, RE-ARCHITECTURE® would not differ much
from its ancestors that have supplied theoretical support; with the difference that the “search
engine” would find for the designer, in a matter of seconds, all pages where he could find the
guidelines he would be searching for; instead of him searching for minutes and hours, among
the many guidelining pages.
Instead, in the second universe, the user was expected to play a more active role,
enabled to introduce and store information in the tools provided in the different stages from
the theorised design process and enabled to report the results of his/her design processes,
whenever he/she would consider suitable (report system). Then, wherever place or time, the
designer would be enabled to illustrate the developments achieved, to the other involved
actors, from the internet.
Even if very basic, these tools were designed to enable designers with means to
manage their work load and flow, reduce repetitive actions and reach sustained arguments,
by the end of both pre-design and design stages. As a platform of knowledge, designers
could register all information retrieved from documents, other involved actors and buildings
and filter it according to the relevant parameters (log book). That would provide the designer
a global overview on the information retrieved, as well as his most used parameters in
detriment of others, also theorised in the design process.
Consequently, the parameters which would have enough information could be
assessed (evaluation system). This would bring much more accuracy into the design process
and the designer would no longer be blamed for assessing parameters subjectively, because
no information was found, but still something should be said on the matter. The other
parameters would remain, for other buildings where related-information would be found.
Particularly, the evaluation system behind the significance assessment provides a
parallel rate of risk to the rate weighting the primary cultural values. After infilling such rates
,the designer can retrieve from RE-ARCHITECTURE® if the building he is dealing with, shall
be suffering particular risks due to its inherent cultural values. That could also be done for all
other parameters, e.g. condition assessment; however, due to time constraints the researcher
has chosen not to go further on these issues.
One might argue that such risk rate is subjective and should not be generalised.
Nonetheless, the researcher considered important to raise the attention to such issue.
Moreover, it was built by the researcher based on relevant literature. Probably, further
research could survey how accurate this risk scale coming from theory is and compare it with
results from practice.
Often designers undertake much work, before actually reaching the final results. This
work is normally neglected by the other involved actors, much more interested on final
results. Sustained by RE-ARCHITECTURE®, designers can start showing the results of all
stages they pass trough, till they reach the final design. Such design process reports can,
among other advantages, truly contribute to better communication among the involved actors
in the design process. Moreover, potential mistakes and errors proceeding from the design
stage, denounced at the Problem Field of this doctoral research, could be detectable, while
not yet bringing irreversible consequences for the building.
RE-ARCHITECTURE® is the first prototype of a design process support system and
hopefully, shall not be the last. Following versions shall be improved based on the results of
this doctoral research; on its content, framework and interface. Particularly, for designers the
last one is quite essential. For this reason, even if “functionalistic”, the researcher has
carefully chosen the colours, fonts sizes, areas, planimetries, etc.

40
 Interface/ Error! Reference source not found.

Chapter 6 Testing the prototype

41
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

6.1 Introduction

Chapter 6 reveals the results achieved in the different experiences organized to survey
preceding design processes and to test the prototype of a lifespan rehabilitation design
process and its respective implementation by the respective experimental groups. There were
two distinct moments: the first period for testing the design theory (vide Chapter 6.2) having
place during the academic year of 2005/2006 and the second period for testing the design
product (vide Chapter 6.3) having place during the academic year of 2006/2007.
As above mentioned, Chapter 6.2 reveals the results achieved regarding the design
theory. That encloses the results of two main phases, while till defining and redefining the
theorised design process. The two distinctive experiments were; the four case studies
undertaken to survey preceding design processes (vide Chapter 6.2.1) and the two case
studies undertaken to survey the lifespan rehabilitation design process (vide Chapter 6.2.2).
Chapter 6.2.1 introduces the two architectural offices involved in this experience and
presents the method used to approach the four case studies chosen to identify preceding
design processes in rehabilitation interventions of built heritage (vide Chapter 6.2.1.1); the
motivations and assumptions reveals what motivated the researcher to follow such method
(vide Chapter 6.2.1.2) and the factual results reveal what could be retrieved from the case
studies and respective comparison (vide Chapter 6.2.1.3).
Similarly, Chapter 6.2.2 introduces the experimental groups and presents the method
chosen to test the lifespan rehabilitation design process, theorised in this doctoral research,
with two groups of architecture students, from the Netherlands and from Portugal; while
developing a rehabilitation design (vide Chapter 6.2.2.1). Chapter 6.2.2.2 explains the
motivations and assumptions, while Chapter 6.2.2.3 reveals the factual results, regarding
the Pre-Survey, the Observation and the Post-survey.
The results of the design product, RE-ARCHITECTURE®, are described in Chapter
6.3. They regard both preceding design processes and their degree of adoption/rejection
towards the lifespan rehabilitation design process which are all presented together (vide
Chapter 6.3.1). Moreover, they join the assumptions retrieved from both architects and
architecture students, from the Netherlands and Portugal.
This time, Pre-Survey, Observation and Post-Survey were also complemented with
Process Mining methods, retrieved from logging who was using RE-ARCHITECTURE® and
what actions they took, while registered. But, before the results are revealed (vide Chapter
6.3.1.3); the method to achieve such results is illustrated at Chapter 6.3.1.1 and
complemented with its motivations and assumptions at Chapter 6.3.1.2.
Chapter 6.4 shall present some final remarks and raise some points for tentative
discussion, correlating potential points of attention from both design theory and product.
Correlations shall be drawn and the researcher shall be able to provide sustenance to the
conclusions presented at the following Chapter 7.

42
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

6.2 Testing the design theory

6.2.1 THE PRECEDING DESIGN PROCESSES

For the purpose of testing and revising the theory involving the theorised design
process for a lifespan conscious rehabilitation, the researcher has decided to interview two
architectural offices, from the Netherlands and Portugal, and question them about their
previous experiences on rehabilitation design developments, regarding both unlisted and
listed buildings, protected by the safeguard Institutions.
As one single architectural office would not be representative of the total number of
architectural offices in each country; there was no need to choose randomly. Therefore, the
choice was made for two architectural offices, which the researcher was already acquainted
with, regarding their lifespan consciousness, confirmed by the expertise field.
They would contribute with their own vision on lifespan consciousness as well as
enough evidences of such implemented into practice. Therefore, these two architectural
offices can be perceived more as a trend, rather than a representative sample of the common
procedures on rehabilitation; even if they shall refer to the common practices along their
testimonies.
From the Netherlands, the chosen architectural office was XX Architecten, chaired by
Jouke Post. There is a brief summary on Prof. Post at Chapter 1.2 (vide book I – basis), first
promoter of this doctoral research. At the time both rehabilitation designs were developed, XX
Architecten was a medium scale office with four Architect-directors. Those were respectively,
Daan ter Avest, Jan Brouwer, Jouke Post and Art Nieuwpoort.
They became particularly famous for the construction of their own office in Delft,
previously presented in Chapter 1.3. Project XX was built to last for a period of twenty years,
after which could be easily demounted and most materials recycled or wasted (vide book I -
basis). Nonetheless there were more buildings designed with a determined lifespan, such as
e.g. Villa Zebra, in Rotterdam, planned to last for a period of five years.
From Portugal, the chosen architectural office was Victor Mestre | Sofia Aleixo arq.
Lda., chaired by the architects themselves, since 1997. It is a small scale office with
approximately five employees. At the time when the interviews took place Mestre & Aleixo
had the collaboration of Arch. Nuno Gaspar and two other trainees.
Mestre & Aleixo explained that the small scale helped them, along these years,
preserving their guiding principles and lifespan consciousness. As they were not economically
dependent from the designs developed, due to parallel professional activities (e.g. research,
education, etc), they could confront the other involved actors, e.g. owners, contractors, etc.
and reject the assignment, whenever expected to deviate from their guiding principles.
Similar to Post, Mestre & Aleixo have been acknowledged by their field expertise for
their best practices, as well as, for their contributions to research and education. Currently,
both Mestre & Aleixo are doctoral researchers at the University of Seville. They have all
accepted to expose their design processes on four rehabilitation designs, on both listed and
unlisted buildings, for the purposes of finding similarities and differences when compared with
the design process theorised in this doctoral research.

43
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 41 – Villa Honingen, in Rotterdam – the Netherlands (Post, 1997)

Figure 42 – Villa Honingen, in Rotterdam – the Netherlands (Post, 1998)

Figure 43 – KRZV ‘De Maas’, in Rotterdam – the Netherlands (Post, 2002)

Figure 44 – KRZV ‘De Maas’, in Rotterdam – the Netherlands (Post, 2006)

On the list of rehabilitation interventions, XX Architecten had the unlisted Villa

Honingen and the listed KRZV ‘De Maas’, both located in Rotterdam. These buildings
managed to survive World War II and further Master Plan developments.
Villa Honingen is now the residence of Jouke Post (vide Figure 42). Nonetheless, he
insured that in 1996 the rehabilitation intervention was treated by the XX Architecten as any
other rehabilitation intervention assignments. Of undeniable high significance and low
condition (vide Figure 41), this building dating from 1875 was found unlisted by Jouke Post
on the Municipality and Monumentenzorg, the Dutch Department for Conservation.
KRZV ‘De Maas’ is the diminutive of Koninklijke Roei- & Zeil Vereeniging ‘De Maas’
(Royal Dutch Rowing and Sailing Club ‘De Maas’). It was founded in 1851and it is one of the
oldest yacht clubs in the Netherlands. With Queen Beatrix as patron and more than 2500
members, the “club-building” has been officially open in April 1909 by the Local Authorities
and in 1991 it was listed as a Municipal Monument (vide Figure 43 and Figure 44).

44
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

Figure 45 – Casa Pereira da Silva, in Moita – Portugal (Mestre & Aleixo, 2003)

Figure 46 – Casa Pereira da Silva, in Moita – Portugal (Mestre & Aleixo, 2005)

Figure 47 – Casa-Estudio Carlos Relvas, in Golegã – Portugal (Mestre & Aleixo, 2003)

Figure 48 – Museu Carlos Relvas, in Golegã – Portugal (Mestre & Aleixo, 2005)

On the list of rehabilitation interventions, Mestre & Aleixo had the unlisted Casa
Pereira da Silva, located in Moita; and the listed Casa-Museu Carlos Relvas, in Golegã.
Casa Rosario belongs to the parents of Aleixo (vide Figure 45). Similar to Villa
Honingen, this rehabilitation intervention was treated as any other; and Casa Rosario was
also found of high significance and low condition. Originally built in 1869 with one floor only,
Casa Rosario became the building as perceived today, when highly rehabilitated in 1891
(vide Figure 46).
Casa-Estudio Carlos Relvas was the photographic studio and residence of the noble
Carlos Relvas (1838-1894), nationally and internationally highly acknowledged for his artistic
talents as a photographer (vide Figure 48). Casa-Estudio Carlos Relvas was fully equipped
and built in 1875 with the most modern instruments and technologies from the end of the
century. Donated by the family to the Local Authorities in 1981, Casa-Studio Carlos Relvas
became listed as a Building of Public Interest in 1996 (vide Figure 47).
These four case studies, further exposed in the following chapters, had their origin at
the turn of the XIX to the XX century as one of the common starting points; as well as, the
particularity of the unlisted buildings, having the architects and/or close familiars as owners.

45
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

6.2.1.1 METHOD
THE MEANS TO VERIFY THE HYPOTHESES THROUGH PRACTICES

Both architectural offices were first contacted, via e-mail, to cooperate with this
doctoral research. This channel of communication has been proved efficient and has also
been used on further contacts. At the first contact, the researcher already presented the aims
of such cooperation and proposed a face-to-face meeting to interview the architects. At that
moment they were also informed about the particular interest of the researcher in two
rehabilitation designs and that the intended interview would focus on them.
Based on their positive reaction, the researcher prepared Questionnaire A1 and
respective Introduction (vide Appendix 3). These two documents were sent in advance to
both architectural offices via e-mail. As a result, by the time of the meeting, they were already
acquainted with its content and prepared the necessary documentation to illustrate both
rehabilitation designs. Post was interviewed in August 2005, while Mestre & Aleixo were
interviewed in July 2005.
The researcher has previously agreed with the interviewed architects to audio record
the interview. Accordingly, none of them would have to feel pressured on filling in all the
information demanded at Questionnaire A1, immediately during interview. Back at the office,
the researcher would fill everything properly, based on all provided and recorded information.
Later on, the respective draft of the Chapter would be sent to them for approval.
Questionnaire A1 did not restrain the meeting, but provided a steering instrument.
The researcher chose for such a semi-structured interview; as she would not like to limit the
architects. There were points of focus, the two rehabilitation designs; however, architects
were free to bring into conversation all aspects that they would consider relevant and/or
related to the rehabilitations designs, but that were not directly asked at Questionnaire A1.
The researcher also brought the draft of the doctoral dissertation with her, exposing
its structure and guidelines. This action had the purpose to confront the theory with the
practical reality in such architectural offices. The interviewed architects commented on the
intention to theorise an international design process and the respective developments, that
had been achieved until that moment (vide Figure 49).

Figure 49 – The lifespan rehabilitation: design process (fifth version)

The outcome of the interviews would allow the researcher to go further with the
developments of the theoretical model illustrating the design process considered as lifespan
conscious; not only sustained by relevant literature, but also sustained by an acknowledged
lifespan conscious practice, in the Netherlands and Portugal.

46
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

6.2.1.2 MOTIVATION AND ASSUMPTIONS

THE REASONING BEHIND THE HYPOTHESES

The main purpose of the four case studies was to bring information and knowledge
from the practice of rehabilitation interventions, generally into the scientific community, and
particularly into this doctoral research. Acknowledged by their lifespan consciousness either
when building new and/or when intervening in the built environment, the researcher wanted to
verify how the principles of lifespan consciousness were being implemented in practice.
The survey of the problem field revealed clear evidences on the lifespan
unconsciousness of several rehabilitation interventions; where either past and/or future were
being neglected. Therefore, such effort to combine the experience of designers and the
principles of the scientific community could only bring an impulse to the implementation and
verification of lifespan consciousness at current rehabilitation design developments.
Such implementation would be revealed through the design processes followed by
these two architectural offices on two rehabilitation interventions, one when dealing with a
listed building and another when dealing with an unlisted building. The survey shall focus on
the following six themes:

1. the involved actors at rehabilitation designs

2. the design processes within the building process,
3. the design processes followed in rehabilitation designs,
4. the appointed successes in rehabilitation designs,
5. the universe of subtractions, remainings and additions, and
6. the interest in the theorised design process.

The themes shall return when presenting the respective results. The aim was to verify
the adequacy of the hypotheses theorised by the researcher with the results emerging from
the practice, and how much they would differ from each other.
Not all architects who are lifespan conscious follow the same principles. So, it would
be interesting to identify which are the common principles that make them different from the
current architects that are lifespan unconscious. Moreover, the researcher would be able to
compare their design processes with the one theorised in this doctoral research and
complement it with suggestions and/or ideas that could emerge along the interview and/or
when reviewing their rehabilitation designs.
The researcher could even distinguish activities that are only used in one country,
from activities that are quite general and can be found in several other countries than the
Netherlands and Portugal. The Interviews, sustained by Questionnaire A1, would provide
enough sustenance for the theorised design process to become an international model.
Questionnaire A1 did not have a clear codification or questions, by the time it was
established. Nevertheless, the motivation for raising such themes in this period is directly
related with the motivation for raising similar themes in the questions at both test periods:
through Questionnaire A2 and A3 to test the design theory, and through Questionnaire B1
and B2 to test the design product.

47
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The involved actors at rehabilitation designs

The actors involved in rehabilitation design developments of listed buildings shall be

more varied and specialised than the ones of unlisted buildings.

The identification of all involved actors at the design process besides the interviewed
designers; e.g. other designers, approval institutions, owners / user, constructor, etc; aimed to
retrieve information enough to provide the researcher with a clear insight at the differences
between the involved actors in both rehabilitation interventions of listed and unlisted buildings.
The researcher believed that even if lifespan conscious designers would try their best
to act democratically when dealing with listed and unlisted buildings, the differences on the
involved actors and their degree of sensibility towards interventions on built heritage, would
considerably affect how the buildings would result rehabilitated. Consequently, involved
actors would act too protective at listed buildings and too liberal at unlisted buildings.

The design processes within the building processes

The design process shall play a different and more important role within the building
process for listed buildings, than for unlisted buildings.

The identification of general information about the buildings and respective

environments, e.g. classification, category, condition, etc allowed the researcher to get more
acquainted with them. Moreover, a small description was also asked regarding its most
particular characteristics, to better understand the designers’ principles, similarly to what was
specifically asked to the designers, at the following questionnaires.
When asking about the building process and the role of the design process within, the
researcher was able to inventory the life cycle stages of this particular building and order of
progression, before and after the design has been endorsed, together with their percentage of
time spent; making use of the terms used in this research: Feasibility, Briefing, Pre-design,
Design, Construction, Occupation and Intervention stage (future ones).

The design processes followed in rehabilitation designs

Architects shall have followed in both situations, rehabilitation of listed and unlisted
buildings, similar design processes and dealt with similar problems.

Some designers feel too constrained when developing rehabilitation design

developments of listed buildings and caustically liberated when dealing with unlisted
buildings, of “no value”. Consequently, designs result too destructive and lifespan
unconscious. The researcher believes that the interviewed architects shall illustrate good
examples, where the same coherence and commitment is reflected in both cases.
Some designers sustain that rehabilitation design processes are always different and
that no model can be drawn to sustain it theoretically. Through the comparison between the
theorised design processes and the one followed by these interviewed architects, the
researcher shall be able to establish unlisted activities; and accurately verify similarities and
differences.

48
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

The universe of subtractions, remainings and additions

The correlation between subtractions, remainings and additions shall be considered by

the designers; even before being presented by the researcher.

Some designers do tend to prioritise the additions they draw for the building’s new
existence, neglecting the remainings and the respective treatments required for the different
anomalies. Consequently, the substances that tend to remain are the ones considered of very
high cultural values, in the case of the listed buildings; and/or the ones that do not interfere
with the additions, in the case of both listed and unlisted buildings.
Tendentiously, the substances which do interfere with the additions are automatically
considered of no value, and result most often wasted. No further consideration is given to
what is subtracted and its respective significance and/or condition. The researcher expects to
retrieve from the four case studies, good-practice examples that can clearly illustrate
particular lifespan conscious principles implemented into rehabilitation designs.

The appointed successes in rehabilitation designs

Architects shall reveal evidences of lifespan consciousness and respective ecological

sustenance on both rehabilitation design developments.

Some designers do have lack of lifespan consciousness, and neglect either past,
present, or future of the building target of rehabilitation intervention. Inversely, the interviewed
architects can certainly contribute with their experience and acknowledged lifespan
consciousness, directly to this doctoral research and indirectly to others designers, who shall
make use of the theorised design process model.
This information shall be retrieved during the interview and while filtering their
answers, as well as, arguments to sustain their design decisions and results. Again the
similarities and differences between their definitions and the definitions theorised by the
researcher shall provide better sustenance to the theorised definition of lifespan rehabilitation
and respective design process, guidelines and tools.

The interest in the theorised design process

Architects shall acknowledge the theorized design process, verify its usefulness, and
provide direct comments that shall help the researcher proceed with its revision.

Some designers shall be totally incompatible with the theorised design process,
arguing that their personal experience and knowledge is enough and that there is no need for
a mix approach that joins both theory and practice. The researcher believes the interviewed
architects are not such kind of designers and shall express their interest in such approach
and the need to sustain rehabilitation designs lifespan consciously.
The researcher believes that they shall gladly contribute with their own design
processes and most common activities to the progression of the theorised design process. At
that period, such confrontation with the practice shall certainly bring considerable evolutions.
As the theorised process would be presented not yet finalised, these architects would feel no
constrains to provide direct comments, faults and virtues of such approach.

49
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

6.2.1.3 RESULTS
THE HYPOTHESES VERSUS PRACTICES

Before presenting the results from the six themes and relate them to the hypothesis
previously exposed, the researcher considered it important to describe the environment of the
four buildings chosen as case-study; so that they can be placed and understood in
relationship with their surrounding environment.
Instead of mentioning the architectural offices, the researcher has also chosen to use
the names of the architects involved in the rehabilitation designs, whenever describing the
information and arguments presented by them at the Interviews. Therefore, Post shall be
mentioned when describing Villa Honingen and KRZV ‘De Maas’ and Mestre & Aleixo when
describing Casa Pereira da Silva and Museu Carlos Relvas.
Villa Honingen and KRZV ‘De Maas’ differ approximately five kilometres from each
other, on the northern side of the river Maas, in Rotterdam. Villa Honingen is mainly
surrounded by dense vegetation and other residential facilities (vide Figure 50), while KRZV
‘De Maas’ is mainly surrounded by the river Maas and boats (vide Figure 51).
Rotterdam is the second biggest city in the Netherlands with approximately 590.000
inhabitants. It was one of the cities in the Netherlands which was severely bombed during
World War II. Rotterdam became quite a paradox, for deciding not to reconstruct its city
centre after such tragic event; but to start from scratch and undertake new master plan
strategies.

Figure 50 – Villa Honingen, in Rotterdam – the Netherlands (aerial view)8

Figure 51 – KRZV ‘De Maas’, in Rotterdam – the Netherlands (aerial view)9

Casa Pereira da Silva is also located close to a river, the Tagus River, in the parish
Rosário from the council of Moita, in the district of Setubal (vide Figure 52). Similarly to KRZV
‘De Maas’, Casa Pereira da Silva is mainly sided by the river Tagus and unlike the Villa
Honingen has hardly any vegetation in its surroundings.

8 Google Earth (2007) Villa Honingen, Aerodata International Surveys: Google

9 Google Earth (2007) KRZV ‘De Maas, Aerodata International Surveys: Google

50
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

The parish of Rosário is a much smaller parish that the city of Rotterdam. Together
with the parish of Gaio, Rosário encountered a total number of approximately 1000
inhabitants; mostly dedicated to activities related to the river e.g. fishing, boat restoration, etc.
However, an important point of reference might be the city of Lisbon on the other margin of
the river Tagus, only forty-one kilometers away, with approximately 2.1 million inhabitants.
Reachable by boat, car or public transportation, many inhabitants from the district of Setubal,
on a daily basis go to work in Lisbon, the capital city of Portugal.
Museu Carlos Relvas is located in totally different environment than Rotterdam and
Moita (vide Figure 53). Golegã is a small town from the district of Santarém, located
approximately 100 km to the north of Lisbon towards the interior of Portugal. Mostly oriented
towards agriculture, Golegã has approximately 5.700 inhabitants.

Figure 52 – Casa Pereira da Silva, in Moita – Portugal (aerial view) 10

Figure 53 – Museu Carlos Relvas, in Golegã – Portugal (aerial view) 11

Similar to Villa Honingen, Museu Carlos Relvas is also surrounded by vegetation and
other residential facilities. But, unlike all other three buildings there is no river in the near
surrounding. Therefore, Museu Carlos Relvas is the most rural environment from the four
buildings, even if located at the urban perimeter of a small town.
From the four buildings, Casa Pereira da Silva is the smallest and the only building
which is not totally isolated. All others are either surrounded by vegetation or by a river.
Instead, Casa Pereira da Silva is surrounded by streets at the north, south and west façades;
and the fourth façade, east oriented, is shared with another building.
Also, Museu Carlos Relvas is the only rehabilitation intervention, from the four
buildings, which has converted the former Casa-Estudio (House-Studio) into a Museum. All
others reused the building, in their former functions. One other similarity is the two floors
height. Other similarities and differences shall be described in the following six themes.

10 Google Earth (2007) Casa Pereira da Silva, DigitalGlobe: Google

11 Google Earth (2007) KRZV ‘De Maas’, DigitalGlobe: Google

51
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The involved actors in rehabilitation designs

The actors involved in rehabilitation design developments of listed buildings were more
varied and specialised than the ones of unlisted buildings.

Villa Honingen had as involved actors; the contractor, the local authorities
(especially the Building Aesthetics Committee), the new owner, which was simultaneously
the architect and the principal, the neighbors and the former owners. The last two
categories of actors have had an important influence on the building and respective
rehabilitation intervention, not found in any of the other three rehabilitation designs.
Their opinion was used to force the local authorities to approve the rehabilitation
design and to give the construction permit for the rehabilitation intervention. Post threatened
that if they would not give him the respective permit, he would demolish the building. Such
extreme action of intervention was against the wishes of the neighbors and previous owners,
so Post got immediate support for pressuring the local authorities. In fact, the previous owner
would only sell the building to whom would be interested on intervening in the building (e.g.
restoring), rather then demolishing it.
According to Post, the Department of Monuments from the local authorities, should
have been involved in this rehabilitation design process, due to the inherent cultural values of
such building, but somehow Villa Honingen has been forgotten to be listed with all other
buildings that survived World War II and where considered significant enough to survive
further Master Plan developments.
The rehabilitation intervention was treated as a regular rehabilitation design, so Post
formed a team with a project leader, draughtsman and a calculator. The contractor was the
firm D. van Staveren. One very special actor in the execution of the construction works was
an old neighbor of Post, who happened to be quite a talented craftsman. He helped Post
with the restoration of the authentic wooden components, which the contractor was unable to
do, at least, in such a professional and careful way.
In the rehabilitation design of the unlisted Villa Honingen, Post was dependent on the
local authorities only for the approval of his rehabilitation design. However, for the listed
KRZV ‘De Maas’, beyond the meetings with local authorities, he had several meetings with
members of the Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg (Department for the Preservation of
Monuments and Historic Buildings). This department even had experts available for providing
consultancy on specific building components, e.g. bricks, tiles, decorations etc.
The principal of the rehabilitation intervention was the KRZV ‘De Maas’. Jouke Post
was the architect and BAM Volker Bouwmaatschappij was the contractor. Also, the local
authorities of Rotterdam were responsible for the approval of the rehabilitation design.
However, they were not allowed to issue the construction permit without a ‘monument
license’, issued by the safeguard institution, Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg.
As earlier mentioned, the parents of Aleixo were the owners of Casa Pereira da
Silva. In fact, the rehabilitation intervention was initiated by her father. Mestre & Aleixo were
involved as well, being users, architects and principals. They consulted engineers for the
water and sewage system, for the gas system and for the construction stability.
For the construction works, they chose not to hire one contractor, but to contract
various craftsmen, each one from his own field of expertise. For example, to deal with the
zinc components from the roof, Mestre & Aleixo managed to find a craftsman that still
mastered the traditional techniques. This solution solved the same problem that Post faced
when the contractor was unable to undertake the restoration of the wooden components.

52
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

Unlike at the rehabilitation designs of Villa Honingen and KRZV ‘De Maas’, the
involvement of the local authorities was neither strict, nor mandatory in Casa Pereira da
Silva. They were mostly interested the general aims of the rehabilitation intervention and not
how the rehabilitation would be undertaken. The local authorities just wanted to present the
architects to plan functions, which would indulge the sense of the village. Thus, getting
acquainted with the fact that the rehabilitation intervention would reuse the building and
maintain its functions was sufficient information for them.
Instead, in the House-Studio Carlos Relvas the local authorities were also the
owners and those who would approve the rehabilitation design. They were the ones
contracting the architects Mestre & Aleixo to develop the rehabilitation design of such
particular building. This rehabilitation design was developed in close cooperation with the
safeguard institution IPPAR, Instituto Português do Património Arquitectónico (Portuguese
State Institute for Architectonic Heritage), which has House-Studio of Carlos Relvas listed as
a “building of public interest”.
Particularly, Mestre & Aleixo have consulted various engineers for the more technical
designs. In the documentary or oral inventory of information related to Photographic Studios,
they counted with the information of field experts, from the Portuguese Institute of
Photography (IPF). The construction was carried out by the contractor A. Ludgero de Castro
and coordinated by the engineers João Appleton, Vasco Appleton and Pedro Ribeiro.
It is very interesting to verify how procedures for dealing with rehabilitation designs
can vary from country to country. Particularly, with this comparison it was possible to discover
that both countries require an approval for the safeguard institution that has listed the building
besides the approval from the local authorities. Moreover, more experts are involved in a
rehabilitation intervention on a listed building, rather than on an unlisted one.
Another interesting aspect which differs in both countries, is the fact that in the
Netherlands, the experts from the safeguard institution determine which substance of the
building is considered of ‘monumental value’ and should remain; and which substance can be
subtracted in the new existence proposed with the rehabilitation design. This substance of
‘monumental value’ can vary on scale, depending on the building and respective
environment. It can range reach the scale of a component e.g. chimney, or a form e.g.
façade, or of a whole group of buildings.
In Portugal, architects have more freedom, in the sense that the safeguard institution
decides if a building in its totality is a monument; and later on, after some visits and meetings
provides an official opinion on the proposed rehabilitation design. The architect has the
freedom to report within the building what substance is considered of less or more
significance and decide what should be subtracted and what should remain.
KRZV ‘De Maas’ and House-Studio Carlos Relvas proved that there is much more
control and expertise sustenance for listed buildings than for unlisted. For KRZV ‘De Maas’
this expertise came from the Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg. While for House-Studio
Carlos Relvas this expertise came from IPPAR, IPF and from all other involved designers,
from their different fields of expertise, e.g. engineers. Even the chosen contractors are often
certified with enough rehabilitation interventions as background experience.
Nonetheless, the lifespan consciousnesses of Post, Mestre & Aleixo made them
consult experts e.g. engineers, and hire craftsmen in both situations, even if not common for
unlisted buildings. Indeed, they were more interested in qualitative results and chose not to
leave Villa Honingen and Casa Pereira da Silva at the mercy of common contractors, who are
mostly not prepared to undertake rehabilitation interventions with the required quality.

53
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The design processes within the building processes

The design process had a different and more important role within the building process
for listed buildings, than for unlisted buildings.

There was not much information available about Villa Honingen; except for what could
be retrieved from the building and respective environment, some bureaucratic documents e.g.
property registries and some illustrations found abandoned at the attic of Villa Honingen (vide
Figure 54). However, the information retrieved from those bureaucratic documents was very
important.
The original construction of Villa Honingen was dated 1875; followed by several
other rehabilitation interventions. Post discovered that Villa Honingen had been extended
several times in different use periods, changing the form of the building, e.g. the horizontal
addition at the southern side and the vertical addition of one more floor. All those additions
were even more evident by the respective joints, when the construction works started taking
place; by the difference between the emerging technologies, materials, etc.

Figure 54 – Villa Honingen (southern façade), in Rotterdam - the Netherlands (Unknown Author, s.d.)

Figure 55 - Villa Honingen (western façade), in Rotterdam - the Netherlands (Post, 1996)

After a short feasibility study, Post recognised the potential of the house: “(…) it was
very well located and it was such a lovely building”. So, he decided to approach the former
owner and buy it. As he was going to design the rehabilitation intervention and Villa
Honingen would become his own residence, Post considered no need for loosing time with
briefing or contracting, before the design developments.
The construction works started immediately after the approval of the design
proposal of the rehabilitation intervention, by the local authorities (vide Figure 56). The
designs required further surveys; however, due to time pressure, Post was not able to finish
the design process completely. Consequently, during the construction works he discovered
few discrepancies in the design developments, which he corrected in the design proposal.

54
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

Figure 56 – Villa Honingen (southern façade), in Rotterdam - the Netherlands (Post, 1997)

Figure 57 - Villa Honingen (northern addition), in Rotterdam - the Netherlands (Post, 1998)

When aware of the changed design, the local authorities have stopped the
construction works and only allowed them to continue, after having approved the design
proposal with the corrections. The design process took about six months. Instead, the
construction works took about a year. But, by 2007 a new use period started in Villa
Honingen (vide Figure 57).
KRZV ‘De Maas’ had certainly more information than Villa Honingen. It was designed
by the architects Michiel Brinkman & Barend Hooijkaas and constructed with clear Art
Nouveau influences. First opened to the public in April 1909, KRZV ‘De Maas’ soon became a
place to meet for the high society. Hooijkaas was also himself there a member.
In 1935 KRZV ‘De Maas’ was target of a rehabilitation intervention, designed by
architect Van den Broek, transforming the ceiling from a cross vaulting into a barrel vaulting.
Moreover, the ceiling decorations evidencing the distinctive Art Nouveau style were simply
covered and/or erased, under the influence of the Modern Movement.
In the years that followed, the building suffered many more interventions, e.g.
extensions, functional reorganizations, etc. But the main form of the ceiling, and the sober
modernist decoration remained unchanged. Meanwhile, in 1991 KRZV ‘De Maas’ was listed
as a Municipal Monument, at the local authorities of the city of Rotterdam.
KRZV ‘De Maas’ soon became a rijksmonument (royal monument), listed in 2001 by
the Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg as an exemplary building in the category of ‘younger
architecture and urban planning from the period 1850-1940’. From then on, any intervention
in KRZV ‘De Maas’ would have to be undertaken together with the Rijksdienst voor
Monumentenzorg. The design process, as well as, the construction works would have to be
continuously monitored by them.
In 2003, when the KRZV ‘De Maas’ was again requiring some maintenance
intervention, the board of KRZV ‘De Maas’ decided to choose for a rehabilitation intervention
instead, and give the assignment to the architectural office XX Architecten. Post was asked to
research the potentials of such intervention (vide Figure 60).

55
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 58 – KRZV ‘De Maas’ (interior), in Rotterdam - the Netherlands (Unknown Author, s.d.)

Figure 59 - KRZV ‘De Maas’ (interior), in Rotterdam - the Netherlands (Post, 2003)

This preliminary research was submitted to Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg and

after approval; Post developed the technical drawings and the cost-estimations (vide Figure
60). Moreover, he also developed a construction work description, specially oriented to the
contractor. The implementation of this construction work description was agreed as a solution
to instruct the contractor and insure quality in the construction works.
Often, technical drawings and book of specifications are considered too complex for
the contractors or any other involved actor which is not a field expert. So, Post decided to add
a construction work description with enough illustrations and descriptions of the different
activities to be undertaken and the respective location in the building where those activities
should be undertaken.
In the whole design process, the developments involving the interior were separated
from the developments involving the exterior of KRZV ‘De Maas’. The construction works
were also organized accordingly. The contractor started with the rehabilitation intervention of
the exterior of KRZV ‘De Maas’ in the beginning of 2005 and finished in the summer of the
same year. After, the rehabilitation intervention of the interior of KRZV ‘De Maas’ took place,
finishing on the summer of 2006 (vide Figure 61).

RECENT PHOTO
Figure 60 – KRZV ‘De Maas’ (interior), in Rotterdam - the Netherlands (Post, 2004)

Figure 61 – KRZV ‘De Maas’ (interior), in Rotterdam - the Netherlands (Post, 2007)

56
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

Casa Pereira da Silva original construction is dated 1869. Casa Pereira da Silva had
the function of a small commercial facility for selling maritime equipment; suitable for
sustaining the demands of the fishing activities among others, occurring in the proximity at the
bay of river Tagus.
In 1891, the first rehabilitation took place and the first floor was constructed,
functioning as a residential facility. The ground floor instead, remained as the small
commercial facility until 1969. After the death of the owner of Casa Pereira da Silva, the
grandfather of Aleixo, her mother inherited the building and decided to close the commercial
facility to convert it totally to a residential facility. The first floor, though, remained unchanged.
When renter of the ground floor moved in 1995, the parents of Aleixo decided to not
rent it anymore (vide Figure 62). The ground floor was in quite a low condition. So, a
rehabilitation intervention would be required to make it inhabitable again. Similarly, when the
renter of the first floor died in 2000, the parents of Aleixo decided to start the rehabilitation
intervention of the first floor as well, including the replacement of the roof which was also in
very low condition (vide Figure 63). Mestre & Aleixo re-started the design process in 2001.

Figure 62 – Casa Pereira da Silva (kitchen ceiling), in Moita – Portugal (Mestre & Aleixo, 1996)

Figure 63 – Casa Pereira da Silva (attic), in Moita – Portugal (Mestre & Aleixo, 2000)

In October of that year, the roof was replaced (vide Figure 64), followed by the
construction works on the first floor, from June 2002 till October 2004. The Christmas
celebrations of the family Aleixo could finally take place in the newly rehabilitated Casa
Pereira da Silva (vide Figure 65).
The original construction of Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas was built in 1872, by
architect Henrique Carlos Afonso (vide Figure 66) and under the close guidance of Carlos
Relvas (1838-1894), its owner and most frequent user. Originally designed as a
photographic studio for his leisure time, this particular building became also his residence in
1887. Consequently, there were undertaken construction works to rehabilitate the building
and convert it into a mixed-used building, hosting both photographic and residential facilities.
Almost one century after his death, in 1981, the family donated the building to the
local authorities of Golegã. In 1996 Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas became a listed building,
classified by IPPAR as Building of Public Interest. This classification included also the
surrounding gardens and respective fittings; for their evident inherent value for history of
architecture and photography. Carlos Relvas was a national pioneer on photography.

57
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 64 – Casa Pereira da Silva (attic), in Moita – Portugal (Mestre & Aleixo, 2002)

Figure 65 – Casa Pereira da Silva (attic), in Moita – Portugal (Mestre & Aleixo, 2005)

Due to the very low condition of the building, the aim was to initiate the rehabilitation
intervention as soon as possible after the competition (vide Figure 67). So, even before
starting with any design or study, the architects planned a pre-intervention that would protect
the building from further degradation, during the period of the design process. They have
creatively covered the whole building with a transparent box constructed of scaffolding
finished with a layer of plastic. Such structure would not only protect the building during the
period of the design process, it could also be reused later during the construction works of the
rehabilitation intervention.
After the first studies in 2000, the design developments followed in 2001. The
construction works took place from April 2002 (vide Figure 68) till January 2003 (vide Figure
69). At the time of the interview, the Museu Carlos Relvas was not yet functioning, waiting for
being equipped and fitted. The website from the local authorities of Golegã, announced the
official opening on April 2007.

Figure 66 – Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas, in Golegã – Portugal (Relvas, 1870s)12

Figure 67 – Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas, in Golegã – Portugal (Mestre & Aleixo, 2000)

12 Relvas, C. (1970s) Estúdio Fotográfico Carlos Relvas, Lisboa: Instituto Português do Património arquitectónico
(IPPAR), available at: http://www.ippar.pt/pls/dippar/pat_pesq_detalhe?code_pass=74450 (ccessed on 04-11-2007)

58
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

Figure 68 – Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas, in Golegã – Portugal (Relvas, 2002)

Figure 69 – Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas, in Golegã – Portugal (Mestre & Aleixo, 2003)

The lack of information regarding the previous rehabilitation interventions, among the
four case studies, is probably consequent from the liberty to not present accurate plans of the
interventions undertaken on the built environment. From the smaller scale to the bigger
scales of interventions, the local authorities and respective experts could help sustaining the
involved actors with lifespan consciousness.
As hypothesised, the design process played a different and more important role within
the building process for listed buildings, than for unlisted buildings. Both safeguard institutions
have played a fundamental role in the design process; in the Netherlands more influential on
specific design decisions than in Portugal. Moreover, they also have to assess the quality of
the design proposal, together with the local authorities and for listed buildings, no major
difference was found at this specific stage of the building process.
Even if the level of lifespan consciousness remained the same from the listed to the
unlisted buildings in the arguments presented; truth is that the pre-design reports were much
more elaborated for the listed buildings than for the unlisted buildings. However, not always it
is possible to develop a design process as complete as aimed due to e.g. time constraints,
lack of information, etc. It is not only the quantity, but also the quality of the surveys and their
sustenance in the design decisions that reveal how lifespan conscious designers are.
Similarly, in the two cases of unlisted buildings, Post chose for a common contractor
and one neighbour specialised in wood restoration; while Mestre & Aleixo choose for
specialised craftsmen that would be assigned for the construction, depending on the level of
developments. Much different was the construction period of both listed buildings, where both
safeguard institutions have controlled it as well.
In fact, Post found the solution of the construction work description with enough
illustrations and descriptions of the different activities to compensate the lack of knowledge
some contractors have for interventions in existing buildings. Instead, Mestre & Aleixo were
more fortunate; as the contractor Ludgero de Castro is nationally acknowledged for the high
quality construction works, undertaken in listed buildings.
Unsurprisingly, the duration of the construction works were longer in Portugal, than in
the Netherlands. But, that regards the construction sector in general and not only the
rehabilitation interventions. Mestre & Aleixo also mentioned their interest in developing further
the design proposals and specific execution details together with the craftsmen. Accordingly,
they are often far more acknowledged in their craftsmanship and it always useful to learn from
such craftsmen. After all, it is practical knowledge that is vanishing.

59
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The design processes followed in rehabilitation designs

Architects have followed in both situations, rehabilitation of listed and unlisted

buildings, similar design processes and dealt with similar problems.

Post developed a brief feasibility survey, before buying Villa Honingen, to determine
if his aims for buying such building and the required rehabilitation intervention would be
feasible. Such survey, even if not yet part of the design process was of great importance and
utility for the design developments. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, the resultant
information was merely sensorial (e.g. visiting the building and environment, speaking with
the involved actors, etc) and was not summarised in any report or document.
The only original documents found were few photographs on the attic of Villa
Honingen. They were of great contribution to understanding the building. Drawings did not
exist anymore, as in World War II the City of Rotterdam suffered severe fires and all drawings
of the Municipal Archives were burnt. There were only found some documents at the notary,
but they were not important for the design process.
Post also made a geometric survey, measuring all areas and distances within the
building. When asked about this particular survey, he answered that it was inevitable for
developing a good design. Because “Otherwise you cannot draw”, he says.
As an inherent part of the geometric survey, Post has also made a three-
dimensional model of Villa Honingen to facilitate the search for the correct dimensions and
compositions. He used this model more as a testing object, rather than a presentation mean
to convince the other involved actors about his ideas. Furthermore, he has sketched,
designed and detailed.
The material and pathological survey were found quite important for the design
developments, as well as the colour survey. In order to find the suitable colour for Villa
Honingen, Post surveyed several secondary buildings, in other cities, and interviewed
their owners about the colours which the building have had along time. His aims were to
define the colour to use, based on the colours inventoried in other similar buildings.
Post mentioned the aesthetical values and the social values playing an important
role in the design developments of Villa Honingen. As it was going to be his own residence,
he was emotionally involved (emotional / social values) with the design developments and
with the future of the building after the rehabilitation intervention. The ecological values were
not the main priority in this rehabilitation intervention or in his design process. Nonetheless,
Post improved these values by placing solar panels on the roof of Villa Honingen.
Villa Honingen was mostly evaluated with ‘low’ or ‘very low’ condition, except for its
substantial form and aesthetical performance. The lifespan performance of the house
was low. According to Post, all the inherent materials were identified already far beyond their
predicted lifespans. Therefore, the design developments would have to make Villa Honingen
become a pleasant place to live. So, the main aim of the intervention was to improve all
substances, features and performances, in order to bring them on a ‘high’ or ‘very high’
scale. The substantial form and aesthetical performance, however, had to be maintained. The
technical performance had a lower priority than the aesthetical one.
Post described the design process as a compromise between the pre-existence and
the new existence. For example, he said that technically, he should have changed the
windows and doors near the balcony, but he decided not to do it, due to the fact that such
action would diminish its character and the respective inherent aesthetical values.

60
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

Also, the significance assessment of the design developments has shown

considerable improvements from the pre-existence to the new existence. The economic,
political and ecological values that have been rated as ‘reasonable’ in the pre-existence,
have been rated respectively ‘high’ and ‘very high’, in the new-existence, together with all
other cultural values.
When compared to the design process followed by Post at Villa Honingen, KRZV ‘De
Maas’ was much more complex and required other level of surveys. The design
developments were controlled by the Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg and they would
require some mandatory surveys. For example, Post was asked to develop a thorough
chronological survey, before starting the design phase. Accordingly, this chronological
survey had a close connection with the evolution of the interior of the building and respective
evolution of the aesthetical styles.
Post has also surveyed other aspects of the physical inventory, in order to have a
good sustenance for his design decisions. The aesthetical, material and pathological
surveys were undertaken for both exterior and interior of KRZV ‘De Maas’. Particularly, the
colours and materials of the exterior (façades and roofs) have been deeply surveyed.
All findings of the physical inventory, significance assessment and condition
assessment were presented in a report, which served as a document to illustrate his
decisions to the experts of the Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg. The report also contained
the assessment results of the technical and aesthetical performance, which shall sustain
further design strategies. This report was made before the first design developments. In fact,
according to the Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg, the design process could not start, until
their approval was conceded, based on the report.
The main aims of the Board of KRZV ‘De Maas’ regarding its rehabilitation
intervention and which Post was willing to subscribe were to maintain its function as a
meeting centre and restore its original pride and grandeur. It is these social values that have
highly contributed to the social status of the Royal Dutch Rowing and Sailing Club ‘De Maas’.
Instead, the experts of the Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg aimed differently. They
were most concerned about the façade and respective technical performance. They have
recommended a high scale restoration, respecting the aesthetics of the natural stone,
ornaments, window openings, coloured brickwork, etc. Especially the large quantity of natural
stone was remarkable, according to the them.
More interventive actions were reserved for the interior, where e.g. the “modern”
tunnel vaulting was restored to the “art nouveau” cross vaulting. Consequently, the respective
“art nouveau” decorations were restored; which was allowed because physical inventory of
the pre-existence showed enough evidences of this period.
When comparing the design process followed for Villa Honingen with that, for KRZV
‘De Maas’ the second one denounces much more the subdivision of the design process in
two stages: the stage where many surveys were undertaken towards the pre-existence and
the stage towards the new existence than the first. There are also other surveys, e.g.
chronological survey, required by the Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg, which were not
undertaken at Villa Honingen.
Particularly, for KRZV ‘De Maas’ the combination between common and special
surveys allowed Post to accurately perceive the valuable components of the original
construction from the beginning of the century. Post followed his own design process;
nonetheless, the control of the Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg has influenced many of the
design decisions. Its experts would be the ones evaluating the rehabilitation according to their
own settled boundaries.

61
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Back to the unlisted buildings, but now in Portugal, Mestre & Aleixo were very well
acquainted with Casa Pereira da Silva; even before the parents of Aleixo have shown interest
to rehabilitate it. Despite the familiarity, they have undertaken a survey of the pre-existence,
just as in any other rehabilitation design assignment.
Similarly to Villa Honingen they could not find much technical documentation. They
mostly retrieved information from neighbours and close family, who were willing to share their
memories about Casa Pereira da Silva and its environment. In the search for information,
they also went to the municipality, but there they found nothing. There was found no registry
archived from earlier interventions at Casa Pereira da Silva.
Most information Mestre & Aleixo could retrieve was, similarly to Villa Honingen, from
old photographs. Difference was that in Casa Pereira da Silva they could hardly find
photographs specifically focused on the building. So, they had to search further among the
family photographs taken on special occasions, e.g. wedding photographs, where the
building has served as background. They also managed to retrieve an aerial photograph by
searching on internet.
Mestre & Aleixo made a geometric survey of the whole building and new drawings of
the façade, the roof and the interior spaces. At the colour survey, they have discovered that
Casa Pereira da Silva has had several colours along time (pink, light blue, bordeaux), but
according to Aleixo’s mother, who still remembered from her childhood, the original colour
was pink, just has it was last painted.
When asked about the differences of importance between the various surveys for the
design developments, they found it complex and unnecessary to elect the most influential
surveys. Mestre & Aleixo had been working on all surveys without isolating one aspect from
the other, in terms of importance. Nonetheless, they did mention the functional survey of
less importance, as the pre-existence has been previously converted to a residential facility,
one apartment per floor.
Even if not explicitly surveyed in the pre-existence, the social values of Casa Pereira
da Silva were found very high, especially because of the emotional values. But according to
Aleixo, it should even have been higher: “Scale ten! This scale is very small!”
Also the economic values were rated high, but mostly influenced by its location.
According to Mestre, when releasing the building from the emotional values and the principles
of two architects deeply interested in built heritage, it had to be admitted that: “The value of
the building was not in the building itself, but in the location with a view”. The aesthetical
values were considered of low importance, as the architects said: “It’s of current value; it is
not a brilliant object”.
Like Villa Honingen, Casa Pereira da Silva was generally degraded. Mestre & Aleixo
have lowly rated the condition of the components, materials, climate, technical and
lifespan performance. So, consequently the design developments would have to improve
such insufficient condition. Mestre & Aleixo did not see the need to aim for improving the
cultural values, as they were rated quite high already.
When analysing the aims of the rehabilitation, the substantial form and the
aesthetical values of the building had to be maintained. The function had to be restored.
But the components, materials, climate, technical and cost performance had to be
improved. Some components and materials had to be even replaced by either traditional or
contemporary ones (i.e. the sandwich panels on the roof and the zinc finishings). The
production complexity was maintained, except for the new roof; purposely designed to be
modern, reversible, and discernible from the pre-existence.

62
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

Unlike Casa Pereira da Silva and like KRZV ‘De Maas’, there was much more
information available regarding the Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas. Mestre & Aleixo did an
extensive documentary inventory. They consulted IPPAR for all available texts and
photographs referencing and illustrating the building. IPF provided them very important
information, both documentary and oral, about the history of photography.
Moreover, in order to understand more about the functionality of a contemporary
photographic studio, they have visited secondary buildings, counting particularly with the
cooperation of Studio FotoVicente to illustrate them the relevant issues of a photographic
studio. In bookstores they also found books about Carlos Relvas, the former owner of the
Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas. Much information about the building they also retrieved from the
original registries which the owner, Carlos Relvas, had kept for his own administration.
In the physical inventory, Mestre & Aleixo paid a lot of attention to the geometric
survey, because they had obtained one from IPPAR, but that one required few corrections.
Mestre and Aleixo developed several surveys, among which aesthetical and pathological
surveys could be found, with no less importance than the geometric survey. In fact, to insure
accuracy, the pathological survey undertaken in the pre-design stage, was complemented
during the construction works.
The pathological survey has also included some laboratory tests and consultation
for identifying the correct pathology and determining the most suitable treatment, e.g.
plasterwork. During the pre-design stage it was not possible to undertake the colour survey,
as most illustrations were back-and-white. The original colours were only traceable on the
walls of the building, during the construction works, supported by field experts.
When asked about the significance of the building as pre-existence, Mestre & Aleixo
assessed the historic and scientific values of Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas ‘very high’;
because such building is not only part of the history of the region and part of art history, but its
construction combines various innovative XIX century techniques. Instead, the political and
social values were rated relatively low, when compared to the other values.
Although the building was considered of high importance to the photographic
community, who would come to Golegã exclusively to visit the building from all over the world;
Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas was neglected by the majority. In fact, the raise of interest from
the local community only occurred after the rehabilitation intervention. That was, stated
Mestre & Aleixo, the reason for such low assessment on its inherent social values.
Accordingly, the general condition of the building was low. It needed intervention on
almost all levels of performance. The only feature, presented by the researcher which was
assessed of high condition was the production complexity, as the building contained a lot of
industrial products. Nonetheless, such assessment is somehow related to the scientific
values of the building, rather than with its effective condition.
Due to the fact that the rehabilitation intervention was won by Mestre & Aleixo in a
competition: Metodologias de Intervenção (Methodologies of Intervention), the pre-design
results were asked to be presented in a separate report, to be delivered to the safeguard
institution IPPAR, the organizing commission of this competition. But, Mestre & Aleixo also
emphasised that pre-design reports are normally not a common requirement in rehabilitation
design developments.
The main aim of the rehabilitation design of Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas was to
emphasise its identity, enabling its contemporary use from a different perspective, more
contemplative and museological. Unlike all other case studies, the function was converted
from House-Studio to Museum and Documentation Centre.

63
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Consequently, at the design stage, the architects surveyed more deeply few
secondary buildings, with the support of IPF. But, this time they focused on the
development and requirements of a contemporary photographic studio, as well as, of
photographic museums. Moreover, to complement such visits, they have also searched in
libraries, for books and publications, referencing contemporary photographic museums.
Information about related legislation was found on internet.
In order to match the building with the new function, the main strategy in terms of
condition was to improve the substances (physical), performances (technical) and few other
features, in order to bring them till the level high or whenever possible, ‘very high’. The
materials, aesthetical performance and production complexity could be maintained,
because they were already highly evaluated in the pre-design stage.
In fact, in the design stage, many values did not decrease nor increase, because they
were already on a high level. Particularly, the political values increased due to the president
of the local authorities, who started using Museu Carlos Relvas as a symbol of his political
ambitions, while before the local authorities have shown no particular interest in the building.
Although already on a high level, due to the soil price, the economic values have increased,
because the same valorous soil was now hosting the valorous Museu Carlos Relvas.
Even if the local community raised its interest for the recent Museu Carlos Relvas, it
was not enough to raise of the social values. Therefore, Mestre & Aleixo have decided to
keep the social values as reasonable. Inversely, the overall condition of the substances,
features and performances has increased, generally from a low to a high evaluation.
When the construction work was finished, Mestre & Aleixo produced a final report,
together with the contractor. This report was delivered to the safeguard institution, IPPAR.
The drawings were not changed after construction work, because it was carried out strictly
according to the final design.

The universe of subtractions, remainings and additions

The correlation between subtractions, remainings and additions was considered by the
designers; even before being presented by the researcher.

As earlier mentioned, Villa Honingen was found in quite a bad condition. In order to
improve its condition and due to time constraints, the architect was forced to take some
rigorous decisions, e.g. demolishing the pavement at the ground floor in order to enable the
reinforcement of the foundations. The subtracted pavement was not reused, but sent to a
recycle installation, which is obliged in the Netherlands.
The rehabilitation of the balcony caused several discussions, again with the
constructor. Even if it was clearly in very low condition, it was considered by Post of high
significance, so he did not want to substitute it completely, as naturally proposed by the
constructor. Post ordered him to only substitute the lower part, which was unfortunately in
such a state that would not allow any possible restoration intervention. Instead, the upper part
with the wooden decorations remained.
The brick walls, as well as, the window frames remained at Villa Honingen. The roof
tiles were replaced by new ones; but Post designed all additions with the clear aim to
maintain the inherent aesthetical values. The interior spaces were adapted to the future
inhabitants of the house, only two people. In order to have a more spacious and comfortable
room upstairs, Post chose to create a connection between two rooms through a small

64
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

opening in a partition wall, and convert them into one bigger room. Also, one room was
changed to a bathroom.
Facing the established program, Post has chosen to design an addition to the
building. This new functional area integrated the kitchen and dinning room, at the back side of
Villa Honingen. An existing window was used to create the connection between the living
room and this added functional area. Such choice has also avoided further interventions to
integrate the modern requirements of a kitchen in the pre-existence, reducing unnecessary
subtractions.
During the rehabilitation of KRZV ‘De Maas’ the additions dated 1935, characteristic
from the modern movement were subtracted from the building and the remaining original
(1910) elements were restored, as much as possible. There were also some parts that had
disappeared during the years, e.g. the horizontal ceiling panels. These had to be
reconstructed, based on photographs.
Also some of the wall panels were removed during earlier rehabilitations. As there
were still a few left, these have served as example for the ones to be reconstructed. The
biggest reconstruction, however, was the one of the constructive part of the ceiling.
A very interesting element Post discovered was the original woodcarving ventilation
grille. This was covered by plasterwork on wire netting added by a previous rehabilitation
intervention. This plasterwork was planned to be subtracted and the new ventilation system
was connected to the original grille.
At the exterior, Post designed the replacement of the joints between the bricks, due to
their low condition. Instead, the Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg was afraid such action
would damage the building aesthetics. So, together they decided to carefully repair the joints;
accepting the fact that this was a less durable solution and that every two years the joints
would had to be controlled for degradation. Instead, the roof has been completely
reconstructed and the tiles were replaced, but the original green colour was maintained.
At a similar scale, Mestre & Aleixo have chosen to subtract most pre-existence of
Casa Pereira da Silva which would be assessed of too low condition and significance. In 1995
with the rehabilitation intervention on the ground floor, that was the case of the tiles finishing
the walls and floors; which were not only outdated, as they were promoting unacceptable
water infiltrations.
They have also designed the replacement of the fix fittings, from both kitchen and
bathroom. In order to facilitate maintenance activities to the beams of the first floor and add a
new layer of sound insulation, the existing ceiling was subtracted and afterwards gypsum
boards were placed to cover the added layer of insulation.
The original window frames, made of wood, were found too degraded. So, they had
no other choice than to subtract them. The added window frames were made of aluminium,
but chosen with the same thickness as the original wooden ones, so that the visual aspect of
the façade would be maintained. They also added aluminium hatches, to better shield both
windows and indoor climate.
In 2001, with the rehabilitation intervention on the first floor, Mestre & Aleixo designed
not so much intervention in the interior of Casa Pereira da Silva. Mainly, they have removed
all the painting of the wooden plinths, interior hatches and doors and applied clear varnish.
The windows were replaced. Mestre & Aleixo managed to apply the same profiles they had
used 6 years ago for the ground floor. They also remained original wooden hatches.
They also designed a kitchen and bathroom that would fit the modern requirements.
Originally, only sleeping rooms were built with the construction of the first floor. With the sub-
division of the building in two apartments, a temporary kitchen and bathroom were added.

65
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Nonetheless, as many temporary solutions, these ones lasted longer than expected and did
not have the proper conditions.
As the roof was found too degraded, it was completely subtracted. The architects
decided to place contemporary elements as metal sandwich panels on a new wooden
structure. They also added a metal belt around the house, on top of the walls, to spread the
load of the new roof. After placing the new roof elements, they have reused the original tiles,
properly subtracted to be cleaned.
Mestre & Aleixo discovered on photographs that the roof in earlier times had a
window opening. Its structure was still there, but it had been hidden from sight by the roof
covering. By replacing the roof, the window opening was placed again. They also took the
opportunity to bring back the zinc elements, produced on the traditional way by an old
craftsman.
When comparing the subtractions with the remainings, Mestre & Aleixo gave more
importance to the remainings and to the connections between additions and remainings.
Accordingly, except from the new kitchen and bathroom there were hardly added elements.
The roof was also completely subtracted, but afterwards a new roof was added on the same
place. The additions were inside the building and connected (kitchen, bathroom). The
connections of the ceiling, however, were made reversible as well as the roof construction,
which only contained dry connections.
Similar to Post at KRZV ‘De Maas’, Mestre & Aleixo, subtracted the additions from
earlier rehabilitation interventions at Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas, in order to bring the
building back to its original state, the innovative Photographic Studio of Carlos Relvas. The
priority in the design was to restore the remainings with much attention and accuracy.
However, the building had to be made compatible to its new function, as Museu
Carlos Relvas. Therefore, the architects added an underground tunnel – a gallery for
temporary exhibitions - where all technical infrastructures would be located, connecting the
main building with the photographic studio, at the Garden Pavilion. A new nucleus of stairs
was also drawn in harmony with the nucleus of stairs at the main building.
Such allocation of all technical infrastructures has strongly contributed to a minimal
impact on the main building. Purposely, most additions were located outside and apart from
the original building, so that the pre-existence would also not be affected by the modern
aesthetics of the additions. Moreover, the underground tunnel was located deep enough to
not even touch the foundations of the pre-existence.
The remainings were mostly consolidated. The connections between the
remainings and the additions were made chirurgically and mostly reversible. Another
particular example of the lifespan consciousness of both architects was the partial relocation
of the roof tiles, from the main building to the roof of the Garden Pavilion. The exceeding roof
tiles were stored in a municipal archive, in case future interventions would decide to add them
to the main building again.

The appointed successes in rehabilitation designs

Architects revealed evidences of lifespan consciousness and respective ecological

sustenance on both rehabilitation design developments.

A common starting point from both Post and Mestre & Aleixo was their unanimous
agreement with the researcher that the position of an architect dealing with an unlisted
building should be no different than when dealing with listed buildings. Accordingly, buildings

66
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

are different and so are the legislated requirements, for both categories of buildings.
Nonetheless, architects should be able to treating all buildings equally.
Post is very experienced in rehabilitation designs and lifespan-oriented buildings. In
Villa Honingen however, he stated not to have focused on lifespan principles, but on carefully
integrating the past with the present. By lifespan-principles, he meant the ones he would
normally apply for new lifespan-oriented buildings. Nonetheless, on the perspective of this
doctoral research, he has clearly shown proofs of lifespan consciousness, finding a balance
between decisions involving the building’s past, present and future.
Denouncing his lifespan consciousness toward the future, Post stated that he has had
various discussions with the contractor. For example they argued about substituting wooden
columns by steel columns covered with wood, because of the construction safety. The
architect was sure that no steel was needed; the wood had sufficient strength, because in
history contractors have always used it and there were enough evidenced of its quality.
Calculations proved he was right and convinced the contractor.
Post did not particularly plan future changes and also no specific measures were
applied to the volume added in the new existence, e.g. to make it more or less expandable.
This choice was made purposely, to reduce the risk of harming the building in favour of
allowing possible changes. He just wanted to keep the connections “clean and clear”, to
enable deconstruction and that was again a clear evidence of his lifespan consciousness.
Accordingly, the appointed successes in the rehabilitation intervention on Villa
Honingen lay on several aspects. One is the recognition of the building and respective
significance (e.g. appearance, façades, character, etc). Other is the ability to maintain such
significance in the design developments; mostly involving social, historic and aesthetical
values. Another is to combine such recognition of significance, with the respective adaptation
to the modern requirements and possibilities of use for the future.
The appointed successes were found similar in both KRZV ‘De Maas’ and Villa
Honingen. Nonetheless, there was one considerable difference and that was the involvement
of the experts from the Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg. Right from the beginning, they
have been involved in the design process.
Post mentioned the dilemma facing the original building and the “modern” intervention
of 1935. The Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg had to decide whether to accept Post’s
strategy to restore the building back to its original state or to define the rehabilitation of 1935
as point of departure. In these cases the experts of the Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg
were objectively looking for the qualities of the building and not to the new existence planned
by both architect and owner, to rehabilitate its significance and condition of both building and
environment. As Post said: “They are not interested in what we want with it, they are
interested in what they think is important in the building”.
The decision was made to restore it back to the situation of 1910, with the cross
vaulting, because it had enough well preserved original parts hidden behind the elements of
the later renovations. Even the end parts of the cross vaulting were found still in tact, with
their original decorations.
Moreover, he has mentioned a very interesting aspect of rehabilitation interventions in
listed buildings; which shall also be mentioned further on by Mestre & Aleixo and that has
attained the attention of the researcher on the first years of this doctoral research, while
surveying the relevant literature. Post stated that the opinions of the experts about the way
interventions are undertaken differ in time. He even joked about it, saying: “Sometimes you
can better wait for some years (in order to have your vision accepted)”.

67
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The rehabilitation of KRZV ‘De Maas’ was focussed on restoring the aesthetical
values of the original building (1910) and with that, revealing its age values. The oldest
elements of the building, those from 1910, have been covered in 1935 due to modernistic
principles. Now, with a more eclectic perception over style, Post had the honour to uncover
them through his design developments. The lifespan of the building would be comprehensible
and accordingly, “everyone could perceive the real age of the building”.
Moreover, even if the function remained unchanged, the social values were improved
with this intervention. Therefore, taking in consideration that such achievement was one of
the main aims of both architect and board of KRZV ‘De Maas’, not only the architect was
pleased with the end result; but also, its owner has decreed it as a successful rehabilitation
intervention.
During the interview, Post has also mentioned another rehabilitation design; which
clearly denounces his lifespan consciousness and ecological awareness. “They had
renovated it ten years before, and they changed the window frames from wood to plastic, but
I changed it back [to wood]. Because it was a problem for the environment to throw away
such plastics, we relocated the plastics on the backside of the houses, so one could no longer
see it. (…) We changed the building so, that it looked like it was”.
Casa Pereira da Silva gained a new live with the rehabilitation intervention of Mestre
& Aleixo. The condition of the pre-existence was considerably low. Water was entering in the
building through varied places, e.g. roof, window frames, etc; and especially the first floor was
found without a proper bathroom and the kitchen was not equipped according to the demands
of the XXI century. The rehabilitation intervention undertaken in 1995 had excluded the
exterior from the construction works, e.g. exterior walls, roof, etc.
By intervening thoroughly in 2001, Casa Pereira da Silva turned into two apartments
of full value. The one located at the ground floor is being used by the parents of Sofia Aleixo,
while the upper apartment is used as the weekend house, for the architects. After this
rehabilitation, the building will last technically and functionally at least one generation again.
Therefore, it can be stated that thanks to the periodical rehabilitation interventions,
Casa Pereira da Silva has remained in the family of Aleixo for already four generations; first
attaining the needs of her grandparents, then of her parents and most currently of herself and
her children. This is a true evidence that unlisted buildings can last longer than their
estimated lifespans, as long as the involved actors perceive their significance and are willing
to challenge those same lifespans.
Evidences of their lifespan consciousness are present on every decision taken during
this design process; even if as with Post, they do not realise how particular their methods are.
Their choices to maintain what of high condition and significance and restrict the subtractions
to what of low condition and significance is not so common to find. Particularly, their
openness to accept that sometimes choices, considered most adequate, can be found
unsuitable later and that there is always something new to learn from the involved actors.
Not only Post, but also Mestre & Aleixo considered the importance to perceive the
real age of the building and respective evolution. For this reason, the same dilemma which
emerged at KRZV ‘De Maas’, has also emerged in Casa-Estúdio Carlos Relvas. Curiously,
both architects have chosen to restore the building till its original status.
Mestre & Aleixo considered both Estúdio Carlos Relvas and Casa-Estúdio Carlos
Relvas of equal significance. If one would recall the innovative photographic studio built in the
end of the last century; the other would recall how exactly Carlos Relvas would live and work
in the same environment. Accordingly, they are also part of the history of the building.
Therefore, they did not want to waste them, even if they would have to be subtracted.

68
 Testing the design theory / The preceding design processes

The lifespan consciousness of Mestre and Aleixo is clearly illustrated by the way they
treated the subtractions. The solution was to store all which would not be relocated, in a
municipal archive elsewhere in the village. Consequently, future interventors could not only
follow the complete evolution process of the building, fully documented by the pre-design and
design studies undertaken by Mestre and Aleixo. They could also find the subtracted
substances, well preserved evidences of the past, in the Municipal Archive.
This solution would even enable future generations to restore the building, till the
situation before Mestre & Aleixo rehabilitated it; in case time would change the public opinion
and their intervention would be considered harmful, if society would give, more significance to
the substances the architects subtracted, rather then to the ones that were remained.
By giving the building a more public function, the high level of aesthetical values could
be shared with more people, then the family of Carlos Relvas or the neighbours. The
rehabilitation made the building become more valuable for the present society. The spaces
needed for this new function, which would not be compatible with the main building, were
located in a separate building, the Garden Pavilion.
The Garden Pavilion was located about 10 meters away from the main building.
Consequently, in future, changes could be made to one of the buildings, without influencing
and/or compromising the other. The main building, however, is still not well prepared to host
large groups of people. Such hosting performance would bring too much intervention.
So, Mestre & Aleixo have created a functional structure, where the Garden Pavilion
would host all public intensive functions, while the main building would only be visited when
necessary and carefully monitored. This was the best solution found to conserve the pre-
existence as much as possible.
The ecologic concern is not explicitly a trade mark of Mestre & Aleixo, but as they are
intrinsically concerned with the building as an object, that should not be wasted, their designs
implicitly have a high ecological value. According to Mestre, the presence of containers on a
site “to throw away the building, is for us a symptom that something is going wrong, because
the (building) parts cannot have such a disparaging value that whole buildings can be
dismounted and sent away in containers to another place”.
In both rehabilitation designs, Mestre & Aleixo are used to work with a team of
engineers and consultants. Their opinion is, that their “execution designs are not merely
architectural designs, but designs of all specialties in architecture”. Eng. João Appleton is one
of the engineers, with whom they like to work; always designing the construction integrated in
the architecture, and vice versa. In one project the design was so well integrated that they
said to themselves that they “just invented the architectural construction”.
They also mentioned the importance of proceeding with the design process during the
construction works. Accordingly, the final adjustments can better be done together with the
contractors and craftsmen. Mestre even stated: “The work starts. But the design continues.
When the work finishes, the design is finished!” Unfortunately, this behaviour is
misunderstood by engineers and constructors, in Portugal, used to rigid hierarchy.
When Mestre & Aleixo approach the craftsmen, often the engineers and contractors
leading the construction works feel out of control. There have been complicated situations,
where the workers were even forbidden to speak with the architects.
Mestre & Aleixo also complained that the time pressure under which the craftsmen
have to finish their jobs is very high, resulting in inferior quality of the building. Mestre
designed the intervention undertaken in Palácio Marquês de Fronteira. It took six years, and
the workers were all volunteers with ages ranging from 60 to 75. But they went there every
day fully enthusiastic and in the end they had a wonderful work done.

69
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Post has also mentioned the progression of the design process during the
construction works, in Villa Honingen. Nonetheless, in this case, such progression did not
only provoke changes (and consequently delay and extra costs) for the contractor as the local
authorities were not satisfied with these unexpected changes and stopped the construction
works, until Post managed to convince them with the revised designs.

The interest in the theorised design process

Architects acknowledged the theorized design process, verified its usefulness, and
provided direct comments that helped the researcher proceed with its revision.

When acquainted with the design process theorised by the researcher and her aim to
develop a design process support system, Post stated that he believed that such “tool” would
really support architects, particularly more the less lifespan conscious ones, enabling them of
means to “recognize what is important”. Such “tool” would help them developing rehabilitation
designs “in a sure way”; so that they would control the advantages and disadvantages of their
own methods and consequential results.
Post considered such theorised design process of great sustenance for both listed
and unlisted buildings. Although in cases of listed buildings, he emphasised, architects should
be aware of the influence of the experts of the Rijksdienst voor Monumentenzorg on the
design decisions. Also, as they are involved obligatorily, automatically the architect is required
to be more sensible, otherwise the rehabilitation design shall never be approved.
Also, after presented by the researcher, Mestre & Aleixo were convinced that the
theorised design process would contribute to the quality of the rehabilitation design
developments. Their opinion is that one can never have enough information about a building,
when is developing its rehabilitation. In 25 years of practical experience, they have created a
collection of approximately seventy thousand images, black and white and coloured.
This conscious way of working can also be traced in their designs. It is quite different
from many other actors in the building process, which causes them a terrible construction
phase. They are “accused” for having too many drawings, in which they have drawn
everything until the last detail.
When they first saw the questionnaire to sustain the interview and respective
theorised design process, Mestre & Aleixo were a bit frightened by its apparent rigidity.
Nonetheless, after the interview, noticing that there was enough space and flexibility to put
attention to the ‘romances’ of the design developments, they considered it very valuable.
At the moment of the interview they considered that there was still some complexity in
the way of presenting the theorised design process, probably due to the fact that was still
being developed and revised, but were confident the researcher would solve such complexity
and develop a design process and respective implementation, RE-ARCHITECTURE®, that
would sustain architects very well.

70
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

6.2.2 THE LIFESPAN REHABILITATION DESIGN

PROCESS
For the purpose of testing and revising the design theory involving the theorised
design process for a lifespan conscious rehabilitation, the researcher decided to supervise
two groups of students, one from the Netherlands and one from Portugal, while developing a
rehabilitation design development.
The Experimental Group, from the Netherlands, was formed by ten BSc. students
attending the Architectural and Technology profile (AT) at Eindhoven University of
Technology (TU/e). This was a T6 project (second year), during September – November
2005. As the researcher integrated a group of tutors, lecturing the same project, it was
possible to ask the cooperation of the other tutors and create a Control Group.
The Experimental Group, from Portugal, consisted of eighteen MSc. students
attending the “Urban Rehabilitation” course (fifth year), at Instituto Superior Teixeira Gomes
(ISMAT), during January – March 2006. Such international experience was only possible due
to a Socrates / Erasmus Protocol (European Commission Program), signed especially to join
these two Institutions for this particular experience and exchange of knowledge.
Dr. Eng. Ad Vermeltfoort (TU/e) and Arch. Isabel Valverde (ISMAT) accepted the
challenge to cooperate with this research and test with their students the design process (still
a model) theorized in this research. As earlier referenced (vide Acknowledgements), trainee
Bruno Godinho has also assisted the researcher and the Arch. Isabel Valverde tutoring the
second experimental group.

Figure 70 – The water tower, in Helmond (TU/e, 2005)

Figure 71 – The water tower, in Vila Real de Santo António (Pereira Roders, 2006)

As the Coordinator of the AT – T6 project had already chosen the Water Tower in
Helmond (vide Figure 70), as case study for the rehabilitation design, the researcher and
Arch. Isabel Valverde organized a pre-research, undertaken by the students from Portugal, to
identify all existent Water Towers, in the region of Algarve, Portugal. The outcome of this pre-
research and some lectures, was that the water tower in Vila Real de Santo António (vide
Figure 71) would became their case study.

71
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Even if the two experimental groups differed on the level of graduation and respective
acquired knowledge, the researcher did not expect that such difference would influence the
final results. Depending on the academic year, the tutors and the courses followed by each
student; there are, unfortunately, high probabilities that such student arrived to the MSc. level
without ever having been lectured and/or developed rehabilitation interventions.
Architecture programs are still mainly focused on building new, rather than providing
knowledge on all different scales of intervention on the built environment. So, their level of
graduation and respective acquired knowledge would not necessarily mean that their
previous experiences would allow them to perform differently. Nonetheless, even if both had
the same assignment, the results expected were not equally assessed. At this point, their
differences were taken into consideration.

6.2.2.1 METHOD
THE MEANS TO VERIFY THE HYPOTHESES THROUGH PRACTICES

To better control the evolution of the students, the researcher developed two
questionnaires to be filled in by the involved students: Questionnaire A2 (Pre-Survey) before
being acquainted with the design process (stimulus) and Questionnaire A3 (Post-Survey)
after the stimulus. The differences between the answers would determine how useful the
theorised design process could be for designers involved in rehabilitation design
developments.
The control group filled in both questionnaires, just as the experimental group, before
and after performing the same rehabilitation design development. However, they did not get
acquainted with the theorized design process (no stimulus). Figure 72 illustrates the test
method and how it enables varied comparison and correlation levels between the results
extracted from both questionnaires.

Figure 72 – The test method (2005/2006)

As these experiences were being undertaken during the period, when the researcher
was constantly developing and revising the theorised design process; the model provided to
the experimental group from the Netherlands (vide Figure 73) was not the same presented to
the experimental group from Portugal (vide Figure 74). The main differences are the
introduction of the Oral Inventories and the Environment Surveys and Assessments.

72
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

Figure 73 - The lifespan rehabilitation: design process (fifth version)

Figure 74 – The lifespan rehabilitation design process (last version)

Even if both groups followed a similar schedule of ten weeks, the orientation of the
experimental group from Portugal was quite different from the one of the experimental group
from the Netherlands; again trying to learn from the previous experience. While the
experimental group from the Netherlands was tutored week by week, following a small reader
explaining the theorised process; the experimental group from Portugal was initially lectured
theoretically, stage by stage; before initiating the design process.
There were two main reasons for such difference on the orientation methods. One
was the fact that the students from the experimental group from the Netherlands not always
understood what one stage would require from the reader, but would also not always ask the
researcher what to do. Second was the fact that the researcher would only visit the
experimental group from Portugal, at the beginning of the semester.
So, this was the method found where the researcher would optimise her limited time
in Portugal and immediately capture the students’ doubts on specific stages to explain them
personally what to do. Even if later, the researcher would be available online during the whole
semester, there is nothing better than a clear beginning. Moreover, many principles which the
researcher did not have time to register and that shall emerge with the publication RE-
ARCHITECTURE scapus could be easily transmitted orally.
Initiated with the experimental group from the Netherlands, but consolidated with the
experimental group from Portugal, the researcher used a team work method, with which the
Pre-design report would be the produced with the contribution of all students. Such method
would enable the transmission of information through all stages and activities, through all

73
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

involved students. Therefore, in every activity from a particular sub-stage (e.g. significance
assessment) there would be always students from the three previous ones (documentary,
oral and physical inventory).
Table 1 illustrates the team work method used with the experimental group from
Portugal. There were eighteen students, a perfect number for applying such method. The
group representatives highlighted in light grey (students 1, 2, 7, 8, 13 and 14) would insure
the integrity of the group through the various mutations.
Instead, the remaining students highlighted in dark grey (students 3, 4, 9, 10, 15 and
16) and the students in white (students 5, 6, 11, 12, 17 and 18) would act as informers. Their
responsibility was to take the information retrieved from the previous group to the next one.

ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS EVALUATION

3DI 3ES 3EA
student 01 student 01 student 01
student 02 student 02 student 02
student 03 student 09 student 11
student 04 student 10 student 12
student 05 student 15 student 17
student 06 student 16 student 18
30I 3SS 3SA
student 07 student 07 student 07
student 08 student 08 student 08
student 09 student 03 student 05
student 10 student 04 student 06
student 11 student 17 student 15
student 12 student 18 student 16
3PI 3CS 3CA
student 13 student 13 student 13
student 14 student 14 student 14
student 15 student 05 student 03
student 16 student 06 student 04
student 17 student 11 student 09
student 18 student 12 student 10

Table 1 – Team work method for the Pre-design stage

Also the education methods changed in the two stages of the design process. At the
pre-design stage tutors would clarify the uncertainties of the students and comment their
developments of the previous week activities, instructing them on what to do during the
following week and respective related theory and guidelines. At the design stage, lessons had
no longer the main purpose to instruct the students theoretically, but to provide critics and
guide their design developments.

74
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

6.2.2.2 MOTIVATION AND ASSUMPTIONS

THE REASONING BEHIND THE HYPOTHESES

The theorised design process had clear motivations, resulting from the aim to
contribute to the preservation of both natural and built heritage through lifespan conscious
rehabilitation design developments of obsolete built heritage. However, so far, lifespan
consciousness did become neither regular, nor evident at current rehabilitation design
developments.
This experience and respective retrieved information shall allow the researcher to
evaluate the effective need for sustaining designers of lifespan consciousness and to
determine the effective contribution of the theorised design process, respective guidelines
and tools. Faults and virtues shall be identified and shall certainly sustain the researcher on
the optimisation of the current developments that shall be retested and verified again, at the
next test period.
The control group and the two experimental groups, from the Netherlands and
Portugal, represented two different European cultures and respective reactions.
Tendentiously, the researcher assumed that the students from the Netherlands would be
more open to lifespan consciousness than the students from Portugal. They had the
advantage to be raised and educated in an environment where lifespan consciousness and
ecological awareness has been proved successful by several prototypes and case studies.
However, at least these two experimental groups have proved it differently.
The Pre-Survey (Questionnaire A2) shall provide the researcher with information
enough to survey the initial level of lifespan consciousness presented by the students. For the
students at the experimental groups, this shall reveal the status before getting acquainted
with the theorised design process (stimulus). For the students at the control group, this shall
reveal the status before the beginning of the ‘common’ rehabilitation design developments.
The Survey (Observation) shall bring extra information to sustain the researcher
reaching conclusions that cannot be reached exclusively with the information provided by the
answers to the questions at both Pre-Survey and Post-Survey. The researcher has registered
such information during the design developments and the weekly meetings with the students
at both experimental groups.
While the students from the Netherlands were observed directly, the students from
Portugal were observed at distance, making use of the modern communication technologies
(e.g. Skype). The researcher has only visited them at the beginning and end of the trimester.
Nonetheless, they were attentively followed and oriented by Arch. Valverde and the trainee
Godinho, who were enough acquainted with the theorised method and aims of this doctoral
research.
Moreover, the researcher organised a mini-conference for the mid-term presentation
of the students from Portugal, which most students from the experimental group from the
Netherlands also attended. This exchange allowed the students to receive comments and to
advance with their rehabilitation design developments.
The Post-Survey (Questionnaire A3) shall provide the researcher with information
enough to survey the final level of lifespan consciousness presented by the students. For the
students from the experimental groups, this shall reveal the status after getting acquainted
with the theorised design process (stimulus). For the students from the control group, this
shall reveal the status moment after the conclusion of the ‘common’ rehabilitation design
developments.

75
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The motivations and assumptions involving the method to collect data from a Pre-
Survey (Questionnaire A2), Survey (Observation) and Post-Survey (Questionnaire A3) were
subdivided into the following eight main themes. To enable a global understanding, just as in
the previous Chapter, these same themes shall reappear at the results (vide Chapter 6.2.2.3).
On some details, the Questionnaires A2 and A3 differed slightly. The consequence is
that the same question can have a different question number in Questionnaire A2 and A3.
The correlation however, is made based on the questions and not on the question numbers.

The experience in developing rehabilitation designs

Students with experience in developing rehabilitation designs shall answer more

lifespan consciously, than the inexperienced ones.

The researcher planned to identify the experience in developing rehabilitation

designs, and to verify if such experience would influence the quality of the answers provided
by the sampled students. Hence, question A2.01 allowed the researcher to survey all data
and information retrieved through the variable experience, which had only two possible
values: yes or no.
Such variable could become relevant or not, dependant on the similarities and
differences identified in the answers of students from the same group and/or different groups.
In addition, it would also provide an indication to the researcher on how frequent students
from these groups developed rehabilitation designs at their own faculties.

The perspective on developing rehabilitation designs

Students with different perspectives than the pure architecture-oriented ones shall
react differently to the theorized design process.

Similar to question A2.01, question A3.01 enabled the researcher to survey all data
and information retrieved through a variable. However, this time the variable was perspective
and had a total number of eight values: architect, building process manager, urban
planner, researcher / professor, building technology engineer, building physics
engineer, structural engineer, and other.
This variable could become particularly important for the students, at both
experimental and control group from the Netherlands; as at the BSc. level students aiming for
different graduations attend the same design studios. Instead, this would not be relevant for
the students from Portugal, as they were MSc. architecture students in their last year of
graduation. Such information could justify perspective-related deviations of the answers.

The interest in developing rehabilitation designs

Students shall show interest in developing rehabilitation designs; however, they shall
mostly prioritize the novelties and required additions.

Question A2.02 meant to discover if students found their previous design interesting,
and most important of all, aimed to identify the student’s considerations about their
rehabilitation perception and motives to consider it interesting. For purposes of synthesis their

76
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

considerations were filtered according to the relationship between the pre-existence and the
new existence (subtractions, remainings and additions).
When, re-questioning it again in question A3.02, the researcher would be provided
with feedback on the design studio and retrieve enough data and information to accurately
compare the arguments and identify respective similarities and differences. Already at the
arguments used to sustain the answer to this question, potential raises of lifespan
consciousness can be traceable, whenever present.

The design processes followed in rehabilitation designs

Students shall have followed similar design processes and dealt with similar problems,
already before following the theorised design process.

To reach better conclusions regarding the design processes followed in rehabilitation

designs, by the sampled students; three questions were placed in Questionnaire A2 and
repeated in Questionnaire A3. Question A2.03 / A3.03 would identify if the design process
followed by the students was tutored by the tutor, decided by the student or a mixture of both;
its stages, approximate time (hours) and usefulness (yes/no).
Question A2.04 / A3.05 would identify if there were particular aspects, which were
less successful in their design process. This could mark potential problematic stages that
require more/less time, theoretical support, etc. Last, Question A2.05 / A3.06 shall allow the
researcher to identify particular stages with more need to theoretical support; common
sources of knowledge and the potential for a theoretical support through the internet.

The universe of subtractions, remainings and additions

The correlation between subtractions, remainings and additions shall not be

considered by the students; but shall grow while following the design process.

To better control the perception of the students regarding the universe of the
subtractions, remainings and additions; the researcher introduced seven main questions in
Questionnaire A3. Question A3.10 aimed to supply the researcher with the importance given
by the students to these three realities; as well as the importance given to the connections
between remainings and additions, in the new existence.
Instead, questions A3.11 till A3.14 aimed to inventory more information about their
design decisions related to these four realities, as well as few illustrative examples from their
own rehabilitation designs. Last, questions A3.15 and A3.16 would supply the researcher with
the approximate percentual relation between subtractions and remainings and between
additions and remainings.

The importance of rehabilitation interventions

The importance of rehabilitation interventions shall achieve much more sustenance on

ecological arguments by the students, rather than other cultural-oriented arguments.

At this level, students were not only asked about the importance to rehabilitate
existing buildings, but also about the arguments that support such judgement. Question
A2.06 / A3.07 allowed the researcher to filter the answers of all students, and depict the most

77
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

inherent cultural values, inclusive from the answers of the inexperienced students, derived
from the previous questions.
In Questionnaire 3, an extra sub-question was added to question A3.07, with the
purpose to make the students express clearly their judgement on which existing buildings
should be rehabilitated and which should be demolished. Even if this sub-question was not
explicit in Questionnaire 2, students have argued accordingly and the researcher was willing
to identify a possible correlation with the previous sub-question.

The appointed successes in rehabilitation designs

Students shall easily identify successful rehabilitation designs; however, their

definitions and appointed successes shall seldom match.

Question A2.07 / A3.08 aimed to identify if the students would be able to reference
rehabilitation designs and respective architects, which they would consider as successful.
Further, they would be asked to define a successful rehabilitation design; which would
provide the researcher the required arguments necessary to understand their choices of
reference, as well as compare them to the rehabilitation theorised as lifespan conscious.
To support advanced conclusions, Question A3.09 focused on their self-evaluation,
appointing successes in the rehabilitation design described in Questionnaire A3. Intentionally,
this question was placed just after Question A3.08 so that not only the researcher, but also
the student could eventually formulate logic correlations. After all, the appointed successes in
other designs should be comparable to their ones appointed in their own designs.

The interest in the theorised design process

Due to its apparent rationality, students shall first confront the theorized design
process and progressively verify its usefulness.

Exclusive from Questionnaire A3, question A3.04 asked the students about getting
theoretical support, concerning the different stages and/ or activities of the design process
(methodology). While for the control group, the question was if it would have helped; for the
experimental groups the question was if it did help; becoming more conscious of the building
lifespan and its environment, raising the quality of your rehabilitation design.
The aim of such question was to identify how students would react or how they did
react to the support through a theorised design process, with pre-established stages and/or
activities. Particularly, the answers of the students from the experimental groups would reveal
the advantages and disadvantages of such approach, its contribution to the raise of lifespan
consciousness and respective raise of quality in the rehabilitation designs proposed.

78
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

6.2.2.3 RESULTS
THE HYPOTHESES VERSUS PRACTICES

This Chapter summarises the results of the experimental and control groups, through
the answers of the students on Questionnaire A2 and A3, as well as through the
Observations registered by the researcher on both experimental groups. Questionnaire A2
had a total number of seven main questions and eight sub-questions (vide Appendix 4); while
Questionnaire A3, sixteen main questions and twenty-one sub-questions (vide Appendix 5).
Consequently, some of the themes which shall be surveyed in this chapter and that
were already presented at the previous chapter do not find sustenance on all three sources of
information, but only two of them, e.g. pre-survey and observation or observation and post-
survey. This fact shall be dependent on the questions that sustain such theme.
First time for many students, this AT - T6 project was also for some the second trial
(named as inhaalproject). Arch. Walraven and Arch. Hauben tutored group 1 and Arch.
Hauben and Eng. Lamers tutored group 2. The researcher and Dr. Eng. Vermeltfoort tutored
group 3. Thirty-four students applied for this project. Group 1 and 2 had both twelve students
(35%) and group 3 had ten students (30%). From Portugal, group 4 had initially nineteen
students and was tutored by the researcher together with Arch. Valverde.
100%
90%
80% 5
6
70%
9 9 38
60%
9 47
50% 10 19 18

40%
30% 7
6
20%
3 3 15
10%
1 1 6
0% 0 0
Pre-Survey Post-Survey Pre-Survey Post-Survey Pre-Survey Post-Survey Pre-Survey Post-Survey Pre-Survey Post-Survey

group 1 group 2 group 3 group 4 yes

no
The Netherlands Portugal Total

Figure 75 – The overview of the students that participated at the surveys

In order to reach a comparable sample between the experimental and control groups,
the researcher verified how many students from each group filled in both Pre and Post
Survey. As the characteristics of group 1 and 2 (both control groups from the Netherlands)
were equal, the researcher decided to join them.
The smallest number of students that filled in both surveys was found in group 3, the
experimental group from the Netherlands, where nine students filled in both surveys. So, the
limiting sample was set to nine. The sample number in the control group from the Netherlands
(group 1+2) and in the experimental group (group 4) from Portugal, was reached by excluding
several students from the Survey, first due to inexperience in rehabilitation designs (question
A2.01) and the reduced contribution to the Survey with their answers.

79
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The experience in developing rehabilitation designs

Students with experience in developing rehabilitation designs did not answer more
lifespan consciously, than the inexperienced ones.

When asked about their experience in developing rehabilitation designs, predictably,

not all students answered positively. From the experimental group, such inexperience was
stated by more students from The Netherlands than from Portugal. From the control group,
even less students confirmed the same inexperience in developing rehabilitation designs
(vide Figure 76). In Questionnaire A2 all inexperienced students were asked to go directly to
question A2.6. Therefore, for the following themes, the answers given by those with previous
experience in rehabilitation design developments shall only be surveyed.

100%
90%
3
80% 4 12
70% 5

60%
50%
40%
6
30% 5 15
20% 4

10%
0%
control group experimental group experimental group yes
no
The Netherlands Portugal Total

Figure 76 – The experience in developing rehabilitation designs

These results sustain the alert for architectural education this doctoral research is
willing to transmit. This may not be as serious for the students from the Netherlands as they
were still at the BSc. level; but it becomes serious when the students from Portugal are
inexperienced in developing rehabilitation designs on the last year of their graduation. Soon,
they would become architects, probably developing rehabilitation interventions, without any
proper education.
Therefore, independent from their answers being true or not, the students choose to
answer ‘no’ on statement if they had experience in rehabilitation developments. There is a
possibility that they did not understand the question or did not want to answer correctly (in
order to skip some questions to answer), but for the researcher this denounces the priorities
of the educational programs, mostly oriented towards building new than towards the built
environment.

80
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

That was not only perceptible at Questionnaire A2, but also during the trimester,
through the observations. Unaware of the techniques and guidelines involving rehabilitation
interventions nor most other interventions in the built environment, students would try to
implement the techniques and guidelines of building new, which they considered themselves
to be fully acquainted of, after being lectured on the last years of their graduation, as well as
constantly publicised through media as practices of success (e.g. magazines, television, etc).
Moreover, through Observation, the researcher realised that there was not much
relationship between lifespan consciousness and the designer’s experience in developing
rehabilitation interventions. Most students would present themselves very confident about
their own principles; independent from their previous experience, even if often such principles
would not have strong sustenance, nor be clearly understandable.
Inexperience would not necessarily mean lifespan unconsciousness, but instead, their
behaviour and guiding principles could lead them towards such unconsciousness. At this
point, there were clear differences of behaviour between the students from the Netherlands
and from Portugal. While the first challenged and denied the guidelines, the second were
more motivated and committed to the challenge of testing a pioneering design process and
respective guidelines. Probably that had to do with maturity. After all, the students from
Portugal were MSc. Students, as well as working-students. Nonetheless, students at the BSc.
level should be more open to new experiences and not consider their own methods already
sufficient and successful, right at their first years of graduation, without even trying to learn
from other methods, respective advantages and disadvantages.

The perspective on developing rehabilitation designs

Students with different perspectives than the pure architecture-oriented ones reacted
similarly to the theorized design process.

When asked about their professional expectations in Questionnaire A3, all students
from the experimental groups answered that becoming an architect was their first choice.
Instead, at the control group, there was one student who chose building technology engineer
and another student who did not answer the question (vide Figure 77). Other professional
expectations were also referenced, but not by all students. There were referenced three other
professional expectations by the control group and six by the experimental group from the
Netherlands; and five by the experimental group from Portugal (vide Figure 78).
Probably, students from Portugal did not select any Engineering-related option
because Architecture and Engineering are not as strongly connected in Portugal as they are
in the Netherlands, where several Faculties of Architecture are both programmatic and
physically attached to the Faculties of Building Physics, Civil Engineering, etc.
The parameter professional expectation was to denounce if in fact, students with
different perspectives would accept the theorized design process better than the pure
architecture-oriented ones. However, neither on their answers to the Post-Survey, nor
through their behaviours observed during the trimester; the researcher has identified
influences which would result from such parameter.
The researcher has hypothesised that such difference would emerge particularly at
the students from the Netherlands. But, in fact, that was not the case. Again, as described in
the previous theme, lifespan consciousness would not serve influences on this matter.
Probably, because lifespan consciousness is not restricted to architects, but to all actors of
the building process.

81
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The Netherlands Portugal Total

control group experimental group experimental group
13% 0% 0% 4%

87% 100% 100% 96%

Architect ; Building Technology Engineer

Figure 77 – The first choice at the professional expectations of the students, after graduation

The Netherlands Portugal Total

control group experimental group experimental group
17% 17% 21% 22%
40% 40%
33%

17%
14%
67% 21%
32%
17% 20% 22%

Building Physics Engineer; Building Technology Engineer; Urban Planner; Researcher/

Professor; Building process manager

Figure 78 – Other choices at the professional expectations of the students, after graduation

Moreover, the students from the sample have revealed a stronger tendency towards
architectural developments, and until a certain limit, have also shown inclination to
understand how their aims could be implemented technologically. But, in this case they are
not the only ones to blame. The time factor has also influenced the final results, tendentiously
wider on the architectural, than on the technological developments.
But, again there were few differences between the Netherlands and Portugal. Due to
their work experience, students from Portugal did not have much time available, but still they
were enough motivated. Particularly at the pre-design stage, some students even brought the
related-knowledge from their work, e.g. costs management, and shared it with the group.

The interest in developing rehabilitation designs

Students showed interest in developing rehabilitation designs and learned to consider

past and future even if still mostly prioritizing present and respective novelties.

Most students have stated their interest in developing rehabilitation designs in

Questionnaire A2 (vide Figure 79). Nonetheless, from the Netherlands there were two
students from the control group and one from the experimental group, who found it
uninteresting. Only one student, from the control group presented sustaining arguments.

82
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

The motive for such disinterest was the degree of complexity and unattractiveness of
the assignment, as well as, the incompatibility between what was functionally supplied by the
pre-existence and what was required for the new existence. The first argument sustains the
argument presented by the researcher regarding the lack of attention towards the different
scales of intervention on the built environment in the architectural education program.
Moreover, the second argument on functional compatibilities is quite relevant and
challenging. Unfortunately, functional compatibilities are too often neglected in the feasibility
stage, normally preceding the design process in rehabilitation interventions. Consequently,
such incompatibility results in very intrusive rehabilitations, when converting the modest pre-
existence into the pretentious new-existence.

100%

90%
1
80%

70%

60% 4 10

50% 5

40%
2
30%

20%

10% 1 3

0% 0
y es
control group ex perimental group ex perimental group
no
The Netherlands Portugal Total

Figure 79 – The interest of the students on developing rehabilitation designs

The arguments presented by the students stating their interest, revealed a very
important dichotomy every designer involved in rehabilitation interventions has to deal with:
pre-existence versus new existence. Some students referenced more than one motivation, so
the following synthesis joined more arguments than the total number of students.
When comparing their arguments, it is remarkable to verify that there were hardly any
mentioned which would be solely related to the pre-existence. The closest argument is the
one presented by two students from Netherlands, who mentioned the challenge to determine
what to subtract and what to remain from the pre-existence.
Instead, both experimental groups argued the interest in dealing with the new
existence related to the respective additions. In this category, the challenge to add new
functions / requirements and spaces was most referenced. This means that they were mostly
interested in the present, rather than the past or future. A second point of agreement was the
interest to connect remainings and additions.

83
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Lifespan consciousness in rehabilitation interventions is reached whenever designers

harmoniously consider the past, present and future of the building and respective
environment in their design developments (vide book I – basis). Therefore, and facing the
initial state of “lifespan unconsciousness”, the researcher was curious to verify if such
experience would raise their initial state to a higher state of “lifespan consciousness”.
While observing the students from the experimental groups, purposely dealing with
unlisted buildings which would be generally considered by society as obsolete and valueless,
the researcher has noticed a progressive raise of lifespan consciousness in their behaviours,
as well as in their design developments. Nonetheless, it was curious to verify that their
arguments would tendentiously refer to the present, e.g. what they could do with the building,
prioritizing all novelties and benefits, etc; mostly reflecting the new-existence.
Even stronger among the students from the Netherlands, than among the students
from Portugal, the pre-existence would not be as perceptible as the new existence in their
sustaining arguments, when presenting their design developments. Nonetheless, by the end
of the trimester there were already more references to both past and future than at the
beginning of the trimester. So, that achievement was a truly point of success.
Unlike the students from the Netherlands, the students from Portugal were particularly
more interested in testing the theorised design process and discover in how it would influence
their lifespan consciousness and respective arguments. Therefore, it is no surprise when the
students from Portugal present higher raises of lifespan consciousness that the ones from the
Netherlands; fighting till the end for the importance of present achievements and neglecting
the consequences for both past and future.
When the trimester ended and students were asked again about their interest in the
rehabilitation design developed, in Questionnaire A3, the most curious situation occurred.
Students argued their interest not only on the building and respective rehabilitation
intervention. They have also argued their interest in the experience itself, as well as on the
theorised design process. While the students from Portugal mostly argued either on the new
existence (56%) or on the design process itself (44%), all students from the Netherlands
argued on the design process, and – as more answers were possible – also a reasonable
number on the new existence (78%).
Regarding the arguments related to the building and respective rehabilitation,
students from the three groups argued the interest in the past and on dealing with respective
remainings from the pre-existence. Unsurprisingly, the students from the Netherlands have
directly prioritised the remainings together with the additions and respective present
achievements. This behaviour confirmed the previous observations.
Nonetheless, when comparing the control group with the experimental groups, it is
possible to identify more lifespan consciousness on managing the subtractions, a more
minimal design; and particularly exclusive from the students from Portugal, the interest in
designing with new / alternative energies and adequately add the new functions and services.
Regarding the arguments which are design process-oriented, the only two negative
were presented by students from the Netherlands. First argument was its rigidity and the
second was the extension of the Analysis. The researcher believes, that on the last argument
the student was mentioning the Pre-Design stage.
As positive arguments, both groups mentioned the level of knowledge raised during
the design process; the adequacy and importance of such design process; and the positive
influence of the clearness of the assignment, boundaries and schedule on the final results.
Moreover, one student from the Netherlands emphasised the importance of taking decisions,

84
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

based on the Pre-Design stage; while three students from Portugal argued its sustenance on
keeping track on all aspects / steps to be considered.
Back to their rehabilitation interventions, Questionnaire A3 has also asked the
students about the advantages of their design developments. When ordering their arguments
according to the primary aims (vide book II – scapus); it is interesting to verify that, few were
the arguments found reflecting aims to decrease (3%) and restore (5%); when compared to
the aims to maintain (29%) improve (35%) and replace (28%).
The most referenced advantage was the aims to replace areas, functions and/or
services, followed by the aims to maintain the building characteristics and/or features. The
aims to improve the building areas, functions and/or services; as well as, the social values of
its surrounding environment were particularly mentioned by both experimental groups.
The students from the experimental group from the Netherlands emphasised the
importance of the building identity, style and status through their aims to maintain and
improve it, in sight of both building and environment. From Portugal, instead, one student
denounced aims to decrease demolition and consequent loss of resources; while two others
mentioned the importance to restore the materials lifespans. They have also mentioned the
importance to restore and/or maintain the inherent cultural values of both building and
environment, among which the ecological values were mentioned too.
When asked for the most important factors, which have clearly influenced their
designs, students who presented architectural factors related them more to the pre-existence
(46%) than to the new existence (12%). Inversely, the ones presenting technological factors
related them more to the new existence (33%) than to the pre-existence (9%).
The “essence and/or original qualities” of the pre-existence was the only factor found
referenced by the three groups. In fact, unsurprisingly, the three groups have presented
several factors related to inherent aesthetical values of the pre-existence, e.g. its “verticality
and height”, “construction”, etc. Both groups from the Netherlands have mentioned building
physical aspects; e.g. natural ventilation, etc.
The experimental group from Portugal has pointed the building physics, particularly
regarding renewable energies, introduced in the new existence; together with the control
group. Moreover, they have also emphasised the new existence, through its “reversible
constructions”, “sustainable constructions”, and “recycled and/or reused materials” from the
pre-existence into the new existence.
Therefore, not only have architecture students from the Netherlands and Portugal
shown interest in developing rehabilitation designs; during the process they have started to
open their horizons beyond the present and respective novelties. Even if it still remains as
priority number one, students became more aware about the building’s past and future and
the raise of lifespan consciousness is also noticeable in their arguments.

The design processes followed in rehabilitation designs

Students followed similar design processes and dealt with similar problems, before
and while following the theorised design process.

In Questionnaire A2, most students answered that the guidance in their preceding
design processes was a compromise between the one instructed by the teacher and their
own (vide Figure 80). From the Netherlands, only two students from the experimental group
affirmed to have followed their own design process; and one student from the control group
admitted to have followed the design process (methodology) instructed by the teacher.

85
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

100% 0 0
1
90%
1
80%
70% 3
60% 9
50% 1 5
40%
0
30%
20% 1 2
2
10%
1
0% 0 0
control group experimental group experimental group

The Netherlands Portugal Total

teacher your own both no answer

Figure 80 – The design process followed in rehabilitation designs

From their preceding design processes, the students described more activities related
to the Design, than to the Pre-Design stage (vide Figure 81). Some particular sub-stages
were not even found mentioned. Those were the evaluation (3EV) and decision (3DE), in the
Pre-Design stage and the analysis (4AN), in the Design stage.
Within Pre-Design stage, the three groups identified activities of analysis (3AN) and
both experimental groups identified activities of synthesis (3SY). Within the Design stage, all
students mentioned activities of simulation (4SI), reaching a percentage incomparable to all
other sub-stages. Synthesis (4SY) and evaluation (4EV) were mentioned by both
experimental groups; and decision (4DE) was only mentioned by students from Portugal.
Together with the description of the activities, students were asked about the time and
usefulness of each activity. Nonetheless, as some answered in hours, others in weeks, it was
not possible to survey the relationship between the time dedicated to each sub-stage within
their preceding design process, to later compare it to the theorised design process.
Despite the lack of information regarding time, the activities were considered as
useful by all students, except by one from the control group. Accordingly, he considered the
Analysis sub-stage as useless, however, he also stated to have spent two hours for it. No
Analysis, with such short duration, can be considered useful for the design developments.
Most students (83%) answered yes, when asked in Questionnaire A2 if, looking
backwards, they would have followed a different design process. The one student from the
control group, who has previously affirmed to have followed the design process tutored by the
teacher, here states that he would have followed his own way, “a more architectural view for
the design instead of a physiological way”. Still from the control group, another argued “more
importance to the analysis and to better integrate the concept in the design”.
Both experimental groups argued better time management strategies. Students from
the Netherlands particularly argued the need for “an explicit evaluation moment after my
preliminary design”, and the interest in different design processes. Instead, students from
Portugal have argued improvements on their simulation activities, e.g. conceptual design,
“decisions at the material level”, etc.

86
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
1 1 1 2
90% 1
0
80% 2
1 1 1 0 3 1
70% 3 3 25
2
60% 3
1
50% 0 0 0 1 4 0 0
1 1 20
40% 3 0 0 0
0 2 9
30% 1
1 0 1 1
20% 2 2
0 2 2
10% 1 1 13
1 1
0% 0 0 0
101 210 302 304 305 306 309 402 408 411 416 418

control group experimental group experimental group

The Netherlands Portugal Total

3AN 3SY 3EV 3DE 4AN 4SY 4SI 4EV 4DE

Figure 81 – The activities within the preceding design processes

Most students stated to have needed extra-support in any stage of the design
process. Extra-support by the teacher was the most referenced at all three groups. Students
from the Netherlands referenced their colleagues as extra-support; while the students from
Portugal preferred to get extra-support from books and/or from the expertise, e.g. contractors,
architects, historians, etc. Curiously, no student from the Netherlands has mentioned books
as extra-support. Instead, internet was mentioned by both experimental groups.
Not all students defined a specific sub-stage or activities where they required extra-
support, but the few that actually described it, mostly referenced the simulation sub-stage.
Generally, during the trimester the researcher has observed clear time management
difficulties, related to the fact that often students would have to go forward to the next sub-
stage, without having completed the previous sub-stage. Due to its newness in design
processes and to not having been instructed previously, the difference between the sub-
stages of analysis and synthesis, as well as of evaluation, at both pre-design and design
stages, had to be constantly explained.
Particularly, the students from the Netherlands showed clear difficulties surveying all
inventoried data, which method was deliberately not explained. Inversely, when explained,
students from Portugal have shown clear progresses. The similar situation happened at the
evaluation sub-stages, where the students from Netherlands denoted more difficulties playing
a passive role, disregarding their own opinion and taste.
The answers to Questionnaire A3 showed that curiously, even after having followed a
theorised design process during the whole trimester, most students maintained their methods
of reaching a compromise between the theorised and their own design processes (vide
Figure 82). Also, resulting from Questionnaire A3, when comparing the activities described by
the students, the researcher could conclude that the Design stage has gained even more
importance with the theorised design process, than it had at the preceding design processes
(vide Figure 83).

87
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

100% 0
90%
80% 10
4
70%
6 6
60%
50%
40% 13
30% 1 5
20% 2

10% 2 2
1 2
0% 0 0
control group experimental group experimental group

The Netherlands Portugal Total

teacher your own both no answer

Figure 82 – The design process followed by the students

Nonetheless, such assumption can not be taken so literally, for the simple reason
that; both groups from the Netherlands have considerably increased their number of activities,
to an average of six activities each. Probably, this means that most additional activities were
undertaken in the Design stage, instead of in the Pre-Design stage (vide Figure 83).
At this point, the distinction between the control group and the experimental groups
becomes very clear. The control group identified only the activities of the analysis sub-stage
(3AN), while both experimental groups identified activities from all other theorised sub-stages;
respectively, synthesis (3SY), evaluation (3EV) and decision (3DE).
Regarding the design stage, again all students have identified a considerable number
of activities of simulation (4SI), almost half of the total number of activities (48%). This time,
activities of synthesis (4SY) and decision (4DE) were referenced by the three groups; while
activities of analysis (4AN) were only described by both experimental groups; and activities of
evaluation (4EV) by the experimental group from Portugal.
In Questionnaire A3, students have answered properly the periods of time spent in
each activity/stage, due to the introduction of the time scale with the values - 0-5; 5-10; 10-20;
20-40 and >40 hours. Even if these results cannot be compared with the preceding design
process, they shall be comparable to the following ones.
In the pre-design stage, most students have spent more time at the analysis sub-
stage than at any other sub-stages; the control group spending 10-20 hours and the
experimental groups 20-40 hours. A similar pattern can be found in the simulation sub-stage
of the design stage, with all groups spending >40 hours. As at the preceding design process,
most students have classified the activities they developed as useful.
When asked if they would have followed a deferent design process, most students
stated yes (58%). However, those were not only from the experimental groups, but from the
control group as well. Time management was again their common argument and most
activities affected fall again in the simulation sub-stage of the design stage.

88
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
101 104 105 107 109 203 206 207 211 301 302 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 402 406 408 410 411 412 416 418 419

3AN 3SY 3EV 3DE 4AN 4SY 4SI 4EV 4DE

Figure 83 – The activities within the theorised design processes

From the Netherlands, also the sub-stages of analysis and report are mentioned; but
curiously while some students complain to have had too little, others complain to have had
too much time. Instead, students from Portugal mentioned the need for more time at the sub-
stages of synthesis and evaluation. Those are, exactly the same stages for which they have
searched for extra support.
Most students stated to have needed extra-support; and again, the teacher was the
most referenced. Difference is that the library (e.g. books, technical catalogues, etc) and
colleagues were referenced by students at the three groups, together with the internet. The
students from Portugal have also mentioned experts.
Therefore, beyond the common concern for the sub-stages analysis and simulation;
students from both experimental groups became more aware of other sub-stages, within the
theorised design process. Moreover, students from Portugal have even tried to discover more
about such “new” sub-stages, of no less importance than the most referenced ones.

The universe of subtractions, remainings and additions

The correlation between subtractions, remainings and additions was not considered by
the students; but has grown while following the design process.

When asked to value the importance students have attributed in their design
decisions to the building subtractions, remainings, additions and connections between
remainings and additions (vide Figure 84); most students have chosen positive values
(reasonable, high and very high), rather than negative values (low, very low).
In fact, the subtractions was the only that got few negative evaluations (37%). All
other got hardly any negative evaluations (7%). All groups considered the remainings of high
importance. From the Netherlands, students considered additions of very high importance,
and the connections of reasonable / high importance.

89
 Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The Netherlands Portugal Total

control group experimental group experimental group
11% 0% 0% 11% 11% 7% 4%
22%
subtractions

19%
33%
22% 22%

33% 56%

78%
0% 34% 37%

0% 11% 0% 11% 11% 0% 11% 0% 7%

22% 22%
15%
33% 11%
remainings

22%

56%
45% 67% 56%

0% 11% 0% 11% 11% 4% 4%

22%
0%
additions

36% 26%
45% 22%

33% 56%

22%
56%
11% 30%
11% 0% 11% 0% 4% 4%
22% 0% 22% 22%
30%
connections

45% 30%

34% 34%

33% 33% 33%

32%
very low; low; reasonable; high; very high
Figure 84 – The importance given to the subtractions, remainings, additions and connections

Only the subtractions were considered of low importance by the control group and of
reasonable importance at the experimental group. Instead, From Portugal, students
considered subtractions of reasonable importance, the additions of high importance and
the connections of very high importance.
When asked in Questionnaire A3, most students (89%) at the control group affirmed
to not have planned what to do with the building subtractions. In fact, even the ones who
answered positively did not provide examples from their own design developments. Inversely,
at the experimental groups, most students from the Netherlands and all students from
Portugal affirmed to have planned what to do with the subtractions.
Students were also asked about their main aim towards the subtracted substances
(vide Figure 85). Most students selected first to recycle + reuse at (building and site);
followed likewise by to reuse (building) and by re-use (site), and last by to simply recycle.
At the experimental groups, students from the Netherlands have most selected to
reuse (building), while the students from Portugal have most selected to recycle + reuse
(building and site). Similarly, both groups followed with the main aims to reuse (site) and to

90
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

recycle + reuse (building and site). The least selected from the Netherlands was to recycle
and from Portugal was to reuse (building). Portugal did not reference to recycle.
The examples provided at both experimental groups, mostly referred to the reuse of
components, e.g. parts of roof, walls, etc; as well as recycle + reuse, e.g. concrete, bricks,
glass, etc. There were also few particular cases of reuse of forms. From the Netherlands, one
student reused the roof on the bicycle shads. From Portugal, one student reused the roof of
the reservoir as the basin of a lake, at the garden surrounding the building.
Most students (81%) affirmed to have planned what to do with the remainings,
however, more at both experimental groups than at the control group. More students selected
to consolidate than to repair the remaining substances at building. However, the least
chosen options were; to reinforce and the main aim to arrest decay (vide Figure 86 ).
From the Netherlands, students at the control group had as their main aim to
consolidate followed by to repair. Instead, at the experimental group the main aims were
similar to the most students. These last also referenced few examples; e.g. “repairing window
frames” and “reinforcing the thermal insulation”.
From Portugal, more students had as their main aim to repair and less to arrest
decay, consolidate and reinforce. The examples from their designs referred to repair the
finishings / coating layer of the façades (e.g. stone, paint, etc), the metallic elements (e.g.
grids, stairs, windows) and the existing structure; to consolidate the “finishings and the
existing structure”; and to reinforce the “grids” and “thermal insulation”.
Unsurprisingly, all students answered to have planned what to do with the additions.
As illustrated in Figure 87, the most chosen main aim was to locate the additions outside
(apart) from the pre-existence (remainings); the second was to locate the additions inside
(connected) to the building; the third was to locate the additions inside (demountable); and
the least referenced was to locate the additions inside (loose).
Students at the control group have chosen the additions being mostly located outside
(apart). The remaining students have chosen inside; either connected, demountable or
loose. Their examples regarded the additions mostly located outside, e.g. a second tower
“with contrasting materials”. Regarding additions inside the building; students referenced e.g.
“loose floors with independent structure”, “demountable structural elements” and “fixed stairs”.
Still from the Netherlands, but at the experimental group students have only selected
two main aims; to locate the additions inside (connected) and outside (apart). Examples
were similar to the ones at the control group. Nonetheless, they have particularly detailed the
additions inside (connected) e.g. windows, extensions of floors, new floors, partition walls,
thermal insulation materials.
Similar to the control group and to most students, the students from Portugal have
mostly chosen to locate the additions outside (apart). Then, they also chose to place them
inside, demountable and connected. For the option to locate the additions outside (apart),
one example was the exterior floors. Instead, for the option to place additions inside the
building, students referenced the new apartments at the level of the reservoir, the new
staircases, metal additions (e.g. mezzanines, stairs, walls, etc) and floors.
Most students (89%) affirmed to have particularly planned the connections; and they
have first chosen for connections where the additions are punctually fixed to the remainings;
together with the connections where the additions are demountable, easily detachable from
the remainings. Third most chosen were the connections where the additions are totally
fixed to the remainings. The least chosen were the loose connections (vide Figure 88).

91
 Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The Netherlands Portugal Total

control group experimental group experimental group
0% 11% 11% 0%
22% 19%
subtractions

11% 34% 33%

45%

19%
22%
33% 7%
89% 22% 22%
reuse (building); reuse (site) ; recycle + reuse; recycle; no aim
Figure 85 – The main aims towards the subtractions

The Netherlands Portugal Total

control group experimental group experimental group
0% 11% 11% 0% 11%
22% 22%
26%
remainings

34%

44% 22% 22%

11%
45% 22%
11% 34%
0% 22% 30%
arrest decay; repair ; consolidate; reinforce; no aim
Figure 86 – The main aims towards the remainings

The Netherlands Portugal Total

control group experimental group experimental group
0% 0% 11% 10%

33% 34% 11%

additions

44% 43%
30%
56% 11%

67%
0%
11%
22% 0% 10% 7%

outside (apart); inside (loose); inside (demountable); inside (connected); no aim

Figure 87 – The main aims towards the location of the additions

The Netherlands Portugal Total

control group experimental group experimental group
11% 0% 11% 0% 11% 11%
22% 22%
connections

34%
19%
0%
29%
33% 56%

22% 45% 22%

22% 30%

loose; demountable; punctually fix; totally fix; no aim

Figure 88 – The main aims towards the connections

92
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

Inversely to the total sample, students at the control group have first chosen for loose
connections, followed by the demountable and punctually fixed connections, between the
additions and the remainings. In their examples, students described new boxes and the public
stairs loose from the façade; new demountable floors and the photovoltaic panel system; and
punctually fixed floors and steel structures, framed into the existing structure.
At the experimental group from the Netherlands; students preferred punctually fixed
connections, followed by totally fixed, and ending with demountable connections. The only
example for demountable connections was an added wooden structure. All other examples
regarded punctually fixed connections, e.g. floors supported by a concrete structure, movable
partition walls; and totally fixed connections e.g. floor extensions, stairs and elevators.
Last, students from Portugal chose as their main aim connections, where the
additions are demountable. Equally chosen were the punctually and totally fixed
connections. Their examples were the new structures and new stairs for the demountable
connections. For the punctually fixed connections, students referenced the new tower, the
accesses (metal structure) and the new vertical accesses, where elevators and stairs can
even be demountable.
Even if the examples provided by the students from the three groups were not
especially detailed and innovative; generally, all groups argued the importance to develop
loose, demountable and or punctually fix additions; so that future rehabilitation interventions
are enabled without much demotion waste.
The connections between remainings and additions might initially seem a small detail,
but actually when well considered facing the two components being connected and respective
degree of compatibility, they can prevent many demolition and consequent destruction in
case one of the components starts presenting anomalies. Also, it can prevent future
interventive rehabilitations; as most additions are reversible and replaceable.
When asked about the percentual relation between subtractions and remainings,
taking the original building plan as the full surface, most students have selected the scale 5-
25 (%) for the subtractions (vide Figure 89).
The only difference among the three groups is the highest level reached; 5-25 (%) at
the control group; 25-50 (%) at the experimental group from the Netherlands, and 50-75 (%)
at the experimental group from Portugal. Instead, when comparing the percentual relation
between additions and remainings, taking the original building plan as the full surface, most
students (56%) have selected the scale 25-50 for the additions (vide Figure 90).
From the Netherlands, students have also introduced additions 05-25 (%) and 50-75
(%). From Portugal, values were more varied among the students. Therefore, only the most
interventive scale 75-100 (%) was not selected.
Having observed them along the whole trimester, the researcher concluded that,
despite of their answers to Questionnaire A3, the students from the Netherlands did not show
much particular efforts to determine among their design decisions, what to plan for the
subtracted and remained substances; at least, not as much as they did with the additions.
The tutors often asked for their arguments and direct correlations to the pre-design
stage, but most frequently there were not so much concerned. Particularly, this group was too
much attached to formalisms and functionalisms, without dialoguing with the pre-existence.
The most important was to fit the new program, independent from the consequences.
Instead, the students from Portugal reacted differently to the experience and
consequently achieved different results. They were also not perfect, but facing their initial
level of lifespan consciousness and their end results; it can be stated that their progress was
considerably higher than the progress of the students from the Netherlands.

93
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

100% 0 0 1
1 1 1 2
90% 0
80%
70%
60%
6 6 19
50% 7
40%
30%
20%
10% 2 2 5
1
0%
control group experimental group experimental group

The Netherlands Portugal Total

0-5 5-25 25-50 50-75 75-100

Figure 89 – The subtractions, within the relation between subtractions and remainings
100% 0 0 0 0
1 4
90%
80% 3
70%
60% 7 15
6 2
50%
40%
2
30%
20% 6
10% 2 2 2
2
0% 0 0
control group experimental group experimental group

The Netherlands Portugal Total

0-5 5-25 25-50 50-75 75-100

Figure 90 – The additions, within the relation between additions and remainings

They have, together with Arch. Valverde, established an extra aim and that was:
WASTE ZERO. They were challenged to rehabilitate the building with the least construction &
demolition waste possible. Moreover, they would be constantly reminded to consider all
realities important. Not all were willing to consider its importance, but few students ended
simulating very interesting solutions to add the subtracted substances into the new existence.

The importance of rehabilitation interventions

The importance of rehabilitation interventions has achieved much more sustenance on

ecological arguments by the students, rather than other cultural-oriented arguments.

94
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

All students considered important to rehabilitate existing buildings, in Questionnaire

A2, except for one student from Portugal. Accordingly, he stated that a building was like a
human being, who had throughout its natural process a “moment of birth, of life period and of
death”. He did not believe in maintenance “at the cost of ‘cosmetics’” and also disagreed with
“identity changing”, comparing it to the genetically code.
When ordering the arguments presented by all other students, according to their
primary aims (vide book II - scapus), it was possible to verify that to maintain was the most
referenced aim (48%), followed by to decrease (35%), to improve (13%), and last, to
replace (3%). There were no arguments reflecting aims to restore.
The aim to decrease the usage of economic resources of the building was referenced
by students at the three groups; together with the aim to decrease the need for new
construction. Third and last common aim was the ability to maintain buildings considered as
historically valuable. This argument is also related to few others, where students correlate the
importance to rehabilitate existing buildings to their inherent cultural values.
From the Netherlands, students referenced quite some ecological arguments; e.g. the
aims to decrease the usage of natural resources at the environment level; to maintain man-
made resources at the building level; to improve the building’s lifespan and respective
sustainability. They also referenced that buildings with high condition should be rehabilitated;
otherwise, it would be a major waste of manufactured resources. The common argument
between one student at the control group and other from Portugal was the contribution of
rehabilitations to decrease the energy required to building new.
The control group has particularly referenced the contribution of rehabilitation to the
decrease of demolition and/or waste of resources. The experimental group from the
Netherlands stated the importance to replace the building’s areas, functions, services, etc.
Students from Portugal stated the importance to maintain socially valuable environments, as
well as, their identity, image and/or status.
On a global level, it can be stated that the aims to decrease were mostly raised at the
control group; the aims to maintain and to improve the building, as well as to replace were
mostly raised at the experimental group from the Netherlands; and the aims to maintain the
environment were mostly raised at the experimental group from Portugal.
To better reveal the sustenance of such aims, the researcher has ordered them
according to the primary values (vide book II - scapus). From the cultural values, the
ecological values (PV8) were referenced two times more by the control group than by the
two experimental groups. Also referenced by the three groups were the social (PV1),
economic (PV2) and historic (PV4) values (vide Table 2).
Both experimental groups have mentioned arguments reflecting aesthetical (PV5)
and scientific (PV6) values; while both groups from the Netherlands have reflected age
values (PV7), together with the general reference to the cultural values. Curious enough, the
political values (PV3) were not found reflected in any presented argument.

pv pv pv pv pv pv pv pv pv
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1:9 total
c. g. 1 3 - 2 - - 1 9 4 20
The Netherlands
e. g. 3 4 - 2 2 1 2 3 2 19
Portugal e. g. 8 2 - 2 3 2 - 4 - 21
total 12 9 - 6 5 3 3 16 6 60
Table 2 – The cultural values beneath the preceding importance of rehabilitation interventions

95
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Such ecological awareness, stronger among the students from the Netherlands, was
observed by the researcher at the beginning of the trimester. That came to sustain the initial
hypothesis of the researcher stating that students from the Netherlands would be more
receptive towards lifespan theories than students from Portugal.
Nonetheless, that was not the case. Indeed, they have presented more ecological
arguments; however, both experimental groups soon became comparable along the
trimester; and at the end, the researcher observed a higher level of lifespan consciousness at
the students from Portugal, than at the students from the Netherlands. Probably, that had to
do with their behaviour. The last ones have tried to implement such principles; while the first
ones have, only with many difficulties and after much debate, understood the motivations to
apply such lifespan consciousness and ecological awareness in their design processes and
resultant design developments.
During their design developments, students were asked to think about what would
exactly make a building become significant. They all concluded that, depending on the
criteria, all buildings could be considered significant. Even if that conclusion was taken by all
students while debating, truth is that for students from both experimental groups, often the
simple action to rehabilitate, (providing new lives, etc) was enough to consider a design
sustainable. They were not conscious about the fact that their rehabilitation intervention could
be considered more or less lifespan conscious, with more or less evidences of ecological
awareness implemented in their design process. Especially, in unlisted buildings, which both
water towers were, students would somehow begin with the pre-established idea that as it
was not listed (officially culturally valuable) then everything was possible, without even
questioning the advantages and disadvantages of such design decisions.
Of course, such behaviour has changed and by the end of the trimester most
students were more aware of their influence as designers on the environment and on what
they could better do to contribute towards its preservation.
In fact, in Questionnaire A3, all of them have reaffirmed their considerations regarding
the importance of rehabilitation interventions, except for one student. The student from
Portugal who has initially considered it not important to rehabilitate in Questionnaire A2, this
time has considered it important. There was, however, one student at the experimental group
from the Netherlands, who stated “It depends on the quality of the building. The importance
depends, through the analysis of the building, whether to rehabilitate it or to raze it”.
Such arguments reveal a higher level of lifespan consciousness, even if the answer to
the question was negative. Rehabilitation is indeed important, whenever both condition and
significance of the building and respective environment allow and require such intervention.
Otherwise, when arriving too soon or too late in the lifespan of the building; such effort might
bring serious consequences for the environment.
When ordering once more (based on Questionnaire A3) the arguments sustaining the
importance to rehabilitate, a slight raise at the aim to maintain (51%) and to decrease (35%);
could be verified, and consequently a slight decrease of the aim to improve (9%) and to
replace (3%); even if slight, such evolution traces a progressive path towards the less
intrusive aims; especially because the aim to decrease was used by the students as aim to
reduce the less positive aspects, most often regarding its impact in the environment.
All groups referenced three common aims, the first two targeting the environment
scale and the third targeting the building scale. First common aim was to decrease the need
for new construction, second was to decrease the usage of natural resources; and third was
to maintain built heritage and/or all buildings, which are somehow considered culturally
valuable for future generations.

96
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

From the Netherlands, both groups have referenced the aim to decrease unnecessary
demolitions and respective waste of resources. Instead, both experimental groups had the
common aims to maintain man-made resources and to restore areas, functions and/or
services at the building scale. Students from Portugal and at the control group also had the
common aims to maintain buildings which would be considered as historically and/or
architectural valuable and to improve the building’s lifespan and sustainability.
Particularly, one student from Portugal has referenced the aim to decrease the usage
of energy resources; while two others referenced respectively the aim to maintain the groups
of buildings and/or environments who are considered respectively historically or socially
valuable. Last, two students, still at the same group referenced the aim to improve the areas,
functions and services, still at the scale of the environment.
When ordering their arguments again according to the primary values, the ecological
values remained the most identified ones among the three groups; followed by cultural
values in general – considering that a building should be valuable, but without clearly
discriminating which would have to be exactly the inherent values (vide Table 3).

pv pv pv pv pv pv pv pv pv
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1:9 total
c. g. - 2 - 1 3 - 1 6 7 20
The Netherlands
e. g. 2 1 - - - - - 8 5 16
Portugal e. g. 2 1 2 2 1 - 1 8 2 19
total 4 4 2 3 4 - 2 22 14 55
Table 3 – The cultural values beneath the subsequent importance of rehabilitation interventions

Purposely to crosscheck arguments, Questionnaire A3 asked students which

buildings should be rehabilitated and which should be demolished. Curiously, not one single
argument was found sustained by age and ecological values; but all three groups have most
referenced the need for particular cultural values, as well as, the absolute historic and
aesthetical values. At the experimental groups, social and scientific values were mentioned
by students from the Netherlands and the political values were mentioned by students from
Portugal.
Therefore, even if the cultural values have risen among the arguments of the
students, as a group of values which are important to consider before determining the destiny
of a building; the unreferenced of the ecological and age values decrees a certain degree of
inconsistency. Probably, that inconsistency is exactly what makes them understand the
importance to rehabilitate for the environment, but not implement it much further.

The appointed successes in rehabilitation designs

Students identified successful rehabilitation designs; however, their definitions and

appointed success seldom matched.

Most students confirmed their awareness successful rehabilitation (vide Figure 91).
Nonetheless, the few students that did not know successful rehabilitation designs also did not
specify if they did not remember names of buildings and/or architects, or if instead they
considered that current rehabilitation interventions were not successfully. Therefore, only the
arguments together with examples were further surveyed.

97
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

100%
90%
80%
70% 5
6 18
60% 7
50%
40%
30%
20% 4
3 9
10% 2
0%
yes
control group experimental group experimental group no
The Netherlands Portugal Total

Figure 91 – The acknowledgement, of the students, for successful rehabilitation designs

Students from the Netherlands identified as successful the Witte Dame (1994-1998)
and Vertigo (1998-2002), both developed by Diederen, Dirrix & van Wylick. The particularity
of the last reference is that these students are also its users. Vertigo hosts now the Faculty of
Architecture, Building and Planning (vide Figure 93), but formerly hosted the Faculty of
Chemistry (vide Figure 92).
Tate Modern was their only international example. Among other references from the
Netherlands, the control group referenced the Van Abbe Museum and the experimental group
referenced the Granida, both located in Eindhoven. From Portugal, most students referenced
the rehabilitation design developed by the architects Eduardo Souto Moura e Humberto
Vieira, for the Convent of Santa Maria do Bouro (vide Figure 94) be converted into a hotel
(vide Figure 95). EXPO 98, in Lisbon (urban rehabilitation); the Wall, in Lagos (restoration)
and the Youth Centre, in Portalegre were the other three referenced rehabilitation designs.
At the experimental groups, students from the Netherlands mentioned the importance
to design new respecting the old building + architect and others pointed out the importance of
relating / reaching the needs of the place. Instead, students from Portugal mentioned the
importance of accomplishing environmental / ecological concerns, detailing well the
connections between old and new materials, a harmoniously relation between the building’s
past, present and future, the use of current materials and technologies for the additions and
the ability to accomplish controlled costs.
During the semester, students at the experimental groups did not often bring
examples of rehabilitation designs which they would consider examples of successfulness.
Even if they would, the motive for such choice was unclear. Curiously, it seemed to the
researcher that a rehabilitation could be considered automatically as successful, just because
it had been published in an Architecture magazine.
Tendentiously, the points of success students would present, when describing a
good-practice or even their own design, would also frequently focus on the additions
introduced by the design; rather than accurately determine what exactly happened to the pre-
existence and why, to better judge if such rehabilitation intervention could in fact be
considered successful or not. Such of critical judgement was lacking at both groups.

98
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

Figure 92 – Faculty of Chemistry, in Eindhoven (1960-63)13

Figure 93 – Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning (Vertigo), in Eindhoven (2002)14

Figure 94 – The Convent of Santa Maria do Bouro, in Amares (DGEMN, s.d.)15

Figure 95 – The Hotel of Santa Maria do Bouro, in Amares (Pereira, 2004)

When answering Questionnaire A3, more students confirmed their awareness

successful rehabilitation (vide Figure 96). Again no argument was found together with the
negative answers.
From the Netherlands, students maintained their reference on the Witte Dame (1994-
1998) and Vertigo (1998-2002). At the control group, students referenced the rehabilitation of
a Water Tower (vide Figure 97) converted into a residential facility (vide Figure 98),
undertaken by the architectural office Zecc Architecten (2002-2004).

13 Coppens, M. & Hetjes, D. (1960-63) T-Hoog: Faculteit Scheikunde, Eindhoven: TUE. Stafgroep Repro-Fotografie &
KLM Aerocarto, available at:
http://library.tue.nl/catalog/FullBB.csp?WebAction=ShowFullBB&RequestId=383356_18&Profile=RFA&OpacLanguag
e=dut&NumberToRetrieve=50&StartValue=9&WebPageNr=1&SearchTerm1=1960.21.4666&SearchT1=&Index1=Ind
ex2108&SearchMethod=Find_2&ItemNr=9 (accessed on 30-05-2007)
14 Bagen, A. (2002) Faculteit Bouwkunde (Vertigo), Eindhoven: Bagen, available at:

http://www.diederendirrix.nl/project_utiliteitsbouw.php?category=19&project=66 (accessed on 30-05-2007)

15 DGMEN (s.d.) IPA PT010301190006: The Convent of Santa Maria do Bouro, Lisboa: Direcção Geral dos Edifícios

e Monumentos Nacionais (DGMEN), available at: http://www.monumentos.pt/Monumentos/forms/002_B1.aspx

(accessed on 30-06-2007)

99
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

100%
90%
80%
70%
6
60% 23
8
50% 9
40%
30%
20%
3
10% 4
1
0% 0
yes
control group experimental group experimental group no
The Netherlands Portugal Total

Figure 96 – The acknowledgement, of the students, for successful rehabilitation designs

Figure 97 – The Water Tower, in Soest (2001)16

Figure 98 – The House Tower, in Soest (2004)17

This building is a Rijksmonument and the rehabilitation design was awarded with the
Nederlandse Watertorenprijs 2004 (Dutch prize for water towers 2004).

16 Zecc Architecten (2007) Herbestemming en restauratie Watertoren Soest, Utrecht: Zecc Architecten, available at:

http://www.zecc.nl/ZeccP001.html (accessed in 15-07-2007)

17 Ibidem

100
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

The rehabilitation designed by Herzog and De Meuron, in London, converting the

Bankside Power Station designed by the architect G. G. Scott and built between 1947 and
1963, into the Tate Modern Gallery, between 1995 and 2000 gained more references among
the experimental group, than at Questionnaire A2. Further, the rehabilitations of St. Annakerk,
in Breda; of the Train Station, Amsterdam Central; and of the Schouwburg, in Utrecht were
also found referenced.
From Portugal, four students referenced again the rehabilitation of the Convent of
Santa Maria do Bouro, together with the Museum of Transports and Communication, in Porto,
designed by the same architect. Moreover, there were three rehabilitation designs referenced
by the students, undertaken by Portuguese architects. Those were, the Medieval Tower, in
Braga, designed by the architect Francisco Perry Azevedo; the Public Library, in Tavira,
designed by architect João Luis Carrilho da Graça; and the Castle Museum, in Silves,
designed by the architects Mário Varela Gomes and Pedro Correia da Costa.

Figure 99 – The Museum of Chiado, in Lisbon18

Students from Portugal referenced to two international architects and respective

rehabilitation designs. The fist reference was the rehabilitation of the Museum of Chiado,
offered by the government of France to contribute to the rehabilitation of the historic area of
Chiado (vide Figure 99).The rehabilitation was designed by the architect Jean-Michel
Wilmotte (1988-1994). The second reference was the rehabilitation of several buildings along
the river Seine in Paris, undertaken by the architect Jean Nouvel.
All groups referenced as arguments to consider rehabilitation designs successful, the
ability to integrate new functions / requirements; second was the successful management of
the relationship between old and new construction; third was the ability to use suitably the
existing qualities of the remainings; and fourth and last common argument was the ability to
respect the old building and respective architect.
There were two common arguments identified at the control group and among
students from Portugal. Those were the ability to preserve the original charisma of the
remainings of the pre-existence, and to reach with the additions higher and/or suitable levels
of habitability; reaching in such way the needs of the people. There were also common
arguments identified among the two experimental groups.

18Wilmotte, J. - M. (2007) Musée National du Chiado, Restructuration complète avec aménagement intérieur et
muséographie, Paris: Wilmotte et Associés SA, available at:
http://www.wilmotte.fr/pge/realisations/detail.php?project=39&type=&keywords=chiado&continent= (accessed in 15-
07-2007)

101
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

First reference was the ability to reach higher values than the one assessed at the
pre-existence, regarding both significance and condition factors, to use contemporary
materials, technologies and identity and relate and/or reach the needs of the place with the
new additions.
From the Netherlands, both groups have referenced the aesthetical values. Students
at the control group referenced the ability to preserve them as aspect of success; while
students at the experimental group referenced the ability to improve them. The control group
has also mentioned the ability to accomplish controlled costs. Instead, from Portugal, two
students argued the ability to raise ecological values, e.g. reduce usage of energy resources,
connections between old and new materials; reuse existing resources, etc. Curiously, one
student emphasised the importance to consider harmoniously the building’s past, present and
future.
Purposely to crosscheck arguments, Questionnaire A3 asked students if they would
classify their own rehabilitation design as successful. Most students did and all groups
appointed the ability to integrate new functions and/or requirements into the pre-existence an
aspect of success.
From the Netherlands, students commonly considered the ability to preserve the
building’s pre-existent construction and the ability to use the existing qualities of the pre-
existence suitably at the new existence. Instead, both experimental groups argued the ability
to reach habitability levels and to answer successfully the needs of the people. Particularly,
students at the control group have presented the ability to successfully preserve the
architectural qualities and manage the relationship between remainings and additions.
At the experimental groups, students from the Netherlands have presented the ability
to respect both building and architect, when determining the relationship between remainings
and additions. While students from Portugal have presented the ability to solve environmental
/ ecological concerns, to raise condition and significance values with the new existence; to
achieve the needs of the place; and to accomplish controlled costs. Once referenced was
also the ability to preserve several of the theorised cultural values e.g. historic, aesthetical,
social and ecologic values; to promote a new identity, through the additions created for the
new existence with contemporary materials and technologies.
Instead, the arguments used to justify their own rehabilitation designs as unsuccessful
were only provided by the experimental groups. From the Netherlands, the arguments were
incompleteness; the destruction of the best architectural qualities of the building and the
disharmony of the additions. From Portugal, the arguments were lack of time and the low
priority on the addition of renewable energies.

The interest in the theorised design process

Due to its apparent rationality, students have first confronted the theorized design
process and progressively verified its usefulness.

Some students at both experimental groups, had initial difficulties on accepting the
theorised design process, introduced and explained by the researcher, as valuable.
Somehow they felt that their freedom was being reclaimed and that their creativity would
vanish when following such design process. Inversely, others were pleased with the tasks
and sequential process; because they could focus further on more relevant aspects.

102
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

Particularly more from the Netherlands, this initial rejection and constant questioning
was difficult for the researcher, but simultaneously challenging, as these particular students
were most often against than in favour of what was being purposed. Consequently, the
researcher would have to explain everything very clearly and that extra knowledge required to
support her arguments was later used to complement the guidelines theorised for sustaining
the design process.
Despite the initial difficulties, at the end of the semester, all except one student from
the Netherlands became positive about the theorised design process (vide Figure 100). This
was the same student that earlier has argued that the design process was too rigid when
asked about the interest in developing rehabilitation designs.

100%
90%

80%
70%
6
60% 23
8
50% 9
40%

30%
20%
3
10%
1 4
0% 0
control group experimental group experimental group yes
no
The Netherlands Portugal Total

Figure 100 – Their interest towards theoretical support, during rehabilitation designs

Even at the control group, that did not follow the theorised design process; more
students confirmed than denied that more theoretical support could have helped them
becoming more conscious of the building lifespan and its environment, raising the quality of
the rehabilitation design. They argued that extra help is always welcome, especially pointing
to technical details and to better time management. Others argued the current lack of
education activities on such matters, e.g. rehabilitation, lifespan, etc.
Still at the control group, the students who declined the idea of obtaining theoretical
support along their design process presented curious arguments that clearly reflect a
common reaction from who rejects without knowing what it is; a behaviour that is recognised
more among designers than initially expected. Those students argued that there is already
enough information at the library and/or at lectures to support them and that “it is not really
possible to fit design in a fixed method”.
From the Netherlands, the positive arguments were respectively, that students got
more aware of the different aspects that can be considered when researching the pre-
existence, and the feedback that such research can correspond to the rehabilitation design;

103
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

that they are more conscious about the building’s lifespan that it supports in how to develop
rehabilitation designs and to appreciate existing buildings more.
All students from the experimental group from Portugal agreed that the theoretical
support helped them becoming more conscious of the building lifespan and its environment,
raising the quality of the rehabilitation design. While, from the Netherlands, one student was
negative to the theorised design process due to its rigidity; from Portugal few students
considered this same rigidity a benefit for both work and time management. Accordingly, “the
severity of the presented theoretical model allowed a more integrated and conscientious
approach to the problematic involving built heritage”.
Similar to the students at the other experimental group, students from Portugal got
more aware of the different aspects that can be considered when researching the pre-
existence, and the feedback that such research can correspond to the rehabilitation design; it
sustains becoming more conscious about the building’s lifespan and how to develop
rehabilitation designs, dealing with pre-existent and added materials more consciously. One
student also mentioned the contribution of the theorised design process to the raise of values
and usability in a building, which would initially be perceived as valueless.

104
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

6.3 Testing the design product

6.3.1 THE LIFESPAN REHABILITATION DESIGN

PROCESS
With the design product developed and produced, it was time to test the
implementation of the theorised design process for a lifespan conscious rehabilitation into a
design process support system, RE-ARCHITECTURE®, and verify its effective contribution to
the raise of lifespan consciousness of designers involved in rehabilitation design
developments. For the purpose, two groups of MSc. students were again supervised, from
the Netherlands and Portugal, while developing a rehabilitation design development.
The Experimental Group from the Netherlands, was formed by MSc. students (fourth
year) attending an International Design Studio (M1/M2), at Eindhoven University of
Technology (TU/e), during February – June 2007. This time, there were no parallel groups;
so, it was not possible to ask the cooperation of other tutors and create a Control Group.
The Experimental Group from Portugal were the MSc. students attending the
“Rehabilitation of Buildings and Places” course (fourth year), at Instituto Superior Manuel
Teixeira Gomes (ISMAT), Portugal, during March – June 2007. Such international experience
was again possible due to a Socrates / Erasmus Protocol (European Commission Program).
Arch. Walraven (TU/e) and Arch. Valverde (ISMAT) accepted the challenge to
cooperate with this research and test the design process theorized in this research with their
students, through the sustenance of RE-ARCHITECTURE®. As earlier referenced (vide book
I - basis), trainee Eliziário has also assisted the tutoring of both groups.
Under the academic – research + education – theme Design for Lifespan, coordinated
by Prof. Arch. Jouke Post; researchers, tutors and MSc. students, graduating on Architecture
and/or Building Technology were challenged to focus on Industrial Heritage, during the
academic year of 2006/2007. Four buildings were pre-selected for the purpose; Het Veem
and NDSM werf, in Amsterdam and the Schiecentrale and the Graansilo, in Rotterdam. The
trainee Bonsignori undertook a preliminary research on the four buildings, to better sustain
the researcher on the selection of the building that was requiring rehabilitation.
Even if all four buildings had recently been rehabilitated or were being rehabilitated at
the time; the Graansilo was the only one that had been partially rehabilitated. In 2003, the
ground floor of the Graansilo was converted into the discothèque NOW & WOW, designed by
a challenging architectural office, Gevonden Ontwerpen. Arch. Huib De Jong, from the
architectural office Art Constructions, designed the master plan (vide Figure 101). In Portugal,
the Silos in Santa Catarina da Fonte do Bispo – Tavira, Algarve were the most comparable
silos, of which contacts with the owners revealed successful (vide Figure 102).
Different in scale and proximity a the river; this building was also an obsolete
landmark, claiming for a rehabilitation intervention. Despite the larger scale of the buildings
and proportional complexity, one of the biggest novelties in this test period compared to the
previous one, was the involvement of architects in the verification of RE-ARCHITECTURE®,
the implementation of the design process into a support system.

105
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Figure 101 – The Graansilo, in Rotterdam (Bonsignori, 2007)19

Figure 102 – The Silos, in Santa Catarina da Fonte do Bispo – Tavira (Pereira Roders, 2006)

Architects, mostly practicing in Portugal and the Netherlands, were invited to register,
access, and make use of RE-ARCHITECTURE® to support their daily design activities, when
involved in rehabilitation design developments.
To attract the architect’s attention and interest; first, the researcher wrote a “public
invitation” in form of an article (in both Portuguese and Dutch language) to be published in
technical magazines, nationally recognized. In Portugal, the magazine “Arquitectura & Vida”
published the “public invitation” in January 2007 (vide Appendix 6). Despite all attempts and
contacts, no magazine was found in the Netherlands, interested in publishing the article, but
few did offer to publish smaller notices, e.g. “Renovatie” in February (vide Appendix 6) and
“BouwIQ” in March 2007 (vide Appendix 6).
As not many registrations were being noticed in RE-ARCHITECTURE®, the
researcher contacted both Order of Architects (O.A., Portugal) and Royal Association of
Dutch Architects (BNA, the Netherlands) and they showed interest to cooperate with this
research. A small article, in both website and newsletter (vide Appendix 6). Afterwards, a
considerable progress occurred, especially regarding the Portuguese architects.
As a last attempt to diffuse RE-ARCHITECTURE® under both Dutch and Portuguese
architects, the researcher contacted via e-mail few field experts (mainly architects) already
aware of this research, to invite them personally to use RE-ARCHITECTURE®. Besides, they
were also asked to forward it to other potentially interested experts. As a snowball, the
“personal invitation” aimed to reach the architects more directly and efficiently.
As the researcher did not have many contacts of Dutch architects, the researcher
decided to make use of the contact information available at the website of BNA and send to
all architects (with e-mail address) the “personal invitation” e-mail, with the article attached
(vide Appendix 6). There were also few spontaneous notices at several field-related websites
from Portugal. Probably, this was a consequence of the actions undertaken by O.A and/or of
the “personal invitation” snowball (vide Appendix 6: Notices on RE-ARCHITECTURE®).

19Bonsignori, C. (2007) RE-ARCHITECTURE of Industrial Heritage, Haupt, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the CIB World
Building Conference 2007: Construction for development; Cape Town: South African Institution of Civil Engineering

106
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

6.3.1.1 METHOD
THE MEANS TO VERIFY THE HYPOTHESES THROUGH PRACTICES

The method used to test the design product, slightly differed from the method for
testing the design theory. For example, when testing the design theory, architecture students
participated in the experience and filled in both pre- and post-survey (Questionnaires A2 and
A3). These Questionnaires were printed and delivered personally. When testing the design
product, both pre- and post-survey (Questionnaires B1 and B2) were placed accessible
directly through the prototype, RE-ARCHITECTURE®.
Most questions were maintained from Questionnaire A3. The purpose was to provide
parallel data on similar questions and to establish coherent correlations between both test
periods, occurring during the academic years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. However, few more
questions were introduced, focusing on the design process support system RE-
ARCHITECTURE®.. But these answers can be compared the current experimental groups.

Figure 103 – The test method (2005/2007)

One other difference between both test periods is the inexistence of a Control Group
(vide Figure 103). Such action was not possible to maintain due to the lack of a second group
and tutors following the same program. At the MSc. level the groups of students are reduced
and follow specific educational strategies, which could not be changed for the purpose of one
single experience.
Nonetheless, both architects and architecture students were challenged to access
and follow the theorised design process (stimulus), now implemented and accessible through
internet, in the newly completed prototype RE-ARCHITECTURE®, during their rehabilitation
design developments and to a limited period of four months.

107
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Similar to the test period of the design theory, the researcher would control the
evolution of the students and architects through their answers to Questionnaire B1 (Pre-
Survey) before being acquainted with the design process (stimulus) and to Questionnaire B2
(Post-Survey) after the stimulus. The differences between the answers would determine how
useful RE-ARCHITECTURE® could be for designers involved in rehabilitation design
developments.
The fact that no change would be made to RE-ARCHITECTURE® during the test
period was also another important difference. During the test period of the design theory the
researcher was constantly developing and revising the theorised design process. Inversely,
during the test period of the design product no change would be made to RE-
ARCHITECTURE®, even if the researcher would identify them. Those would be respectively
mentioned in the respective conclusions of this doctoral research.
The theorised design process available at RE-ARCHITECTURE® was the same used
with the experimental group from Portugal, during the test period of the design theory (vide
Figure 104). The main difference was, that at the test period of the design product all
guidelines would not be tutored, but provided at RE-ARCHITECTURE®. Tools were also
implemented to facilitate the adoption of such theorised design process into their frequent
design process activities.

Figure 104 – The lifespan rehabilitation design process (last version)

This time, both experimental groups of students followed a similar schedule of sixteen
weeks, meeting the tutors three hours per week; and with no theoretical lectures to introduce,
nor support them during the whole process. They would have to be more independent and
search themselves for sustenance. Besides RE-ARCHITECTURE®, students could acquire
RE-ARCHITECTURE scapus; especially published to support the students, while developing
their rehabilitation designs.
Similarly to what developed for the experimental groups, during the test period of the
design theory (vide Chapter 6.2.2.1); students followed the team work method, organised in
groups, so that they could all contribute and information would not get lost (vide Appendix 7).
Moreover, besides Questionnaire B1 and B2, two other methods were chosen to control the
evolution of the architects and architecture students from Portugal and the Netherlands (vide
Figure 103).

108
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

The first method was observation, previously used during the test period of the design
theory; mainly to provide support to the other data collection methods, rather than being
individually sufficient to reach very accurate conclusions. During the entire semester, the
researcher encountered few remarks during and after the lectures, summarising the general
impressions and sensed by the researcher, during the developments of the students
participating in the two experimental groups.
The second method was process mining (Alves de Medeiros, 2006)20, being the fourth
and last method introduced at the test period of the design product. It is undeniably much
more accurate than the observation method. Process mining techniques allowed the
researcher to verify how the RE-ARCHITECTURE® website has actually been used.

“Process mining techniques allow for extracting information from event logs. For
example, the audit trails of a workflow management system or the transaction logs of
an enterprise resource planning system can be used to discover models describing
processes, organizations, and products. Moreover, it is possible to use process mining
to monitor deviations (e.g., comparing the observed events with predefined models).”21

In this situation, the event logs were generated by the RE-ARCHITECTURE® website.
Every time a user visited a tool/help page, created a new design etc., events have been
registered in the table accesslog in the database.
Thus, all required was to convert the data in this table to the input format (MXML)
accepted by the process mining tool ProM 5.0. Once the log was in the MXML format, one
could run a process mining algorithm (Fuzzy Miner), to get a model that portrays the usage of
the RE-ARCHITECTURE® website. This technique was selected, because:

“(…) the Fuzzy Miner is able to clean up a large amount of confusing behavior, and to
infer and extract structure from what is chaotic. We have successfully used the Fuzzy
Miner on various machinery test and usage logs, development process logs (...),
among others. These are notoriously flexible and unstructured environments, and our
approach has proven to be the most useful tool for analyzing them so far.”22

As explained before, RE-ARCHITECTURE® does not enforce the design process

theorised in this doctoral research (vide book II - scapus). So, with the mined model, this
research was willing to prove that an unstructured behaviour is possible, independent from
the structured design process. That would reflect the freedom of navigational user patterns on
RE-ARCHITECTURE®.
The mining of the models was assisted by Dr. Alves de Medeiros. Similar to the
previous and following surveys; the researcher considered both global and group
perspectives, filtered according to the variable country (values: The Netherlands and
Portugal) and occupation (values: architects and architecture students). In the following, the
researcher elaborates the results.

20 Alves de Medeiros, A. K. (2006) Genetic Process Mining, Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology
21 PMG (2007) About Process Mining Research, Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, TM.IS Department,
Process Mining Group (PMG), available at: http://is.tm.tue.nl/staff/wvdaalst/BPMcenter/process%20mining.htm
(accessed in 23-07-2007)
22 Günther, C. W. & Aalst, W. M. P. van der (2007) Fuzzy Mining – Adaptive Process Simplification based on Multi-

Perspective Metrics, Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology, 5th International Conference on Business
Process Management (BPM 2007) (to appear) Australia 2007.

109
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

6.3.1.2 MOTIVATION AND ASSUMPTIONS

THE REASONING BEHIND THE HYPOTHESES

Complementary to the motivations of the theorised design process, its implementation

into a design process support system aimed to provide easy accessible guidelines and tools
that would sustain any designer interested in developing lifespan conscious rehabilitation
designs of obsolete built heritage.
These two test periods, had exactly that motivation; to evaluate the effective need for
sustaining designers of lifespan consciousness and to determine the effective contribution of
the theorised design process, respective guidelines and tools. Faults to improve and virtues
to maintain shall be identified to better sustain conclusions and further recommendations.
After the first period of test, the researcher believed that a design process support
system available at the internet would intrigue both groups and challenge them to experiment
it and likewise contribute to its improvement. Novelty would probably intrigue them, rather
then previous acquaintances on lifespan and sustainable ideologies.
The Pre-Survey (Questionnaire B1) provided the researcher with information enough
to survey the initial level of lifespan consciousness presented by the students and by the
architects. As a first milestone, the moment before getting acquainted with the theorised
design process (stimulus) is fundamental to understand their real aims and principles.
The Survey (Observation) of the students shall bring extra information to sustain the
researcher reaching conclusions that cannot be reached exclusively with the information
provided by the answers to the questions at both Pre-Survey and Pos-Survey. The method of
observation remained the same from the previous test period (vide Chapter 6.2.2.2).
Accurate information on the use of RE-ARCHITECTURE® shall be brought by the
process mining. Especially with users that did not have previous formation on its use; it is
fundamental for the researcher to understand the logical method of use and how that
complies with the assumed use, hypothesised when simulating and developing all
functionalities with much attention and detail.
The Post-Survey (Questionnaire B2) shall provide the researcher with information
enough to survey the final level of lifespan consciousness presented by the students, as well
as the architects. As a second milestone, the moment after getting acquainted with the
theorised design process (stimulus) is fundamental to understand the contribution and
compatibility of the theorised design process with their real aims and principles.
The motivations and assumptions involving the method to collect data at a Pre-Survey
(Questionnaire B1), Survey (Observation), Process Mining and Post-Survey (Questionnaire
B2) were subdivided into the following nine main themes. To enable a global understanding,
these themes shall reappear at the results (vide Chapter 6.2.1.3).

1. the experience in developing rehabilitation designs,

2. the experience in using RE-ARCHITECTURE®,
3. the perspective on developing rehabilitation designs,
4. the interest in developing rehabilitation designs,
5. the design process followed at rehabilitation designs
6. the universe of subtractions, remainings and additions,
7. the importance of rehabilitation interventions,
8. the appointed successes in rehabilitation designs, and
9. the interest in RE-ARCHITECTURE®.

110
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

The experience in developing rehabilitation designs

Students with experience in developing rehabilitation designs shall answer more

lifespan consciously, than the inexperienced ones.

Architects with experience in developing rehabilitation designs shall answer more

lifespan consciously, than the inexperienced ones.

Similar to the previous test period, the researcher planned to identify the experience
in developing designs rehabilitation, and to verify if such experience would influence the
quality of the answers provided by the sampled students. Hence, question B1.01 enabled the
researcher to survey all data and information retrieved through the variable experience,
which had only two possible values: yes or no.
Such variable could become relevant or not, depending on the similarities and
differences identified in the answers of the designers, from the same group and/or different
groups, when surveying and correlating them. In addition, it would also provide an indication
on how frequent designers from these groups developed rehabilitation designs.
The assumption that designers, both students and architects, with experience in
developing rehabilitation designs shall answer more lifespan consciously to the questions
while performing the rehabilitation design developments, was based on the fact that they
already had to deal with pre-existences of buildings that require rehabilitation and are familiar
with the problems the researcher is trying to diminish.
®
The experience in using RE-ARCHITECTURE

Students shall make use of RE-ARCHITECTURE®, according to the program; but shall
draw a balance between theory and their individual approaches.

Architects, in both countries, especially concerned with lifespan consciousness at

rehabilitation interventions shall accept the challenge and test RE-ARCHITECTURE®.

The experience in using RE-ARCHITECTURE® was controlled directly and indirectly.

Question B2.00 and respective sub-questions were the direct control, where the researcher
asked if the designers used it to support their rehabilitation design developments, and
respective motivation. Instead, both statistical and process mining surveys were the indirect
control, where the researcher monitored their workflow behaviour.
Through their global behaviours, the researcher could identify the most and least
used areas of RE-ARCHITECTURE®. Based on these results, the researcher would be able
to verify if, in fact, the developed design process support system, RE-ARCHITECTURE® was
used as initially assumed and if both guidelines and tools provided to sustain designers,
involved in rehabilitation design developments, could actually be considered of use to them.
Even if such results might apparently seem to bring distress to the researcher, in fact,
it provides her harmony and confidence. RE-ARCHITECTURE® is a prototype and not a
miracle. Therefore, the more it is discovered through its users, when revealing all factors of
success, failure, and open for improvement, the better it can become on for further research
developments.

111
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The perspective on developing rehabilitation designs

Students with different perspectives than the pure architecture-oriented ones shall
react differently to the theorized design process.

Architects with different perspectives than the pure architecture-oriented ones shall
react differently to the theorized design process.

Similarly to question A2.01 and A3.01, question B2.01 enabled the researcher to
survey all data and information retrieved through a variable. However, this time the variable
was perspective and had a total number of eight values: architect, building process
manager, urban planner, researcher / professor, building technology engineer, building
physics engineer, structural engineer, and other.
This variable could become particularly important for the students from the
Netherlands, as at the MSc. level, there are students aiming for a graduation on Architecture,
Building Technology or both, attending the same studio. Instead, this would not be relevant
for the students from Portugal, as they were MSc. architecture students at their last year of
graduation. Such information could justify perspective-related deviations at the answers.
Once again, such variable was mostly oriented towards the students and to
understand their arguments, when deviant from the group arguments. Nevertheless, it might
be interesting to understand the diversity of architects and their interests, beyond the
architecture. Especially in Portugal, where there is no graduation in Building technology such
field could be undertaken by architects and or civil engineers.

The interest in developing rehabilitation designs

Students shall show interest in developing rehabilitation designs; however, they shall
mostly prioritize the novelties and required additions.

Architects shall show interest in developing rehabilitation designs; however, they shall
mostly prioritize the remainings together with the required additions.

Question B1.02, similarly to question A2.02 aimed to discover if the designers found
their previous design interesting, and most important of all, aimed to identify the designers’
considerations about their rehabilitation perception and motives to consider it interesting. For
purposes of synthesis their considerations were filtered according to the relationship between
the pre-existence and the new existence (subtractions, remainings and additions).
When surveying it again at question B2.02, similarly to question A3.02, the
researcher would get feedback on the influence of RE-ARCHITECTURE® and retrieve
enough data and information to accurately compare the arguments and identify respective
similarities and differences. Already in the arguments used to sustain the answer to this
question, potential raises of lifespan consciousness can be traceable, whenever present.
Due to the similarity of questions, the researcher would be enabled to identify
potential evolutions in the answers, and relate them to the fact that the students answering
question A3.02 had access to the design process model (theory) and the ones answering
question B2.02 had access to RE-ARCHITECTURE®. In what regards the architects, it could
be verified if, in fact, they consider more the remainings than the students, in their arguments.

112
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

The design processes followed at rehabilitation designs

Students shall have followed similar design processes and dealt with similar problems,
already before following the theorised design process.

Architects shall have more variety, but still have followed similar design processes and
dealt with similar problems, already before following the theorised design process.

Similar to questions A2.03 / A3.03, questions B1.03 / B2.03 would enable the
researcher to reach better conclusions regarding the design processes followed in
rehabilitation designs, by the sampled designers and verify if they are as varied as preached
by the designers, or if instead design processes are similar. For that purpose, three questions
were placed in Questionnaire B1 and repeated in Questionnaire B2.
Question B1.03 / B2.03 would identify if the design process followed was theory-
based, individual-based or a mixture of both; its stages, approximate time (hours) and
usefulness (yes/no). Question B1.04 / B2.04 would identify if there were particular aspects
designers were aware of which was less successful in their design process to conclude
potential problematic stages that require more/less time, theoretical support, etc.
Last, Question B1.05 / B2.05 shall allow the researcher to identify particular stages
with more need to theoretical support; common sources of knowledge and the potential for a
theoretical support through the internet. Again, the comparison between the answers at B2.05
and the answers given at question A3.03 would allow the researcher to identify the evolution
facing the different theoretical supports, design process model versus implementation.

The universe of subtractions, remainings and additions

The correlation between subtractions, remainings and additions shall not be

considered by the students; but shall grow while using RE-ARCHITECTURE®.

The correlation between subtractions, remainings and additions shall not be

considered by the architects; but shall grow after using RE-ARCHITECTURE®.

To better control the perception of the students regarding the universe of the
subtractions, remainings and additions; the researcher introduced at Questionnaire B1 seven
main questions. Question B1.06, similar to question A3.10, aimed to supply the researcher
with the importance given by the designers to these three realities; as well as, the importance
given to the connections between remainings and additions, at the new existence.
Instead, questions B1.07 till B1.10, similar to questions A3.11 till A3.14, aimed to
inventory more information about their design decisions related to these four realities, as well
as, few illustrative examples from their own rehabilitation designs. By the examples provided
before and after using RE-ARCHITECTURE®, the researcher would be able to identify
evolution on their concern for the subtractions, together with the remainings and additions.
Last, questions B1.11 and B1.12, similar to questions A3.15 and A3.16 would supply
the researcher with the approximate percentual relation between subtractions and remainings
and between additions and remainings. By comparing it with the results before and after
using RE-ARCHITECTURE®, the researcher would again be able to identify evolution on the
relationship between subtractions, remainings and additions.

113
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The importance of rehabilitation interventions

The importance of rehabilitation interventions shall achieve much more sustenance on

ecological arguments by the students, rather than on the building’s classification.

The importance of rehabilitation interventions shall achieve more sustenance on

ecological arguments by the architects, rather than on the building’s classification.

At this level, designers were not only asked about the importance to rehabilitate
existing buildings. They were asked about the arguments that support such judgement.
Question B1.13/B2.13, similar to question A2.06/A3.07, allowed the researcher to filter the
answers of all designers and depict the most inherent cultural values. However, this time only
the students and designers with experience in rehabilitation designs answered it.
In Questionnaire B1/B2, an extra sub-question was added to question B1.13/B2.13
similar to question A3.07, with the purpose to make the students express clearly their
judgement on which existing buildings should be rehabilitated and which should be
demolished. The answers of both questions would allow the researcher to verify if the
ecological and or the general cultural values would raise consideration.
Moreover, when comparing the answers given at questions A3.07 with the ones given
at questions B2.13, the researcher would be able to identify if there have been differences on
the raise of consideration with reference to the ecological and or the general cultural values,
from the test period of the design theory to the test period of the design product. There should
be expected some differences, even if not considerably high.

The appointed successes in rehabilitation designs

Students shall easily identify successful rehabilitation designs; however, their

definitions and appointed successes shall seldom match.

Architects shall easily identify successful rehabilitation designs; and their definitions
and appointed successes shall often match.

Questions B1.14/B2.14, similar to questions A2.07/A3.08 aimed to identify if the

students would be able to reference rehabilitation designs and respective architects, which
they would consider as successful. Further, they would be asked to define a successful
rehabilitation design; providing the required arguments necessary to understand their choices
of reference, as well as, compare them to the rehabilitation theorised as lifespan conscious.
To support advanced conclusions, question B1.15/B2.15 focused on their self-
evaluation, regarding the success of the developed rehabilitation designs, described at
Questionnaire B1/B2. Intentionally, these questions were placed just after questions
B1.14/B2.14, so that both the researcher and the student could formulate logic correlations.
On balance, what was once defined as successful should also rule at the self-
evaluation. However, this correlation between what designers define as successful when
produced by others and themselves is often deviant, especially among students; who are still
learning what successful means and are too often eluded by immediacies. Instead, architects
are expected to go beyond the appearances and be more coherent in their arguments.

114
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

®
The interest in RE-ARCHITECTURE

Due to its apparent rationality, students shall first confront RE-ARCHITECTURE® and
progressively verify its usefulness, stage by stage.

Due to its apparent rationality, architects shall first confront RE-ARCHITECTURE® and
after verify its usefulness, on particular stages.

Exclusive from Questionnaire A3, question A3.04 asked the students about getting
theoretical support, concerning the different stages and/ or activities of the design process
(methodology). While at the control group, the question was ‘would it have helped’, at the
experimental groups, the question was ‘did it help’, becoming more conscious of the building
lifespan and its environment, raising the quality of the rehabilitation design.
The aim of such question was to identify how students would react or how they did
react to the support through a theorised design process, with pre-established stages and/ or
activities. Particularly, the answers from the students at the experimental groups, would
reveal the advantages and disadvantages of such approach, its contribution to the raise of
lifespan consciousness and respective raise of quality at the rehabilitation designs proposed.
Such variable could become relevant or not, dependent on the similarities and
differences identified in the answers of students from the same group and/or different groups,
by the researcher when surveying and correlating them. In addition, it would also provide an
indication to the researcher on how frequent students from these groups develop
rehabilitation designs at their own Faculties.

6.3.1.3 RESULTS
THE HYPOTHESES VERSUS PRACTICES

The presented results were synthesised after analysing all information provided by
the different methods to survey architecture students and architects from the Netherlands and
Portugal, as users of RE-ARCHITECTURE®. Questionnaire B1 had a total number of
nineteen main questions and twenty-six sub-questions; while Questionnaire B2 had a total
number of twenty-one main questions and twenty-eight sub-questions.
As illustrated in Figure 105, the weeks between the end of January 2007 (week 5)
and March (week 13) were determining for the registration of designers from Portugal; while
the weeks between half February (week 8) and beginning of March (week 10) were
determining for the registration of designers from the Netherlands.
For the students from the Netherlands most registrations occurred with the beginning
of the semester in the first week of February (week 6); while the registration of students from
Portugal already started with the publication of the “public invitations” and notices and got
even higher at the beginning of the semester in the first week of March (week 10).
The registrations at RE-ARCHITECTURE® reached in the last week of July (week
30) the total number of 450 users; 108 from the Netherlands and 342 from Portugal. Both
countries had approximately the same number of students. However, the considerable
difference was the number of architects from Portugal; approximately four times above the
number of architects from the Netherlands (vide Table 4).

115
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype
number of registrations

250

200

150

100

50

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

January February March April May June July

week number
stud nl arch nl othr nl stud pt arch pt othr pt

Figure 105 – The evolution of the number of registrations at RE-ARCHITECTURE®

From the total registrations, a considerable percentage of users stopped using RE-
ARCHITECTURE® along the process. Almost half (48%) by the moment they discovered that
the Pre-Survey (Questionnaire B1) was mandatory to gain access to its full content. Even if
many from the other half have created a design process and used RE-ARCHITECTURE® for
a while, the ones filling in the Post-Survey were even more reduced (12%).

The Netherlands Portugal Total

target nl/s nl/a nl/o nl pt/s pt/a pt/o pt nl+pt
Registrations 33 59 16 108 50 234 58 342 450
Pre-Survey valid 28 23 8 59 27 84 14 125 184
Pre-Survey invalid 3 3 4 10 4 18 20 42 52
Pre-Survey total 31 26 12 69 31 102 34 167 236
Design Process 40 21 9 70 32 71 27 130 200
Post-Survey 21 9 1 31 12 9 1 22 53
Logins 494 94 28 616 294 351 81 726 1342
Clicks 10445 2351 890 13686 6279 8614 2089 16982 30668
*nl = the Netherlands; pt = Portugal; s = student; a = architect; o = other occupations
Table 4 – Summary of all fundamental values

Consequently, the nine architects filling in the Post-Survey have defined the limit of
the users and respective answers to be surveyed. A sample had to be retrieved from the
groups of students. The criteria were the moment of registration and insufficient valid
answers. Complementary, the researcher has decided to survey both logins and clicks to
identify respectively how often and how long RE-ARCHITECTURE® would be used.

116
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

number of log ins 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

January February March April May June July

week number
stud nl arch nl othr nl stud pt arch pt othr pt

Figure 106 – The evolution of the number of logins at RE-ARCHITECTURE®

Figure 106 describes the evolution of the total number of logins, through the test
period. The amount of logins at the first month of diffusion in the internet is clearly visible. But
the most interesting aspect is that somehow the peaks of logins undertaken by both groups of
students are correlated to the stages of the design process.
For example, it is clearly visible at the logins by the students from Portugal that they
used RE-ARCHITECTURE® at the period of the simulation stage, during the first weeks of
June. Probably, that has also to do with the fact that both researcher and Prof. Post visited
the group of students in that period of time and the personal contact might have stimulated
their contribution to this doctoral research.
The researcher has also illustrated the number of logins per group user to better
understand their behaviour. Inversely to the number of registrations, the range of logins
undertaken by the students was found approximately five times higher than by the architects.
Portugal still used it approximately twice as more as the Netherlands (vide Figure 107).
There are exceptions e.g. the two user accounts created by the two groups from the
Netherlands (user 195) and from Portugal (user 428) to store all collectively retrieved data
from the Pre-Design stage, which reached from the Netherlands a value above the sixty
logins and from Portugal a value above the seventy logins.
Moreover, from the Netherlands there was one MSc student, Marijn Roos (335), doing
an independent research Master related to RE-ARCHITECTURE® . He has reached a value
of over fifty logins. From Portugal, one of the students from the experimental group, John
Wilson (391), reached a value above the twenty logins. Architect Wim Kristel (234) from the
Netherlands was also the only reaching the value of six logins; while Architect Miguel Bronze
(166) and Architect Sonia Vieira (352) were the only ones reaching the value of seven logins.

117
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

THE NETHERLANDS / STUDENTS

80
number of log ins

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

-
25 59 63 64 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 86 108 111 115 131 195 270 335 415 466 491 535
user identification number
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

PORTUGAL / STUDENTS
number of log ins

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

-
33 54 56 94 95 98 105 129 135 170 175 179 192 194 196 209 212 233 327 333 346 369 373 374 375 377 378 381 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 407 417 423 428 485 513 519 525 529 539 542
user identification number

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

THE NETHERLANDS / ARCHITECTS

number of log ins

-
4

5
24

17

22

22

22

23

23

23

23

24

24

24

24

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

39

40

40

43

46

49

50

54

user identification number

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

PORTUGAL / ARCHITECTS
number of log ins

-
29

41

49

58

93

7
11

12

13

14

14

15

16

17

18

18

20

20

21

24

26

27

30

31

32

34

35

36

37

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

50

51

52

user identification number

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Figure 107 – The number of logins, per group user of RE-ARCHITECTURE®

118
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

THE NETHERLANDS / STUDENTS

1.200
number of clicks

1.000

800

600

400

200

0
25 59 63 64 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 86 108 111 115 131 195 270 335 415 466 491 535

user identification number

PORTUGAL / STUDENTS
1.600
number of clicks

1.400

1.200

1.000

800

600

400

200

0
33

56

95

9
10

13

17

19

19

21

32

34

37

37

37

38

38

38

39

39

39

41

42

51

52

53
user identification number

THE NETHERLANDS / ARCHITECTS

250
number of clicks

200

150

100

50

0
24

5
17

22

22

22

23

23

23

23

24

24

24

24

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

39

40

40

43

46

49

50

54

user identification number

PORTUGAL / ARCHITECTS
300
number of clicks

250

200

150

100

50

0
29

41

49

58

93

7
11

12

13

14

14

15

16

17

18

18

20

20

21

24

26

27

30

31

32

34

35

36

37

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

50

51

52

user identification number

Figure 108 – The number of clicks, per user of RE-ARCHITECTURE®

119
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype
number of clicks

5.000

4.500

4.000

3.500

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

January February March April May June July

week number
stud nl arch nl othr nl stud pt arch pt othr pt unknown

Figure 109 – The evolution of the number of clicks at RE-ARCHITECTURE®

Curiously, the range of clicks (movements between pages of RE-ARCHITECTURE®)

revealed similar patterns to the range of logins, with few differences. First and last positions
remained respectively with the students and architects from the Netherlands, while in-
between; architects from Portugal reached higher ranges of clicks than the students from
Portugal; probably correlated with the number of registrations (vide Table 4).
Figure 109 illustrates the evolution of the number of clicks, throughout the test period.
For example, the month of February and first week of March; together with the last week of
June, were particularly significant for the group of students from the Netherlands, who have
clicked more than ever; probably to prepare the final design report.
The researcher has also illustrated the number of clicks per group user to better verify
the relation between clicks and logins (vide Figure 108). Again the ranges followed the order
revealed with the number of logins; first the students and last the architects. The Netherlands
reached twice the values of Portugal in the students, but one-two-thirds in the architects.
Just as at the total results of the logins, there were few exceptions on each group that
fall out of this indicative range. Joining the two previous mentioned users (at the logins); two
other students from the Netherlands emerge above eight-hundred clicks. Those were
respectively the students Daniel Tulp (69) and Anja Zajkowska (86). Similarly, another
student from Portugal, Lionel Estriga (385), emerges together with the previous users, as well
above the four-hundred clicks.
At the group of architects from the Netherlands, there were also four users that
executed more than one-hundred clicks. One Architect, Tom Veeger (403), clicked more than
one-hundred fifty and Architect Bart de Kreij (437) clicked even two-hundred times. From
Portugal, there were three architects who have executed more than two-hundred clicks.
Those were respectively the previously mentioned Architect Sonia Vieira (352); plus, the
Architect Maria Alexandra Cardoso (368) and the Architect Sérgio Miguel Magalhães (86).

120
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

The experience in developing rehabilitation designs

Students with experience in developing rehabilitation designs did not answer more
lifespan consciously, than the inexperienced ones.

Architects with experience in developing rehabilitation designs did not answer more
lifespan consciously, than the inexperienced ones.

Like when testing the design theory, most designers have confirmed their experience
in developing rehabilitation designs (vide Figure 110). Yet, there have been still designers
who have stated to have never developed rehabilitation designs, slightly more in the
Netherlands than in Portugal. Without further information on their rehabilitation experiences,
those designers were automatically redirected to the last questions of Questionnaire B1,
mostly referring to RE-ARCHITECTURE® and their respective expectations.
100%
90%
80%
70%
6 13
60% 7 29
8 8 16
50%
40%
30%
20%
3 5
10% 2 7
1 1 2
0%
students architects total students architects total yes
no
The Netherlands Portugal Total

Figure 110 - The experience in developing rehabilitation designs

With such results it is possible to verify that there are architects from both countries,
practicing in the built environment, who stated to have no previous experience in rehabilitation
interventions. One could wonder if they exclusively considered the rehabilitation practice or if
they also considered the rehabilitation design developments during their graduations in
architecture.
After all, independent from having practiced it or not, architects should have gained
proficiency in all interventions on the built environment during their graduation in architecture
and not just only on developing new buildings. Not enough explored, during this doctoral
research, this could be the starting point of many other interesting research programs.
Moreover, this question would help distinguishing the experienced from the
inexperienced designers in both countries, and sustain the verification of their answers, as
well as behaviours; which would be considered more or less lifespan conscious.

121
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Particularly for the architects, their answer regarding RE-ARCHITECTURE® and their
respective expectations did not differ sufficiently to state that there was a correlation between
the experience of undertaking rehabilitation interventions and the level of lifespan
consciousness.
During the semester, students at both experimental groups did neither denounce their
experience or inexperience in developing rehabilitation designs, through their behaviour at the
lectures; nor in their answers on both Questionnaires B1 and B2. Similar to the previous
period to test the design theory, most students were very confident about their own principles;
even if often such principles did not have strong sustenance, nor be clearly understandable
and showing lifespan consciousness.
There were, however, clear differences of behaviour between the students from the
Netherlands and Portugal. This time, students from the Netherlands were more motivated and
brought periodical progress after comments and critics. Instead, the students from Portugal
would hardly show periodical progress. The first students would challenge the researcher with
questions, while the second students would only listen and hardly react.
®
The experience in using RE-ARCHITECTURE

Students made use of RE-ARCHITECTURE®, according to the program; but drew a

balance between theory and their individual approaches.

Architects, in both countries, especially concerned with lifespan consciousness at

rehabilitation interventions accepted the challenge and tested RE-ARCHITECTURE®.

Inversely to the architects, all students stated to have used RE-ARCHITECTURE® to

support their rehabilitation design developments (vide Figure 111). Nonetheless, as this
research follows qualitative methods, the researcher has chosen to still include the survey of
their answers in the following themes, even if well aware of them being not representative.
Other option would have been to exclusively focus on the students. However, in this
case the expertise would not be able to learn from their experiences and opinion. Moreover,
while the techniques of observation have given enough support to be more certain about
specific behaviours of the students, the process mining techniques have done the same for
both architects and students.
The researcher was interested to understand their motivations for not having used
RE-ARCHITECTURE®. Their comments and answers to Questionnaire B2 would be of much
value for further recommendations and improvements on future RE-ARCHITECTURE®
versions. That was exactly the reason to introduce this question, while realising their low
adoption, controlling the logged workflow.
Most designers from both countries, who have not used RE-ARCHITECTURE® have
either stated not to be involved with any rehabilitation design, but still curious to see what RE-
ARCHITECTURE® had to offer; or to be involved but in such a late stage that everything was
already defined and decided; or with a schedule that did not allow extra or unplanned
activities.
Particularly from the Netherlands, few architects considered the use of RE-
ARCHITECTURE time-consuming and unprofitable. Others found the English language a
very difficult barrier. One architect from Portugal, found too difficult to start using RE-
ARCHITECTURE, without a previous demonstration or formation.

122
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

100%
1
90% 2
80%
70% 10 11 21
60%
50% 9 9
8
40% 7
30%
20% 8 7 15
10%
0% 0 0
students architects total students architects total yes
no
The Netherlands Portugal Total

Figure 111 – The experience in using RE-ARCHITECTURE®

The students did not denounce any particular rejection behaviour for using RE-
ARCHITECTURE®. Few of them preferred the book RE-ARCHITECTURE scapus, over
searching and reading the guidelines online. Basically, they declared to be using RE-
ARCHITECTURE® mostly for the tools.
Most students from the Netherlands were curious and motivated by the program to
undertake a rehabilitation design of an industrial heritage building, and with the particularity of
participating in a doctoral research, by testing RE-ARCHITECTURE®. Even if some initially
seemed concerned with the impact of this experience on their own assumptions and
methods, most students were open to the new experience and tried different methods.
Generally, students presented few critics even if strongly encouraged. From the
Netherlands, students mostly commented e.g. it would be better if designers were enabled to
share the same design process, export data, etc. Instead, students from Portugal mostly
argued issues related to aesthetics of the interface, e.g. colour, letter size, etc.
Moreover, process mining techniques revealed that the ways designers would use
RE-ARCHITECTURE® were varied (vide Appendix 8). Here, the researcher found enough
evidence to support the hypothesis that such support system would not constrain the process
of designers willing to develop lifespan conscious rehabilitation designs, nor their creativity.
Probably, designers who consider that the theorised design process and respective
RE-ARCHITECTURE® constrains their design process, without really trying; are in fact,
designers who consider themselves entitled to their creative freedom; allowed to vanish the
built environment in their rehabilitation design developments, without any sorrow for the
wasted resources; which might have been significant and in good condition. And for them,
RE-ARCHITECTURE® has, indeed, no use.

123
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The perspective on developing rehabilitation designs

Students with different perspectives than the pure architecture-oriented ones reacted
similarly to the theorized design process.

Architects with different perspectives than the pure architecture-oriented ones reacted
similarly to the theorized design process.

Most students from the Netherlands (78%) and all students (100%) from Portugal
answered that becoming an architect was their first professional expectation. So, did the
architect from the Netherlands and one architect from Portugal. The other students (22%)
from the Netherlands chose for building technology engineer (vide Figure 112).
From the Netherlands, students referenced as other professional expectations
building technology engineer, while the architect chose for building process manager.
Instead, from Portugal, students referenced urban planner, building process manager,
researcher and/or professor. For the architects those were respectively, building process
manager, urban planner and researcher and/or professor (vide Figure 113).
Despite the differences in professional expectations, evidences that would confirm the
hypothesis could not be identified by the researcher in the behaviour of the students, nor in
the answers of both students and architects. Most students have revealed tendency for
architectural developments and only few students from the Netherlands, targeting building
technology; were less conceptual, but their design processes were not less interesting. In
fact, this opened prospects for providing RE-ARCHITECTURE® to other actors involved in
rehabilitation design developments.

The Netherlands Portugal

students architects students architects
0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 22%
0%
0%
50% 50%

78%
100% 100%

Figure 112 – The first choice at the professional expectations of the designers, after graduation
The Netherlands Portugal
students architects students architects
0% 0% 0% 0%
17%

0% 33% 33% 34%

17%

100% 100% 33% 33%

Architect; Building Technology Engineer; Urban Planner; Researcher/ Professor; Building

process manager; Other

Figure 113 – Other choices at the professional expectations of the designers, after graduation

124
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

Again, in these matters there were clear differences between the students from the
Netherlands and from Portugal. The students from the Netherlands were much more
acquainted with the surveys to be undertaken during the Pre-Design stage than the students
from Portugal. Therefore, even if most of them have had previous rehabilitation interventions,
their acquaintance with surveys involving interventions in the built environment was very
limited. Probably, such difference was either lack of knowledge and/or language barriers.
Nonetheless, a curious point of attention was the mutual interest for dealing with the building
and respective environment on a social-oriented perspective.

The interest in developing rehabilitation designs

Students have shown interest in developing rehabilitation designs; however, they have
mostly prioritized the present and respective novelties.

Architects have shown interest in developing rehabilitation designs; however, they

have mostly prioritized the present and respective novelties.

All designers from both countries have considered their preceding rehabilitation
designs interesting, when answering Questionnaire B1. Most arguments regarded the
building. However, there have been few interesting ones, which were more oriented towards
the designer and his aims. From the Netherlands, one student particularly argued its inherent
process of irrationality and sensitivity; while from Portugal, one architect argued the ability to
apply his principles. The only common argument among the four groups of designers was the
ability to integrate past (old) and present (new) in the new existence. Also much referenced
were: integrating new functions and services in the new existence and the management of
the building restrictions and/or problems of the pre-existence.
From the Netherlands, one student argued to reduce demolitions and built heritage
losses; while two architects argued to treat existing components / materials and to deal with
existing buildings as interesting. From Portugal, equally referenced were the challenge to
integrate new components and materials into a pre-existence, to manage a conscious /
minimal design and to preserve valuable buildings.
In most arguments the focus on the present achievements and respective additions in
the new existence is visible; either referenced individually (37%) or directly related to the
remainings from the pre-existence (37%). Less referenced were the remainings (23%);
followed by the subtractions.
When asked specifically for the advantages that could be clearly identified in their
rehabilitation designs, like when testing the design theory, the only common aim was to
replace the building areas, functions and/or services. To improve the building condition and
physics (e.g. light, acoustics etc.) till the modern requirements was also argument referenced
by all groups, except for the students from Portugal.
In fact, the aim to improve the building and respective environment was the most
referenced (44%), followed by the aim to replace (33%). Instead, to restore was referenced
by designers from Portugal(8%). The aim to maintain was exclusively referenced by the
architects (6%). Equally referenced was the aim to decrease (6%); however, this was an aim
exclusively referenced by the architects from the Netherlands.
Students from the Netherlands and architects from Portugal aimed to improve the
“building areas, functions and/or services”. Inversely, one architect from the Netherlands and
one student from Portugal referenced the interest to improve “environments which are or can

125
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

become socially valuable for their people”. Students and architects from Portugal have
referenced the aim to restore the “building’s lifespan and consequent sustainability”.
From the Netherlands, students aimed to improve the “environment through the
building rehabilitation”. Instead, one architect mentioned the interest to decrease the building
“usage of economic, energy and natural resources”; to improve the “ecological values of the
pre-existence”. While one architect from the Netherlands aimed to maintain; students from
Portugal aimed to improve what “architecturally valuable in a building as well as its identity,
image and/or status”. Moreover, one architect referenced the interest to maintain “built
heritage and/or culturally valuable buildings”.
At the four groups, four common factors were presented as influential to their design
developments. Most referenced were the “essence and/or original qualities” of the pre-
existence; second were the “user demands”, for the new existence; third and fourth were
respectively the “construction” of the pre-existence and of the new existence, considering
the nature of “what to add into the building and its relation with the remainings”.
All groups except for the students from Portugal have referenced the “concept” of the
new existence and the “economic resources available for the development” of the new
existence. Moreover, except for the group of architects from the Netherlands, all others
referenced the “functions” in the new existence. The choices involving the “construction” of
the new existence and its respective “level of sustainability” was also a fundamental factor to
all groups except from the group of students from the Netherlands.
At both groups from the Netherlands, the building physics in the new existence was
considered an important factor to their rehabilitation designs. The historic values of the pre-
existence and the time available for the rehabilitation intervention were two factors
mentioned at the groups of architects. Instead, the “forms and/or geometries” of the pre-
existence were an important factor referenced by students from the Netherlands and
architects from Portugal.
Particularly, at the group of students from both countries which the researcher was
able to observe, it was confirmed their favouritism for the present achievements and their
visions for the new existence.
The pre-existence would be hardly mentioned when revealing their interest in
developing rehabilitation interventions and even more rare to find were designers who set
their interest in establishing the harmony between past, present and future of the building and
respective environment. Curiously, past would only be referenced when the building would be
found culturally valuable, e.g. historic, social, scientific, aesthetical, etc.
Generally, the students from the Netherlands would be much more motivated, but
also much more intrusive. Along the process, they would be constantly asked about their
aims and guiding principles. Only by the end of the semester, most students have understood
the aim of such experience and importance to become more lifespan conscious.
Students from Portugal, instead, planned their interventions much more carefully.
They had inherited not only the motto of WASTE ZERO from the previous year, as they had a
new motto. They would see this intervention as a tenant. Therefore, the more reversible they
would develop their rehabilitation designs the better. Consequently, such mottos have
brought very minimal interventions.
With the end of the semester for the students and the four months of RE-
ARCHITECTURE® trial for the architects, designers were asked again about their interest in
developing rehabilitation design and their arguments. Almost all designers (95%) have
considered it interesting. Only one student (5%) from Portugal has argued the complexity of
RE-ARCHITECTURE® to consider it uninteresting. Instead, at all groups, designers have

126
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

argued the interest in developing their rehabilitation design related to the interest in the
theorised design process which they were challenged to follow.
Students from the Netherlands mentioned that the method followed offered more
structure in the design process, enabling them to “speak with the building”; taught them a
“great deal about rehabilitation”; made them “more conscious” about lifespan rehabilitations;
pointed out a different approach; and provided a methodological approach to deal with the
complexity of rehabilitation interventions. Moreover, students from Portugal mentioned that
the method allowed them to try a scientific method and to verify its results, as well as that the
method was innovative and a “very important experience for the conscience” of what
rehabilitation is, together with the process before construction.
The architect from the Netherlands, who was already in the middle of a rehabilitation
design process when started using RE-ARCHITECTURE®, argued that if the earlier choices
would have been properly documented, as fully guidelined in RE-ARCHITECTURE®, that
probably his design process would have been much easier. One architect from Portugal,
mentioned the interest of RE-ARCHITECTURE® for being able to support her mental process
and another architect mentioned the ability to not let a designer forget about anything.
More oriented towards the building, three were the arguments found common at both
groups of students. The first was the challenge to deal with existing buildings while defining a
new existence; the second was the ability to design respecting the old building and the
architect; and the third was the ability to integrate new components and/or materials.
At the group of students from the Netherlands, references were found on the
challenge to manage the building restrictions / problems, on the ability to preserve valuable
buildings, and on the ability to integrate harmoniously old and new, at the new existence.
From Portugal, one student mentioned the ability to integrate new functions / services and
other mentioned the ability to use current materials and technologies.
Again, the importance endorsed to the additions by the designers is clear; either
referenced individually (36%) or directly related to the remainings (45%). This last one has
grown considerably since the Pre-survey (37%). Less referenced were the remainings (18%).
This time, subtractions are not mentioned at all, nor the combination between subtractions
and remainings and between subtractions and additions.
When asked specifically for the advantages that could be clearly identified at their
rehabilitation designs, only one common aim was found among all four groups of designers.
That aim was to restore the building’s identity, image and/or status. There was another
common aim among all groups, to improve the building’s areas, functions and/or services,
except for the group of architects from the Netherlands.
The aim referenced at all groups was to restore (26%). Instead, to improve the
building and respective environment was the most referenced aim (50%), by all groups
except the architect from the Netherlands. To maintain was the following most referenced
aim (12%) referenced at the groups from Portugal. Instead, the aim to decrease was
exclusively referenced at the group of students, from Portugal. Last aim, to replace was only
mentioned at the group of students (3%), from the Netherlands.
Both groups of students aimed to improve what socially valuable; at the level of the
building and at the level of the environment, as well as, to improve the building’s identity,
image and/or status. Moreover, designers from Portugal have also commonly referenced the
aim to maintain the building’s identity, image and/or status.
Students from the Netherlands aimed to restore the social values within the building;
to improve the building generally and to replace the building areas, functions and/or
services. Instead, students from Portugal aimed to decrease the usage of economic

127
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

resources, to decrease the demolition / waste of resources and the usage of natural
resources; to maintain what considered historically and socially valuable; in the building; and
to improve the building’s lifespan and respective sustainability.
When asked to describe the most important factors which have influenced their
design developments, all groups except for the architects from Portugal, have mentioned the
historic values inherent in the pre-existence. Inversely, all groups except the group of
architects from the Netherlands described the aesthetical values inherent in the pre-
existence and the “functions” in the new existence.
Students have presented the “forms and/or geometry” and the “essence and original
qualities” of the pre-existence; the user demands reached at the new existence; the relation
with the environment; and sustainable and/or ecological construction. This last one enclosed
references to ecology and/or to e.g. “reuse of materials”, “plan what to do with the things you
take out of the building”. Last common fundamental factor, the minimal damage to the pre-
existence was as a fundamental factor referenced at both groups from Portugal.
From the Netherlands, students pointed respectively the verticality and/or the height
of the pre-existence, and the building physics of the new existence, e.g. daylight, comfort.
From Portugal, students mentioned the social values and the importance of the building’s
condition. Both architects from Portugal mentioned the “construction” of the pre-existence,
however, only one referred its “level of sustainability”, e.g. solar conditions.
The main difference between the arguments presented in questionnaire B1 and B2 is
the theorised design process and reasons to consider it interesting. That has also occurred in
the previous period to test the design theory. Respectively, students where asked if they
considered the rehabilitation design interesting and most of them would argue about either
the theorised design process and/or RE-ARCHITECTURE®.
Moreover, they still tend to generally focus in the additions and novelties, just as
hypothesised. That is clearly revealed by the strength of the aims to improve on both
Questionnaire B1 and B2. Nonetheless, a raise of lifespan consciousness was found among
the arguments of the students, with the minor interventive aim being more considered than
earlier e.g. restore, maintain, etc. gaining more presence in their arguments.
Being the pre-existence the motive of the rehabilitation intervention, this design
process helped designers to observe, rather than just to look; before idealising the new
existence. Most students have realised such difference and treasured the level of knowledge
retrieved to sustain their rehabilitation design developments; not only from documents, but
from the involved actors, as well as from the building and respective environment.

The design processes followed in rehabilitation designs

Students have followed similar design processes and dealt with similar problems,
already before following the theorised design process.

Architects have more variety, but still have followed similar design processes and dealt
with similar problems, already before following the theorised design process.

When asked in Questionnaire B1 about the design process (methodology) followed in

their preceding rehabilitation design development, designers could choose between three
options of answer: theory-based, individual-based or both. These options are different than at
Questionnaire A2 and A3; but actually they mean exactly the same: teacher, own or both. It
was only a matter to universalise the same question for both students and architects.

128
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

100%
90% 1
4
80% 3 12
4 4 8
70%
60%
50% 4
40% 7
3 2 13
30% 6
4
20%
10% 2
1 1 2 2 4
0% 0
students architects total students architects total

The Netherlands Portugal Total

theory-based individual-based both

Figure 114 - The design process followed by the designers

Together with the individual-based, a compromise between the individual-based and

the theory-based was considerably found chosen at all groups; leaving the theory-based, only
found unselected by the architects, from Portugal. In fact, it was curious to find designers
from the Netherlands being more individual-based than from Portugal. Such results meant
that at least half of them could be, in advance, already more receptive for reaching a
compromise with the theorised design process (vide Figure 110).
As clearly illustrated in Figure 115, designers performed more than the double of
activities stages/activities from the Design stage (67%), than from the Pre-Design stage
(33%). Within the Pre-Design stage, analysis (3AN) was mentioned at all groups and
synthesis (3SY) was only not found mentioned at the group of architects from the
Netherlands. However, no reference was found on activities of evaluation (3EV) and decision
(3DE), exclusively focus at the pre-existence of the building.
Within the Design stage, related to the building’s new existence, activities of analysis
(4AN) were found by students from the Netherlands and architects from Portugal; while
activities of synthesis (4SY) were only not found referenced by students from Portugal. Again,
simulation (4SI) was the sub-stage with more activities referenced, comprising more than the
half (56%) of the total number of activities. Activities of evaluation (4EV) were only referenced
by designers from the Netherlands; while the activities of decision (4DE) were found
referenced by one architect from the Netherlands and one student from Portugal.
Except for the students from the Netherlands and the architects from Portugal that
have spent >40 hours on activities of analysis (3AN), most designers focused most of their
time, also >40 hours, on activities related to simulation, more than on all other theorised sub-
stages. Moreover, most designers proclaimed the usefulness of their stages/activities.

129
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
59 71 73 74 75 77 80 234 261 329 366 404 480 385 386 387 388 391 392 393 394 113 117 166 218 350 352 458 484

3AN 3SY 3EV 3DE 4AN 4SY 4SI 4EV 4DE

Figure 115 – The activities identified by the designers, ordered per design process sub-stage

Except for the group of students from Portugal; all groups were quite pleased with the
preceding design process. In fact, generally the groups of designers stating “yes” (45%) or
“no” (55%), to change and/or improve particular activities, were very comparable. Probably
due to their level of experience and confidence with their own design processes, architects
were much less open to follow different design processes than students.
Most changes regarded time management problems; most often too little time to
produce the specific activities and take the design further, with the aimed quality. Few other
changes regarded the involvement of other actors in the design process. Most activities
identified were from the sub-stage simulation (4SI), followed by activities of synthesis (3SY)
and by activities of analysis (3AN) and synthesis (4SY).
From the Netherlands, students required more time for developing the “architectural
aspects”, which one considered “difficult in rehabilitations”; and architects for surveying the
building and defining the “visualisation of strategy; opportunity to set the starting point” and
less “design meetings; not focussed enough”. From Portugal, architects required more time
for surveying the “history of the building”, meeting with the “involved engineers during the
design process and not just at the end”.
There was one particular reference from an architect from Portugal that exactly
sustains the main aims of this doctoral research. She also mentioned changes regarded time
management problems, but on too much time spent researching rehabilitation theories and/or
practices. Accordingly, such support is normally not easily accessible and such research is
very time-consuming.
From the Netherlands, students suggested the participation of the neighbours since
the beginning of the design process; to develop further the historic survey of the building, a
common structure to harmonise the differences between all designers involved in the same
rehabilitation design; and better conceptual developments.

130
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

From Portugal, both students and architects presented interest to improve

considerations during their design developments, e.g. application of more renewable energies
and better developed concepts. Students also mentioned a better research on the
characteristics of the components and materials, planned for the new-existence – remainings
and additions – and a better research on the required services for such functions.
When asked about extra-support along their preceding design process, most students
stated to have needed extra-support, found in the library (41%), internet (38%), teacher
(38%) and experts (31%). Curiously, the extra-support coming from colleagues, either at the
academic or at the professional level was seldom referenced by the groups from the
Netherlands; but quite much referenced by the groups from Portugal.
While observing the students along the semesters, the researcher has denoted the
same time management problems. Particularly, with the schedule of approximately one week
per sub-stage, students would often have to go forward with their design processes, without
having finished the activities, from the previous sub-stage.
That naturally brought considerable inconsistency to the evaluation sub-stages; and
taking as point of priority the earlier identified stages of analysis and simulation students tend
to neglect the sub-stages which they were less acquainted with. For example, the evaluation
stage was quite neglected. Consequently, they presented evaluation rates based on their
opinion; instead of presenting evaluation rates based on the surveys, respectively undertaken
on base of the inventoried information. Such passive and sustain role was still difficult to
accept among the students in both groups, as they are used to not have to sustain their
arguments on the real pre-existence, but at an ideal new existence.
Moreover, due to the particularity and novelty of specific taxonomy, the researcher
would often have to explain what was already explained in RE-ARCHITECTURE®. More
evident in Portugal than in the Netherlands, there were few students that were not accessing
RE-ARCHITECTURE® or reading RE-ARCHITECTURE scapus. Consequently, they were not
acquainted with the guidelines or tools.
A new taxonomy was synthesis. Most students confuse its meaning with analysis.
Actually, most students only recognise two different stages, analysis and simulation; the first
to search for related information without any defined method or guiding parameters and
tendentiously end up transforming such information immediately into design developments,
through simulation activities.
Nonetheless, the difficulty on surveying it technically remained perceptible as with the
groups from the previous period when testing the design theory, but more in Portugal than in
the Netherlands. Students from Portugal, while inventorying information were tendentiously
taking their conclusions, as they have always done and presenting already evaluations
without those being sustained by the pre-existence.
With RE-ARCHITECTURE® to sustain them, students showed fewer difficulties
surveying all inventoried information. Again, they have showed preference to RE-
ARCHITECTURE scapus, which they could “take everywhere and would not have to be
dependent on the internet connection”. Moreover, they had also access to parameters, which
they could either consider or not.
In Questionnaire B2 designers were asked again about the design process
(methodology) as well their respective time and degree of usefulness. Most designers (67%)
chose for the combined individual-based and the theory-based method (vide Figure 116).

131
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

100% 0
90%
80%
1
70% 6
6 8 14
60% 7
50% 1
40%
30%
2 3 1
20% 6
2 3
10%
1 1
0% 0 0 0 0 1
students architects total students architects total

The Netherlands Portugal Total

theory-based individual-based both

Figure 116 - The design process followed by the designers

Again, designers have performed more activities from the design stage (77%), rather
than from the pre-design stage (23%). Particularly regarding the students, the researcher was
aware that they have performed all sub-stages, even if unreferenced. Nonetheless, it was
important to verify which sub-stages and/or respective activities students would consider
important to mention.
There was, however, a curious tendency in the Post-Survey to not mention the
activities undertaken at the Pre-Design stage (vide Figure 117). The researcher perceives two
arguments to justify such behaviour. First argument is that, as the question asked for the
individual design process; few students deduced that the researcher was asking for the
activities they performed alone, during the Design stage.
Second argument is a deduction sustained on base of their general behaviours, but
that can be misinterpreting the reality. The researchers believes that few students do not
consider the research undertaken exclusively to evaluate both building and environment
significance and condition; as part of the design process. Some behaviour evidenced that
only when dealing with activities of the Design stage, they would feel developing a
rehabilitation design.
Nevertheless, both groups of students have identified all sub-stages, within the Pre-
design stage; except for the students from the Netherlands, who did not identify activities of
decision (3DE). The architects from Portugal have only mentioned activities of analysis (3AN).
Within the Design stage, all sub-stages were mentioned by both groups of students.
Activities of analysis (4AN) and simulation (4SI) were mentioned by every student. Last, one
architect from Portugal mentioned activities of synthesis (4SY).

132
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
59 69 71 73 74 75 77 80 84 437 385 386 387 388 390 391 392 393 394 350 352

3AN 3SY 3EV 3DE 4AN 4SY 4SI 4EV 4DE

Figure 117 – The activities identified by the designers, ordered per design process sub-stage

Almost all designers spent >40 hours in activities of simulation. Only some students
from the Netherlands have also spent a considerable amount of time (>20 hours) in activities
of analysis (4AN) and synthesis (4SY) worthwhile of reference. Moreover, most designers
proclaimed the usefulness of the undertaken stages/activities. In fact, only students from the
Netherlands considered few activities developed useless, e.g. activities of evaluation,
decision and synthesis (condition survey).
In fact, most students (72%) from the Netherlands and Portugal stated not to have
followed another design process. Inversely, architects from the Netherlands and Portugal
stated “yes” to the question if they would follow a different design process; together with few
students from the Netherlands and Portugal. Again, as at Questionnaire B1, most arguments
concerned time management problems in the sub-stages of simulation and analysis.
At the level of the activities of analysis, both groups of students identified the need to
develop more detailed oral and physical inventories that can provide them with better
information to sustain the respective surveys and assessments of the respective building
condition and significance. One student from the Netherlands stated “every part I demolished
could be an inspiration for what to do with it so it could increase the quality of my design”, but
other students from Portugal also mentioned the need to better sustain “what to remove and
what to add”, leading to a better “exploitation of the existing resources in the building”.
The architect from the Netherlands mentioned activities of synthesis, to “look further
into history to find out why decisions were made”. One architect from Portugal mentioned
activities of analysis e.g. visiting more the building; and the other architect mentioned the
simulation stage, where the designer should have considered “more alternatives” to
materialise her concepts of intervention.
Regarding what stages/activities to do less, students pointed towards pre-design
stages. Students from the Netherlands pointed towards the evaluation sub-stage; while from

133
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Portugal towards the analysis sub-stage. Nonetheless, these were minorities, as most
designers did not mention specific stages and/or activities to do less in the design process.
Accordingly, all had specific purposes and influence in the design developments.
All designers stated to have needed extra-support at varied stages of the design
process. When asked to state in which stage/activity and where they found the extra-support;
most designers chose teachers/consultants (24%); followed by the library (22%) and
colleagues (22%), the internet (14%) and the experts (11%). There is a particular and
unique reference, of one student from the Netherlands, to the Pre-Design report – they
developed during the Pre-Design stage – as extra-support to his design developments,
together with further references related to the library.
The stages where designers needed extra-support were within the design stage; e.g.
analysis, synthesis and simulation. While students from the Netherlands referenced more
analysis and synthesis, e.g. “to find aims and requirements of the dive centre and find out the
installation concept”; students from Portugal referenced simulation, e.g. “while designing, I
needed more extra information about the subtractions and how could I turn it profitable again.
I had some doubts especially on the transformation of the concrete.”
Therefore, by comparing their preceding design processes, and later their design
processes making use of RE-ARCHITECTURE® the researcher was able to conclude that
there are evident patterns of activities, as well as of the problems raised while describing
what to do more or less. The design process is, after all, no more than a succession of
stages, more or less structured, more or less linear. Even the most creative and irrational
designer follows a design process, an irrational process, but that is also a process.
When he repeats such method, or part of it, even if it was only once, he has created a
pattern. And, in this case of the students, a clear pattern was identified. So clear, that it even
remains above the structure of the theorised design process, which is already considered a
strong pattern. The priority of developing activities of analysis and simulation is undeniable,
in more than one from the previous questions. For them they loose most time and for them
they search for more information beyond referencing them together with few others.
The process mining survey was considerable useful to confirm such pattern, joining
the evidences from the written arguments of the students with their user behaviours (vide
Appendix 8). Moreover, even if from the architects there are hardly written arguments; the
same pattern is found in their user behaviours (vide Appendix 8).
Students from both experimental groups became already more aware of other sub-
stages within the theorised design process and how they could benefit from them to improve
the quality of their design results. Hopefully, in time, this pattern shall change and enclose
more and more the sub-stages theorised in the design process implemented in RE-
ARCHITECTURE®. That would certainly help designers getting more lifespan conscious
results, with decisions sustained in a compromise between the pre-existence and the new
existence, rather than exclusively sustained in the new existence.

The universe of subtractions, remainings and additions

The correlation between subtractions, remainings and additions was not considered by
the students; but grew while using RE-ARCHITECTURE®.

The correlation between subtractions, remainings and additions was not considered by
the architects; but shall grow after using RE-ARCHITECTURE®.

134
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

In Questionnaire B1, just as in the period to test the design theory, most designers
(82%) have attributed positive values (reasonable, high and very high) to the importance
given in their design decisions to the building subtractions, remainings, additions and
connections (vide Figure 118).
Both groups from the Netherlands and the architects from Portugal considered the
remainings of very high importance. From the Netherlands, most students and architects
considered the subtractions, additions and connections of high importance.
From Portugal, students considered all four realities of reasonable importance; only
the subtractions were equally considered of very low and very high importance (25%).
Instead, the architects considered the subtractions of reasonable importance, the additions
were considered simultaneously of low, reasonable, high and very high importance, and the
connections were considered of very high importance.

The Netherlands Portugal

students architects students architects
0% 0% 13%
14% 17% 12%
25% 24%
0% 0%
subtractions

33%
13%

57% 29%
13% 13%
33%

17% 25% 62%

0% 13%
17% 13% 13%
29% 0%
0%
remainings

0%
43%
17% 25% 49%

38%
14% 66%
49%
14% 0%

14% 14% 0% 13% 12% 0%

17%
0% 25% 25%
additions

13% 13%

25% 25%
72% 83% 49%

0% 0% 0% 0%
14% 17% 17% 13% 13%
25%
0% 0%
connections

14%
25%

62%
72%
62%
66%
very low; low; reasonable; high; very high
Figure 118 – The importance given to the subtractions, remainings, additions and connections

When asked if they planned something for the building subtractions, the group of
designers got divided, stating “yes” (48%) and “no” (52%). Particularly, students from the
Netherlands argued that subtractions were not a factor at their assessment and that there
was too little time. Students from Portugal argued that there were hardly subtractions planned

135
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

and that they have never considered them before. The main aims of the designers towards
the subtracted elements are illustrated in Figure 119. Most designers chose for the aim to
reuse.
The architects from the Netherlands presented examples where structural elements,
staircases, light boxes, transport belts, etc. were reused; while carpentry-work and masonry
were relocated. Instead, the architects from Portugal illustrated the reuse of components from
the floors and stairs, e.g. ceramics and wood elements; as well as, of roof tiles and stones.
The relocation was illustrated with the subtraction and relocation of forms such as stairs and
stones, either from stairs or from window frames, etc.
In the cases of reuse and/or relocation, most examples presented required the action
of reprocess / demount, where forms are converted into components or components end up
converted into material. A pure relocation without reprocess can only be considered as valid,
when the form or component in question does not require an extra effort to be demounted
and assembled at the same position without considerable alterations to its previous state.
Alike the subtractions, the remainings were much more (76%) considered by the
designers. Most designers have chosen the main aim to repair. The least interventive, to
arrest decay was the less selected (vide Figure 120).
From the Netherlands, students have chosen to first to reinforce and second to
repair; while each architect has chosen to arrest decay, to repair and to reinforce.
From Portugal, architects have chosen together with the students to repair; and to
consolidate, and alone chosen to reinforce. To consolidate was not chosen by designers
from the Netherlands; and to arrest decay was not chosen by designers from Portugal.
Therefore, while the designers from the Netherlands prioritised to reinforce, the designers
from Portugal have prioritised to repair. Equally valued was to repair for the designers from
the Netherlands and to consolidate for the designers from Portugal.
Most examples regarded main aims to repair, e.g. “physical aspects”; “windows”, etc.
From the Netherlands, students repaired the “building’s functional layout” and the architects
the “building’s construction”. From Portugal, students repaired the “façade and doors” and the
architects the “decorative elements and roof”. There were, however, examples to reinforce
the “building’s façade and construction”, “windows, stairs and the building’s functional layout”;
and to consolidate .e.g. “finishings”, “roof and the building’s construction”, etc.
Similar to the test period of the design theory, all designers stated to have planned
where to locate the additions. Most designers chose to locate the additions inside
(connected), followed by outside (apart), and inside (demountable). Least chosen was the
main aim to locate the additions inside (connected) (vide Figure 121).
From the Netherlands, students and architects have chosen as main aim to locate the
additions inside (connected) and outside (apart). Individually, students chose to locate the
additions inside (loose); and one architect chose to locate the additions inside
(demountable). From Portugal, students and architects choose to locate the additions inside
(connected) and inside (demountable). Instead, one architect chose to locate his additions
outside (apart).
In case of both the additions and the connections between additions and remainings,
the examples provided by the designers have not been considered clear and relevant enough
to be presented together with the remaining results.
Most students (86%) confirmed their concern for the connections between the
remainings and the additions, at the building pre-existence. When asked about how they have
planned the connections, most students chose for the option totally fixed; followed by
punctually fixed, demountable and loose (vide Figure 122)

136
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

The Netherlands Portugal

students architects students architects
0% 0%
14%

33% 34% 33% 0%

43%

0% 67%
43%
100% 33%

reuse; relocate; recycle

Figure 119 – The main aims towards the subtractions

The Netherlands Portugal

students architects students architects
0% 0% 0%

29%
33% 34%
40% 42%
43%

57% 60%
0%

0% 29%
33%

arrest decay; repair ; consolidate; reinforce

Figure 120 – The main aims towards the remainings

The Netherlands Portugal

students architects students architects
0% 13%
17%
29% 25% 0%
0%
42% 13%
17%

66%
75% 74%
0% 29%

outside (apart); inside (loose); inside (demountable); inside (connected)

Figure 121 – The main aims towards the location of the additions

The Netherlands Portugal

students architects students architects
0% 0%
17% 0%
25%
0% 33% 33% 34%
38%
17%

66% 67%

37%
33%
loose; demountable; punctually fix; totally fix
Figure 122 – The main aims towards the connections

137
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Particularly, the first two connections were selected by all groups. From the
Netherlands, students and architects have chosen for totally fixed and for partially fixed
connections. Only one student chose for loose connections. The demountable connections
were selected by students and architects from Portugal. No student or architect from the
Netherlands has selected demountable connections; and, no student or architect from
Portugal has selected the loose connections.
When asked about the relation between subtractions (S) and remainings (R), more
designers (31%) selected the scale S>25 v R<75 than the scale S>05 v R<95, being equally
selected as the scale S>50 v R<50 (vide Figure 123). From the Netherlands, students have
selected to describe their rehabilitation designs from the least interventive scale S>05 v R<95
till the scale S>75 v R<25. Instead, the highest value at both groups of architects was the
scale S>50 v R<50. From Portugal, students referenced all scales.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
students architects total students architects total

The Netherlands Portugal Total

S>05 v R<95 S>25 v R<75 S>50 v R<50 S>75 v R<25 S>95 v R<05
Figure 123 – The subtractions, within the relation between subtractions and remainings

Designers were also challenged to estimate the relationship between the additions (A)
and the remainings (R) in the new existence. Both scales, A>25 v R<75 and A>50 v R<50,
were the most chosen scales, referenced by eleven designers (38%), from both the
Netherlands and Portugal (vide Figure 124).
From the Netherlands, the most referenced scale was A>50 v R<50. The highest
range selected was the scale A>75 v R<25 by the students and the scale A>50 v R<50 for
the architects. Instead, from Portugal, the most referenced scale was A>25 v R<75. The
highest range selected was the scale A>95 v R<75 by the students and the scale A>50 v
R<50 for the architects.
Particularly, in some answers of students from the Netherlands it was possible to
identify the interest for the challenge of dealing with these four realities. They were naturally
more interested in the additions, just as most others; but they felt the curiosity of dealing with
the building on a different way. Even if a smaller percentage of the whole group, some

138
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

students have proposed very interesting solutions of reuse, relocation and reprocess in their
design developments.
When the researcher and Arch. Walraven would ask for their arguments and direct
correlations to the pre-design stage, most frequently they would bring few arguments reached
at the pre-design stage. Nonetheless, not so often sustain by ecological values. Their
arguments would be always more related to historic, aesthetical, scientific and social values.
Instead, the students from Portugal had a more conservative approach with almost no
subtractions. Similarly to the previous year, the pre-established aim was: WASTE ZERO.
They were challenged to rehabilitate the building with the least construction & demolition
waste possible. Not all were willing to consider its importance, but few students ended
simulating interesting solutions to add the subtracted substances into the new existence.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
students architects total students architects total

The Netherlands Portugal Total

A>05 v R<95 A>25 v R<75 A>50 v R<50 A>75 v R<25 A>95 v R<05
Figure 124 – The additions, within the relation between additions and remainings

When answering Questionnaire B2, most designers (82%) have attributed positive
values (reasonable, high and very high) to the building subtractions, remainings, additions
and connections, rather than negative values (low, very low).
At both groups of students, subtractions were mostly considered of high importance.
From the Netherlands, most students considered the remainings and additions equally of
high and/or very high importance and the connections of very high importance. Instead, from
Portugal, most students considered remainings and additions of reasonable importance and
the connections of reasonable and high importance (vide Figure 125).
At both groups of architects, additions were considered of reasonable importance.
The architect from the Netherlands has considered the subtractions and the remainings of
low importance and the connections of high importance. Instead, the two architects from
Portugal have considered the subtractions of reasonable and very high importance, the
remainings of very high importance and the connections of very high importance.

139
 Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The Netherlands Portugal

students architects students architects
0% 0% 11% 0%
22% 22%
subtractions

11%

45%
50% 50%
11%

34% 11% 33%

100% 0%
0% 11% 0% 11% 0%
22%
11%
remainings

44%

11%

45%

100% 45% 100%

0% 11% 0% 0% 0%
22%
33%
additions

44%

45%

100% 45% 100%

0% 0% 11% 0% 0%
22%
connections

45% 45%

44%
33%
100% 100%
very low; low; reasonable; high; very high
Figure 125 – The importance given to the subtractions, remainings, additions and connections

Except for one student from Portugal, all other designers have stated to have planned
what to do with the subtracted elements. His argument to sustain such choice was that in his
rehabilitation design developments there were no subtractions planned at the new existence;
so, consequently it was not necessary to plan their destiny (vide Figure 126).
Most designers (71%) have chosen to recycle + reuse, when describing their main
aims towards the subtractions to the pre-existence. Much less chosen were to relocate (18%)
and to reuse (12%). No designer chose as main aim to reprocess the subtracted elements.
From the Netherlands, students and the architect choose as main aim to recycle;
while only other students also chose to reuse, to relocate and last, to reprocess the
subtracted elements. Students from Portugal have chosen as main aim to recycle; to reuse
and to relocate. Similarly, the two architects from Portugal have also provided examples of
relocation at their rehabilitation design developments.
Students illustrated their main aim to recycle e.g. steel, glass, wood, concrete forms;
either at the façade, silos, etc. The recycled concrete was also planned to be reused again by
some students at e.g. floor levelling and slabs. From Portugal, students also presented one
example of relocation, where doors would be subtracted and relocated on other positions of

140
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

interest. The two architects from Portugal have given also interesting examples, regarding the
relocation of stairs and window frames, made of stone.
All designers (95%) except for one student, this time from the Netherlands, stated to
have planned what to do with the building remainings. Accordingly, it was “quite obvious that
parts needed to be restored, so I did not waste any of my time to design on that.” When
asked about their main aim towards the remaining substances, most designers have chosen
the main aim to repair, followed by to consolidate, and then to reinforce. The least
interventive, to arrest decay, was not selected by any designer. (vide Figure 127).
From the Netherlands, students chose evenly to repair and to reinforce, and few less
to consolidate. Even if one student stated “yes” to the question if he planned what to do with
the remainings, he did not provide a proper aim.
From Portugal, students chose more to consolidate than to repair. Moreover, the
architect from the Netherlands chose to repair, as one of the two architects from Portugal,
while the second chose to reinforce.
The examples provided by the students from the Netherlands regarded to repair e.g.
“façades and/or other inner walls”, reinforce e.g. “existing stairs” and consolidate e.g.
“construction”. The construction was also mentioned by one of the two architects; however,
her main aim was to reinforce it instead, together with the “windows, and tiles”. The students
from Portugal illustrated to repair materials, e.g. finishings; components, e.g. doors, windows
and services; and forms, e.g. roofs.
All designers stated to have planned where to locate the additions. Most designers
(52%) chose to locate the additions inside (demountable), followed by inside (connected),
and outside (apart). The aim to locate the additions inside (loose) was not chosen by any
designer (vide Figure 128). Both students from the Netherlands and Portugal chose more to
locate the additions inside (demountable) than inside (connected). Difference was that the
ones from Portugal did not choose for outside (apart). Both groups of architects chose to
locate the additions inside (connected).
Students from the Netherlands illustrated the additions located inside (demountable)
with e.g. “new primary elements”, “new work apartments hanging in the silos” and “floors
added into the silos”. The examples of the additions inside (connected) were mostly facilities
and new secondary elements. Last, the example of the additions outside (apart) was “the
new entrance of the community centre”.
The students from Portugal provided examples of additions inside (demountable)
e.g. “demountable partition walls at the sanitary facilities” and “stairs at the silos”, “new
entrance through a slope” and of additions inside (connected) e.g. “new slabs”.
The architect from the Netherlands did not provide a direct example; however he
emphasised the importance to “connect old and new, with different details; so that the new
additions are clearly identifiable”. The two architects from Portugal provided examples of
additions located inside (connected) e.g. new floors, primary elements, etc.
Most students (86%) confirmed their concern for the connections between the
remainings and the additions. Most designers chose for the option demountable; followed by
punctually fixed, and totally fixed. As no designer has chosen for the option loose, no
student from the Netherlands choose totally fixed (vide Figure 129).
Most students at both groups have chosen for demountable connections and only
few for punctually fixed. From Portugal, only one student has chosen totally fixed.
Moreover, the architect from the Netherlands only chose for totally fixed connections and the
two architects from Portugal have respectively chosen for punctually and totally fixed
connections.

141
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The Netherlands Portugal

students architects students architects
0% 13% 0%
22%

13%
45%
0%

22%
74%
11% 100% 100%
reuse; relocate; reprocess; recycle
Figure 126 – The main aims towards the subtractions

The Netherlands Portugal

students architects students architects
13% 0% 0% 0% 0%

37%
44%
50% 50%
56%
37%

13% 100% 0%
repair ; consolidate; reinforce; no aim
Figure 127 – The main aims towards the remainings

The Netherlands Portugal

students architects students architects
11% 0% 0% 0%
0%
33% 33%

67%
56%
100% 100%
outside (apart); inside (demountable); inside (connected)
Figure 128 – The main aims towards the location of the additions

The Netherlands Portugal

students architects students architects
0% 0% 0% 0%
22% 17%

17% 50% 50%

66%
78%
100%
demountable; punctually fix; totally fix
Figure 129 – The main aims towards the connections

142
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
students architects total students architects total

The Netherlands Portugal Total

S>05 v R<95 S>25 v R<75 S>50 v R<50 S>75 v R<25 S>95 v R<05

Figure 130 – The relation between subtractions and remainings

When asked about the percentual relation between subtractions (S) and remainings
(R), the results remain similar to the ones presented at Questionnaire B1. More designers
have chosen (48%) the scale S>25 v R<75, followed by the scale S>05 v R<95 and last, by
the scale S>50 v R<50. The difference between the answers, before and after getting
acquainted with RE-ARCHITECTURE® is, that this time the other two higher values were not
chosen by any of the designers (vide Figure 130).
From the Netherlands, most students have chosen for the scale S>25 v R<75; while
the rest of the students has chosen for the lowest scale S>05 v R<95. Instead, from Portugal,
each scale S>05 v R<95, S>25 v R<75 and S>50 v R<50 has been chosen by three students
(33%). The architect from the Netherlands preferred to choose the scale S>50 v R<50. The
architects from Portugal referenced the scale S>05 v R<95 and S>25 v R<75.
Designers were also challenged to estimate the relationship between the additions
and the remainings in the new existence. Most have chosen the scale A>25 v R<50.
Together with the most referenced one, also the scale A>05 v R<25 was equally referenced
by students from both groups. Instead, the scale A>50 v R<50 was chosen by the architect
from the Netherlands and few students from Portugal. Last, one student and architect from
Portugal chose the scale A>75 v R<25 (vide Figure 131).
In what regards the limited number of architects who got acquainted with RE-
ARCHITECTURE®, there can be no comparison between a pattern before and after using the
prototype, but with the students it is possible.
On their arguments presented in both Questionnaires, it was possible to verify that
students reduced their level of subtractions and additions. Most of them developed much
further the additions with new materials, but there have been also students who have
developed additions with subtracted elements. Moreover, few of them have taken time to
better develop the connections between the remainings and additions, allowing additions to
be reversible, in future interventions. Inversely to the period to test the design theory, the
raise of lifespan consciousness was higher in the Netherlands than in Portugal.

143
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
students architects total students architects total

The Netherlands Portugal Total

A>05 v R<95 A>25 v R<75 A>50 v R<50 A>75 v R<25 A>95 v R<05

Figure 131 – The relation between additions and remainings

The importance of rehabilitation interventions

The importance of rehabilitation interventions has achieved more sustenance on

ecological arguments by the students, rather than on the building’s classification.

The importance of rehabilitation interventions has not achieved more sustenance on

ecological arguments by the architects, rather than on the building’s classification.

In Questionnaire B1, all designers from the four groups considered important to
rehabilitate existing buildings. However, when asked to justify their answers, two architects
from the Netherlands and one student from Portugal did not provide proper considerations.
Comparable to the answers in the period to test the design theory, the aim to
maintain was most referenced among the students (55%), followed by to decrease (26%),
improve (11%) and replace (6%). The aim to restore was found among the arguments of
one student (2%).
There was one argument that all four groups shared to sustain the importance of
rehabilitation, which was also shared by all surveyed groups in the design theory test. This
was the aim to maintain buildings which are “historically valuable”.
There were two aims commonly referenced by the two groups from the Netherlands;
to decrease the impact of “demolition and/or waste of resources”, referenced also by one
architect from Portugal; and to maintain “built heritage and/or culturally valuable buildings”;
also mentioned by one student from Portugal. The two groups from Portugal had also a
common aim; which was to decrease the usage of “economic resources”. The last common
aim was between one architect from the Netherlands and few students from Portugal, to
maintain “what considered socially valuable”, at the level of the environment.
Architects from the Netherlands referenced the importance to maintain e.g. buildings
which are considered “socially valuable”, “which inhere particular features and
characteristics”; as well as, the building’s “identity, image and/or status”. This last argument

144
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

was also mentioned by the students from Portugal, but of the environment. Last, architects
from Portugal argued the need to decrease the “usage of energy and natural resources”, as
well as, to restore the building’s “lifespan and sustainability” and to maintain the building’s
“forms and construction”, through interventions of rehabilitation.
To complement the previous survey with more results, the researcher ordered the
arguments raised by the designers, according to the cultural values (vide book II - scapus)
theorised in this doctoral research (vide Table 5).

pv pv pv pv pv pv pv pv pv
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1:9 total
nl/s 2 3 - 2 - 1 - 3 1 12
The Netherlands nl/a 3 - - 1 1 - - 1 1 7
nl 5 3 - 3 1 1 - 4 2 19
pt/s 4 1 - 2 - - - - 2 9
Portugal pt/a 2 2 - 8 - 1 1 5 - 19
pt 6 3 - 10 - 1 1 5 2 28
total 11 6 - 13 1 2 1 9 4 47
Table 5 – The cultural values beneath the preceding importance of rehabilitation interventions

The historic values (PV4) were the cultural values most reflected at their arguments.
Second came the social values (PV1) and third the ecological values (PV8). The general
reference to the cultural values was found among the arguments of four designers, just after
the economic values (PV2). All these designers considered the maintenance of built heritage
and inherent cultural values meaningful through rehabilitation interventions.
Curiously, the aesthetical values (PV5) were much less referenced, together with the
scientific (PV6) and the age values (PV7). Instead, the political values (PV3) were not
mentioned at all.
Therefore, to further complement the inventory of arguments to consider the
rehabilitation of existing buildings of importance, they were asked which buildings should be
rehabilitated and which should be demolished. There were already few designers who stated
that such decision should depend on the situation of both building and respective
environment. Accordingly, “there should be no rule for all buildings”.
Nonetheless, the majority argued particular classifications. And this time, designers
excluded not only the political values, but also the scientific and the age values. However,
they did not forget the historic values, even if it was not the most referenced. Instead, the
ecological values were raised among the arguments, sustained by the fact that when in good
condition, buildings should be rehabilitated and not demolished.
Another curious factor that would determine the demolition of the building was the
“impact at its own environment”, referenced by few designers, from both countries. Also
referenced in both countries were the social, economic and aesthetical values. And again,
there were few designers which referenced the cultural values generally.
Along the semester the researcher could observe the progress of the students
realising that there were more values to consider than the more traditional ones e.g. historic
values. In fact, even if they would realise the importance to rehabilitate instead of demolishing
for ecological reasons; whenever deciding within their design developments the historic,
social and aesthetical values would always come above.

145
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Many students related again the importance to rehabilitate existing buildings to the
importance of the respective building. In both experimental groups, the buildings selected for
the rehabilitation were purposely unlisted, but generally considered of very high significance
as industrial heritage; with inherent social, historic, aesthetical, scientific, etc. values.
However, not often the same principle would prevail at the building + environment
scale. Students from both groups started determining the new existence without a clear
relation to the inherent cultural values and condition of such forms, components and
materials. Nonetheless, along the process they have understood the need to initiate a dialog
with the building and environment. Mostly, the priority would be placed at broader scales, e.g.
raising social values of the building; without clearly realising that such priority could bring its
consequences, depending on the design solutions proposed. Such broad aim does not need
to mean interventive rehabilitation. Instead, it could mean to reach the social needs of the
environment and still preserve the building as much as possible.
In Questionnaire B2, again all designers from the four groups favoured to rehabilitate
existing buildings, with the argument to maintain again as main aim, presented by most of
the respondents (65%). Decrease was the next argument referenced (23%); followed by
improve (10%) and restore (3%). The argument to replace was not referenced.
Similar to the period for testing the design theory, a slight raise of lifespan
consciousness can be noticed among designers in their sensibility towards rehabilitating
existing buildings. The less intrusive arguments (maintain and decrease) gained more
references, while the importance of the more intrusive (improve, restore, replace) diminished.
All groups referenced the aim to decrease the “need for new construction”. Together,
they also referenced the importance of rehabilitation directly related with the aim to maintain
“built heritage / culturally valuable buildings”. No common arguments were identified between
the two groups of designers from the Netherlands. Instead, both groups from Portugal have
mentioned the importance to maintain “architecturally valuable” buildings.
The researcher has also identified five common arguments between the two groups of
students; the aim to decrease the “usage of natural resources and its consequent impact at
the environment”; the aims to maintain the “building’s age and/or temporal values”, the
“ecological values”, as well as, its “identity, image and/or status”; and, inversely to the
preceding answers, the least referenced aim was to maintain the “building’s historic values”.
To improve the “building’s condition till the current requirements”, as well as, the
“ecological values” of specific buildings were aims, shared by both groups of students.
One student from the Netherlands exclusively mentioned the main aim to decrease
“demolition and/or waste of resources through rehabilitation of existing buildings”; while other
mentioned the ability to restore the “building’s lifespan and respective degree of
sustainability”. Nonetheless, there were few others who mentioned to maintain environments
“which would be considered historically or socially valuable”.
Instead, the architect from the Netherlands mentioned the importance to improve the
“economic values” of the building, together with one student from Portugal, who mentioned
the importance to “decrease the usage of economic resources”. Other students from Portugal
mentioned the importance to rehabilitate buildings considered important at the social,
economic and political level. Last, one of the two architects from Portugal also mentioned
the importance to maintain the “building’s areas, functions and/or services”.
While at the preceding answers the historic values were found the most inherent
cultural values to consider rehabilitation important, at Questionnaire B2, the ecological
values (PV8) were the most referenced. Second came the social values (PV1), exclusively
referenced by the students. Third came the economic values (PV2), together with the

146
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

general conception of cultural values, without any specification to particular cultural values,
mentioned at all groups, except for the architects from Portugal (vide Table 6).
Almost as much referenced as the social values, the historic values (PV4) were
referenced by both groups of students; who also referenced the age values (PV7). The
political values (PV3) were exclusively referenced by one student from Portugal. Also,
exclusively referenced by designers at the two groups from Portugal were the aesthetical
values (PV5). Instead, no designer mentioned the importance to preserve buildings with
inherent scientific values (PV6).

pv pv pv pv pv pv pv pv pv
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1:9 total
nl/s 3 1 - 2 - - 2 4 2 14
The Netherlands nl/a - 1 - - - - - 1 1 3
nl 3 2 - 2 - - 2 5 3 17
pt/s 4 2 1 2 2 - 1 5 2 19
Portugal pt/a - 1 - - 1 - - 1 - 3
pt 4 3 1 2 3 - 1 6 2 22
total 7 5 1 4 3 - 3 11 5 39
Table 6 – The cultural values beneath the subsequent importance of rehabilitation interventions

A raise of lifespan consciousness was identified, when cross checking the precedent
answers to sustain which buildings should be rehabilitated and which should be demolished.
This time, much more arguments (47%) evidenced that a decision to rehabilitate or to
demolish a specific building should depend on the situation (significance and condition) of
both building and respective environment. Accordingly, “if there should a rule; such rule
should be that all buildings could be rehabilitated, as all building inhere cultural values”.
Certainly, first, a “detailed research” should be undertaken, to determine if such
building should be rehabilitated or not on base of evidences and not subjectively. One student
from Portugal even recommended “interviews to survey with the population what they would
consider about such building(s)”. A curious factor that would determine the demolition of the
building, besides its “bad quality and/or condition”; was the “impact at its own environment”,
referenced by few students, from the Netherlands.
This time, designers excluded not only the political values, but also surprisingly the
aesthetical and scientific values. One student from Portugal mentioned the historic values
and two other, one from each group, mentioned the social values. All groups of designers,
even if not considerably high have mentioned arguments with a clear background on
economic values; followed by the age values, also mentioned by all groups except for the
architects from the Netherlands.
Instead, ecological values were raised among the arguments, sustained again by the
fact that when in good condition buildings should be rehabilitated and not demolished. Even if
these arguments do not state clearly its ecological consciousness; the researcher decided to
consider it as arguments with intrinsic ecological values. Nonetheless, there were some
students from the Netherlands, who have directly used the term ecological values.

147
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The appointed successes in rehabilitation designs

Students identified successful rehabilitation designs; however, their definitions and

appointed successes seldom matched.

Architects identified successful rehabilitation designs; and their definitions and

appointed successes often matched.

Only few students from Portugal affirmed not to be aware of any rehabilitation design
they would consider successful. For the rest, most designers affirmed positively and provided
an example as well. Most examples provided by the different groups were buildings and
architects from the Netherlands and Portugal. Only one student from the Netherlands
referenced Tate Modern; previously referenced at the test period of the design theory.
The most referenced rehabilitation design was the Van Nelle fabriek (vide Figure 132
and Figure 133), designed by the architects Claessens Erdmanns Architect & Designers en
Wessel de Jonge Architecten (2002-2004); followed by the St. Annakerk, in Breda, converted
into an office building by the architectural office Oomen Architecten, in 2003.
Students from the Netherlands have mentioned again Vertigo (vide Figure 92 and
Figure 93), followed by the Urban Campus, by Jo Coenen; Het Wallisblok, by Hulshof
Architecten; the Loydpier, in Rotterdam; and the Glaspaleis, by Jo Coenen (1949) and Wiel
Arets (1955). Architects have mentioned the Zonnestraal, in Hilversum; designed by Wessel
de Jonge Architecten, Henket & Partners Architecten and Vught. The Theater Gooiland, by
Koen van Velsen; the Havenspoor, by Trudy Hooykaas and the WORM in a VOC warehouse,
by 2012 architects were three other references provided by the architects.

Figure 132 – The Van Nelle Fabriek, in Rotterdam23

Figure 133 – The Van Nelle Fabriek, in Rotterdam (Pereira Roders, 2005)

From Portugal, students referenced several rehabilitation designs from the region of
Algarve. Those were the Castle Museum, in Silves, designed by the architects Mário Varela
Gomes and Pedro Correia da Costa; the Market, in Loulé, designed by the architectural office
SIMAL in cooperation with the local authorities of Loulé; the Castle, in Ferragudo; the Market,
in Silves designed by the architect Manuel Alegria. Only the House in Brejos de Azeitão

23Unknown Author (s.d.) Van Nelle Fabriek, Rotterdam: Van Nelle Ontwerp Fabriek, available at:
http://www.vannelleontwerpfabriek.nl/imgvn/foto/historische_foto_Van_Nelle_zwart-wit.jpg (accessed in 27-07-2007)

148
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

(2001-2003) was located in Setubal, designed by the architects Manuel and Francisco Aires
Mateus (vide Figure 134 and Figure 135).
Architects from Portugal have mentioned again the Convent of Santa Maria do Bouro
(vide Figure 94 and Figure 95), together with the Museum of Transports and Communication,
in Porto. Moreover, there were also found references to the rehabilitation designs of the
Castle in Portalegre, designed by the architect Cândido Chuva Gomes; of the Palácio do
Freixo, in Porto, designed by the architect Fernando Távora; of the Armazéns do Chiado,
designed by the architect Siza Vieira and a of a Palacete in Sintra, designed by the architects
Victor Mestre e Sofia Aleixo.
Most arguments to consider rehabilitation designs successful reflected as target the
new existence, considering more remainings and additions together, than individually.
However, no appointed successes referred to the subtractions from the pre-existence. All
groups mentioned the ability to maintain “the original charisma of the pre-existence” and
respect “the old building and respective architect”.
Both groups from Portugal have mentioned the ability to improve the aesthetical
values, together with one student from the Netherlands. A second factor of success, also
mentioned by few architects from the Netherlands, was the ability to improve the building till
it reaches “habitability levels and/or the needs of the people”.
The two groups from the Netherlands mentioned the ability to maintain “the
architectural qualities". Inversely, the ability to manage successfully the relationship between
“old and new construction” was commonly mentioned by both groups from Portugal. At both
groups of architects the reference was found to “contribute with the new existence to the
current environmental and/or ecological concerns”.

Figure 134 – House in Brejos de Azeitão – Setúbal (2000)24

Figure 135 – House in Brejos de Azeitão – Setúbal (2003)25

The ability to “integrate the new functions and respective requirements successfully”
was mentioned at both groups of students. Last common argument was the importance to

24 Aires Mateus, M. & Aires Mateus, F. (2003) Casa em Brejos do Azeitão, Lisboa: Aires Mateus, available at:

http://www.airesmateus.com/index.php?lop=conteudo&op=aab3238922bcc25a6f606eb525ffdc56&id=d3d9446802a4
4259755d38e6d163e820#
25 Ibidem

149
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

“use current materials, technologies and identity”, shared between one student from the
Netherlands and one architect from Portugal.
From the Netherlands, students argued the ability to mantain the “pre-existent
construction” and the “historic evidences”. From Portugal, students argued the importance to
“preserve the exterior aesthetics”, “to consider the social circumstances” and “to accomplish
good results with controlled costs”. Architects have instead argued that the new existence
should reach higher values, e.g. significance, condition, etc. than the pre-existence; and one
architect mentioned the importance to “reuse the existing resources as much as possible; so
that new natural resources can be spared”, at least for that rehabilitation design.
To cross check the definition of successfulness, designers were asked about their
own rehabilitation design and if they would consider it successful. Most designers (76%)
answered positively. There were however, few students together with one architect from
Portugal that considered their rehabilitation design developments unsuccessful.
The arguments presented by the students from the Netherlands were the “lack of
historical importance and interest” to be rehabilitated and the “differences between group
members” that contributed to the shortage of quality at the final results. Instead, the
arguments presented by the students from Portugal were quite curious. They stated that they
“are not the ones to assess their own work – users certainly are” and that they “would require
much more knowledge and information to develop more successful results”. Last, one
architect argued the “lack of resources to consider the introduction of renewable energies and
to develop solutions that actually the traditional (pre-existent) technologies into practice”.
Regarding the arguments to consider their rehabilitation design as successful, both
groups from the Netherlands mentioned the achievement of “higher values”, e.g. significance,
condition, etc. and the “managing the relationship old - new construction”; together with the
group of architects from Portugal.
Again, both groups from the Netherlands mentioned their success on reaching the
“habitability levels and/or the needs of the people”; together with the group of students from
Portugal. This last group has also argued their success on “preserving the pre-existent
construction”; and another student together with an architect motivated their judgement with
the fact that the new existence developed as final result reached “higher aesthetical values”.
Students from the Netherlands presented “the exterior aesthetics” and “the social
circumstances”. Still from the Netherlands, architects were proud on their achievements in
what regards respectively, the “environmental and/or ecological concerns at the new
existence”; and the “reached needs of the place”. From Portugal, students stated their
achievements respecting the “old building and architect” and “controlling the costs”. Last,
architects from Portugal mentioned as factor of success to have preserved the “architectural
qualities” of the pre-existence.
The students from the Netherlands, more than the students from Portugal, brought to
the lectures few examples of rehabilitation designs, which they would consider as row models
of success. Despite this noble action, not always the motive for such choices would be clear.
Curiously, again, it seemed that just by being published at an architecture magazine the
rehabilitation could be considered as successful; without any critical judgement.
Tendentiously, the points of success the students would present, when describing a
good-practice or even their own design, would also frequently focus at the additions
introduced by the design; rather than accurately first determine what exactly happened to the
pre-existence and why, to better judge if such rehabilitation intervention could in fact be
considered successful or not. Such critical judgement was lacking in both groups.

150
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

When the semester was finished, still four students from Portugal were not
acquainted with successful rehabilitation design developments, when filling in Questionnaire
B2. That clearly reveals the difference of interest in searching for references, between the
students from the Netherlands and Portugal. All other designers provided examples, mostly
buildings and architects, from the Netherlands and Portugal. Only the same student from the
Netherlands referenced the Tate Modern again; and one student from Portugal referenced
the Reichstag, designed by Norman Foster.
The most referenced rehabilitation design by the students from the Netherlands was
the Van Nelle fabriek (vide Figure 132 and Figure 133), which most students visited during
the semester. St. Annakerk, in Breda; the Urban Campus, by Jo Coenen; and the Glaspaleis,
by Jo Coenen (1949) and Wiel Arets (1955) have already been mentioned at Questionnaire
B1 and again were again mentioned in Questionnaire B2. Nonetheless, few new references
emerged as well; e.g. Watertoren, designed by Rothuizen Architecten; Las Palmas (vide
Figure 136 and Figure 137), designed by Benthem Crouwel Architecten (2003-2007).
Vertigo (vide Figure 92 and Figure 93) was again mentioned; but this time only by the
architect from the Netherlands, together with the mentioned rehabilitation design of the
Zonnestraal, in Hilversum.

Figure 136 – Las Palmas, in Rotterdam26

Figure 137 – Las Palmas, in Rotterdam 27

From Portugal, the students have referenced the convent of S. Francisco, in Faro; the
Cultural Centre of S. Lourenço, in Almancil and the Museum of Portimão. The House in
Brejos de Azeitão (2001-2003), in Setubal, designed by the architects Manuel and Francisco
Aires Mateus was also mentioned again (vide Figure 134 and Figure 135). The architects
instead have mentioned the Museum of Transports and Communication, in Porto and the
Museo Amadeo de Sousa Cardoso, in Amarante, designed by the architect Alcino Soutinho.
Again, the motivations argued by the designers to consider rehabilitation designs
successful have mostly reflected as target the new-existence, considering both remainings
and additions (44%); followed respectively by the additions (30%) and the remainings (26%).
Only the ability to “reach the habitability levels” was commonly argued at the groups of
students and of architects from Portugal.

26 Unknown Author (1945) Las Palmas, Rotterdam: Kop van Zuid Rotterdam, available at:
http://www.kopvanzuid.info/?id=38 (accessed in 02-08-2007)
27 Ibidem

151
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Students and architects from the Netherlands mentioned the ability to manage
successfully the relationship between the “old and new construction”. According to both
groups of students, a successful rehabilitation had to “preserve the original charisma of the
pre-existence”, to apply “environmental and/or ecological concerns”, to “respect the old
building and architect”, and to “integrate successfully the new functions and/or requirements”.
Exclusively from the Netherlands, two students mentioned the ability to “preserve the
functions of the pre-existence” and one student mentioned the ability to “reach higher values”.
Instead, students from Portugal mentioned the ability to “preserve the exterior aesthetics”, the
“construction of the pre-existence”; and to “accomplish controlled costs”.
One architect from Portugal curiously mentioned the motto of lifespan consciousness;
with a personal interpretation; defining for a successful rehabilitation, the ability to consider
the “Past and Present, while designing the Future”.
When asked about the successfulness of the rehabilitation design they developed,
most designers (90%) answered positively. An important notice is that this time they have
been sustained by RE-ARCHITECTURE®. There were however, students from Portugal that
considered their rehabilitation design developments unsuccessful. The arguments of these
students were respectively the lack of consideration for some significant stages of the design;
and the excessive percentage of additions and subtractions towards the pre-existence.
Accordingly, despite so much destruction, the final result was “sufficiently functional”, and the
new existence was “very differentiated and sustainable”. The architects from both countries
did not provide arguments to sustain the evaluation of their rehabilitation design
developments as successful.
To cross check the definition of successfulness, designers were asked what they
would consider successful in their designs. Both groups of students valued the ability to
“preserve the original charisma” of the pre-existence, followed by “to respect the old building
and architect and to consider the social circumstances”. Last common argument is the ability
to integrate new functions and/or requirements, with more references from the Netherlands
than from Portugal.
Students from the Netherlands mentioned the importance to preserve the “historic
values” of the pre-existence; to manage successfully the “relationship between old and new
construction” and to reach “habitability levels”, “the needs of the people” and “the needs of the
place”. From Portugal, students mentioned respectively the ability to preserve “the
construction” of the pre-existence; to integrate “environmental and/or ecological concerns” at
the new existence; and to accomplish “controlled costs”.
®
The interest in RE-ARCHITECTURE

Due to its apparent rationality, students have first confronted RE-ARCHITECTURE®

and progressively verified its usefulness, stage by stage.

Due to various motives, architects did not take time for RE-ARCHITECTURE® and
could not verify its usefulness.

When asked in Questionnaire B1 about design process support systems and the
importance of their availability to support rehabilitation design developments, all designers
answered positively, except for one student from the Netherlands.

152
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

An important point of attention to this and the following questions; is the fact that also
the designers, who initially stated not to have any experience in developing rehabilitation
designs, have contributed with their answers. Therefore, at this and following questions the
sample reaches the nine designers per group.
There was a clear the preference at all groups (56%) to motivate the importance of
such design process support systems on its (p)rocess and potential qualities to support
designers structuring their own design processes, stages and activities (vide Table 7).

country occupation p k q s r n total

students 4 3 1 - - 2 10
The Netherlands architects 6 1 4 - - 1 12
total 10 4 5 - - 3 22
students 9 - - - - - 9
Portugal architects 4 1 4 1 - - 10
total 13 1 4 1 - - 19
total 23 5 9 1 - 3 41
Table 7 – The motivations for sustaining the interest in design process support systems

The process is followed by the potential raise of (q)uality (22%); the (k)nowledge
sustaining their design developments (12%); and by the potential raise of (s)ustainability
reached with their design results (7%). Support on (r)ehabilitation in general was not
referenced. There were some designers, who confirmed that a support system was important
to them, but did not provide a proper reason: (n)o reason.
Particularly, one architect from the Netherlands considered important such design
process support systems in detriment of other design support systems; because they would
not substitute the designer and “make decisions when you add some parameters”; but would
support the designer with field-related knowledge to sustain his decisions.
Other architect from the Netherlands, stated that even if he agrees that until a certain
extent such design process support systems can help designers developing rehabilitation
designs, “helpful as a checklist”; one needs to be aware that “every existing situation is
different by building type, history and development strategy”, considering that no global
design process can be defined.
From Portugal, one architect considered design process support systems useful to
sustain designers on the problems that emerge at rehabilitation design developments and
that cannot be dealt empirically. Another architect mentioned that “in Portugal is very difficult
to aim certain results, because there is a great absence of critical discussion on this mater”.
Both knowledge and quality were mentioned by all groups except for the group of
students from Portugal. However, while the students from the Netherlands prioritised the
knowledge available; the architects from both countries aimed for the raise of quality.
Generally, most designers considered that knowledge (extra-support) which is field
oriented is always welcome. Particularly, students from the Netherlands believed that such
design process support system could influence their decisions regarding the “use of
materials”. Moreover, one architect from Portugal mentioned the importance to be “constantly
updated on new technologies and know-how”.
Regarding the raise of quality on the rehabilitation design developments, one architect
from the Netherlands argued that such support could challenge the designer with specific
targets and items, contributing to the “quality and completeness of a design project”.

153
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Moreover, one architect from Portugal mentioned that “with the proper means
rehabilitation designers can achieve better practical results, such as constructive quality,
allied to aesthetical achievement”.
Last, one architect from Portugal mentioned the contribution of such design process
support system to “the raise of sustainability and/or ecological consciousness of his
rehabilitation design results”. This designer considered that “a database which would provide
easy accessible lifespan data and respective reference to building components would
certainly help designers sustaining their choices”.
When asked about what they would consider fundamental in such design process
support systems, all designers answered clear stages and different activities to help
systematising the work method; rehabilitation-oriented guidance; flexibility; user friendliness;
as well as, the availability of details, materials, etc.
Students from the Netherlands aimed for a “good method to analyse buildings target
of rehabilitation prior to the design stage developments”; “good-practice reference designs”;
and the “freedom of interpretation”, where the designer could “take his own decisions”.
Instead, students from Portugal aimed for the possibility to “contribute for the compatibility
between the additions and the remainings”; “clear keywords that everyone understands”; and
“share of information and knowledge”.
Architects from the Netherlands presented the “financial aspects”, “broadness of
parameters”, “to not decide in advance which parameters should be considered”, “aspects of
history, details, materials, (pre)design, permits, construction, time, money, etc.” should be
handled, “guidance into building laws and design rules concerning traditional patrimony
related to modern living standards and sustainability”, and to “provide support for establishing
priorities among the variables and consequently provide evaluative results”.
Particularly, one architect from the Netherlands considered fundamental making
choices acquainted of the related theory, “especially when the decisions are based on shared
information”, instead of choosing “only for financial or nostalgic reasons” and one architect
from Portugal favoured the action to bring knowledge “out of the academic circles” and make
it accessible to all interested designers.
When asked about what they would consider redundant in such design process
support systems, most designers (64%) answered not to know the answer to this particular
question. The remaining designers mainly answered the redundancy to interfere with the
process and results (25%), followed by to “supply too much and redundant theory, especially
if without practical evidences” (6%) and to supply “financial data” (3%).
The students from the Netherlands mentioned the redundancy of having a support
system deciding and producing the design results, instead of the designer. Accordingly, it
could be useful supporting the designer; but, it should never take his freedom to decide what
and how to do. The interference with the process and results was presented by students from
the Netherlands, and two students and three architects from Portugal. However, it regarded
different levels that are interesting to survey.
Similarly, one architect from Portugal referenced that “a support system should
‘support’ the creative process and not influence it. It can dissuade, but never forbid.” Other
mentioned the redundancy to present “unnecessary restrictions, contradictions, disrespect for
the creative free space, etc.” and the last mentioned the redundancy of “proposing standard
elements that fix you to a certain architectural language”.

154
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

Most designers (91%) stated their belief, that RE-ARCHITECTURE® would support
them raising the lifespan consciousness in their rehabilitation design developments (vide
Figure 138). Only from the Netherlands, one student considered himself already “very
conscious regarding the lifespan of buildings” and two architects stated “not to have an
opinion yet” and that “lifespan is not an issue for rehabilitation design developments”.
Accordingly, most decisions are taken, either based on “financial value or heritage value”.

100%
90%
80%
70%
60% 7
8 15
33
50% 9 9 18
40%
30%
20%
10% 2
1 3
3
0% 0 0 0
yes
students architects total students architects total no
The Netherlands Portugal Total

Figure 138 – The believe that RE-ARCHITECTURE® shall support raise of lifespan consciousness

Both groups of students hoped that RE-ARCHITECTURE® could help them “structure
their work”; “provide new points of view” and “learn more about rehabilitation”.
Moreover, students from the Netherlands hoped for sustenance to “structure the
knowledge required to support the design developments”; “achieve a good insight on the
building”; “develop good concepts and decisions”; “bring ecology into attention”; and to
“develop themselves further as designers”. Instead, students from Portugal argued “better
design results”, “better Analysis and the hope that such support system would help”.
Architects from Portugal also answered with the hope that RE-ARCHITECTURE®
would support them raising the lifespan consciousness of their rehabilitation design
developments. Generally, they all considered important “the access to field-related
knowledge”, “to find solutions and advises for specific cases”, “serve as a model to address to
when defining a rehabilitation design as lifespan conscious or not, in both process and result”.
Instead, architects from the Netherlands stated that “it could be a good design manual
in order to fulfil a demanding project” and that had “some interesting insights”. Particularly,
one architect stated that he believed on it because it was, at least as far as we knew, “the first
support system of such kind”.

155
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Few students, from the Netherlands and Portugal, showed initial difficulties in dealing
with RE-ARCHITECTURE®; probably because they were not previously acquainted with it
and had to start learning and using something unknown immediately. Particularly, the English
language and the constant access to internet was a stronger barrier in Portugal than in the
Netherlands.
A constant pattern of both groups was their will to accomplish in too little time,
everything that was guidelined; which was not possible, nor the purpose. Instead, the purpose
was to sustain what they would decide to do. They would achieve more lifespan conscious
results if they would have only assessed the parameters which they have had information for
and took time to develop a qualitative survey.
From the moment, they understood that they were allowed to develop further only
what they would consider noteworthy; keeping always in mind the pre-design results and the
consequences their designs would bring to the building; somehow their relationship with RE-
ARCHITECTURE® changed. They generally understood the aims of such support system and
were quite proud of their design results; and of particular design solutions where they knew
they have been more lifespan conscious than others.
Particularly for RE-ARCHITECTURE® as support system, there have been stages
which designers have used it more than in others. Particularly, at the regent sub-stages,
analysis and simulation, a stronger adoption is visible in the process mining (vide Appendix 8)
than at other stages such as synthesis and evaluation.
The lack of previous formation might have been the cause for such difference
between the adoption in the different stages and sub-stages. But, before accessing RE-
ARCHITECTURE®, designers have had described their design processes and at that time
they have already decreed the analysis and simulation, as the stages where they have spent
more time and undertook more activities.
In Questionnaire B2, after getting acquainted with RE-ARCHITECTURE®, most
designers (92%) answered to consider important the availability of design process support
systems to support designers in their rehabilitation design processes; except for few
architects (8%) from the Netherlands.
None of the architects except one from the Netherlands and two from Portugal used
RE-ARCHITECTURE®. Nonetheless, the researcher considered their answers; so that one
could learn from their arguments. Even the student from the Netherlands who was initially
negative about RE-ARCHITECTURE®, here agreed that such support systems can support
design processes, even if design processes are unstructured and with a considerable number
of decisions taken on “emotional bases”.
Their arguments regarding the importance of design process support systems such
as RE-ARCHITECTURE® revealed a clear the preference (84%) to its(p)rocess and ability to
support designers structuring their own design processes, stages and activities. Besides the
process; the research has only identified few arguments (14%), related to the field of
(r)ehabilitation (vide Table 8).
Both groups of students and architects from Portugal mentioned such design process
support systems a good companion for the whole design process, “reminding us of all the
steps to a conscientious work”. “Especially useful if designers do not have much experience
in rehabilitation designs”, was stated by both students and architects from the Netherlands.
Students from the Netherlands considered it a “powerful aid” to sustain designers with
“complex design developments” and with “considerable amount of information to deal”; which
should not be overlooked. They also considered that “one should not feel constrained about

156
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

such support systems, because designers can use it as they would like”; “use the whole
system”, or only the “guidelines and tools of interest”.
Students from Portugal considered it an “eye opener”, to “help considering what is
important and what not”, “an alternative to their preceding design processes where decisions
would be taken mostly empirically”, “very pedagogic” and a “good reference for the
development of rehabilitation designs”. One even mentioned that “when one learns to work
with such support systems, it looses the apparent complexity and becomes an advantage”.

country occupation p k q s r n total

students 8 - - - - 1 9
The Netherlands architects 5 - - - 1 - 6
total 13 - - - 1 1 15
students 9 - - - 3 - 12
Portugal architects 9 - - - 1 - 10
total 18 - - - 4 - 22
total 31 - - - 5 1 37
Table 8 – The motivations for sustaining the interest in design process support systems

Architects from the Netherlands mentioned that such design process support systems
would enhance “awareness for the values involved”, “not just his own perception, but in a
broader view”. Last, the architects from Portugal mentioned its ability to work as a “mental
support”, contributing to a better “process and time management”, “a tool that considers many
subjects, important to a project, but with flexibility allowing different approaches”. Moreover, it
allows the designer to “analyse the building globally and evaluate the quality of the design
decisions, in terms of lifespan consciousness”.
When asked to particularly specify the fundamental aspects in RE-ARCHITECTURE®
students from the Netherlands presented the “structured method with clear steps”, the
“scientific analysis”, its “completeness”, the pre-design that “is very strong and could be very
useful”, the “rating system”, and the “awareness of ecology”. One student mentioned that a
“lesson to extract from all this support system was to consider more the building while
designing its rehabilitation and to consider the subtractions, based on its qualities”;
contributing with “awareness of sustainable design”.
Again, the students from Portugal mentioned as fundamental the “whole theoretical
base sincerely organised”, covering “many aspects for support rehabilitation developments on
all categories of buildings, most effectively possible” and the “possibility to access it
everywhere, through internet”. Similarly to the students from the Netherlands in the earlier
question, one student from Portugal mentioned that it “can help in many directions; it is up to
the designer to decide how”.
Similarly, the architects from the Netherlands also considered as fundamental the
division of the method into “phases” – as a “systematic approach”, the “guidelines”, the
“information” available, the emphasis of the Pre-Design and at “environmental, lifespan and
cultural aspects”. One architect valued the effort to make the reuse and/or recycle of
architecture more scientific. Accordingly, “it creates awareness in a deeply rooted practice of
tabula rasa”.

157
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

The architects from Portugal presented as fundamental the breath of “science” into
the design process, the “objective analysis”, the database of components, the “preoccupation
with recycling”, the “mental process stages”, and the provision of a method to an expertise
field that is requiring it urgently, stage by stage.
When asked about what they would consider redundant in RE-ARCHITECTURE®,
few aspects enter in contradiction with considerations on the previous question. Probably,
that has to do with the fact that what one can consider as advantage, others may consider as
disadvantage. More related to the doctoral research, both students and architects from
Portugal complained with the length of the “Questionnaires”.
Few students from the Netherlands pointed redundant the “extreme detail of few
guidelines and the extensiveness of the Pre-Design stage”. Accordingly, the designer has to
“make sure he does not get lost in the theory”. Simultaneously, another student pointed out
that “there is no redundancy” because the designer is free to “use the steps you think that are
important for your design.” There were references to the redundancy of the analysis sub-
stage, from the Design stage. Accordingly, “rules and regulations should be excluded”.
Students from Portugal considered redundant the “aesthetics of the interface” and
one the “interactivity” of RE-ARCHITECTURE®. Accordingly, it is “boring and difficult to find
the right information”. Other student commented that the Analysis and Synthesis sub-stages,
from the Pre-Design stage that could be different. However, he did provide any suggestion.
Curiously, one student considered redundant the “access through internet”; earlier presented
as part of the fundamentals.
Last, the architects from the Netherlands considered RE-ARCHITECTURE® complex
and extensive. Accordingly, a “new design tool which you have to learn” costs time and “time
= money”. Instead, most architects from Portugal did not have redundancies to present.
When asked about the RE-ARCHITECTURE® contribution to the raise of lifespan
consciousness on their rehabilitation design developments, most designers (75%) stated
‘yes’. However, there is a clear difference between the students, who were periodical users
and the architects who hardly used RE-ARCHITECTURE®.
While, among students, only one student from the Netherlands argued that RE-
ARCHITECTURE® did not help him raising the lifespan consciousness of his design
developments; almost half of the architects answered no to the contribution of RE-
ARCHITECTURE® (vide Figure 139).
Students from the Netherlands argued to now consider more the “building and the
reuse of materials”, the “re-usage of the subtractions”, the “consequences of their actions
towards the building” and the “raise of awareness for “ecology and sustainability”.
One particularly student illustrated that in the beginning of his rehabilitation design
developments he has planned to demolish a considerable part of the building; and in the end,
he was much more satisfied with the result, “leading to a more exploratory approach towards
the building and environment”. Other student stated that without RE-ARCHITECTURE® he
probably “would be tempted to demolish the entire building”.
From Portugal, the students argued the components database as a source of lifespan
data that sustained their raise of awareness for such thematic. Most of them mentioned the
“understanding of the intervention of rehabilitation and the power [of the designer] to usufruct
the space without destroying it.” Accordingly, RE-ARCHITECTURE® and the contact with the
tutors truly helped them “looking further”, when e.g. “finding explanations to support
theoretically [their] aims”.

158
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

100%
90%
80% 4
70% 12 6
60% 27
8 15
50% 9
40%
4
30%
20% 5 3 8
10% 3
1 1 1
0% 0 0 0 0 1
students architects total students architects total

The Netherlands Portugal Total

no answer no yes

Figure 139 – The verification that RE-ARCHITECTURE® supported the raise of lifespan consciousness

The architects from the Netherlands who have previously answered negative, argued
that they did not experience RE-ARCHITECTURE® enough to be able to verify if their lifespan
consciousness increased or not. Instead, the architects that answered yes; considered that it
helped them, even in the “little time of use”, “think clearly and make good choices”; and
making them “aware of a new way of looking at the subject”.
Instead, the three architects from Portugal who have also answered negative
considered themselves “already lifespan conscious enough” and one stated that, by the time
the designer got acquainted with RE-ARCHITECTURE®, all “decisions had been taken
already at his rehabilitation designs”. The positive arguments were mostly related to the
“systematic method to undertake rehabilitation design developments”, “thinking step by step”,
“helping to remember what to remember and not to forget lifespan consciousness”.
At the last question, regarding the possibility of becoming a frequent user of RE-
ARCHITECTURE®, when released again after being revised and upgraded, most designers
(86%) answered positively. Only four designers answered no (11%); three architects from the
Netherlands, and one student from Portugal (vide Figure 140).
The arguments presented to sustain the negative answer by the architects from the
Netherlands were again the inexperience with RE-ARCHITECTURE®. Instead, the student
from Portugal argued that its inherent complexity would make him loose much more time than
expected for a rehabilitation design development.
The arguments regarding why would they become a frequent user of RE-
ARCHITECTURE® were not much different than the ones they presented when asked about
what they would consider as fundamental and redundant at RE-ARCHITECTURE®. Few
argued that they certainly would, if the redundancies would improve. Others, instead, valued
the fundamental factors and stated to be interested to use a revised and upgraded version.

159
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

100%
90%
80%
70% 5

60% 14
8 31
50% 9 9 17

40%
30% 3
20%
3
10% 4
1 1 1 10
0% 0 0 0 1

students architects total students architects total

The Netherlands Portugal Total

no answer no yes

Figure 140 – The possibility to become a frequent user of RE-ARCHITECTURE®

A general overview, coming from the students from the Netherlands, was that they
would freely use it again; however, as a guideline and not as strictly as they did, for achieving
the experimental purposes of this doctoral research. Instead, the students from Portugal did
not reflect that discomfort in their answers. They were as the architects from Portugal open
for a new trial; sure to see improvements regarding what they suggested.

160
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

6.4 Tentative discussion

The results emerging from the case studies and respective experimental groups
brought into evidence fundamental points of attention on how exactly practice perceives and
deals with such field of expertise. They have mostly confirmed the hypotheses risen by the
researcher and sustained better her arguments what before this doctoral research was mainly
a opinion on base of observing society and the impact of their behaviour in our environment.
Taking as starting point the experience of both XX Archtiecten and Victor Mestre |
Sofia Aleixo, lda. It was possible to verify that even when architects aim to follow lifespan
conscious principles that do not necessarily mean that the rehabilitation shall result lifespan
conscious. There are other actors involved, who can either contribute to such consciousness
or transform it into unconsciousness.
It is undeniable that the actors involved in rehabilitation design developments of listed
buildings are more varied and specialised than the ones of unlisted buildings. Therefore, the
risk for lifespan unconsciousness decreases. Nonetheless, both architects from the
Netherlands and Portugal have proven that with enough argumentation and sustenance
either from documentary, oral and physical evidences they have found means to convince the
other involved actors of the lifespan conscious aims.
From their particular experiences it was also possible to conclude that the design
process had a different and more important role within the building process for listed
buildings, than for unlisted buildings. In fact, it was found far more detailed and controlled for
listed buildings. National legislations do not even require a design process, whenever the
involved actors claim a minor intervention scale and they neither control the scale, nor the
consequences of such rehabilitation interventions.
The experience in developing rehabilitation designs was not unanimously found
among all students and architects from the Netherlands or Portugal. This means that
contemporary and future architects are not fully acquainted with the required knowledge for
developing such scale of intervention. But if lifespan consciousness is not related to the
degree of experience as concluded in this doctoral research one could conclude that no
further education is required. Post, Mestre and Aleixo are living evidences on how architects
can become lifespan conscious and define their own design processes.
Nonetheless, it should not be forgotten that they are the exception and not the rule.
Most designers do not perceive the built environment equally conscious, nor define their aims
in harmony with the past, present and future. To introduce in the education level would only
bring advantages, as both natural conscious and unconscious could learn together how to
reach ever higher levels of lifespan consciousness.
Even if found far more accessed by architects than students, more from Portugal than
the Netherlands, the final results revealed that RE-ARCHITECTURE® was mainly used by
students, more from the Netherlands than from Portugal. The arguments presented by the
architects, were e.g. time management, language, etc.
Students and architects with different perspectives than the pure architecture-oriented
ones reacted similar to the theorized design process. Therefore, just there was not found a
relation between the lifespan consciousness and the experience in rehabilitation designs;
there was also no relation found with the professional expectations of designers.

161
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Probably, when progressing on further research, the enrolment e.g. behavioural

sciences in this theme would bring many more possible factors that involve the effective raise
of lifespan consciousness and enable the adoption of RE-ARCHITECTURE®. The non-
relation between professional expectations and lifespan consciousness, together with the
registrations of many other users than architects have opened the perspective towards a
future version oriented towards all actors involved in the design process and not exclusively
the architect.
The interest in developing rehabilitation designs was found mainly on the new
existence and what designers could promote with such rehabilitation intervention. Hardly, the
arguments fall into the past or future, sustaining the hypothesis that designers, architects and
students are focused on present achievements.
The architects were not sufficient in number to provide many conclusions;
nonetheless among the arguments of the students an evolution has been noticed on their
aims and arguments. Beyond revealing the usefulness of such theorised design process, their
aims have also become more lifespan conscious. Even if the main aim remains to improve, in
both test periods aims such as maintain and restore gained more arguments.
The design processes followed in rehabilitation designs were found with various
similar activities among both architects and students. Most designers prioritise on two sub-
stages; analysis and simulation, which they most often mix. That is considerably time saving;
however, that can also end up seriously detrimental for its level of lifespan consciousness and
respective impact on the building and environment. Negligence should not be hidden by
ignorance, as designers have an ethical responsibility towards society and the environment.
When using RE-ARCHITECTURE® such priority remained evident, even if more sub-
stages were added to their preceding design processes. Therefore, such results proved that
designers do manage to find a compromise between their individual-based methods and the
theory-based method recommended in this doctoral research.
The importance of rehabilitation interventions reflected different aims and cultural
values; but mainly the ecological values have been present in the preceding arguments as
well as before. Therefore, architects and students understand its importance and are not
afraid to state it. A slight raise on lifespan consciousness was noticed from the preceding to
the later answers; particularly on the choice for less interventive aims and for the increase of
both general considerations for the cultural values, as well as for the ecological values.
Most designers were aware of rehabilitation designs and have appointed successes
which did not differ much from the reasons for considering a rehabilitation intervention
important. Moreover, they would often focus on the additions introduced by the design; rather
than accurately first determine what exactly happened to the pre-existence and why, to better
judge if such rehabilitation intervention could in fact be considered successful or not.
Despite the apparent rationality of both theorised design process and RE-
ARCHITECTURE®, most designers understood the purpose of such work structure, stages
and activities. Students have apprehended it as one possibility, which proposes the
combination of theory and individual knowledge. Accordingly, they have considered to have
reached higher levels of lifespan consciousness with its sustenance.
Even if architects from both countries did not use it much due to various reasons, they
were still optimistic about the potential of such design process support system in their
rehabilitation design developments. Even, most designers stated to become a frequent user,
of the revised version which would be made based on the results of this doctoral research.
Therefore, there is nothing less than keep on researching to produce a version which
makes designers not only state its importance, but really become part of their daily practice.

162
 Testing the design theory / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

Chapter 7 Conclusions and Discussion

163
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

7.1 Introduction

Chapter 7 disclosures the conclusions achieved after undertaking all phases of this
doctoral research and after relating them in the respective Chapters. Brief and summarised,
the following conclusive Chapters shall also raise relevant points for discussion and provide
the relevant rationalization towards the previous main Chapters: Introduction, Scientific
Method and Framing the Field Universe (vide book I – basis), Developing the Prototype
(vide book II – scapus), Producing the Prototype and Testing the Prototype (vide book III
– capitellum).
Chapter 7.2 recalls the attention to the introduction, the right beginning of this
doctoral research and to the contribution that it has managed to achieve to such problem
field. Conclusions shall be taken at various levels, e.g. the global relationship between theory
(guidelines and tools) and practice (designers), the unbalance between past, present and
future at rehabilitation interventions, etc.
Instead, Chapter 7.3 is much more methodological and shall conclude and raise
discussion on the scientific method followed along the four years of the doctoral research.
Points of success and failure shall be presented to alert further research towards such
methodological approaches and its probable outcomes, to prevent further distresses.
Chapter 7.4 goes deeper into the conclusions regarding the theory framing the field
universe sustained by this doctoral research. The taxonomies involving the objects of cult
and the actions of intervention have been motive for debate already for centuries and,
hopefully, shall not end being debated with the disclosure of this doctoral research.
Nonetheless, the researcher was willing to offer her contribution with a new perception of the
relevant literature, to such field of expertise and their respective regent taxonomies.
The conclusions and discussion involving the prototype shall be respectively separated
in Chapter 7.5 for developing the prototype, with the theoretical model of the design
process and respective stages, sub-stages, activities, etc; Chapter 7.6 for producing the
prototype, with the implementation of the theoretical model into a design process support
system and Chapter 7.7 for testing the prototype, with the results of the case studies and
respective experimental groups.
Chapter 7.8 presents the overall conclusions and discussion deduced from all
previous conclusions, but perceived from a higher level of abstraction. Together, they shall
provide to the researcher a clear perspective on the factual contribution of this doctoral
research to its expertise field and to the respective raise of lifespan consciousness in
rehabilitation interventions of built heritage.
Chapter 7.9 finalises with the most relevant recommendations for the field of
expertise, regarding what could still be achieved with further improvements, at both research
and practice. The path towards raising the levels of lifespan consciousness in current and/or
future rehabilitation interventions of built heritage did not intend to end here. Contrariwise, this
is just one columna of a much greater temple.

164
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

7.2 Concerning Introduction

C1. The built environment is aging and claims for rehabilitation interventions. The
natural environment is overexploited and claims for lifespan consciousness.
Within every built environment; there are buildings which become obsolete and
require intervention. There are different scales of intervention, but commonly the most chosen
ones are highly interventive and result in a negative impact on the natural environment. Thus,
there is a need to aim towards positive impacts, through more lifespan conscious
interventions that truly contribute to the preservation of both natural and built environment.
C2. Portugal and the Netherlands were chosen in this research, due to their specific
fields of experience in the built environment.
The choice for the Netherlands and Portugal, as the representative countries of
Northern and Southern European cultures, was mainly to combine the experience of Portugal
on rehabilitation interventions of the built environment, with the experience of the Netherlands
on the implementation of lifespan and ecological principles. While BCC group was focusing
Design for Lifespan on building new, this doctoral research would focus on the built heritage.
C3. The Netherlands has economic and political means to intervene in its built
environment. Maintenance is actively implemented.
Either individually, by the owners; or collectively, by real estate management
companies; various scales of interventions in the built environment are being undertaken.
Maintenance interventions are actively being implemented. Consequently, interventions of
rehabilitation come more as a solution to improve the technical or functional performance of
buildings, rather than to decrease their levels of physical obsolescence.
C4. Within national, local and private master plans, too many buildings are being
demolished in the Netherlands.
The facility for the Netherlands to opt for interventions of demolition, rather than for
interventions of rehabilitation is disturbing. Due to the master plans and respective
intervention strategies, most buildings are in a quite good condition, even if naturally loosing
its adequacy facing the contemporary needs. Even in interventions of rehabilitation, a high
percentage of the building’s pre-existence is simply subtracted.
C5. Lifespan values are being taken too literally in the Netherlands, when used to
sustain arguments in master plans and respective interventive strategies.
Lifespan values are truthful, but were determined on base of worst probable causes.
The maximum lifespan value was theoretically set at 75 years, but none of these experts has
ever stated that such building components would not last longer than 75 years. However,
these values are being used to determine demolitions of buildings and/or components,
without a proper assessment of their factual condition and significance.
C6. The Netherlands underestimate the ecological contribution on active reusing,
relocating or reprocessing through interventions of rehabilitation.
The Netherlands are internationally acknowledged for their low rates on Construction
& Demolition Waste, due strong recycling strategies. Moreover, there is a common behaviour
of apathy to reuse, relocate or reprocess through rehabilitation interventions. Thus, probably,

165
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

to recycle such Waste is already considered enough. But, by reducing demolition through
rehabilitation, not only such Waste, but also the resources spent to recycle it are saved.
C7. Portugal does not have as much economic and political means to intervene in
its built environment. Maintenance is too little implemented.
Unlike in the Netherlands, most built environments in Portugal are managed by the
small-scale private sector. Legally, owners should undertake maintenance activities, but there
is hardly any control by the local authorities. Consequently, buildings stay abandoned, and
rehabilitation interventions arrive in situations where physical, technical and functional
performances are reaching their limits.
C8. Portugal has been suffering strong changes with respect to urban rehabilitation
and sustainability.
Since integrated in the European Union, Portugal has undertaken several master
plans that stimulate urban rehabilitation. Urban rehabilitation and sustainability became
political strategies. Nonetheless, the practice is again questionable. Particularly, Energy
Efficiency has now become the priority, but again, it is being implemented without an accurate
assessment on its impact on the natural environment.
C9. Lifespan values are not being used in Portugal, to sustain arguments in master
plans and respective interventive strategies.
Lifespan values have not been found implemented at any other level than the
academic one, in Portugal. So, at least on that point, it is not yet sustaining practice, but it is
also not being distorted by any political master plans. Probably, such degree of novelty had a
role in the reaction of the Portuguese architects, four times higher, in terms of number of RE-
ARCHITECTURE® registrations, than reaction of the Dutch architects.
C10. Portugal underestimates the ecological contribution on active reusing,
relocating or reprocessing through interventions of rehabilitation.
There are still too little governmental means in Portugal, to implement recycling and
most building components end up being wasted in a landfill or incineration. So, this argument
could be one reason more to join leaders and experts in the strategy to reuse, relocate and
reprocess, instead of allowing considerable amounts of man-made resources being sent to
landfill or incineration, while they could still be useful for other purposes.
C11. Slower in velocity and smaller volume of intervention, fact is that, Portugal
does not follow a much different pattern than the Netherlands.
Both built environments are being intervened; and rarely their significance condition is
found correlated to the design decisions. Probably their pattern seems different, because the
Netherlands freely demolish entire areas of their built environments; Portugal is strategically
just as irresponsible, leaving the building abandoned till they “accidentally” ruin or they are
fully demolished except for their façades.

Sustained by the previous arguments, this doctoral research was considered

relevant, as well as required. For both the Netherlands and Portugal, it is urgent to
raise the attention towards the eminent lifespan unconsciousness of the contemporary
interventions on their built environments. Only when perceiving the problem, one can
find better solutions. And, in this case, the solution found was to sustain such
interventive practices, in order to subvert such dangerous tendency. However, one
should only expect to find commonwealth results.

166
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

7.3 Concerning Scientific Method

C12. The qualitative methods chosen to structure the scientific method; have been
proven adequate for finding the answers to the raised questions.
The scientific method followed in this doctoral research was structured with various
qualitative methods; mostly used in “grounded theory” and “case study” research designs.
These methods were recommended by the expertise as the most adequate for the problem
addressed and questions raised. It allowed the research to perceive the state-of-the art of
both theory and practice in a field of expertise that most could profit from this correlation.
C13. The chosen scientific method allowed this doctoral research to provide a
practice-oriented contribution to the field of expertise.
Many doctoral researches are fundamental for the development of theories and new
perceptions of practice, but do not manage to reach it; unless reality few years later comes
across them. The researcher aimed for a scientific method that, instead, would lead this
doctoral research beyond the borders of development of theories to provide a social and
scientific contribution which would be mostly practice-oriented.
C14. The subdivision of the doctoral research into three phases allowed the
verification of its contribution to the field of expertise.
The different phases: design theory, product and result; allowed the researcher to
sustain her aims and arguments on relevant literature, develop them further and implement
them into a support system. This would allow her to verify if, in fact, her contribution was
meaningful for such a field of expertise, theoretically and practically. Conclusions would be
based on those results, as well as the points of discussion and further recommendations.
C15. The state-of-the-art on the taxonomies theorised internationally in this field of
expertise revealed evidences for the gap identified in this doctoral research.
While grounded on theory, this new view of the international documents clearly
revealed the inconstancy of field-related taxonomies along time, as well as the most and least
referenced ones. Moreover, it supported the arguments presented by the researcher when
identifying a gap between what is being recommended by the scientific community and what
is being applied by the practice.
C16. Both theorised taxonomies and design process result in an accurate knowledge
support for designers involved in rehabilitation design developments.
Developing a design process and structuring the guidelines of most relevant experts
would, in the assumption of the researcher, provide the necessary theory for the specific
activity undertaken by the designer when involved in rehabilitation design developments. That
was, in fact, pointed by many architects and architecture students. The theoretical model
brought structure into their design processes, chaotic enough by nature.
C17. This doctoral research has chosen to first theorise both taxonomies and design
process, and only later, to revise and test it together with practice.
Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. This doctoral research has
chosen to first theorise both taxonomies and design process, based on preceding knowledge;
and only later, revise it while still under development. But, main reason was because the

167
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

researcher was more interested in proposing theory to practice and assessing field-experts’
reactions; rather than inquiring practice generating theory.
C18. The channels of communication chosen to diffuse RE-ARCHITECTURE® among
architects in both countries, were quite successful.
The search for cooperation with technical magazines and the two professional
associations might have initially seemed time consuming; but in the end was very much
worthwhile. The “public invitations” sent to the whole professional community through these
two communication channels; plus the “personal invitations” sent via e-mail to the
acquaintances of the doctoral researcher have proven to be quite successful.
C19. By joining education and research, not only research profits from education,
but also education gains access to the latest state-of-the-art.
Most architecture students and respective Institutions were quite pleased to
cooperate with such experience and to actively promote the contribution of education into
research and vice versa. The fact that this collaboration and cross-influence of students and
lecturers was settled through a Socrates-Erasmus bilateral agreement made procedures run
easier, without any bureaucracies resultant from eventual economic constraints.
C20. Socrates-Erasmus bilateral agreements are fundamental to foment international
cooperation and cross-influence, in both education and research.
As Dr. Kees Doevendans (Coordinator of International Affairs at Faculteit Bouwkunde,
TU/e) stated in his opening speech of the exhibition RE-ARCHITECTURE 05/06, this doctoral
research “opened a new door for Socrates-Erasmus bilateral agreements”, enabling
educational exchanges result in effective contributions to the scientific community. It was
surely a worthwhile experience and it is a world of opportunities to be further explored.
C21. The cooperation of practice and education with research was fundamental for
this doctoral research, to learn what could be improved on the whole process.
Even if somehow unpredictable and temperamental as any human being designers
are, the researcher was prepared for the challenge and evidential benefit of involving them in
such doctoral research. After all, they would be the ones following the design process and
proposing lifespan conscious rehabilitation designs, when agreeing with the guidelines
provided to support them.
C22. RE-ARCHITECTURE® would not have been produced without the cooperation of
the collaborators.
The collaborators have intervened in activities related to the production of the
prototype, which would not directly influence the quality of the “original contribution to the
further development of existing scientific knowledge” expected from a doctoral research. Such
collaboration proved that the researcher was not only able to manage her own individual
work; but also to coordinate the progress of others while producing the prototype.

Not all methods chosen were true proofs of success. Particularly, in such
cooperative experience – between research, education and practice – it is natural that
unexpected problems emerge. But fact is that those problems were always
manageable. If education and practice would not have been integrated, the researcher
would not have managed to test both theorised design theory and product. Without
such a method, probably this research would have stopped at the development of
theories and new perceptions of practice.

168
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

7.4 Concerning Framing the Field Universe

C23. All buildings older than one generation should become built heritage; while all
others, built by the present generation, should become built newness.
This doctoral research proposed a new sub-division of the built environment. Built
heritage would enclose buildings of varied significance and condition; however, the involved
actors would be required to deal with all of them equally, independent from their age,
classification, style, etc. Those differences would certainly influence decisions; however, they
should not influence the process to reach such decisions.
C24. Relevant literature has revealed that most experts tend to pursue their own sub-
expertises and undervalue what is indirectly related to their field.
While ecological experts are often found overvaluing ecological, social and economic
values; cultural experts prefer overvaluing historic, aesthetical and age values. Instead,
management experts are found overvaluing social, economic and political values; together
with the social experts. There is hardly a compromise between experts from the different
fields, involved with interventions on the built environment.
C25. Case studies revealed that actors involved in rehabilitation interventions tend
to undervalue what is indirectly related to their field.
When actors; such as experts, leaders and constituents; are brought together into one
rehabilitation intervention, each one comes with his own regent cultural values and aims.
Leaders are often found overvaluing historic, political and economic values; while constituents
tend to overvalue social, aesthetical and economic values. Again, there is hardly any
compromise unless their regent cultural values happen to match.
C26. Designers consider important to rehabilitate built heritage, but it seems that
just to rehabilitate is enough to consider a project successful.
Even if most designers considered important to rehabilitate built heritage and few of
them considered that such intervention can contribute to the preservation of the natural
environment; fact is, that what most of them perceive as built heritage is not the same as
what is defined in this doctoral research. Consequently, also their aims towards built heritage
through their rehabilitation interventions differ accordingly.
C27. Designers normally do not argue their design decisions on base of ecological
values. Most reasons to preserve are related to historic and aesthetical values.
Only few designers realised the real purpose of integrating the ecological values
within the cultural values. However, they only did it after much argumentation and debate. So,
the break of passivity inherent in society regarding the integration of the ecological values in
the cultural values, as well as the consideration of all theorised cultural values is still no more
than a true wish from the researcher and few other field experts.
C28. When built heritage is classified as “valueless”, the automatic aim is to replace
it with built newness, independent from its inherent cultural values.
One might also ask how designers could consider all cultural values, when the entire
society aims for exactly the contrary. In fact, it is challenging, but not that difficult to
implement. It only requires a more altruistic behaviour than the common egocentric one,

169
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

accepting that their own perceptions can be complemented with the ones from other fields of
expertise; so that also the results reach higher levels of quality.
C29. The tendency is still found neglecting both past and future in unlisted buildings
as well as both present and future in listed buildings.
Listed buildings should no longer be “frozen” in their past and unlisted building should
no longer be “evaporated” by the present. Future generations would appreciate the effort to
reach some balance and let them also enjoy from the originality of the unlisted buildings.
Currently, on might consider them as “valueless”, but future generations may enjoy such
buildings, even if it only by their capability of supplying man-made resources.
C30. Lifespan rehabilitation was defined to comply with the theorised built heritage,
proving that there is a way to deal with all buildings equally.
Every designer who develops rehabilitation interventions considering consciously the
building’s past, present or future is developing it lifespan consciously. Not al buildings have
the same age, classification, style, etc. But, designers should put their taste or interests aside
and accurately discover along their design processes what shall be the most suitable solution
for the present, without neglecting the past and entangling the future.
C31. Just as in the relevant literature, the lifespan consciousness and ecological
awareness is rising through the more conventional stereotypes.
The emergence of lifespan consciousness was perceptible among the designers; just
as found in the relevant literature. Nonetheless, they did not manage to fully understand the
change of behaviour required for implementing such definition of built heritage. Even after
realising that all buildings could become built heritage, as long as assessed of significance,
and after realising the importance of the ecological values for the XXI century.
C32. While ecological awareness is rising with dubious sustaining aims, the risk for
the same to happen to lifespan consciousness is less probable.
Over the last decades ecological awareness has been promoted and most recently
has become highly recommended and implemented. Problem is, such noble actions often
hide less noble aims. One might debate if, in fact, such actions are being sustained by the
future commonwealth on sustainability (ecological values) as lifespan consciousness, or by
the present individual profits on costs reduction (economic values).
C33. Built heritage and lifespan rehabilitation were not defined to be taken as
unchallengeable truths, but to be taken ahead in further research.
The theorised taxonomies – built heritage and lifespan rehabilitation – are not dogmas
and are expected to be challenged, either by the researcher or by other experts, in future
research. The aim was clear, but not so straightforward to see implemented in our
consumptive society which defends that what has no value can better be wasted! Global
behaviours can change, but often that takes time to happen.

Beyond the aims of implementation, fact is that this doctoral research provided
together with its taxonomies of built heritage and lifespan rehabilitation, a new
perception on the relevant literature and respective international documents. The
expertise field was granted with the impression of the researcher but also with an
accurate state-of-the-art. So, even if the theorised taxonomies shall take longer to be
implemented, they are already contributing to a more lifespan conscious perception of
built heritage and respective rehabilitation interventions.

170
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

7.5 Concerning Developing the prototype

C34. The theorised design process proposed a systematic model to sustain

theoretically individual-based design processes in rehabilitation interventions.
Such solution was found to sustain the intention to enable the implementation of
lifespan rehabilitation principles into rehabilitation interventions and demystify its potential
degree of complexity. Moreover, it would also create the bridge between theory and practice,
by creating means for the designers to retrieve the correct guidelines at the correct stage of
their design process and not when is too late and decisions taken are no longer reversible.
C35. No similar process was identified among the relevant literature; except for
models theorising design processes for common design processes.
There were identified several guidelines for the different sub-stages and activities
when surveying the literature. But, somehow they were either related to inventory techniques;
or related to design decisions, etc. There was no design process found, nor a logic procedure
that could guideline the designer on process versus results and what they could benefit from
such approach.
C36. The theorised design process for rehabilitation interventions was considered
an innovation from both theoretical and practical point of view.
Designers involved in this doctoral research have proven this same novelty. Probably,
one of the reasons for such decree of novelty is that design processes of designers are
normally their own responsibility and as long as they reach the final results and those final
results have the quality expected by their clients; no one even asks, which were their design
processes to reach such quality results.
C37. Design processes are normally involved with secrecy. But, secrecy should not
hide professional negligence and unsustained design decisions.
Secrecy in rehabilitation interventions is not a problem, as long as the design process
followed is sustained by lifespan conscious principles. They do not need to be the ones
theorised in this doctoral research, but they need to respect the building’s past, present and
future. Thus, secrecy should not be used as an alibi to hide design decisions taken last-
minute, without any sustenance from the pre-existence or any consciousness for their impact.
C38. When asked to develop a rehabilitation design, designers tend to start
“expressing” design proposals, before “sensing” the building or environment.
As a designer herself, the researcher recognises and understands the behaviour; but
those spontaneous “expressionisms” should not be taken more serious than any other
conceptual design, resultant from moments of creative freedom, along the design process.
They should not determine immediate design solutions, unless they have been proven
suitable, just as a doctor trying to find the treatment for one of his sick patients.
C39. The required creativity is higher when designers consider the pre-existence;
because instead of ignoring it, designers actually have solve its problems.
Some might argue that such guided sustenance on the pre-existence shall diminish
the designers’ creativity. Instead, such sustenance should provoke their creativity even more,
as they would have to propose a new existence that would clearly bring benefits for the pre-

171
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

existence. Therefore, the higher level of complexity and constraints of a rehabilitation

intervention, the higher level of creativity required to provide lifespan conscious solutions.
C40. Designers have the freedom to either follow the theorised process completely
or just in some particular sub-stages where they consider it most useful.
Designers involved in this doctoral research have considered such design process
useful, as a structural base to help systematising their preceding “chaotic” design processes.
Aware that such chaotic behaviour can bring clear consequences for the building and
respective environment, most designers did not see the model as a rigid process to follow,
but a theoretical support to their design processes in rehabilitation interventions.
C41. The two distinctive stages of pre-design and design clearly reveal the
differences between the pre-existence and new existence.
The theorised design process has proven to allow accurate comparisons between
pre-design results and the design results, to verify objectively the impact of each solution on
both building and environment. In general terms, that brings direct advantages not only for the
designer who proposes the design proposals; but also to the involved actors who can better
understand the design proposals.
C42. The theorised design process sustains designers converting the negative
impact of their rehabilitation design developments into positive.
When acquainted with the impact of each solution on both building and environment,
all involved actors can better prevent negative impacts. Therefore, even if slowly,
rehabilitation interventions and the respective designers can start by actively contributing to
the reduction of the negative impact and along time start contributing to the rise of the positive
impact; aiming each time higher.
C43. In rehabilitation design developments, subtractions and remainings should be
designed attentively, just as presently additions are being designed.
Consequent from the regency of present achievements, designers are more often
focused on the additions that they design as new, rather than the remainings which were
designed by others. Even less they are concerned with what is being subtracted.
Nonetheless, in rehabilitation designs there is a pre-existence which shall eventually be
divided into subtractions and remainings, which also requires consciousness and creativity.
C44. Converting subtractions into additions is an open door for the contribution of
designers to the preservation of the natural and built environment.
The solution to convert subtractions into additions whenever changes are required
due to the implementation of the new requirements, is an open door to the preservation of
both natural and built environment: the natural environment because no natural resources
need to be subtracted for the purpose; and the built environment because the building
remains the same, even if different. Consequently, past, present and future are not neglected.

On a global perspective the theorised design process proposes the raise of

lifespan consciousness of rehabilitation interventions, from the moment when the
design process starts, before the decisions are taken so that there is still potential for
allowing the pre-existence sustain the new existence. By taking the action to open the
horizons of designers towards more accuracy and sustenance in rehabilitation design
developments, the reaction expected was no more than to inspire minimal actions and
maximal results. Designers have creativity enough to deal with such challenge.

172
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

7.6 Concerning Producing the prototype

C45. RE-ARCHITECTURE® was an accessible solution to enable the implementation

of the theorised design process into the daily practices of designers.
RE-ARCHITECTURE® was produced to enable the implementation of the theorised
design process and inherent lifespan consciousness into the daily practices of designers
involved in rehabilitation design developments. There could have been many other ways to
approach the implementation of the theorised design process, but the researcher has chosen
to produce a design process support system.
C46. Design process support systems were found preferred to design decision
support systems by designers who are willing to be sustained but not replaced.
Designers involved in this doctoral research recognised the effort to create a support
system which would not make their design processes suffer too much influence of artificial
intelligence (IT applications), similar to other support systems that actually end up deciding for
the designer, asking for parameters, weights and automatically providing what the best
options are for each specific case.
C47. Better than presenting the design decisions, is to provide enough sustenance
for the designers to take the most lifespan conscious decision.
Each building and respective environment has its own particular significance, as well
as, condition. Therefore, what could be considered lifespan conscious for one building could
be found totally unconscious for other, even if similar. So, RE-ARCHITECTURE® chose for an
approach that would not present the decisions and substitute the designer. Instead, it would
provide a work environment where the designer could find sustenance for his own decisions.
C48. Theory is constantly evolving such as practice. One dedicated to practice
should better retrieve the last state-of-the-art from theory and vice versa.
As it is not possible for the designers to achieve proficiency in all theories, they can
better get sustenance from theory and the varied experts to supply them with the required
knowledge from the fields. Nonetheless, designers need to make the effort to search, find and
implement theory in their daily practices, in detriment of ad-hoc procedures, which often lead
to design decisions that are no longer irreversible, when found unsuitable.
C49. The liberalization of technical knowledge – guidelines and tools – for all
interested designers was an important contribution to a field of expertise.
In this field of expertise practice often complains about the unlikely relation between
the high quantity and quality of technical knowledge developed by the theoretical expertise
and the low quantity and quality of technical knowledge made available to practice.
Accordingly, most high quantity and quality of technical knowledge is confidential and is not
made accessible to practice, unless practice is willing to pay for it.
C50. The access of RE-ARCHITECTURE® through the internet enabled users to
retrieve easier and faster theoretical sustenance to their design process.
There were two means to enable the implementation of the theorised design process:
RE-ARCHITECTURE scapus (book II) and RE-ARCHITECTURE®. This last would be
available on the internet, where users could retrieve theoretical sustenance to their design
processes, easier and faster. Moreover, users could profit from the guidelines and tools from

173
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

everywhere in the world. At the moment, it was useful for reaching the Netherlands and
Portugal.
C51. Designers can find in RE-ARCHITECTURE® what would take hours to find in
different relevant literature; especially, if it is only available on a paper version.
The search for knowledge is normally quite time-consuming, but not with RE-
ARCHITECTURE®. Designers can quickly search and find guidelines from varied field experts
dedicated to rehabilitation interventions and respective required lifespan consciousness. In
matters of seconds, in the sitemap or search engine one can find what would take hours
finding in different relevant literature; especially, if it is only available on a paper version.
C52. RE-ARCHITECTURE® was particularly acknowledged by its potential to become
a platform of communication between all actors involved in the design process.
The registration of other users, as well as the comments of the students from the
Netherlands, revealed that more than being suitable to sustain one designer along his design
process, RE-ARCHITECTURE® could become a platform of communication between
designers, or even all between actors involved in rehabilitation design developments. Then,
beyond emphasising their aims, actors could actually become part of the design process.
C53. The tools available in RE-ARCHITECTURE® can become more dynamic and
accurate, when information can be converted from one sub-stage to the other.
A lack of correlation (horizontal) was evidenced between the tools of the different sub-
stages, but can easily be solved in future versions. Information can be inserted in the
inventories and worked further throughout the surveys; and finally, converted in the respective
assessments. In such way, no parameters would be accessed without previous survey and
information. Currently, RE-ARCHITECTURE® does not insure such accuracy.
C54. Particularly, the database of building components was found successful on the
sustenance of design decisions with lifespan and ecological data.
The database of components was the tool mostly used by the students. Nonetheless,
improvements would probably help users implementing the lifespan parameter more often.
When the correlation would be established along the sub-stages; e.g. the support system, on
its own could alert potential choices which were being less sustained, e.g. planning to
subtract highly accessed components without designing its reintroduction as addition.
C55. The functionalism of its interface was purposely chosen to enable the user to
identify the structure of the theorised design process in RE-ARCHITECTURE®.
The interface of RE-ARCHITECTURE® was structured according to its framework and
clearly reflects the structure of the theorised design process. In such way, designers who
would be acquainted with the model would know exactly were to go. Few users found it too
“rational” and “boring”; the large majority instead, found it very “clear” and “understandable”.
However, probably previous formation could have helped them profiting more from it.

Besides the qualities and defects of RE-ARCHITECTURE®, the production of the

prototype was considered a major accomplishment. After all, it was the first design
process support system produced for sustaining rehabilitation interventions
Moreover; it accomplished feedback from designers in both the Netherlands and
Portugal. Future research shall prove if, in fact, the foreseen improvements shall raise
its usability, or if instead, this is the common usability of support systems that
propose to sustain the raise of lifespan consciousness in design processes.

174
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

7.7 Concerning Testing the prototype

C56. This doctoral research has profited from the contribution of various designers,
from the Netherlands and Portugal, through their experience and opinion.
While testing the proposed bridge between research and practice, on paper and when
implemented in RE-ARCHITECTURE®, this doctoral research has profited from the
contribution of various designers, from two different countries, through their experience and
opinion. The researcher was interested not only in the experience and opinion of the
contemporary architects, but also of the future architects (architecture students).
C57. Both contemporary and future architects were challenged, so that their reaction
towards a compromise between theory and practice could be verified.
When contemporary architects would not be found interested in such compromise
between theory and practice, there would be still the hypothesis of such compromise being
considered more interesting for future architects. They would be architecture students now,
but they could already reveal the interest of future generations of architects for implementing
and personalising such lifespan consciousness in their own future practices.
C58. The design processes of the two architectural offices revealed the variances
required on the theorised design process to be suitable for all buildings.
Particularly, two architectural offices had a high contribution to this research with their
practice implementing their own principles of lifespan consciousness in rehabilitation
interventions. As hypothesised, variances between listed and unlisted buildings were
identified; however, these same variances sustained the definition of a design process, which
was found suitable for rehabilitation of built heritage, inclusive listed and unlisted buildings.
C59. The doubts of the students, while supported by the theorised design process,
have shaped the theoretical content of each stage, sub-stage and activity.
First, the students from the Netherlands and later, the students from Portugal who
have been involved in the period to test the design theory, have contributed with their
experiences while developing a rehabilitation design to the identification of the required
knowledge to explain the aim of a specific stage, sub-stage and activity. Their doubts and
uncertainties would be automatically be converted into guidelines.
C60. Architects have revealed interest when registering at RE-ARCHITECTURE®,
however more from Portugal than from the Netherlands.
Their reaction towards its potential implementation in their daily activities was already
considered as a point of success for this doctoral research. The level of adoption or rejection
of the proposed prototype had inferior importance, because most important was the fact that
such design process support system actually appealed a significant number of field experts.
To make it more usable would be the task for further research.
C61. Despite the massive adoption, far beyond the expectations, most architects
ended up not exploring RE-ARCHITECTURE® as much as they could.
The adoption of the architects from Portugal was far above the average, with
approximately four times more users than the architects from the Netherlands. Most
architects stopped using it after the first or second entrance. Moreover, they also did not

175
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

return to share their opinions about what was RE-ARCHITECTURE® now and what they
would like it to become. The ones that did return, argued lack of previous formation, time, etc.
C62. Students who have used RE-ARCHITECTURE® more periodically have
considered it useful to sustain rehabilitation design developments.
One could argue if the students, who used RE-ARCHITECTURE® from the beginning
till the end of their design process, used it because they had to do it for educational purposes
or instead, used it because they really considered it useful. Their answers, however, prove
that they have considered RE-ARCHITECTURE® useful. They also suggested different
aesthetics, more dynamism, national languages, exportable data, etc.
C63. Students have shown raises of lifespan consciousness, while testing both
theorised design process, and RE-ARCHITECTURE®.
Probably because students were being oriented on a weekly basis, they have
surpassed the initial moment of confrontation and realised how useful such theoretical
sustenance was for their design processes. Even the ones more reticent about it have ended
up understanding that all that initial workload exclusively dedicated to the building and
environment had a purpose to sustain their design proposals.
C64. Experience and perspective did not influence the initial level of lifespan
consciousness in rehabilitation design developments.
Mostly from the students, it was possible to conclude that their preceding experience
on developing rehabilitation designs or different perspective on professional expectations did
not influence their initial level of lifespan consciousness nor its raise along the design
process. Preceding experiences brought good-practices, but also very erroneous ones; which
students considered successful. Similarly, the different perspectives revealed no different.
C65. The regent cultural values have influenced more the students and their design
developments than the country from where they would come from.
The motivation of the students from Portugal in the period for testing the design
theory and the motivation of the students from the Netherlands in the period for testing the
design product have clearly revealed that the motivation and interest of students for raising
their levels of lifespan consciousness is independent from location, but very dependent from
the regent cultural values that influence them most, as well as their will to improve.
C66. Designers are willing to discover how to raise their lifespan consciousness, but
aiming has to be translated into actions.
Designers have given proves that they were willing to discover how to raise lifespan
consciousness in their design processes and surpass the border of passiveness, aiming
towards the preservation of natural and human-made resources through their rehabilitation
design developments. But, aiming is not enough and acting was found still too far away from
such noble aims. Hopefully, in time they shall become habits and end as common behaviour.

The first prototype of RE-ARCHITECTURE® was found suitable and useful for
designers in the Netherlands and Portugal. Even if the number of designers who have
ended up using it and filling in the post-survey was reduced, the raises of lifespan
consciousness from the ones that where brave enough to accept the challenge, even if
new and different, made all efforts worthwhile. Moreover, their experience and
comments enabled many conclusions that shall bring this research till a new prototype
version, which most of them already stated to be willing to try when available.

176
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

7.8 Overall conclusions and discussion

C67. This doctoral research proved that it is possible to develop lifespan conscious
rehabilitations of built heritage.
When returning to the main research question that intrigued the researcher along the
four years – Is it possible to develop lifespan conscious rehabilitations of built heritage – a
new dilemma emerged, which probably shall only be solved with further research. Indeed, this
doctoral research proved that it is possible to develop lifespan conscious rehabilitations of
built heritage. Nonetheless, back to the fundamental factors few conclusions should be taken.
C68. No matter the “aims” behind the “tools”, the “actors” are the ones determining
their adoption and to take “actions” towards its implementation.
No matter “time” or “site”; even when “tools” are provided to sustain noble “aims”,
such as the theorised design process and RE-ARCHITECTURE®, the power lays at the
“actors” that determine if such “aims” are compatible with their own. When that is the case,
tendentiously its adoption is stronger and clear “actions” are taken for its implementation.
Otherwise, such “tools” are simply considered useless; even without having been used.
C69. “Objects” are tendentiously cultured by the regent “values” and it is hard to
change them; unless the “actors” are willing to do it.
Moreover, the “objects” are tendentiously cultured by the regent “values”; even after
“actors” have been alerted and having recognised the various cultural dimensions of
significance and importance for such global awareness. Even if arguing the importance to
rehabilitate on ecological values, “actors” do not aim to preserve the pre-existence in their
designs, arguing this same “value”, as convincingly as, when arguing the regent “values”.
C70. In theory, this doctoral research tried to save the cultured “objects”, through
the raise of lifespan consciousness in the “actions” within rehabilitations.
But, no matter the time spent theorising and sustaining with previous literature, the
aim to divide the built environment in only two big families: built heritage and built newness;
and to democratise a more lifespan conscious perception that would make “actors” respect
“objects” for what they are and what to offer, rather than, for what they can gain from them;
“actors” will always be the ones perceiving the built environment.
C71. But, “actors” can be simultaneously powerful and merciless in this whole
factorial system. It mainly depends on their regent “values” and “aims”.
The researcher did not realise how simultaneously powerful and merciless “actors”
can actually be in this whole factorial system. After all, they are the ones that determine “time”
and “site”; the ones that take the “actions” and choose the “tools” to build and intervene in the
built environment, settled by “objects” of their own creation. They are also the ones deciding
their “aims” and electing the regent “values”.
C72. The relation between the “aims” that guide the “actions” and the “values” that
qualify the “objects” though, was a quite curious discovery.
Even if, theoretically, there should be a safety barrier between them; fact is that
practically, they have direct influence on each other. The “values” attributed to an “object” do
manipulate the “aims” behind an “action” towards the cultured “objects” and vice versa.

177
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

Consequences from this relationship can be comforting, but can also devastating; especially
when the “aims” are not influenced by the “object”.
C73. “Actions” of rehabilitation are noble, but can result into a much more
unsustained intervention than other interventions on the built environment.
“Actors” in general and designers in particular, have the power to “aim” for “actions”
that contribute the rehabilitation of obsolete built environments. This is a very noble
intervention, but quite intrusive if the chosen “aims” and “actions” are, in fact, incompatible
and/or unsuitable with such building and/or environment. Other scales of intervention such as
e.g. preservation do not leave such a stronger impact in the natural and built environment.
C74. The lack of common systems and parameters to control the quality of “actions”
within rehabilitation interventions is a problem far from being solved.
European and National regulations are too unclear in these aspects. “Actions” in the
built environment are recommended to preserve the “objects” of cult; but no specific
constrains are imposed. So, it is no surprise to find most designers considering their
rehabilitation interventions as successful, as well as, the rehabilitation intervention of other
colleagues, nationally and/or internationally, when acknowledged by the Media.
C75. Respecting past, present and future of built heritage, in rehabilitation
interventions, is within all “actors” who are naturally lifespan conscious.
Lifespan conscious “actors” know how the past is important for present and future
societies; how the present needs to be supplied which is required or demanded; and how
future generations can better profit from decisions taken today. This research proved that
most arguments reflected the importance between old and new; but curiously, in many cases
of contemporary rehabilitation there is hardly any old left to prove such harmony.
C76. “Actions” of contemporary society are mostly lifespan unconscious; probably
because current generation was not educated to “aim” lifespan consciously.
Contemporary society has not been educated lifespan consciously. Most designers
are taught for designing what new and wasting what old. Media has substituted Literature.
Appearance rules over Essence. Therefore, when the question is raised regarding lifespan
consciousness; most inherent answer is: “What do I gain with it?” Without realising, that such
lifespan consciousness is not about gaining individual, but commonwealth returns.
C77. Even if it is possible to develop lifespan conscious rehabilitations of built
heritage, contemporary “actors” have not taken “actions” for it.
Contemporary designers were found interested on lifespan conscious rehabilitations
of built heritage, but did not take the required “time” to “act” according to its most basic
principles. Probably, they are still too influenced by society and are not willing to give up on
fame and reputation to only “act” where exceptionally required; incapable of choosing for a
more sustained solution, instead of the more fashionable and trendy.

So, it is possible to develop lifespan conscious rehabilitations of built heritage

and designers are perfectly capable to undertake them, when willing. They only need
to realise the direct effect of their “actions”, drawing and erasing lines, on the
environment. However, without the involvement of the other involved actors, efforts
can be limited The researcher can only promise to find better theoretical sustenance
for their practices, and hope to one day answer “yes” when questioned about the
lifespan consciousness of most designers involved in rehabilitations of built heritage.

178
 Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

7.9 Further recommendations

R1. Countries such as the Netherlands and Portugal can contribute for the raise of
lifespan consciousness of the interventions on their built environments.
Taking as base this doctoral research, there is much that can be done to raise the
level of lifespan consciousness of the interventions on their built environments. Consultancy
provided by the experts from the local authorities, sustained by the experts from the field of
expertise, could become fundamental to the raise lifespan consciousness. Consultancy could
be provided to all scales of intervention and not just at the higher ones.
R2. The impact of Interventions on their built environments can easily be controlled
by comparing the pre-existence with the new existence.
Local authorities can easily identify the impact of interventions on their built
environments by comparing the pre-existence and the new existence. From that comparison,
they will be able to identify what is designed to be subtracted, to remain and to be added. To
crosscheck these realities with the respective condition and significance assessment of the
pre-existence would certainly contribute for the raise of lifespan consciousness.
R3. “Blue” could be legally added to the “reds & yellows”, to incentive aims to
recycle, reprocess and/or relocation.
In Portugal, there are already the “reds and yellows” to control respectively the
additions and subtractions, within a rehabilitation intervention. To incentive lifespan
consciousness, a new colour - “blue” - could be added to clearly identify what is there which
was previously subtracted and later added after having been recycled, reprocessed or
relocated. This method to control could be also suitable in the Netherlands.
R4. In order to diminish the identified gap and strengthen the bridge between
theory and practice, further research should aim for practical application.
Applied research is an excellent approach that helps researchers from all fields of
expertise to create bridges between theory and practice. Those are not easy to build, but
once established will improve communication, further developments, etc. Bridging between
theory and practice was enabled by RE-ARCHITECTURE®; particularly in the field of
rehabilitation of built heritage and its respective raise of lifespan consciousness.
R5. Framing such field universe is a challenge that should not cease with this
doctoral research.
The referenced literature can be further explored to derive new theories, related to
interventions on the built environment and adapted to the changing time. Specifically related
to the surveyed taxonomies researchers can e.g. complement the survey with more
documents following the same method or define a new method to survey the same
documents and correlate the results.
R6. The theorisation of design processes undertaken in rehabilitation interventions
could only profit with different perceptions and much debate.
The theorised design process resulted from the experience of the researcher and
respective research process, contacts, literature, etc. Nonetheless, other design processes
could be developed, even more efficient on sustaining the raise of lifespan consciousness

179
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

than these previous ones. Moreover, researches can be undertaken where models derive
directly from practice, to better identify lifespan conscious and unconscious practices.
R7. RE-ARCHITECTURE® produced during this doctoral research was the first and
hopefully not the last design process support system.
More perceptions on how such support system should be optimised to operate and
interact with its users, together with all results emerging from this doctoral research, can only
lead to a stronger bridge between theory and practice in the field of rehabilitation
interventions. Further research should also focus on how practice could work together with
theory and in which stages of a design process this collaboration could be most vital.
R8. RE-ARCHITECTURE® has established a bridge which, when well maintained,
shall enable prosperous exchange of experiences between theory and practice.
From one side, theory can supply the knowledge. From the other side, practice can
adopt, implement and provide outputs for such knowledge. However, contemporary, as well
as future architects, still at the level of learning their future practices from theory, need to
maintain such bridge. Otherwise, behaving egocentrically, theory shall stop supplying
innovative knowledge and practice shall not evolve as much it could.
R9. Lifespan consciousness should not only be applied in Europe, but everywhere.
RE-ARCHITECTURE® can sustain its worldwide implementation.
As the theorised design process intends to become an international model, similarly
to the international documents that have inspired it, countries from all over the world, could
profit from both current and/or new versions of such design process. These countries shall
surely contribute back with other perceptions, not only on the design process of rehabilitation
interventions; but also on their objects of cult and respective actions of intervention.
R10. Further versions of RE-ARCHITECTURE® should be developed, not only taking
as base what practice demands, but what theory recommends.
Recommendations given by the architects and architecture students involved in this
pioneer experience should be the base for such further developments, as they have already
provided very good evidences on how designers idealise their support systems. Nonetheless,
theory has the state-of-the-art on best-practice principles and techniques that should be
applied and tested, even if proposed by practice.
R11. RE-ARCHITECTURE® should become part of the daily practice of all actors
involved in rehabilitation design developments.
RE-ARCHITECTURE® was now able to enter at the level of the daily activities of
students and architects from the Netherlands and Portugal; but the constant aim is not to
enter, but to stay there and sustain them in their daily activities. As a team, theory and
practice can raise rehabilitation interventions into levels of lifespan consciousness, which are
now far beyond achievement.

A stronger cooperation between theory and practice through the strengthening

of the triangle research, education and practice can only lead towards rewarding
developments processes and results. No method, theory, implementation and
verification shall ever be perfect, but that is exactly what makes research even more
challenging. There is always something to learn from, to improve and to search for
new solutions, over and over again. Nonetheless, there are moments such as this one,
where research needs to stop, look back and forward, to wisely find the following path.

180
Testing the design product / The lifespan rehabilitation design process

Appendices

181
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

182
 Appendix 1: The evolution of the prototype

Appendix 1: The evolution of the prototype

code cp pp fp d/f description
01 accesslog d Workflow, log of data
02 aims f Primary aims
03 answers d Pre- and Post-Survey, log of data
04 assessments f Parameters and assessment scales
05 assessment_responses d Assessments, log of data
06 configurations f Forgotten password engine
07 documents f Primary and secondary documents
08 document_locations f Primary and secondary locations
09 oral_actors f Primary and secondary actors
10 oral_locations f Primary and secondary locations
11 questions b f Pre- and Post-Survey questions
12 site f Info boxes texts (Top menus)
13 sphidercategories f Search engine, categories
14 sphiderdomains f Search engine, domains
15 sphiderkeywords f Search engine, keywords
16 sphiderlinks f Search engine, links
17 sphiderlink_keyword0 f Search engine, keywords 0
18 sphiderlink_keyword1 f Search engine, keywords 1
19 sphiderlink_keyword2 f Search engine, keywords 2
20 sphiderlink_keyword3 f Search engine, keywords 3
21 sphiderlink_keyword4 f Search engine, keywords 4
22 sphiderlink_keyword5 f Search engine, keywords 5
23 sphiderlink_keyword6 f Search engine, keywords 6
24 sphiderlink_keyword7 f Search engine, keywords 7
25 sphiderlink_keyword8 f Search engine, keywords 8
26 sphiderlink_keyword9 f Search engine, keywords 9
27 sphiderlink_keyworda f Search engine, keywords a
28 sphiderlink_keywordb f Search engine, keywords b
29 sphiderlink_keywordc f Search engine, keywords c
30 sphiderlink_keywordd f Search engine, keywords d
31 sphiderlink_keyworde f Search engine, keywords e
32 sphiderlink_keywordf f Search engine, keywords f

183
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

code cp pp fp d/f description

33 sphiderpending f Search engine, pending
34 sphiderquery_log d Search engine, log of data
35 sphidersites f Search engine, sites
36 sphidersite_category f Search engine, site category
37 sphidertemp f Search engine, temp
38 survey b11 d Pre-Survey answers (1/6)
39 survey b12 d Pre-Survey answers (2/6)
40 survey b12a d Pre-Survey answers (2a/6)
41 survey b13 d Pre-Survey answers (3/6)
42 survey b14 d Pre-Survey answers (4/6)
43 survey b15 d Pre-Survey answers (5/6)
44 survey b16 d Pre-Survey answers (6/6)
45 survey b21 d Post-Survey answers (1/6)
46 survey b22 d Post-Survey answers (2/6)
47 survey b22a d Post-Survey answers (2a/6)
48 survey b23 d Post-Survey answers (3/6)
49 survey b24 d Post-Survey answers (4/6)
50 survey b25 d Post-Survey answers (5/6)
51 survey b26 d Post-Survey answers (6/6)
52 surveys f Surveys, fields
53 survey_categories_es f S. Categories, environment survey
54 survey_categories_cs f S. Categories, condition survey
55 survey_categories_pi f S. Categories, physical inventory
56 survey_categories_ss f S. Categories, significance survey
57 survey_guidelines_es f S. Guidelines, environment survey
58 survey_guidelines_cs f S. Guidelines, condition survey
59 survey_guidelines_pi f S. Guidelines, physical inventory
60 survey_guidelines_ss f S. Guidelines, significance survey
61 survey_responses d Surveys, log of data
62 tb00 d Users, log of data
63 tb00 document f Literature references
64 tb00 document category f Literature references, category
65 tb01 f Users, years
66 tb02 f Users, countries

184
 Appendix 1: The evolution of the prototype

code cp pp fp d/f description

67 tb05 (0-) f Dtb. of components (0-.--) (--)
68 tb05 (00) f Dtb. of components (00.--) (--)
69 tb05 (000) f Dtb. of components (00.00) (--)
70 tb05 (a) material f Dtb. of components (--.--) (-a)
71 tb05 (a) work f Dtb. of components (--.--) (A-)
72 tb05 component f Dtb. of components
73 tb05 info f Dtb. of components info
74 tb05 info type f Dtb. of components info type
75 tb10 d Post-Survey, log of answers
76 tb11 f Post-Survey, scale of evaluation
77 tb12 f Surveys, scale of usefulness
78 tb20 d Designs, log of data
79 tb21 f Designs, months
80 tb03 guidelines Level 0 - Dtb. of Guidelines
81 tb31 f Level 1 - Stages
82 tb32 f Level 2 - Sub-stages
83 tb33 f Level 3 - Activity
84 tb34 f Level 4 - Sub-Activity
85 tb35 f Level 5 - Guidelines
86 tb04 environment Assessments, log of data (I)
87 tb40 d Assessments, log of data (II)
88 tb02 component list d Dtb. of components, log of data (I)
89 tb50 d Dtb. of components, log of data (II)
90 tools available f Tools available
91 tools report d Report, log of results
total 23 41 66

185
 Appendix 2: The inconsistencies of the preliminary prototype

Appendix 2: The inconsistencies of the

preliminary prototype
Phase 1

id description location
1 The sitemap is not working Sitemap
2 Conditions heading differs in Home and Database New user account
3 Conditions text differs in Home and Database New user account
4 Back link erases info filled in the new user account New user account
5 Add error messages in new user account + other mistakes New user account
6 No error message checking the e-mail New user account
7 The user can login immediately after registering New user account
8 Annoying error message in pre- + post-surveys Pre- + post-surveys
9 Enable to stop the assessments and continue next time Pre- + post-surveys
10 The tool buttons in all sub-stages are too small All tools
11 The heading in all sub-stages are too small All headings
12 The navigation buttons to the left menu (pop-up window) Design process
13 Ana Rita Pereira Roders has no e-mail added Contact us
14 Question B2.01 has a non user-friendly answer matrix Post-survey
15 Add notice texts to explain what the user can do Design process
16 Transform the PDF into html, under the graph Design process
17 Transform the Matrixes into clickable tables Design process
18 There is not enough grey in the end of the pages All tools
19 The button send is different than others (change to save) All tools
20 The button preview never works (can be erased) All tools
21 The back button does not work, after clicking bottom / top Dtb. of components
22 Arrows are not user-friendly (change to image or text) Dtb. of components
23 When adding components into report, nothing happens Report
24 Designer and Date are not aligned to the right Report
25 In Designer should appear the complete name of the user Report
26 The selection made by the user disappears All evaluation tools
27 When re-selecting and sending nothing changes All evaluation tools
28 Add "© 2006 RE-ARCHITECTURE Inc. All rights reserved" Frozen frame (footer)
29 Add registered ® in from of RE-ARCHITECTURE Frozen frame (header)
30 Add link to PDF "Copyright" to explain Copyright/IP Policy Frozen frame (footer)
31 Add blank PDF with the name "Copyright" Frozen frame (footer)
32 The table cell (a) is with a different format than the others Dtb. of components
33 Technische Universiteit Eindhoven is not aligned to the right Frozen frame (header
34 Faculty of architecture... are not aligned to the right Frozen frame (header)

187
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

id description location
35 Unit Architectural... are not aligned to the right Frozen frame (header)
36 The Table had some interrogation marks to be erased Dtb. of components
37 There were some - missing Dtb. of components
38 The time limit to assess website + post-survey is not there Frozen frame (footer)
39 Ir. Peter van den Brand is missing Acknowledgements
40 Built heritage is the 2nd and should the 3rd link in the menu Main menu (black)
41 Introduction + Conclusion from Pre- and Design are missing Left menu
42 After bug 41, Pre- and design can become just text Left menu
43 The evaluation scale is from 5 to 1 and should be the inverse All evaluation tools
44 Design Assessment tool is missing Evaluation (4DA)
45 The selective combo box cuts the words in the bottom Dtb. of components
46 The CI/SfB Codes are not together with the description Dtb. of components
47 The intended facilities are inexistent (check PowerPoint) Main menu (blue)
48 The user can logout immediately without warning message Logout
49 Substitute "Welcome ...!" with "Goodbye...!" after logging out Logout
50 Substitute "logout" with "log out" Logout
51 FCT link is with problems (link in Favourites) Acknowledgements
52 XX architecten is with problems (link in Favourites) Acknowledgements
53 The "Stichting Bouwresearch" is missing (link in Favourites) Acknowledgements
54 Change "more..." to "and more..." Acknowledgements
55 The link to PDF in the Headings is not working All headings
56 The two assessment tools should be recognisable Evaluation (3EA, 4EA)
57 Stage 4 - Evaluation appears as Stage 3 - Decision Report
58 The report does not distinguish page 1, 2, 3, ... Report
59 The identification of the stage is in the wrong position Report
60 The tools are ordered alphabetically, not process related Pre-Report
61 The user's order choice only appears once he selects it Report
62 If the user returns to report - tools are ordered alphabetically Report
63 Have option for only 1 graph with 2 results (e.g. 3EA + 4EA) Report
64 There is no button back in the report preview Report
65 The button print is not visible enough Report
66 There is no button in the top saying bottom (main/compare) Dtb. of components
67 There is no button in the bottom saying top (main/compare) Dtb. of components
68 Preview + back are unaligned with the layout Dtb. of components
69 The table should be identified as CI/SfB TABLE1 (0-) Dtb. of components
70 Add the other twelve tools (Analysis + Synthesis) All tools
71 Add search function into left menu Left menu
72 The CI/SfB Codes do not appear in the comparison Dtb. of components
73 The sitemap available is not satisfactory Sitemap
74 Format conditions window (letter, size, etc.) Conditions
75 The button preview never works (can be erased) Dtb. of components

188
 Appendix 2: The inconsistencies of the preliminary prototype

id description location
76 Change the text as external works, other works Dtb. of components
77 Cannot unselect 3PI and 4PD in "report", only in database Dtb. of components
78 When components are selected they are part of the "report" Dtb. of components
79 Correct the CI/SfB codes Dtb. of components
80 No button in the top saying bottom (info) and vice versa Dtb. of components
81 There is not enough grey in the end of the page (compare) Dtb. of components
82 Change "sex" for "gender" New user account

Phase 2

id description location
1 Place all the back buttons in the same position (top right) Tools (AN/SY/EV)
2 Place the info boxes centred with the website page Info boxes
3 Change the background of the info box "Introduction" to blue Big blue menu
4 Change the background of the info box "contact" to blue Small blue menu
5 The titles should be with caps, just as in the other info boxes Top black menu
6 Summarise the text of the info box "Introduction" Big blue menu
7 Create the white box with a arrow to simulate "search" Left menu
8 Place "sitemap" under the "search" box Left menu
9 Introduce "Introduction" and "Conclusion" Left menu
10 Move building elements database to 4PD tool Tool (4PD)
11 Add to every tools page the blue schemes Tools menu
12 Introduce "Sitemap" and "Report" Left menu
13 Make blue (passing the mouse) the sub-stages with tools Tools menu
14 Place "Report" html in both 3DR and 4DR tool Tools (3/4DR)
15 Filter the view of sub-stages in 3DR to (Pre-Design results) Tool (3DR)
16 Make the "Report" similar to the other tools Tools (3/4DR)
17 Make the description of the codes visible in the combo box Tools (AN/SY)
18 The titles should not start with big letters Tools (AN/SY)
19 The title "information" and "observations" should be visible Tools (AN)
20 The title "knowledge" and "observations" should be visible Tools (3SY)
21 The title "action" and "observations" should be visible Tools (4SY)
22 Place "add" in the bottom (right) Tools (AN/SY/EV)
23 The designer can choose the parameters he wants to assess Tools (EV)
24 The report should allow min. 3 and max. 9 parameters Tools (EV)
25 Add Environment Assessment tools Tools (3/4EA)
26 Invert the colours range (very low - red, very high blue) Tools (EV)
27 Introduce "check risk" button and function Tools (3/4SA)
28 Align "right" the descriptions of the parameters Tools (EV)
29 Comparison among components should be possible Tool (4PD)
30 Change the style of add/remove Tool (4PD)

189
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation to built heritage / Producing the prototype

id description location
31 Possibility to add as subtractions / remainings / additions Tool (4PD)
32 The fields with the same widths ("100" or "50") Wt="600" Tool (4PD)
33 Align the codes and description to the "left" Tool (4PD)
34 Correct the codes (1-) till (9-) Tool (4PD)
35 The titles should not have frame around Tool (4PD)
36 The "add" buttons need to add information to the "Report" Tool (4PD)
37 The htmls should be updated with the last versions Design Process
38 The e-mail to send password is not working yet Login
39 The "index" page with the logo First page
40 Disappear with the Left menu until the designer is logged in First page
41 The left menu windows is behind the components combo box Tool (4PD)
42 The left menu windows is behind the "Report" list Report
43 Make the logo for the subtractions, remainings, additions Tool (4PD)
44 Correct the text of the questions (in the website) Pre- and Post Surveys
45 Freeze the grey window and reduce surveys to 6 pages Pre- and Post Surveys
46 Change "date of birth" to "year of birth" New User 2/3
47 In combo box B1.03 and B2.03, is "theory-based" Pre- and Post Surveys
48 Black code boxes should have the same width Pre- and Post Surveys
49 Combo boxes should be placed in the same place Pre- and Post Surveys
50 Question 16 should be on the next page (6th page) Pre- and Post Surveys
51 Pre- and Post Surveys should be 6 pages only Pre- and Post Surveys
52 Correct "sitemap" (Erase the general information) Left menu
53 Erase "building" from the title in "Introduction" Introduction
54 Correct all hyperlinks of the htmls files Design Process
55 Write terms and conditions Bottom
56 Correct all wrong table and figure links Design Process
57 Match grey area before and after logging in Left menu / Grey area
58 Reduce grey / left menu height so bottom is visible Left menu / Grey area
59 Correct the blue under the black boxes Tools (3/4DR)
60 The vertical titles should all be aligned right Tools
61 All titles should be blue (as in 4PD) Tools (AN/SY)
62 All titles should be blue (first page is not) Tools (4PD)
63 The table lines should all have the colour (as in more info) Tools (4PD)
64 When clicking again in the same square, it should unselect Tools (EV)
65 Add hyperlinks to Appendixes (support tables with values) Tools (EV)
66 Correct "list of results" and "currently in your report" Tools (3/4DR)
67 Back button is missing (back to respective guidelines) Tools (3/4DR)
68 combo boxes are not aligned with each other Tools (AN/SY)
69 Delete in 3/3 new user account Pre-Survey
70 When the user answers no - jump to page 6 (question 16) Pre-Survey
71 The building inventory tool is missing Tools (3/4DI)

190
Appendix 3: Questionnaire A1
Appendix 4: Questionnaire A2
Appendix 5: Questionnaire A3

191
 Appendix 3: Questionnaire A1

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A1 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES IN PROTECTED AND NON PROTECTED BUILDINGS

A1
DESIGNATION DESIGNER [ARCHITECTURAL] DATE PAGE
1/9

OTHER INTERVENIENTS
COLLABORATION [ARCHITECTURAL] CO-DESIGNER [CONSTRUCTION]

CO-DESIGNER [ELECTRICAL] CO-DESIGNER [MECHANICAL]

CO-DESIGNER [WATER + SEWAGE] OTHER CO-DESIGNER

APPROVAL INSTITUTION OTHER APPROVAL INSTITUTION

OWNER / USER CONTRACTOR

BUILDING
NAME STREET CITY COUNTRY

PROTECTION INSTITUTION PROTECTION GRADE PROTECTION AREA PROTECTION DATE

ORIGINAL TYPOLOGY ORIGINAL DATE FORMER TYPOLOGY FORMER DATE

CATEGORY LAND AREA BUILT AREA FLOOR AREA

ENVIRONMENT LOCATION ALTIMETRY STATUS

DESCRIPTION

COMMENTS

193
 Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage / Appendixes

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A1 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES IN PROTECTED AND NON PROTECTED BUILDINGS

A1
DESIGNATION DESIGNER [ARCHITECTURAL] DATE PAGE
2/9

BUILDING
LIFE CYCLE STAGES

COMMENTS

PRE-DESIGN SUB-STAGES

COMMENTS

3DI: ANALYSIS – DOCUMENTAL INVENTORY

PLACE DOCUMENTS REASON

PLACE DOCUMENTS REASON

PLACE DOCUMENTS REASON

PLACE DOCUMENTS REASON

PLACE DOCUMENTS REASON

PLACE DOCUMENTS REASON

194
 Appendix 3: Questionnaire A1

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A1 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES IN PROTECTED AND NON PROTECTED BUILDINGS

A1
DESIGNATION DESIGNER [ARCHITECTURAL] DATE PAGE
3/9

3PI: ANALYSIS – PHYSICAL INVENTORY

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON
Geometric IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON

Material IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON

Chronological IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON

Pathological IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON

Colour IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON

Complexity IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON

Functional IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON

Efficiency IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON

Climate IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON

Technical IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON

Aesthetical IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON

Lifespan IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON

Real estate IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

SURVEY ORDER YES NOT NOT REASON

IMPORTANT POSSIBLE

ORDER = ORDER IN THE DESIGN PROCESS

3SA: EVALUATION – SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT

VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
economic
VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
political
VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
social
VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
historic
VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
scientific
VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
age
VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
aesthetical
VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
ecologic
SCALE: V = VERY HIGH, IV = HIGH, III = REASONABLE, II = LOW, I = VERY LOW
ORDER = ORDER OF RISK FOR THE DESIGN DECISIONS

195
 Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage / Appendixes

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A1 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES IN PROTECTED AND NON PROTECTED BUILDINGS

A1
DESIGNATION DESIGNER [ARCHITECTURAL] DATE PAGE
4/9

3CA: EVALUATION – CONDITION ASSESSMENT

SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON
form
SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON
component
SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON
material
FEATURE V IV III II I REASON
function
PERFORMANCE V IV III II I REASON
climate
PERFORMANCE V IV III II I REASON
technical
PERFORMANCE V IV III II I REASON
aesthetical
PERFORMANCE V IV III II I REASON
lifespan
FEATURE V IV III II I REASON
prod. complexity
FEATURE V IV III II I REASON
costs
SCALE: V = VERY HIGH, IV = HIGH, III = REASONABLE, II = LOW, I = VERY LOW

3R: REPORT YES NOT NOT NOT REASON

Pre-design IMPORTANT POSSIBLE WANTED

INTERVENTION
DESIGN STAGES

COMMENTS

4D1: ANALYSIS – DOCUMENTAL INVENTORY

PLACE DOCUMENTS REASON

PLACE DOCUMENTS REASON

196
 Appendix 3: Questionnaire A1

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A1 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES IN PROTECTED AND NON PROTECTED BUILDINGS

A1
DESIGNATION DESIGNER [ARCHITECTURAL] DATE PAGE
5/9

AI: ANALYSIS – AIMS INVENTORY

NAME CLASSIFICATION TYPOLOGY DATE

CATEGORY NATURAL AREA BUILT AREA FLOOR AREA

SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON

form
SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON
component
SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON
material
SCALE: V = MAINTAIN, IV = RESTORE, III = IMPROVE, II = REPLACE, I = DECREASE

FEATURE V IV III II I REASON

function
SCALE: V = USE, IV = REUSE (UPGRADE), III = ADAPT (COMPATIBLE), II = ADAPT (INCOMPATIBLE), I = NOT USE

PERFORMANCE V IV III II I REASON

climate
PERFORMANCE V IV III II I REASON
technical
PERFORMANCE V IV III II I REASON
aesthetical
PERFORMANCE V IV III II I REASON
lifespan
FEATURE V IV III II I REASON
prod. complexity
FEATURE V IV III II I REASON
costs
SCALE: V = MAINTAIN, IV = RESTORE, III = IMPROVE, II = REPLACE, I = DECREASE

4PD: SIMULATION – PRELIMINARY DESIGN

PRE-EXISTENCE ORDER YES NOT NOT NOT REASON
Subtractions IMPORTANT POSSIBLE WANTED

COMMENTS

PRE-EXISTENCE ORDER YES NOT NOT NOT REASON

Remainings IMPORTANT POSSIBLE WANTED

COMMENTS

PRE-EXISTENCE ORDER YES NOT NOT NOT REASON

Additions IMPORTANT POSSIBLE WANTED

COMMENTS

ORDER = ORDER OF IMPORTANCE FOR THE DESIGNER

197
 Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage / Appendixes

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A1 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES IN PROTECTED AND NON PROTECTED BUILDINGS

A1
DESIGNATION DESIGNER [ARCHITECTURAL] DATE PAGE
6/9

4PD: SIMULATION – PRELIMINARY DESIGN

PRE-EXISTENCE ORDER YES NOT NOT NOT REASON
Connections IMPORTANT POSSIBLE WANTED

COMMENTS

REMAININGS VERSUS ADDITIONS REASON

REMAININGS VERSUS ADDITIONS REASON

REMAININGS VERSUS ADDITIONS REASON

VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON

economic
VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
political
VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
social
VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
historic
SCALE: V = VERY HIGH, IV = HIGH, III = REASONABLE, II = LOW, I = VERY LOW
ORDER = ORDER OF IMPORTANCE FOR THE DESIGNER

198
 Appendix 3: Questionnaire A1

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A1 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES IN PROTECTED AND NON PROTECTED BUILDINGS

A1
DESIGNATION DESIGNER [ARCHITECTURAL] DATE PAGE
7/9

4PD: SIMULATION – PRELIMINARY DESIGN

VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
scientific
VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
age
VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
aesthetical
VALUE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
ecologic

SUBSTANCE ORDER V IV III II I REASON

form
SUBSTANCE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
component
SUBSTANCE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
material
FEATURES ORDER V IV III II I REASON
function
PERFORMANCE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
climate
PERFORMANCE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
technical
PERFORMANCE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
aesthetical
PERFORMANCE ORDER V IV III II I REASON
lifespan
FEATURES ORDER V IV III II I REASON
prod. comp.
FEATURES ORDER V IV III II I REASON
costs
SCALE: V = VERY HIGH, IV = HIGH, III = REASONABLE, II = LOW, I = VERY LOW
ORDER = ORDER OF IMPORTANCE FOR THE DESIGNER

4SA: EVALUATION – SIGNIFICANCE ASSESSMENT

VALUE V IV III II I REASON
economic
VALUE V IV III II I REASON
political
VALUE V IV III II I REASON
social
VALUE V IV III II I REASON
historic
VALUE V IV III II I REASON
scientific
VALUE V IV III II I REASON
age
VALUE V IV III II I REASON
aesthetical
VALUE V IV III II I REASON
ecologic
SCALE: V = VERY HIGH, IV = HIGH, III = REASONABLE, II = LOW, I = VERY LOW

199
 Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage / Appendixes

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A1 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES IN PROTECTED AND NON PROTECTED BUILDINGS

A1
DESIGNATION DESIGNER [ARCHITECTURAL] DATE PAGE
8/9

ACA: EVALUATION – CONDITION ASSESSMENT

SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON
form
SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON
component
SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON
material
FEATURE V IV III II I REASON
function
PERFORMANCE V IV III II I REASON
climate
PERFORMANCE V IV III II I REASON
technical
PERFORMANCE V IV III II I REASON
aesthetical
PERFORMANCE V IV III II I REASON
lifespan
FEATURE V IV III II I REASON
prod. complexity
FEATURE V IV III II I REASON
costs
SCALE: V = VERY HIGH, IV = HIGH, III = REASONABLE, II = LOW, I = VERY LOW

4DA: EVALUATION – DESIGN ASSESSMENT

SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON
subtractions
SCALE: V = USE (MAINTAIN), IV = DEMOUNT (REUSE), III = DEMOUNT (RECYCLE, REUSE), II = DEMOUNT (RECYCLE), I = DEMOLISH (WASTE)
SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON
remainings
SCALE: V = ARREST DECAY, IV = REPAIR, III = CONSOLIDATE, II = REINFORCE, I = REPLACE
SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON
additions
SCALE: V = OUTSIDE (APART), IV = OUTSIDE (CONNECTED), III = INSIDE (LOOSE), II = INSIDE (DEMOUNTABLE), I = INSIDE (LOOSE)
SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON
connection
SCALE: V = LOOSE, IV = DEMOUNTABLE (PUNCTUALLY FIX), III = DEMOUNTABLE (LINEARLY FIX), II = PUNCTUALLY FIX (NON DEMOUNTABLE), I
= LINEARLY FIX (NON DEMOUNTABLE)

SUBSTANCE V IV III II I REASON

remain./additions
SCALE: V = ]0;5]% ADDITIONS, IV = ]5;25]% ADDITIONS, III = ]25;50]% ADDITIONS, II = ]50;75]% ADDITIONS, I = ]75;100]% ADDITIONS

COMMENTS

200
 Appendix 3: Questionnaire A1

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A1 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES IN PROTECTED AND NON PROTECTED BUILDINGS

A1
DESIGNATION DESIGNER [ARCHITECTURAL] DATE PAGE
9/9
4DA: EVALUATION – DESIGNER ASSESSMENT
SELF V IV III II I REASON
performance
SCALE: V = VERY GOOD, IV = GOOD, III = REASONABLE, II = BAD, I = VERY BAD

COMMENTS

AR: REPORT YES NOT NOT NOT REASON

Post-design IMPORTANT POSSIBLE WANTED
-
COMMENTS

201
 Appendix 4: Questionnaire A2

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A2 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES FOCUSING IN THE SAME PROTECTED BUILDING

A2
GROUP STUDENT NAME DATE PAGE
1/2

Please fill out the questionnaire, as completed as possible. If in any question you feel that, you need
more space than the presented, please make an indication and continue at the back of these papers.
This information will not be used for other purposes than the doctoral research, Re-Architecture:
lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage, in development by the architect Ana Rita Pereira, and
supervised by Prof. Jouke Post and Dr. Ir. Peter Erkelens.

A2.01
QUESTION YES NO
Did you ever develop a rehabilitation design before?
DESCRIPTION
Please describe it.

If the answer is no, please go directly to question A2.6

A2.02
QUESTION YES NO
Have you found the rehabilitation design interesting?
DESCRIPTION
Please explain why and the relationship between the pre-existence and the new existence.

A2.03
QUESTION YOUR TEAC BOTH
Which rehabilitation design process (methodology) did you follow? OWN HER

DESCRIPTION
Please describe chronologically the different stages and activities that you passed through, the
approximately time spent (hours) and if it influenced the quality of the design (yes/no).
TIME [HOURS] YES NO

TIME [HOURS] YES NO

TIME [HOURS] YES NO

TIME [HOURS] YES NO

TIME [HOURS] YES NO

TIME [HOURS] YES NO

TIME [HOURS] YES NO

203
 Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage / Appendixes

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A2 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES FOCUSING IN THE SAME PROTECTED BUILDING

A2
GROUP STUDENT NAME DATE PAGE
2/2

A2.04
QUESTION YES NO
Looking backwards, would you have followed a different design process?
DESCRIPTION
What would you have changed?

A2.05
QUESTION YES NO
Did you need extra-support in any stage of the design process?
DESCRIPTION
In which stage and where did you found the support? (e.g. library, teachers, colleagues, etc.)

A2.06
QUESTION YES NO
Do you consider important to rehabilitate existing buildings?
DESCRIPTION
Please justify your consideration.

A2.07
QUESTION YES NO
Do you know any rehabilitation design, which you think successful?
DESCRIPTION
Which are the building and the architect?

DESCRIPTION
How do you define a successful rehabilitation design?

We wish you a very inspiring trimester. Thank you for your contribution!

204
 Appendix 5: Questionnaire A3

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A3 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES FOCUSING IN THE SAME PROTECTED BUILDING

A3
GROUP STUDENT NAME DATE PAGE
1/5

Please fill out the questionnaire, as completed as possible. If in any question you feel that, you need
more space than the presented, please make an indication and continue at the back of these papers.
This information will not be used for other purposes than the doctoral research, Re-Architecture:
lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage, in development by the architect Ana Rita Pereira, and
supervised by Prof. Jouke Post and Dr. Ir. Peter Erkelens.

A3.01
QUESTION
Choose in the list below your professional expectation(s) after your graduation.
ANSWER YES ANSWER YES
Architect Building Technology Engineer
ANSWER YES ANSWER YES
Building Process manager Building Physics Engineer
ANSWER YES ANSWER YES
Urban planner Structural Engineer
ANSWER YES ANSWER YES
Researcher / Professor

A3.02
QUESTION YES NO
Have you found this rehabilitation design interesting?
DESCRIPTION
Please explain why and the relationship between the pre-existence and the new existence.

DESCRIPTION
Describe the advantages your design (new existence) brings to the building + environment (pre-
existence).

DESCRIPTION
Describe the most important architectural / technological factors, which have clearly influenced
your design.

205
 Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage / Appendixes

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A3 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES FOCUSING IN THE SAME PROTECTED BUILDING

A3
GROUP STUDENT NAME DATE PAGE
2/5

A3.03
QUESTION YOUR TEAC BOTH
Which rehabilitation design process (methodology) did you follow? OWN HER

DESCRIPTION
Please describe chronologically the different stages and activities that you passed through, the
approximately time spent (hours) and if it influenced the quality of the design (yes/no).
0-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 >40 YES NO

0-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 >40 YES NO

0-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 >40 YES NO

0-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 >40 YES NO

0-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 >40 YES NO

0-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 >40 YES NO

0-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 >40 YES NO

0-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 >40 YES NO

A3.04
QUESTION YES NO
Did the theoretical support provided, concerning the different
stages/activities of the design process (methodology), help you becoming
more conscious of the building lifespan and its environment, raising the
quality of your rehabilitation design?
DESCRIPTION
Justify your consideration.

A3.05
QUESTION YES NO
Looking backwards, would you have followed a different design process?
DESCRIPTION
Which stages/activities would you have done more and which less? Justify your consideration.

206
 Appendix 5: Questionnaire A3

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A3 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES FOCUSING IN THE SAME PROTECTED BUILDING

A3
GROUP STUDENT NAME DATE PAGE
3/5

A3.06
QUESTION YES NO
Did you need extra-support in any stage of the design process?
DESCRIPTION
In which design stage and where did you found it? (E.g. library, internet, teachers, colleagues, etc.)

A3.07
QUESTION YES NO
Do you consider important to rehabilitate existing buildings?
DESCRIPTION
Justify your consideration.

DESCRIPTION
Which buildings should be rehabilitated and which should be demolished?

A3.08
QUESTION YES NO
Do you know any rehabilitation design, which you think successful?
DESCRIPTION
Which are the building and the architect?

DESCRIPTION
How do you define a successful rehabilitation design?

207
 Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage / Appendixes

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A3 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES FOCUSING IN THE SAME PROTECTED BUILDING

A3
GROUP STUDENT NAME DATE PAGE
4/5

A3.09
QUESTION YES NO
Would you classify your rehabilitation design successful?
DESCRIPTION
Justify your consideration.

A3.10
QUESTION
How would you scale the importance given in your design to the:
DESCRIPTION V IV III II I ANSWER V IV III II I
Subtractions Remainings
DESCRIPTION V IV III II I ANSWER V IV III II I
Additions Connections
SCALE: V = VERY HIGH, IV = HIGH, III = REASONABLE, II = LOW, I = VERY LOW

A3.11
QUESTION YES NO
In your design, did you plan what to do with the subtracted elements?

If the answer is yes, please select the classification that describes your main aim.
ANSWER YES ANSWER YES ANSWER YES ANSWER YES
Reuse (building) Reuse (site) Recycle + Reuse Recycle

DESCRIPTION
Justify your consideration and give an example from your design.

A3.12
QUESTION YES NO
In your design, did you plan what to do with the building remainings?

If the answer is yes, please select the classification that describes your main aim.
ANSWER YES ANSWER YES ANSWER YES ANSWER YES
Arrest decay Repair Consolidate Reinforce

DESCRIPTION
Justify your consideration and give an example from your design.

208
 Appendix 5: Questionnaire A3

TU/e technische universiteit eindhoven

UNIT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN + ENGINEERING

RE–ARCHITECTURE: LIFESPAN REHABILITATION OF BUILT HERITAGE

QUESTIONNAIRE A3 – DESIGN PROCESS DIFFERENCES FOCUSING IN THE SAME PROTECTED BUILDING

A3
GROUP STUDENT NAME DATE PAGE
5/5

A3.13
QUESTION YES NO
In your design, did you specially plan where to locate the additions?

If the answer is yes, please select the classification that describes your main aim.
ANSWER YES ANSWER YES ANSWER YES ANSWER YES
Outside (apart) Inside (loose) Inside (demount.) Inside (connect.)

DESCRIPTION
Justify your consideration and give an example from your design.

A3.14
QUESTION YES NO
In your design, did you specially plan how connections should be?

If the answer is yes, please select the classification that describes your main aim.
ANSWER YES ANSWER YES ANSWER YES ANSWER YES
Loose Demountable Punctually Fix Totally Fix

DESCRIPTION
Justify your consideration and give an example from your design.

A3.15
QUESTION
Considering the original building plan (100%), which were approximately the
percentage of subtractions (%) and the percentage of remainings (%)?
DESCRIPTION 0-05 05-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 ANSWER 95-100 75-95 50-75 25-50 0-25
Subtractions Remainings

A3.16
QUESTION
Considering the original building plan (100%), which were approximately the
percentage of additions (%) and the percentage of remainings (%)?
DESCRIPTION 0-05 05-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 ANSWER 95-100 75-95 50-75 25-50 0-25
Additions Remainings

We hope you had an inspiring trimester. Thank you for your contribution!
Every additional remark is welcome, so feel free to expose it.

209
 Appendix 6: Notices on RE-ARCHITECTURE®

Appendix 6: Notices on RE-ARCHITECTURE®

Planned notices

Figure 141 – The research section, in the website of ADE28

Figure 142 – The notice “RE-ARCHITECTURE”, in the website of ADE29

28 Davits, T. & Pereira Roders, A. (2007) RE-ARCHITECTURE, Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 21
February 2007, available at: http://www.bwk.tue.nl/ade/index.php?choice=displayIndex&positionId=6 (accessed in
20-07-2007)
29 Ibidem, available at: http://www.bwk.tue.nl/ade/index.php?choice=displayArticle&articleId=482&positionId=6

(accessed in 20-07-2007)

211
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage / Appendixes

Figure 143 – The Dutch version of the article 30

Figure 144 – The Portuguese version of the article31

Figure 145 – The Prikbord, in the website of BNA32

Figure 146 – The notice “Oproep www.re-architecture.eu”, in the website of BNA 33

Figure 147 – The Homepage in the website of O.A. 34

Figure 148 – The notice “Ferramenta de apoio ao projecto de reabilitação procura utilizadores”, in the
website of O.A.35

30 Pereira Roders, A. et al. (2007) Van gezond verstand naar wetenschappelijke objectiviteit, Eindhoven: Technische

Universiteit Eindhoven
31 Pereira Roders, A. et al. (2007) Do senso comum à objectividade científica, Arquitectura & Vida, January 2007,

Lisboa: Loja da Imagem

32 Schaik, M. van (2007) Oproep www.re-architecture.eu, Rotterdam: Bouwkunst Bond van Nederlandse Architecten

(BNA), posted in 31-01-2007, available at: www.bna.nl (accessed in 31-01-2007)

33 Ibidem
34 Meneses, C. (2007) Ferramenta de apoio ao projecto de reabilitação procura utilizadores, Lisboa: Ordem dos

Arquitectos (O.A.), posted in 04-02-2007, available at: http://arquitectos.pt/ (accessed in 04-02-2007)

35 Ibidem, available at: http://arquitectos.pt/?no=303047:022007 (accessed in 20-07-2007)

212
 Appendix 6: Notices on RE-ARCHITECTURE®

Figure 149 – The notice “Oproep www.re-architecture.eu”, in the newsletter BladNA36

Figure 150 – The notice “Ferramenta de apoio ao projecto de reabilitação procura utilizadores”, in the
newsletter Arquitectos37

Figure 151 – The newsletter OASRS 42

Figure 152 – The notice “Reabilitar o património com ferramenta na net”, in the newsletter OASRS 4238

36 Schaik, M. van (2007) Archilink: www.re-architecture.eu, newsletter BladNA, n. 3, March 2007, Rotterdam:
Bouwkunst Bond van Nederlandse Architecten (BNA), p.20
37 Meneses, C. (2007) Ferramenta de apoio ao projecto de reabilitação procura utilizadores, newsletter Arquitectos,

year XiV n. 150, March 2007, Lisboa: Ordem dos Arquitectos (O.A.), p. 6
38 Meneses, C. (2007) Reabilitar o património com ferramenta na net, newsletter OASRS 42, posted in 27-02-2007:

Lisboa: Ordem dos Arquitectos (via e-mail)

213
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage / Appendixes

Figure 153 – The notice “RE-ARCHITECTURE”, in the Renovatie39

Figure 154 – The notice “Uitnodiging”, in the BouwIQ40

Spontaneous notices

Figure 155 – The notice “RE-ARCHITECTURE procura arquitectos”, in E-Architect41

39 Koning, P. (2007) RE-ARCHITECTURE, year 2 n. 1, February 2007: Boxtel: Æneas, p. 4

40 Bruysters, J. (2007) Uitnodiging, BouwIQ, year 12 n. 2, March 2007, Boxtel: Æneas, p. 5
41 Candeias, J. P. (2007) RE-ARCHITECTURE procura arquitectos, Portimão: E-Architect, posted in 09-02-2007,

available at: http://www.e-architect.net/index.php?accao=noticias&id=218 (accessed in 20-07-2007)

214
 Appendix 6: Notices on RE-ARCHITECTURE®

Figure 156 – The notice “Reabilitar o património com ferramenta na net”, in Construlink 42

Figure 157 – The notice “Reabilitar o património com ferramenta na net”, in Wordpress43

Figure 158 – The notice “Software gratuito disponível para Apoio à Reabilitação e Sustentabilidade
Urbana”, in Ambio 44\

Figure 159 – The notice “Reabilitar o património com ferramenta na net”, in BPI Imobiliário45

Figure 160 – The notice “Reabilitar o património com ferramenta na net”, in Fórum de Urbanismo46

42 Patrocínio, T. (2007) Reabilitar o património com ferramenta na net, Lisboa: Construlink, posted in 22-02-2007,
available at: http://www.construlink.com/Homepage/verNoticia.php?id=252 (accessed in 20-07-2007)
43 Madeira, L. C. (2007) Reabilitar o património com ferramenta na net, Évora: Wordpress, posted in 09-02-2007,

available at: http://luiscarlosmadeira.wordpress.com/2007/02/ (accessed in 20-07-2007)

44 Gil, A. (2007) Software gratuito disponível para Apoio à Reabilitação e Sustentabilidade Urbana, Évora: Ambio

(Universidade de Évora), posted in 28-02-2007, available at: https://mail.uevora.pt/pipermail/ambio/2007-

February/006553.html (accessed in 20-07-2007)
45 BPI (2007) Reabilitar o património com ferramenta na net, Lisboa: BPI Imobiliário, posted in 01-03-2007, available

at: http://www.bpiimobiliario.pt/noticias/Outros.asp?cod=4993&sp=n (accessed in 20-07-2007)

46 Fórum do Urbanismo (2007) Reabilitar o património com ferramenta na net, Porto: Fórum do Urbanismo

(Universidade Católica Portuguesa), posted in 28-02-2007, available at:

http://www.forumdourbanismo.info/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=43 (accessed in 20-07-2007)

215
 Appendix 7: The team work method

Appendix 7: The team work method

618065 Frederiks (Hannah) 618065 Frederiks (Hannah) 618065 Frederiks (Hannah)

603910 Gabriëlse A. (Astrid) 603910 Gabriëlse A. (Astrid) 603910 Gabriëlse A. (Astrid)

553761 Leussink M.I.K. (Marieke) 553761 Leussink M.I.K. (Marieke) 553761 Leussink M.I.K. (Marieke)

3ES

3EA
3DI

578494 Bakker (Sijmen) 539422 Berg S.J.H. van de (Sanne) 622926 Moeiro (Gonçalo)

541759 Zajkowska (Anna) 539686 Ngo N.H. (Wen) 624350 Chiu (Langzi)

622437 Alves (Bruno) 549728 Radermacher J. (Joep) 611082 Arencibia (Manuel)

611166 Vieira (João) 613731 Droog M.J. (Marijn) 611464 García Lisón Jorge (Elena)

536997 Blacha (Monique) 536997 Blacha (Monique) 536997 Blacha (Monique)

510902 Tulp (Daniel) 510902 Tulp (Daniel) 510902 Tulp (Daniel)

621052 Ketelaars J. (Joris) 621052 Ketelaars J. (Joris) 621052 Ketelaars J. (Joris)

evaluation
549728 Radermacher J. (Joep) 622437 Alves (Bruno) 539422 Berg S.J.H. van de (Sanne)
synthesis
analysis

3SS

3SA
3OI

613731 Droog M.J. (Marijn) 611166 Vieira (João) 539686 Ngo N.H. (Wen)

620830 Westerlo B. van de (Bas) 622926 Moeiro (Gonçalo) 578494 Bakker (Sijmen)

611082 Arencibia (Manuel) 624350 Chiu (Langzi) 541759 Zajkowska (Anna)

611464 García Lisón Jorge (Elena)

617436 Brouwer (Marit) 617436 Brouwer (Marit) 617436 Brouwer (Marit)

535033 Bus B.J.A. (Bram) 535033 Bus B.J.A. (Bram) 535033 Bus B.J.A. (Bram)

539422 Berg S.J.H. van de (Sanne) 620830 Westerlo B. van de (Bas) 620830 Westerlo B. van de (Bas)
3CS

3CA
3PI

539686 Ngo N.H. (Wen) 578494 Bakker (Sijmen) 622437 Alves (Bruno)

622926 Moeiro (Gonçalo) 541759 Zajkowska (Anna) 611166 Vieira (João)

624350 Chiu (Langzi) 611082 Arencibia (Manuel) 549728 Radermacher J. (Joep)

611464 García Lisón Jorge (Elena) 613731 Droog M.J. (Marijn)

Table 9 – The team work method for the Pre-design stage (Experimental group from the Netherlands)

1788 Alexandre Mendes 1788 Alexandre Mendes 1788 Alexandre Mendes

1808 Sandra Gaio 1808 Sandra Gaio 1808 Sandra Gaio

3ES

3EA
3DI

1835 Paulo Matias 1823 Gonçalo Valente 1867 Ricardo Francisco

1809 Sérgio Hespanhol 1787 Rui Chaves 1791 Tânia Costa

1823 Gonçalo Valente 2100 John Wilson 1789 Lionel Estriga

1828 Tânia Farias 1828 Tânia Farias 1828 Tânia Farias

1811 Nuno Soares 1811 Nuno Soares 1811 Nuno Soares

evaluation
synthesis
analysis

3SS

3SA
3OI

1789 Lionel Estriga 1835 Paulo Matias 2100 John Wilson

1787 Rui Chaves 1867 Ricardo Francisco 1809 Sérgio Hespanhol

1791 Tânia Costa

1838 José Nabiça 1838 José Nabiça 1838 José Nabiça

1832 Carlo Palma 1832 Carlo Palma 1832 Carlo Palma

3CS

3CA
3PI

2100 John Wilson 1809 Sérgio Hespanhol 1823 Gonçalo Valente

1867 Ricardo Francisco 1789 Lionel Estriga 1787 Rui Chaves

1791 Tânia Costa 1835 Paulo Matias

Table 10 – The team work method for the Pre-design stage (Experimental group from Portugal)

217
 Error! Reference source not found.

Appendix 8: Process Mining

When converting the usage data to ProM (vide Chapter 6.3.1.1), the number of
designers was reduced to 140, less than the value reached at the statistics earlier presented
in Chapter 6.3.1.3. The identified designers were more architects than students, and more
from Portugal than from the Netherlands (vide Figure 161).

80 100%
The Netherlands Portugal 67 15
70
80%
60 31
50 60%
40 31
27 40% 67
30
20 15
20% 27
10
0 0%
students architects students architects

Figure 161 – The universe of RE-ARCHITECTURE® users, who have created a design process

The design process theorised in this doctoral research was structured into a
sequential process of stages, sub-stages and respective activities. On a general sense, the
second stage would be dependant on this first; just as at the sub-stages, where e.g. a proper
evaluation should always progress from the synthesis; which should be ground at the sources
inventoried during the analysis sub-stage.
Despite the apparent rationality, process mining techniques revealed that designers
have found their own manner of using RE-ARCHITECTURE®; to sustain their design
processes and respective results.
As a first attempt, a mined model was created containing all the events in the log (i.e.
a model that does not abstract from low frequent events and/or dependencies between these
events). The result was considerably unstructured model (vide Figure 162). In fact, such
process is what process mining experts call as “spaghetti model”. This result does not mean
that the process mining technique was not able to provide a clear model.

Z50

Z25

Figure 162 – Mined model with all events in the log and their mined dependencies (Alves de Medeiros)

219
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage / Appendixes

This means that the usage behaviour of RE-ARCHITECTURE® users is generally

wide-ranging and unstructured. Therefore, the Fuzzy Miner process mining algorithm is a
suitable choice. Figure 163 and Figure 164 contain the zoomed-in view of the highlighted
parts. Particularly, in Figure 164 such characteristic is quite visible, where the same “activity
node” (or event) has several correlated “activity nodes”.

Z50

Z25

Figure 163 – Zoomed-in (50%) view of the highlighted area Z50 in Figure 162

Z25

Figure 164 - Zoomed-in (25%) view of the highlighted area Z25 in Figure 162

The desired level of abstraction is defined by metrics. In a nutshell, two metrics of the
Fuzzy Miner were used by the researcher to survey the results presented in this section. The
metrics are the significance and the correlation. While significance regards the “relative
importance of the behaviour”47, correlation regards “how closely related two events following
one another are” 48.
According to Günther & Aalst; when clustering process models towards its
simplification, behaviours of highly significance are preserved; behaviours of less
significance but high correlation are aggregated and hidden into clusters; and behaviours
of low significance and correlation are abstracted and removed from the process model.

47 Günther, C. W. & Aalst, W. M. P. van der (2007) Fuzzy Mining – Adaptive Process Simplification based on Multi-
Perspective Metrics
48 Ibidem

220
 Error! Reference source not found.

Additionally to these two metrics, the researcher also used the option “best edges”
provided by the Fuzzy Miner. This option keeps just the best dependency between any two
activities (or events) in the model. The best dependency is the one with the highest
significance. For instance, the model in Figure 165 shows the “best edges” for the spaghetti-
like model in Figure 166.
Considering Figure 167, the squares represent the activities (or events). The numbers
inside the squares represent the significance of the event. The first and second numbers next
to the dependencies (or arcs) respectively indicate the significance and the correlation of
these dependencies. Additionally, the researcher has manually highlighted some of the
events by attaching numbers (like N3.06).
When surveying the “best edges” result of the global process model (vide Figure 168),
it was possible to verify that, the Fuzzy Miner had identified the guidelines (help) and tools
available at most stages (e.g. Analysis) from both pre-design (3) and design (4) stages, in a
considerably structured pattern. However, the values of significance or of correlation differed.
It was necessary to apply higher levels of simplification and verify if the previously
mentioned behaviours – preservation, aggregation and abstraction – would prevail and reveal
more accurate results. In fact, when comparing Figure 169 with Figure 170 it was possible to
verify the following variations.
The researcher highlighted some of the nodes in the models returned by the Fuzzy
Miner. The nodes related to the pre-design stage got a three at their code and the nodes
related to the design stage got a three at their code, similar to the default codification of the
nodes (e.g. tool_4_simulation). Whenever the researcher is describing values of frequency,
significance and correlation the following assumptions were considered: 0-20% as very low;
20-40% as low; 40-60% as reasonable; 60-80% as high and 80-100% of very high value.
There were nine “nodes”, which were assessed significant enough to be preserved in
the result. To distinguish them from the nine nodes aggregated in Cluster 23 or in Cluster 24
and from the one abstracted, such significant “nodes” were highlighted in black bold.
Moreover, the abstracted “node”, illustrating the guidelines of the Pre-Design stage /
synthesis sub-stage (help_3_synthesis), was also whitewashed (vide Figure 169).
Most “nodes” preserved were illustrating tools, except for the node illustrating the
guidelines of the Pre-Design stage / analysis sub-stage (help_3_analysis). However, this
particular node had low significance (29%), but probably due to the high correlation (73%)
with its tool (tool_3_analysis) and initial page of RE-ARCHITECTURE® after logging in
(help_intro_concl_app), it has been kept in the mined model.
When doing a full survey from the most frequent to the least used frequent tool; the
tool of the Pre-Design stage / analysis sub-stage (tools_3_analysis) was the most frequently
used (71%) by the designers. Furthermore, the self-dependency (or serf-arc) shows that the
designers played with different aspects of this tool, since this self-dependency has very high
significance (100%) and correlation (91%). Secondly, but very closely scored (68%), was the
tool of the Design stage / simulation sub-stage (tools_4_simulation), where again the self-
dependency has a very high significance (80%) and correlation (90%).
The tool of the Design stage / decision sub-stage (tools_4_decision) was the third
most frequently used (60%). This tool has a self-dependency with low significance (33%), but
high correlation (91%). Equally frequent (55%) were two tools of the Design stage; available
to sustain the analysis sub-stage (tools_4_analysis) with high significance (63%) and very
high correlation (92%); and the evaluation sub-stage (tools_4_evaluation), with reasonable
significance (53%) and very high correlation (94%).

221
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage / Appendixes

N3.01 N4.01

N3.02

N4.02
N4.03

N3.03
N3.04

N4.04
N3.05

N4.05
N3.06

N4.06

N3.07 N3.08

N4.07
N4.08

N4.09

N4.10

Figure 169 – Mined model containing the “best edges” (Alves de Medeiros & Pereira Roders)

222
 Error! Reference source not found.

N4.04

N4.06

N4.10 N4.08 N3.01

N3.02 N4.02

N3.04

Figure 170 – Mined model when the default settings of the Fuzzy Miner are used (Alves de Medeiros &
Pereira Roders). Note that the events were grouped into clusters.

Both tools of the synthesis sub-stage at both Pre-design and Design stages were
used with a reasonable frequency (53%). Their significance was assessed as reasonable, few
more at the Design (51%) than at the Pre-Design stage (43%). Similarly, the correlation was
assessed as very high, few more at the Design (94%) than at the Pre-Design stage (92%).
With the purpose to understand their particular preferences and differences towards
the global process model, the logs have been filtered according to the two variables; country
(values: the Netherlands and Portugal) and occupation (students and architects). The level of
simplification (default) was similar to the one previously presented, where Fuzzy Miner
voluntarily abstracts the less significant; aggregates the less significant but with high
correlations and highlights the ones of high significance.
The mined model, illustrating the behaviour of the students from the Netherlands (vide
Figure 171), did not have more “nodes” than the mined model in Figure 170. Instead, there
were two “nodes” which were not so significant that have been aggregated. Those were
respectively, the guidelines of the Pre-Design stage / analysis sub-stage (help_3_analysis)
and the tool of the Design stage / evaluation sub-stage (tool_4_evaluation).
Moreover, most “nodes” increased their values of frequency. The three “nodes” of the
tool of the Pre-Design stage, for the synthesis sub-stage and of the tools of the Design
stage, for both analysis and decision sub-stage increased from reasonable to high. The
“nodes” of the tool of the Pre-Design for the analysis sub-stage and of the tool of the Design
stage for the simulation stage increased from high to very high.
Last, the biggest raise of frequency was the “node” of the tool of the Design stage, for
the synthesis sub-stage, from reasonable (53%) till very high (84%). However, despite the
increases of frequency, most “nodes” have also reduced both significance and correlation.
Though, there is the exception of the tool of the Design stage / analysis sub-stage

223
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage / Appendixes

(tool_4_analysis) which has increased its significance within the high range of values; and
has increased its frequency, from reasonable (55%) to high (67%).
The behaviour of the architects, was indeed deviant from the behaviour of the
students from the Netherlands (vide Figure 171) and from the total behaviour of the designers
(vide Figure 170). Besides the fact that the two “nodes” of the tools of the Design Stage, for
the evaluation and the decision sub-stages were aggregated; there were also four new
“nodes” inexistent at the global process model. All this four “nodes” illustrated guidelines; two
from the Pre-Design, for the synthesis and decision sub-stages; and two from the Design
stage, for the simulation and evaluation sub-stages.
When comparing the results of the whole group of designers with the results of the
architects from the Netherlands, it is possible to verify that six “nodes” increased, while four
decreased their frequency. The two “nodes” that increased of the Pre-Design stage were the
guidelines of the decision sub-stage, from very low (15%) to high (68%); and the tool of the
analysis sub-stage, from high (71%) to very high (86%). This means that the Dutch architects
have used this tools relatively more than the group of designers as a whole.
The other four “nodes” that increased of the Design stage were; the guidelines of the
Simulation, within the reasonable range (from 28% to 30%); and of the evaluation sub-stage,
from very low (15%) to high (68%); and the tools of the synthesis stage, from reasonable
(53%) to high (62%); and of the simulation stage, from high (68%) to very high (93%).
Four were the “nodes” that decreased frequency. Only one was from the Design
stage, the tool of the analysis sub-stage, from reasonable (55%) to low (26%). The remaining
three of the Pre-Design stage regarded the guidelines of the analysis sub-stage, within the
reasonable range (from 57% to 44%); and of the synthesis sub-stage, within the low range
(from 33% to 27%). Last, the tool of the synthesis sub-stage decreased, also within the low
range (from 27% to 26%).
All values of correlation decreased at the respective “nodes”, as well as, the majority
of the significance assessments. The only “nodes” that increased significance were the ones
illustrating both guidelines and tool of the simulation sub-stage, and particularly the tool
achieved the maximum significance (100%). Not so considerably high, but still facing an
increase of significance, were the guidelines of the Pre-Design stage / analysis sub-stage.
The students from Portugal, got the process model most similar to the process model
illustrating the behaviour of the designers (vide Figure 172). The only difference at the level of
the “nodes” was the aggregation of the tool of the synthesis sub-stage, from the Pre-Design
stage into the Cluster 24.
Most values of frequency, significance and correlation decreased. There were,
however, “nodes” which increased both frequency and significance. Those were the “nodes”
of the tools of both Simulation and evaluation sub-stages, from the Design stage.
Respectively, the tool of the simulation stage rose from high (68%) into very high (85%)
frequency of use and reached the maximum of significance (100%); while the tool of the
evaluation stage rose from reasonable (55%) into high (67%).
Similarly to what happened with the designers from the Netherlands, the behaviour of
the students and architects from Portugal was also deviant (vide ). Even if the architects also
had one “node” emerging into their process model, the “node” was illustrating the guidelines
of the decision sub-stage, from the Design stage. Nonetheless, its frequency (38%) or
significance (28%) was of low value; such “node” had very high correlation.
Two “nodes” were aggregated. Similarly to the architects from the Netherlands, one of
the missing “nodes” was the tool of the evaluation sub-stage, from the Design stage. The

224
 Error! Reference source not found.

second one is the tool of the synthesis sub-stage, also from the Design stage. From the
remaining “nodes”, three decreased and four increased frequency.
The tool of the analysis sub-stage at the Design stage was the most frequently used
(78%) by the architects from Portugal, globally assessed of reasonable frequency (55%) and
now of high frequency (78%). From the other three “nodes” that saw their frequency levels
increased, two were from the Design stage; the tool of evaluation sub-stage, from
reasonable (55%) to high (69%) and the guidelines of the decision sub-stage, from very low
(12%) to reasonable (38%). The third and last was the illustration of the guidelines of the Pre-
Design stage / analysis subs-stage, also from reasonable (57%) to high (62%).

Figure 171 – The mined model for the students and architects from the Netherlands (Alves de Medeiros)

225
Re-architecture: lifespan rehabilitation of built heritage / Appendixes

The tool of the Design stage / decision sub-stage was together with the tools of the
Pre-Design stage / analysis and Synthesis sub-stages, the ones which decreased frequency
at the group of architects, from Portugal. The first tool decreased from high to reasonable
(from 60% to 44%) the other two decreased still within their own range. Respectively, the tool
of the analysis sub-stage remained at the high frequency (from 71% to 63%) and the tool of
the synthesis sub-stage remained at the reasonable frequency (from 53% to 42%).
When overviewing all graphs illustrating the mined models, it is possible to verify the
success achieved by the tool of the Pre-Design stage / analysis sub-stage (N3.02); with its
high values of frequency, and very high values of significance and correlation. Except for the
architects from Portugal, the tool of the Design stage / simulation sub-stage (N4.06) had also
frequency, very high significance and correlation.
From Portugal, the tool of the synthesis sub-stage was hardly used by the students
on the Pre-Design stage (N3.04); and by the architects at the Design stage (N4.04).
Inversely, the guidelines of the synthesis sub-stage (N3.03), at the Pre-Design stage, were
considered only by these students. Further, the guidelines of the analysis sub-stage (N3.01),
at the Pre-Design stage, were used by all groups but the students, from the Netherlands.
The tool of the analysis sub-stage (N3.01), at the Design stage, was considered by
all groups; but not with as much frequency as the similar tool at the Pre-Design stage. Last,
only the students and architects from Portugal made reasonable use of the evaluation sub-
stage (N4.08). Moreover, together with the students from the Netherlands, these three groups
made use of the tool of the decision sub-stage (N4.10), from the Design stage.

Figure 172 – The mined model for the students and architects from Portugal (Alves de Medeiros)

226