NASROLLAHZADEH SARAVI, Y. The Care Community [online]. Brno: Vysoké učení technické v Brně. Fakulta architektury. 2022.
Saravi Yasaman developed and explored research tools and methodologies for thinking critically about strategy, urban planning and architecture. She was interested in approaching questions and problems through a research-driven design perspective that encompasses multiple scales, engages interdisciplinary conversations, and encourages criticism as part of the necessary understanding and exploration of emerging scenarios in need of architectural answers – in this case for specific group of society elderly group. It enabled Yasaman to undertake a critically directed, self-aware mode of disciplinary thinking. With this in mind, I believe her Master Thesis Project provides us with the knowledge to explore the following learning strategies: (1) Multiscalar implementations - revealed complexity of the architectural role as a ‘solution’ and enabled comprehensive understanding and impact on multiple scales – from the built environment (architectural) to the territorial scale (policy-making); (2) Interdisciplinary Approach – applicable to social, economical and cultural parameters to the discipline by positioning projects within a broader social context. (3) Research-driven design - challenged unidirectional architectural design decision-making processes and favour a non-linear design approach. In addition, I would like to refer to the committee grade and feedback regarding lack of materials – walls, windows details - which affected the final grade. The indicated requirements were not listed in the official scope of student work and explicitly guided by my advice to not provide them since her work is covering a much larger scale. Yasaman worked on strategy and its influence on the built environment. She has investigated diverse scales from research, strategy, planning to architecture. With this in mind, it is important to require materials from the strategic/urban planning scale rather than architectural scale (scope of work).
| Kritérium | Známka | Body | Slovní hodnocení |
|---|---|---|---|
| Přístup studenta ke zpracování | B |
The diploma project presents us with very important and interesting data about the elderly population in the Czech Republic with original research in a well-presented form. It summarizes main problems into nine short points which are unfortunately not worked with while creating the programme for the new typologies. Then categorizes a spectrum of six typologies of case studies of elderly care only to sort it into two categories (residential and non-residential), then creates another set of three typologies based on density level (local – care housing, district - day care centre and city care – care community centre). Then divides Brno in three regions regardless of topology or connectivity between city districts. Then concludes which of the three typologies fits which one of the three regions (e.g. Periphery can use current residential senior centres but central region will have new residential typology) only to present two of the three typologies. This is very confusing and insufficiently explained. The thesis also misses a justification of important design decisions and, in my opinion, repeats some of the nine demographical problems put together by the Author themselves in the analytical part. For example - in point 5. of demographical analysis: seniors are not a homogenous group. Why, if the goal is to de-institutionalise the care, the thesis completely overlooks seniors who are not mobile and able to live on their own? If they continue to live in big institutions, then the thesis misses its goal. How could the family be more involved in the care, if the elderly continue to live in the big institutions? Design level of the two presented typologies contains minor mistakes, but lacks any attention to detail. With a project focused on the senior citizens, it would be expected to see an investigation in how the elderly use the space, what materials, colours they prefer, and reflect it in the design. Structural aspect of the design is completely ignored. In my opinion, a diploma thesis on an architecture school is not necessary constrained by designing a concrete, specific building with detailed plans. It could be a map, strategy, book, video, collage – really any representation of a designed physical or digital space of any scale. However, if a specific building is presented, a certain level of complexity is expected. Even though this diploma thesis raises important questions, it is on the verge of being successfully and convincingly defensible. I hesitantly recommend the submitted diploma thesis for defense and I propose an evaluation E.
| Kritérium | Známka | Body | Slovní hodnocení |
|---|---|---|---|
| Urbanistické řešení | D | The project operates with dividing the city of Brno into three regions, according to the density of residential and public infrastructure. These regions are formed to further develop spatial programme of the care facilities and do not take into account the specific architecture, urbanism nor history of each district in these regions. For example - Židenice district is vastly different then Lesná or Bystrc and therefore, in my opinion, need different approach with establishing which type and what size of care facilities is suitable. Saravi proposed two projects - Day care centre for “periphery region” (situated in Židenice) and Collective care housing for the “centre region” (near Obilní trh). The latter successfully reflects urbanism and architecture of the city centre, becomes part of the city tissue and offers exciting approach to the mixed used housing. The proposal is creating new, exciting pathway – a diagonal connection through the block. However nowhere is mentioned whether the proposal is repurposing the already existing on-site buildings or is demolishing them. This I find very problematic and therefore difficult to evaluate. Day care centre steps away from established street line and tries to create an ending to a row of houses, facing into three directions, while creating public spaces around, more or less successfully. | |
| Architektonické řešení | E | The Author develops three new typologies of care to form an urban strategy to deinstitutionalise the architecture of care. Two of the three proposed typologies are to a degree investigated and designed, third one is either omitted or merged with the second one with no explanation. Collective care housing in the centre proposes mixed used housing with housing for the elderly. However, the only difference between the floors for collective housing and elderly housing is the size and placement of the furniture which is unsatisfactory. For example, in successful projects for elderly housing we find bars on the walls for less mobile seniors to encourage them to walk, special space for memorabilia and personal furniture. Also further investigation into specific colours and materials, the height of the steps, so it encourages to walk to the garden rather than using elevator, elaborating on the housing for the visiting family members, who want to stay the night, could progress the project further .Public spaces such as garden and ground floor, while offering various nooks to relax in, also lack the senior/less mobile people element – steps in amphitheatre, large glazed panels with hidden frames (dangerous or unfriendly to lean on). The form of the Day care centre building is based on the ambition of integration into the context, however the result is unfortunately picturesque. Formal copying of the shapes of surrounding buildings resulted in not an homage but a caricature of a row house of Židenice. Huge frameless glazed panels raise questions about economic and energetic sustainability. Proposed building does not consider a sloping towards the north east of the site, but further development of the garden could easily solve this problem. | |
| Provozní řešení | E | Collective care housing proposes a multi-level programme – a ground floor with public space, first and second with the housing for the elderly, third and fourth floor with cohousing for other demographic and a basement with service area. New pathway through garden is created but it is unclear whether it is open to the public or only for the residents. Proposal lacks more developed service area, with missing cloakrooms, showers and amenities for the personnel of the building. The proposal as it is would also have to be reworked for the current fire legislation, but is easily fixable without any drastic design changes and therefore sufficient. Day care centre is not really a day care centre for the elderly since it doesn’t have any amenities for staff (therefore concluding staff not being present) but more of a community centre for all generations. The building consists of four floors: ground floor interactive public space, first floor multifunctional spaces, second floor wellness and third floor roof garden. First floor doesn’t have any storage for the marketplace nor amenities. It is questionable whether sharing them with the staff of the dining area is a good idea. Second - wellness floor with exercise space completely lacks any cloakrooms or showers either for staff or clients, which is highly problematic. If the proposal is working with seniors, all floors should have toilets. Service area is overall grossly underestimated. This building would also need to be reworked for the current legislation and some bigger design changes would have to be made. Parking requirements for the guests or residents are omitted in both proposals. | |
| Technicko konstrukční řešení | F | Project does not present any construction solutions. Imagining the structure of the collective housing may not be a difficult task (although in case of the refurbishment of the existing building, one would expect at least a scheme of a current, new and demolished structure). Day care centre, due to its dynamic form, requires specific answers to questions about the construction, details and sustainability. If presenting floor plans and sections, it is unacceptable for a diploma candidate with a concrete building as a thesis, to present them in the same wall widths and without any material of structure concept /strategy mentioned, anywhere. | |
| Formální úroveň | C | The presented diploma displays graphic maturity of the Author. Simple and colourful graphics explains well-presented topics in both the analytical part and design part. Proper quotations (source:Google or archdaily and bibliography is in my opinion not enough) are missing. While the analysis brings vast amount of important data and summarizes them well into simple, well-made graphs, it lacks a comprehensive conclusion. It is very difficult to understand how or if they are applied to the design process. Sections of the projects create an illusion of a flat ground regardless of an actual terrain, elevations are drawn without at least a contour of neighbouring houses, which is unsatisfactory. Although presented with enough renderings overall, I would wish to see a street view of the façade of the Collective care housing, especially considering the building being in the district with heritage protection. |
eVSKP id 142899