OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies 1
The meaning of distinct architectural and urban design features
Janine Meesters
Delft University of Technology
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies Jaffalaan 9
2628 BX Delft The Netherlands
j.meesters@otb.tudelft.nl Abstract
This paper is based on two ideas. First, in housing studies the meaning of home is usually regarded as a holistic concept. Home, however, is an amalgamation of various features. Consumers opt for certain features, for example to have a garden. It is as-sumed that behaviour is value-oriented and goal-directed. By studying the meaning of specific dwelling and residential environment features, one can achieve more insight into residents’ underlying values and goals. Second, various scholars see discrepancies between the meaning which dwellings and environments have for designers, and the meaning they have for residents. The result is a mismatch in communication of meaning. What is generally considered is the meaning dwellings and environments hold only for architects. The question should rather be: what meaning do they have for users? (Priemus, 1984; Rapoport, 1982).
This paper focuses on the meaning different dwelling and residential environment features have for residents. The aim is to obtain more insight into the meaning of ar-chitectural and urban design features. This paper describes a study in which residents were asked their perception and meaning of specific dwelling and residential envi-ronment features. Two neighbourhoods, Haverleij in Den Bosch and Sveaparken in Schiedam (both in the Netherlands), with distinct architectural and urban design fea-tures have been selected. In both neighbourhoods approximately 20 residents have been interviewed on these distinct features. By means of laddering technique mean-ing structures have been generated. This technique reveals meanmean-ing of dwellmean-ing or residential environment features, by continuously asking: Why is it important for you… (for example) to have a garden?
The central research question in this paper is:
Which meanings do distinct architectural and urban design features have for resi-dents?
2 OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies
1.1 Introduction
This paper describes a study on the meaning of dwelling and residential environment features. Two neighbourhoods, Haverleij in Den Bosch and Sveaparken in Schiedam (Netherlands), with distinct architectural and urban design features have been se-lected. In both neighbourhoods approximately 20 residents have been interviewed on these distinct features. The central research question in this paper is: Which meanings do distinct architectural and urban design features have for residents?
Research programme on innovative land use
The research project used in this paper is part of the Delft University of Technology research programme ‘Innovative Land Use’. The project, ‘Qualitative housing market analyses’, is executed in cooperation with an organisation of construction companies and developers (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Ontwikkelaars en Bouwondernemers, NVB). Two development plans were selected for this project on the basis of innova-tive use of architectural and urban design: Haverleij in Den Bosch and Sveaparken in Schiedam. The aim of the research project is to obtain an insight into the effects of architectural and urban design on the housing perception of residents.
The research project ‘Qualitative housing market analyses’ contains the following steps: the first is to collate documentation and literature in order to draw up a de-scription of the special architectural and urban design features of both locations. The second step comprises semi-structured interviews with an estate agent, a developer and two municipality employees. These interviews need to fill the information gap on the plan and the development process, for example the cooperation between the municipality and the construction company. The third step comprises group discus-sions with residents. These group discusdiscus-sions elicit central aspects of the plan from residents, aspects which they consider to be important. The final step is depth in-terviews with residents. The laddering technique is used to get residents to explain the meaning of different architectural and urban design features. This paper focuses on the fourth step.
This paper is structured as follows. The second paragraph explains the theoretical framework. The third paragraph provides a brief description of Haverleij and Svea-parken. The fourth paragraph gives an overview of the group discussions which were held in both neighbourhoods. The fifth paragraph explains in detail the first results of the interviews. The paper ends with drawing conclusions and answering the re-search questions.
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies 3
1.2 Theoretical framework
This paragraph briefly describes the theoretical framework used in the research pro-ject. It will explain what meaning is and how it can be measured. This paragraph ends with the definition of research questions.
What is meaning?
People react to environments by assigning them meaning. One of the most impor-tant functions of the environment is meaning (Rapoport, 1982). The environment contains many distinct features. All these various features provide a large variety of potential meanings. For example: on one hand a lawn can be used by one person as a soccer field. The lawn means a sport facility to that person. On the other hand, an-other person might use the lawn for sunbathing, assigning it the meaning of relaxa-tion. Rapoport defines a residential environment as: “a system of settings forming a sub-system of the environment in which systems of activities take place”. The system of settings stands for every possible user option which features provide. He defines dwelling in a similar way: “a dwelling is a sub-system of the residential environment that forms the primary anchor in the environment for an individual.” (Rapoport, 1990, 1995). In short, the environment contains many different features. Together they form a system of settings. Residential environment features provide potential functions to a residential environment. People generally only use a limited number of these potential functions. Different people perform different activities. Thus the en-vironment has a different function for different people, creating a large variety of meanings.
Various scholars see discrepancies between the meaning which housing and envi-ronment has for designers, and the meaning it has for residents. The result is a mis-match in communication of that meaning. What is generally considered is the mean-ing dwellmean-ings and environments hold for architects. The question should rather be: what meaning do they have for users? (Priemus, 1984; Rapoport, 1982). Some exam-ples of general categories of the meaning of home, regarded as a holistic plan, dem-onstrate the huge variety of meanings. Home can have a meaning as a place that pro-vides security and a place where people can be together with family and friends. It can also be a material structure reflecting personal status and the owner’s ideas (De-sprés, 1991).
According to Rapoport the built environment communicates meaning at three dis-tinct levels. High-level meanings are related to cosmologies, world views and phi-losophical systems for example. Middle level meanings may be related to identity, status, wealth and power among others. These meanings are also called latent func-tions. Lower level meanings refer to everyday meanings, such as the arrangement of furniture and accessibility. Lower level meanings are also called manifest functions (Rapoport, 1988). When people interact with the environment, at first people evalu-ate their environment through an overall, affective response. This affective response is a reaction to middle level meanings. Later the evaluation becomes a more detailed analysis of lower level meanings. Lower level meanings refer to specific aspects of everyday life (Rapoport, 1988). In short, people react to environments globally and affectively before they analyse them and evaluate them in more specific terms.
Coolen and Hoekstra (2001) found mainly lower and middle level meanings in their study and no higher level meanings (Coolen, Hoekstra, 2001).
People don’t only assign a certain meaning to the environment, but the environment also communicates. The environment does this through an entire set of cues. These cues provide information about the most appropriate choices to be made (Rapoport, 1982). The cues are meant to elicit appropriate emotions, interpretations, behaviours and transactions by setting up the appropriate situations and contexts. The environ-ment can thus be said to act as a mnemonic reminding people of the behaviour ex-pected of them. If this process works, it reduces the need for information processing. In short, the communicating environment provides frameworks, which help to struc-ture not only environments but also behaviour (Rapoport, 1982; Baron et al., 1998). In this paper meaning is defined as the functional relationship between a person and an object, for example the dwelling feature garden.
Methodological framework to measure meaning
Preference can be a useful concept in measuring the meaning of architectural and ur-ban design features. Preference is the relative attractiveness of a feature. It is an ex-pression of evaluation that must be distinguished from behavioural intentions and choice (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975). The most important difference between prefer-ence, on one hand, and intention and choice on the other, is that preferences indicate more clearly what kind of qualities or features people expect from a residential envi-ronment. A theoretical and conceptual structure to connect consumers’ values and their behaviour is the Means-End Chain. Means-End theory finds its origin in con-sumer science. Means are concrete objects or activities in which people engage. Ends are valued states of being, e.g. security and happiness. A Means-End Chain is a model which tries to connect products people choose to the underlying values and goals of that choice. Two assumptions are made about consumer behaviour: 1) val-ues play a dominant role in guiding choice patterns, and 2) people handle the tre-mendous diversity of products by grouping them. More general assumptions also ap-ply: 1) consumer actions have consequences, and 2) consumers learn to associate par-ticular consequences with parpar-ticular actions (Gutman, 1982). People pursue certain goals in their lives. Behaviour is regarded as value oriented and goal directed. The central idea in Means-End theory is that consumers choose the actions which pro-duce the desired consequences and which minimize the undesirable consequence.
4 OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies (1) Value
(2) Consequence (3) Attribute The Means-End Chain consists of three different levels.
The basic assumption of the model is that consumers choose actions producing desired consequences. Values (1) provide consequences (2) with positive or negative valence. This linkage between value and consequence is essential. In order to realize a desirable consequence, a certain good must be consumed. A good contains
different attributes (3). In order to make the right choice between the different goods with different consequences, the consumer must learn which goods possess the at-tributes producing the desirable consequence. Therefore the second essential link is the one between consequences and attributes of goods. The way of constructing these Means-End chains is bottom up; a respondent can select an attribute and then
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies 5
the interviewer asks the respondent what it means for him. Some times respondent immediately give a value; some times it just comes to consequences. There is also no clear distinction between the line where consequences stop and values begin. Step one, two and three in the Means End Chain are not rigid. It just provides a useful method to obtain insight into the meaning of attributes, in this case dwelling or resi-dential environment features.
The following bullets give an overview of the central assumptions made within this theoretical framework:
People pursue goals in their lives. People’s actions are goal oriented. Therefore their actions, ideas and preferences are functional to reach these goals.
The specific meanings of dwelling and environmental features lie in the relation-ship between these features on one hand and the goals and values of people on the other.
The meaning dwelling and environmental features have for people will be largely lower and middle level meanings.
For further elaboration of the theoretical framework I would refer to Coolen, 2002. Summarizing: people and the environment interact with each other. The functional relationship between a person and an object is called meaning. By studying the mean-ing of different architectural and urban design features one can obtain more insight into people’s underlying goals and values. The Means-End Chain theory is a theoreti-cal framework connecting people’s actions to their goals and values. The aim of this research is to obtain more insight into the meaning of architectural and urban design features. Together with this aim two research questions have been defined.
1. What are the Haverleij and Sveaparken plan features?
2. What meanings do these plan features have for residents?
1.3 Case description; Haverleij, Den Bosch, The Netherlands
Haverleij is a development plan ten kilometres north of Den Bosch, in the central south of the Netherlands. Some 1,000 homes will be developed in an area of 225 hectares. The homes are situated in nine castles of 50-90 units each and one fortress of some 450 units. Both the architecture and the town planning are extraordinary. The architects and urban planners drew their inspiration from French medieval cas-tles and British mansions. The central idea of the plan is ‘urban living within a green landscape’. To achieve this goal only 10% of the area will be built on, with the re-maining space used for a golf course, woods and fields. The castles form compact, high-density dwelling units, situated at a minimum distance of 200 meters apart, mak-ing all the castles free-standmak-ing within the landscape. The municipality is responsible for maintaining the woods and fields. The architects and town planners wanted to create a plan in which living in an urban area combines with the space of rural life (www.haverleij.nl).
Source: www.haverleij.nl
Different architects have worked on the various castles to guarantee diversity. Each castle has its own private driveway. Within the castle there is an inner court leading off the front doors. This area is semi-public; it is only designated for its inhabitants and their visitors. All houses are situated in the outer wall. Thus all houses look out over the surrounding landscape. The fortress is an exception. The fortress is much larger than the castles; it contains some 450 units. It thus has more of the characteris-tics of a small castle village. Inside the outer wall there are also dwellings in an inner ring. The dwellings in the inner ring are more traditional, in that they have a small garden and are situated in a ‘normal’ street (www.haverleij.nl). In short the most dis-tinguishing features of the castles are: private driveway, semi-public space in the in-ner court, all dwellings facing the surrounding landscape outside the castle, each cas-tle with its own architectural style, high-density dwelling units standing free in the surrounding landscape.
Figure 2: Velderwoude Source: www.haverleij.nl Figure 3: Wuyvenhaerd Source: www.haverleij.nl Figure 4: Zwaenenstede Source: www.haverleij.nl
1.4 Case description Sveaparken, Schiedam, The Netherlands
Sveaparken is a development plan on the northern border of Schiedam, in the south west of the Netherlands. Some 1,050 new homes will be developed. The average dwelling density will be 34 dwellings per hectare. Mainly family houses in a row will be developed on this location. The whole neighbourhood consists of four different plans: Sveafors, Sveaholm, Sveaborg and Sveadal. Each plan has its own distinct character. This is expressed by different architecture, urban design and use of col-ours. Swedish architecture and urban planning inspired the architects and urban de-signers of Sveaparken. The use of semi-public space makes Sveaparken a special and distinct neighbourhood. The semi-public area consists of green spaces in between the houses, which all residents can use. The transition between private, semi-public and public space is very gradual. No high fences and hedges around private gardens are allowed. Therefore private gardens naturally become public space and semi-public space becomes semi-public space.
Figure 5 Location of Sveaparken in Schiedam
source: www.stadsregio.rotterdam.nl
Ralph Erskine, a Swedish architect, designed the Masterplan for the area. Central in the Masterplan are lively street scenes in which people can meet other people. Ac-cording to Erskine, a pleasant neighbourhood has many semi-public spaces where residents can meet. Therefore he pays much attention to architecture, design, use of materials and colour settings. Typical of his architecture are the many, short building blocks. This has two functions. First they form a physical barrier of the semi-public space. Second, it makes the street scene more lively and diversified. The streets in be-tween the building blocks are aimed at pedestrians. The roads are short and have many curves to prevent speeding. All these factors are aimed at making Sveaparken a child friendly neighbourhood, with lots of green spaces and in which people can eas-ily meet (gemeente Schiedam, 2003).
Different architects worked on the plan to fit this Masterplan into the Dutch building regulations (e.g Bouwbesluit). The municipality designed special regulations, in order to maintain also in the future the unified and Swedish character of the neighbour-hood. For example, residents can only paint their houses in the original colour or
they cannot put high fences around their gardens. All houses will be developed with a balanced budget. The municipality has set up a Public Private Partnership together with three estate developers.
Sveaparken consists of four different plans. The following figure and photo’s give an idea of the image of Sveaparken.
Figure 6 Four different parts of Sveaparken
Source: www.sveaparken.com
Figure 7ab Sveafors is characterised by the red houses and cul-de sacs
Figure 8ab In Sveaholm all the houses are yellow. Water plays a central role in this part of the neihbourhood.
The other two parts, Sveaborg and Sveadal, are still in construction. Sveaborg is the heart of the neighbourhood. In that part will come some services as a supermarket and a cafeteria. Sveadal is close to the nature reserve ‘Midden Delfland’. In this part the focus will be on the forest and green area. The houses in this part of the neighbourhood will be mainly semi-detached and detached houses focusing on the forest and nature reserve. In short the most distinguished features of Sveaparken are: the use of colours, Swedisch architectural style, the transition between private and public space, semi-public spaces, curvy roads and short building blocks.
1.5 Group discussions
On both locations group discussion have been organised. The aim of the group dis-cussion is to elicit central items of the plan from a residents’ perspective for the in-depth interviews. The output of the group discussions thus provides the input for the items of the in-depth interviews. This paragraph only provides the conclusions of the group discussions.
Both Haverleij and Sveaparken are newly built neighbourhoods. All residents who lived there for at least one year received a letter in which they were asked to partici-pate either in the group discussions, the in-depth interviews or both. The response ratio in Haverleij was approximately 14 percent (27/188). In Sveaparken this was similar; approximately 15 percent (48/314). On both locations two evenings with a total number of 12 participants in Haverleij and 16 participants in Sveaparken were held. In selecting the participants for the group discussions, we have tried to create a
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies 11
mixed group regarding age, household composition and dwelling type (single family home or apartment). The following topics were discussed:
1. Why people choose to live in Haverleij or Sveaparken
2. The imago of the neighbourhoods
3. The meaning of distinct architectural and urban design features
4. Issues for improvement
This paragraph will focus the third bullet, the meaning of distinct architectural and urban design features. Because both neighbourhoods have different distinct features, they will be discussed separately.
1.5.1 Conclusion group discussions Haverleij
Participants have an image of Haverleij as a quiet residential environment surrounded by considerable green space. The unique and large variety of architecture is also an important part of the image. These two reasons, unique architecture and green space, have been most influential in participants deciding to live in Haverleij. The dwelling features offering an unobstructed view over the surrounding landscape, unique archi-tecture and no back garden are very highly appreciated. The dwelling itself provides comfort and is distinguished by its architecture. The surrounding landscape offers participants a sense of freedom and space. The design of the inner court stimulates social contact, participants believe. The practical application however does leave room for improvement. In Velderwoude the inner court has too much open space, which is not inviting for small get-togethers. In Wuyvenhaerd the sunlight has cre-ated a dichotomy. Only a small group of residents uses the inner court to enjoy the sunshine and meet fellow residents. The other Wuyvenhaerd residents have sunlight on their private balconies on the exterior of the castle. All participants regard the sur-rounding green landscape as part of their own residential environment.
All participants highly appreciate the feature ‘all dwellings face the surrounding land-scape’. It gives them a sense of freedom. Many meanings were related to the sur-rounding landscape itself. Meanings as green, open, spacious, freedom and relaxation were mentioned often. The final distinguishing feature is the large variety of architec-tural styles in Haverleij. All participants highly appreciate this. They regard Haverleij as a distinctive neighbourhood. The dwelling itself provides comfort. Summarising: the features of the surrounding landscape, the architecture of the castles and dwell-ings facing the surrounding landscape contribute most to the perception of the plan of Haverleij. These three features also elicit the most detailed meanings.
1.5.2 Conclusions of group discussions Sveaparken
Participants have an image of Sveaparken as a green neighbourhood suitable for chil-dren and with an open character. Some 50 percent of the participants choose to live in Sveaparken because of its Swedish architecture and urban design. The other par-ticipants simply choose for Sveaparken because they were looking for a family house in the region of Rotterdam. For them the Swedish architecture and urban design is just a nice extra feature. Participants value the colourful houses high, especially be-cause in each part of the neighbourhood there is a uniformity of colours. According to the participants, the colourful houses fit well in the Swedish concept of the neighbourhood and it makes the neighbourhood distinctive. Participants especially think the apartment building (figure 7a) in Sveafors is special and a good landmark of
12 OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies the neighbourhood. It has a diversified design and is not too high. Participants are also satisfied with the semi-public space. It provides them with a wider view from their homes and gardens. It is also a good playground for children and a meeting place for adults. It gives them a sense of openness and it is easy to meet neighbours. However, participants are less satisfied with the maintenance of the semi-public space. It is the responsibility of the municipality. According to the participants, the maintenance is not sufficient. The curvy roads improve safety; the streets are safe for children. Summarizing: the features unified colours, semi-public space and the curvy roads contribute most to the perception of the Swedish neighbourhood design.
1.6 In-depth interviews
Paragrapg 1.2 explains the theoretical framework of the method that has been used in this research. The aim of the in-depth interviews is to see which features offer which meanings to residents. As stated in paragraph 1.5, the response ratio was in both neighbourhoods approximately 15 %. In Haverleij 19 residents have been inter-viewed and 23 residents in Sveaparken. Since these respondents were not selected by means of a random sample, they are not representative for all inhabitants of Haverleij or Sveaparken. On the basis of the literature review and the group discussions the following dwelling and residential environment features have been selected.
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies 13
Table 1 Dwelling and residential environment features
Haverleij Sveaparken
Dwelling features
Dwelling type Dwelling type
Number of rooms Number of rooms
Garden yes/no Garden
Storage Storage Balcony Architecture of dwelling
Surface area balcony Use of much wood in dwelling façade
Surface area living room Surface area living room
Quality Quality
Colour of dwelling Colour of dwelling
Regulations (welstandseisen) Regulations (welstandseisen)
Unobstructed view
Residential environment features
Inner court (semi-public space) Semi-public space
Density Density
Surrounding landscape Green and water
One access road Small, curvy roads
Accessibility Accessibility Composition of neighbourhood population Composition of neighbourhood population
Primary school/child care Primary school/child care
No shops No side walks
No pubs or restaurants Shops and restaurants/ services
Parking space for guests Parking space for guests
Architecture Open space/unobstructed view
Golf court
All these features were printed on separate cards. During the interview residents were asked to select those dwelling and residential environment features which they thought were important for them at that moment. If they selected more than five features of each group, than the respondent had to put them in order of importance. At least the first five features of each group were discussed, depending on the time available. Each interview took about one hour. Some respondents could speak about one feature for 10 minutes, while others would be finished in 2 minutes. By using the ranking, the interviewer was sure to have discussed at least five dwelling and five residential environment features, during one interview. Once the respondent had se-lected the features the interviewer would pick one and ask: “Why is that important for you?” The aim of this method is to determine the meanings a certain feature has for the respondent. The following sentence gives an example of the discussion be-tween the interviewer (I) and respondent (R). I: Why is it important for you to have a garden? R: It provides me with a free view. I: Why is it important for you to have a free view? R: Because I’m used to have space around me. I: Why is it important for you to have space around you? R: Because that gives me a sense of freedom. This why- question is repeated on every answer of the respondent. The interviewer stops when the respondent cannot give an answer any more. After that the next feature is discussed in a similar way. During the interview, the interviewer writes down the an-swers of the respondent in ladders. In this way the interviewer can immediately verify
14 OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies whether he or she writes down the answers correctly. It also gives the respondent time to think about the answer. All the interviews were recorded.
The raw data generated from the 42 interviews contains many different answers. To be able to analyse the data, these different answers had to be categorised. Two re-searchers worked closely together to optimise intersubjectivity. Two other research-ers involved in the research project made a final check on the categories. A good ex-ample of the rich content the categories can have, is the category enjoying. Many times during the interviews respondents answered to the why question: “because I like it”, or: “because it is comfortable”, or: “because it makes me feel good”. All an-swers like these have been put together in one category enjoying. Like the category enjoying, all the individual answers have been listed and categorised. The individual ladders of the respondents were coded. With the coded ladders meaning networks were produced. A meaning network shows the relationships between all the individ-ual meaning structures. The meaning networks give a graphical representation of the relationships between individual meaning structures. This paper does not explain in detail how one can built this network. For a detailed explanation of this process I would like to refer to Coolen (2004). Important in a meaning network is the central-ity. Centrality is an index which shows the proportion of links in the meaning net-work that run through a particular meaning. The higher the index, the larger the number of links in the network that run trough that particular meaning.
1.6.1 Results
One little remark has to be made before discussing the results. The amount of data gathered in this research project is very large. The analyses are still going on. This paper gives some preliminary results. This paper looks at two architectural and two urban design features, which were mentioned most often. Analysing these features resulted in the most complex meaning structures. The following four features will be described in detail in this paragraph:
1. Dwelling type 2. Architecture 3. View
4. Landscape
Before taking a closer look at the meaning structures of the four features, this para-graph starts with a short description of the respondents.
Table 2 Summary of respondents’ features
Haverleij (n=19) Sveaparken (n=23)
Average age 48 44
Household composition Married/co-habiting with children: 32% Married/co-habiting with-out children: 53% Other: 15% Married/co-habiting with children: 64% Married/co-habiting with-out children: 32% Other: 15%
Occupation Paid, independent: 56%
Pensioned: 28% Other: 16%
Paid, independent: 82% Pensioned: 4%
Other: 14% Figure 9 ab Age of respondents in Haverleij and Sveaparken
age (haverleij) 75,0 70,0 65,0 60,0 55,0 50,0 45,0 40,0 35,0 30,0 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Std. Dev = 13,10 Mean = 47,8 N = 19,00 age (sveaparken) 70,0 65,0 60,0 55,0 50,0 45,0 40,0 35,0 30,0 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Std. Dev = 10,50 Mean = 43,9 N = 22,00
The average age is more or less similar at both locations. But in Haverleij more re-spondents are aged 60-plus than in Sveaparken. The household composition differs between the two locations. In Haverleij most respondents live in two person house-holds, whereas most respondents in Sveaparken live in families with children. Com-pared to Sveaparken more respondents are pensioners in Haverleij. In Sveaparken a large majority has paid work.
Dwelling type
A total number of 31 respondents out of 43, selected the feature dwelling type. Most central meanings are functional, enjoying, space and privacy. The net-work (figure 10) shows a dominant two-sided connection between: func-tional and enjoying, and funcfunc-tional and privacy. Other dominant connections are one-sided: starting from functional to social contact and starting from space to privacy. Many dwellings in Velderwoude and Wuyvenhaerd are relatively large and have many rooms, six to seven. Respondents give sepa-rate many functions to the sepasepa-rate rooms. For example, a separate room for guests, a separate room to work or study, each child can have a private room. Centrality Dwelling type (Haverleij)
Functional 0.45 Enjoying 0.28 Space 0.28 Privacy 0.26 Social contact 0.19 Little maintenance 0.15 Freedom 0.11 Sense of space 0.06 Outside 0.06 Compact 0.06 No garden 0.04 Safe 0.04 Clean 0.02
Most central meanings are enjoying, privacy and functional. The network (figure 11) shows a one-sided relation starting form functional going to en-joying. And another starting at space and going to enjoying. Many respon-dents indicated that they choose to live in Sveaparken because they wanted a single-family home. They regard this as the most ideal dwelling for a family with children. An important feature is that each child can have its own room. Also the garden was an important rea-son to choose for a single-family home. Respondents who lived in an apartment indicated that they choose to live in an apartment because all rooms are on the ground floor and they do not have to use stairs.
Centrality Dwelling type (Sveaparken)
Enjoying 0.39 Privacy 0.27 Functional 0.27 Space 0.20 Freedom 0.16 Garden 0.12 Outside 0.10 Distinguishing 0.10 Clean 0.08 Social contact 0.08 Development child 0.06 Sense of space 0.04 Quietness 0.04 No garden 0.02 Nature 0.02 Safe 0.02
Figure 10 Dwelling type Haverleij privacy Clean Enjoying Functional No garden Sense pf space Space Outside Freedom Social contact compact Safe Little maintenance
Figure 11 Dwelling type Sveaparken
Nature Privacy Development child Clean Enjoying Functional No garden Sense of space Space Outside Garden Freedom Distinguishing Social contact
Compact Quietness Safe
Architecture
A total number of 35 respondents selected the feature architecture.
Most central meanings are distinguishing, variation, identity and sense of space. In Haverleij a total number of nine different castles will be developed. Each castle will be designed by another architect. Diversity is central in the approach of the supervis-ing architect and urban designer. Many re-spondents indicate that it is important for them to live in a dwelling or neighbour-hood which is different from other neighbourhoods. Regular newly build neighbourhoods are much too monoto-nous according to the respondents; they would not choose to live in such a neighbourhood. This can also be seen in the network (figure 12). There are two dominant two-sided connections between dis-tinguishing and identity and disdis-tinguishing and variation. The architectural and urban design concept of Haverleij with its high density dwelling units standing free in the landscape, is unique in the Netherlands. This makes it distinguished from other neighbourhoods. The different castles within the neighbourhood provide a variation of architectural styles and dwelling types. According to the respondents, the compact dwelling units, standing free in the surrounding landscape and the view from the dwellings over the landscape, provides them with a sense of space.
Architecture Haverleij Distinguishing 0.58 Variation 0.33 Identity 0.28 Sense of space 0.22 Inner court 0.14 Quietness 0.08 Freedom 0.08 Enjoying 0.06 Privacy 0.06 Nature 0.06 Uniform 0.03 Social contact 0.03 Quality 0.03 Feeling at home 0.03
Even though the concept of Sveaparken is completely different from Haverleij, re-spondents came up with similar meanings. Most central meanings of the feature ar-chitecture are distinguishing, identity, en-joying and variation. Sveaparken has four different parts. The parts can easily be dis-tinguished from each other because the diversified use of colours and architectural and urban design. According to the re-spondents, Sveaparken has a large variety of dwelling types. They feel that the Swed-ish architectural design comes out most in the use of bright colours, large and high windows, many wooden elements and large projections. Together with the specific urban design (small, curvy roads and semi-public space), this makes Sveaparken dif-ferent from other neighbourhoods. Difdif-ferent respondents indicated that they are proud to live in Sveaparken. The network (figure 13) shows a one-sided connection that runs from distinguishing to identity and from identity a connection runs to en-joying. Architecture Sveaparken Distinguishing 0.50 Identity 0.35 Enjoying 0.33 Variation 0.30 Uniform 0.15 Sense of space 0.10 Feeling at home 0.08 Social contact 0.05 Quietness 0.05 Privacy 0.05 Freedom 0.05
Figure 12 Architecture Haverleij Distinguishing Sense of space Enjoying Uniform Contact Quietness Privacy Freedom Quality Nature Inner court Identity Variation Feeling at home
Figure 13 Architecture Sveaparken
Distinguishing Sense of space Enjoying Uniform Social contact Quietness Privacy Freedom Identity Variation Feeling at home
View
A total number of 40 out of 43 respondents selected the feature view.
Most central meanings for the feature view are sense of space, nature, enjoying and quietness. Every respondent in Haver-leij chose the feature view. It is one of the key features of the concept. All dwellings are situated in the outer wall of the castle. The castles are at least 200 meter apart from each other and all the dwellings are situated at least one meter above ground level. This makes that all dwellings have an unobstructed view over the surrounding landscape and no other residents can look into the dwellings. The network (figure 14) shows a dominant two-sided connection between sense of space and nature. A one-sided connection runs from sense of space to quietness. Another one-one-sided connec-tion runs from nature to enjoying. Both these connecconnec-tions come back in the network of landscape. This view provides residents with a sense of space. The view is over the surrounding landscape. The landscape itself offers meaning nature, enjoying, quiet-ness. These will be discussed in the next section landscape.
View Haverleij Sense of space 0.45 Nature 0.38 Enjoying 0.33 Quietness 0.23 Freedom 0.13 Not isolated 0.13 Social contact 0.13 Privacy 0.13 Distinguishing 0.10 Deficiencies 0.03
Most central meanings of the feature view are sense of space, social contact and en-joying. Most dominant connections in the network (figure 15) are the two-sided connections: sense of space and enjoying, and sense of space and privacy. Generally residents look from their dwellings out over the public space. The semi-public space is the green space which connects private space to public space. Because of the positioning of the building blocks and the low fences, the private space becomes gradually public space, creating an unobstructed view. The semi-public space functions as a meeting place for adults and playground for children. Many social activities take place in the semi-public space. One of the respondents formulated: “You can see all the activities. This way it is much easier to come in con-tact with neighbours.” Even though many social activities take place in the semi-public space, this does not limited people perceived privacy.
View Sveaparken Sense of space 0.66 Social contact 0.32 Enjoying 0.29 Nature 0.18 Privacy 0.18 Distinguishing 0.11 Safe 0.08 Freedom 0.05 Quietness 0.05 Limited 0.05 Clean 0.03
Figure 14 View Haverleij Freedom Sense of space Quietness Nature Not isolated Enjoying Deficiencies Contact Distinguishing Privacy
Figure 15 View Sveaparken
Freedom Sense of space Quietness Nature Enjoying Contact Distinguishing Privacy Clean Safe Limited
Landscape
A total number of 38 respondents selected the feature green & water (Sveaparken) or surrounding landscape (Haverleij).
Most central meanings are nature, enjoy-ing, sense of space and quietness. The meaning nature has a high score. The network (figure 16) shows that nature has many connections with other meanings. The most dominant two-sided connection is between nature and enjoying. But also the two-sided connection between nature and sense of space, and nature and quiet-ness is clear. These connections were also visible in the feature view. The surrounding landscape is an essential part of the con-cept of Haverleij. Because all dwellings are compactly situated in castles, 90% of the total space is not build upon and has a function of green space. This green space functions as nature and recreation area for the residents of Haverleij and Den Bosch. Respondents use the surrounding landscape as such. They go there to bike, hike and fish. Respondents indicated the landscape is nice in two ways. First, in a passive sense, they have a beautiful view from their homes. Second, in an active sense, they have a nice recreational area close by.
Landscape Haverleij Nature 0.63 Enjoying 0.40 Sense of space 0.30 Quietness 0.27 Freedom 0.13 Space 0.10 Quality of life 0.07 Distinguishing 0.07 Family life 0.03
Even though the concept of the landscape in Sveaparken differs from Haverleij, the meanings are very similar to those of Haverleij. Most central meanings are na-ture, enjoying, sense of space and space. The most dominant one-sided connection in the network (figure 17) runs from na-ture to enjoying. The green and water function as the connecting element be-tween the private and public space. It has more functions; green space, a meeting place for adults and playground for children. According to the respondents the presence of relatively much green and water in the neighbourhood distinguishes Sveaparken from other neighbourhoods, especially in the high density Randstad. One of the respondents said: “The balance between dwellings and green is very important. In Sveaparken they found the right balance.” Landscape Sveaparken Nature 0.33 Enjoying 0.27 Sense of space 0.20 Space 0.20 Distinguishing 0.17 Privacy 0.07 Quality of life 0.03 Quietness 0.03 Development child 0.03
Figure 16 Landscape Haverleij Enjoying Sense of space Nature Quality of life Distinguishing Quietness Space Family life Freedom
Figure 17 Landscape Sveaparken
Enjoying Privacy Sense of space Nature Quality of life Distinguishing Quietness Space Development child
24 OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies
1.7 Conclusion
This final paragraph will attempt to define answers to the research questions.
What are the Haverleij and Sveaparken plan features?
In Haverleij the most distinguished features are: private driveway, semi-public space in the inner court, all dwellings facing the surrounding landscape outside the castle, each castle with its own architectural style, high-density dwelling units standing free in the surrounding landscape.
In Sveaparken are the most distinguished features: the use of colours, Swedish archi-tectural style, the transition between private and public space, semi-public spaces, curvy roads and short building blocks.
This paper analyses four features, which the respondents mentioned most often dur-ing the in-depth interviews. These features are:
1. Dwelling type 2. Architecture 3. View
4. Landscape
What meanings do these plan features have for residents?
For all the four features, in general quite similar central meanings came up at both locations. On a general level both locations are similar in their distinguished features. On both locations special attention is paid to architecture, semi-public space, public space and green space. The placements of the meanings within the centrality net-works were different between the two locations, showing the different set up and use of the neighbourhoods. Enjoying is the meaning category that was mentioned most often. This can indicate that generally respondents are satisfied with the dwelling and neighbourhood they live in.
For the feature dwelling type the meanings functional, enjoying and privacy were at both locations most central. Both networks show a connection between functional and enjoying, and space and enjoying. People expect many different functions from their home. Respondents indicated that they would like to have separate spaces for different functions. Families with children for example indicated that they want at least one separate room for each child. Also a separate room for guests to sleep over was mentioned quite often. In Haverleij the meaning of space was also central. In Haverleij the houses are on average larger and the household size is on average smaller than in Sveaparken. Respondents in Haverleij named more specific functions of the dwelling. These functions contained space for work, hobby, receiving guests, children and cooking. All these functions would preferably require a separate room. For the feature architecture Haverleij and Sveaparken have the meanings distinguish-ing, variation and identity in common. Both neighbourhoods are different from regu-lar neighbourhood in the Netherlands, both because of the architectural and urban
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies 25
design features, which are described in the previous section. Many respondents have indicated that they would not choose to live in a regular neighbourhood. Those are too monotonous. Variation has two sides. First it means variation of dwelling type and design within the neighbourhood. Second, it means that the neighbourhood is different from other neighbourhoods. Both these sides contribute to the meaning identity. Respondents indicate that they feel connected to their home and neighbour-hood. Respondents give answers like: “This house is some thing to fall in love with”. Or “I still get a happy feeling walking towards my home.” This indicates that the re-spondents value variety of dwelling type and architecture high.
The features view and landscape will be discussed together. Respondents have a view from their dwellings over the landscape. This connection between the two features became also clear in the meaning networks; the most dominant connections are quite similar. The feature view was selected by 40 out of 43 respondents. All respondents in Haverleij chose this feature. On both locations view contributes much to sense of space. The view in Haverleij has meanings nature and quietness. This green space functions as nature and recreation area for the residents of Haverleij and Den Bosch. Respondents use the surrounding landscape as such. They go there to bike, hike and fish. Respondents indicated the landscape is nice in two ways. First, in a passive sense, they have a beautiful view from their homes. Second, in an active sense, they have a nice recreational area close by. In Sveaparken the view has also the meaning of social contact. The view in Sveaparken is over the semi-public space. This green space functions as a meeting place for neighbours and playground for children.
26 OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies Reference list
Literature
Baron,R.A. et al., (1998), Exploring Social Psychology, Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights.
Coolen, H., Hoekstra, J., (2001) Values as determinants of preferences for housing attributes, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 16: 285-306.
Coolen, H. (2002), The meaning of preferences for features of a dwelling: a planual and
methodo-logical framework, IAPS conference La Coruna, July 2002.
Coolen, H. (2004), The meaning of preferences for features of a dwelling: a study exploring several
aspects of the conceptual framework, IAPS conference Vienna, October 2004.
Després,C. (1991), The Meaning of Home: Literature Review and Directions for Future
Re-search and Theoretical Development, The Journal of Architectural and Planning ReRe-search,
8:2, 96-115.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Gemeente Schiedam, Sveaparken, Zweeds wonen in Schiedam, oktober 2003
Gutman, J. (1982), A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categorization Processes, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 (spring 1982), 60-72.
Priemus, H. (1984), Nederlandse woontheorieën, Delftse Universitaire Pers. Rapoport,A., (1982), The meaning of the built environment, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Rapoport, A. (1988) Levels of meaning in the built environment, pp. 317-326 in Poyatos, F. (ed.), Cross- Cultural Perspectives in Non-Verbal Communication, C. J. Hogrefe, To-ronto.
Rapoport, A. (1990), Systems of activities and systems of settings, In: Domestic architecture and the use of space (Ed, Kent, S.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 9-20. Rapoport, A. (1995), A critical look at the plan ‘Home’, In: The home: words, interpreta-tions, meanings, and environments (Eds, Benjamin, D.N.A. and Stea, D.), Aldershot, Avebury, 25-52.
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies 27 Internet www.haverleij.nl www.sveaparken.com www.stadsregio.rotterdam.nl Personal communication
Mr. Jan Buitink, project manager Haverleij B.V., Thursday 24 February 2005
