Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • Introduction br Drivers behind conceptualization of

    2018-11-14

    Introduction
    Drivers behind conceptualization of Household/Neighborhood
    Conceptualizing the household
    Planning full-size household/neighborhood
    Research during implementation of CQI
    Collaboration with state of Wisconsin
    Organization structure
    Research evaluation of Creekview
    Creekview II
    Utilization of Household/Neighborhood Model in China
    Conclusions
    Introduction The field of evidence-based research and design (EBR&D) has developed significantly since 2000. This has been achieved through a mixture of systematic research, and a sustained focus on its application. This knowledge base, as advanced by specialists in many parts of the world, promotes user-focused built form and therapeutic landscapes, care settings that facilitate improved patient recovery rates, building inhabitants׳ safety, welfare, and productivity, and the promotion of environmental sustainability (Berry, et al., 2004, 2008).This knowledge is currently being assimilated into the healthcare facility design process (Sadler et al., 2011; Grant, 2013). These developments, while still embryonic, hold vast promise to in time represent a landmark achievement(Verderber, 2010). Nonetheless, in many quarters, architectural design competitions, and healthcare design competitions in particular, remain suspect with regards to their value or their return on investment (ROI). Such attitudes are partly the result of the upwardly spiraling costs of participation on the part of architectural and engineering (A/E) firms. Problems associated with client and sponsor ‘pay to play’ scenarios also persist, especially when the A/E firm must shoulder the entire cost with no assurance that any portion of the entrant׳s financial investment will be recouped. It is said that the “best” diazoxide design entries often lose. While statistics on this are hard to quantify, graphically seductive entries often garner a disproportionate share of honors and awards, with skillful graphics and carefully constructed models taking precedence (Nasar, 1999).Competition juries often represent a mixture of architects and non-architects. As such, debate swirls around whether the non-architects on a jury are suitably qualified. Are non-architects too uninformed of the inner profundities of architecture and building-making to judiciously assess a given submittal׳s full merits? In the absence of juror pre-screening, some layperson participants indeed run the risk of being seduced by all the wrong things (Nasar, 1999). The environmental design research literature supports the position that in a design competition, looks can be more important than substance: \"Professional juries…are swayed by the look of the presentation rather than the substance of the design itself” (Anthony, 1991). The Handbook of Architectural Design Competitions (2011) stipulates that certain types, including healthcare building types, may be inappropriate when commissioned as the result of a design competition (Strong, 1996).This bias reflects a deeper negativity towards healthcare facilities, rooted in the eighteenth century lunatic asylum—a place singularly about institutional control. To a certain extent, such attitudes persist to the present (Verderber and Fine, 2000; Verderber, 2005, 2010). European healthcare design firms tend to have more opportunities to enter competitions compared to their American peers (Death by Architecture, 2007), such as the 2012 Nurture Collegiate Healthcare Design Competition, sponsored by Steelcase (Nurture by Steelcase, 2012; Young, 2012a, 2012b). Another recent example was the winning entry, by 3XN of Denmark, for Copenhagen׳s Central Hospital expansion. The winning entry׳s renderings illustrated a maximization of façade surface area as a device for the transmittal of abundant natural daylight into the building envelope (Labarre, 2012). Herzog and deMeuron won another recent healthcare competition, for the Zurich Children׳s Hospital (Anon, 2012). A well-known initiative is the underwriting of firms׳ fees by a foundation set up in honor of Maggie Keswick to construct a global network of women׳s outpatient facilities known as the Maggie׳s׳ Centres (Jencks and Heathcote, 2010).