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
  • br Material and methods Post

    2018-10-22


    Material and methods Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is the process of evaluating any type of buildings in a systematic and rigorous approach after they have been built and occupied (Preiser et al., 1988). This type of evaluation methodology emerged in the 1960s (Preiser et al., 1988; Pati and Pati, 2013). Over the years, the scope and nature of POEs have evolved and expanded, and new nomenclature has been propose to reflect those changes, such as building performance evaluation (BPE) and universal design evaluation (UDE), as proposed by Preiser in 2001 (Pati and Pati, 2013). Preiser et al. (1988) and Jaunzens et al. (2002) have recognized the benefits of POE to clients, end users, managers, and the project team, over short, medium, and long terms (Table 1). HEFCE et al. (2006) have developed a POE process that can be applied to any type of building, even if it glibenclamide was designed to assess higher education buildings. This process is glibenclamide formed by seven steps: (1) identify the need for the evaluation; (2) decide on which approach; (3) brief for the POE; (4) plan the POE; (5) carry out the POE; (6) prepare the report; and (7) take action in response to the POE findings, such as feed information into the organization policies and into future projects or publications. Due to the time, resources, and personnel available for this research project, an indicative level of effort was chosen for this POE study. The method adopted for this evaluation is a qualitative study including a historical research of the building and the area, an analysis of the conversion strategy of the case study building, a walkthrough investigation within the building, and a user survey. The survey was developed through the design and distribution of a questionnaire. Unfortunately, physical measurements of light, temperature, air quality, and acoustics were not collected because of the gallery׳s administration policies. The main objective of this research is to show the advantages and disadvantages of a specific revitalization strategy of an Industrial Heritage building from the occupants’ point of view. The sustainability approach of the intervention made in La Violeta is discussed.
    The La Violeta factory was located in an area called “Estanque de los Pescaditos” (fish pond) and the San Francisco Convent, with the address 12 norte 607, Barrio del Alto (Leicht, 1980). The factory was established in 1908 by Luis Cué Romano and José González Soto. It shut down in 1995, when mesentary was a property of the Real de la Mora family, together with other businesses Atoyac Textil and San Juan Amandi. The last name of the fabric was Multied (Barquero, 2006:197) (Figure 6). The art gallery opened in 2000 and is comprised the following areas: ticket office, cloakroom, toilets, hall, ceramics workshop, museum shop, archaeological site museum, gallery exhibition area, and shopping area, with a total area of 2000m2. The building has a rectangular plan with 6m high stonewalls and brick details in windows and doors. The main structure is a steel frame structure with 30cm-diameter columns, which are 5.20m high. The roof is made of masonry vaults (the construction system is called “losa catalana”). Refurbishment works were carried out by architect Armando Reyes Oliver. Figures 7 and 8 show the conversion plans and elevations. Architect Reyes Oliver provided these drawings.
    Results Respondents were asked to select the most important interior environmental factor, from their point of view, that needs to be addressed when designing an art gallery. 33% of them selected lighting, followed by visual relationship with the exterior, temperature, ventilation, and humidity (Figure 9). For most respondents, the general environmental behavior of the building is very good and/or good (70%). Daylight availability is also good according to 50% of the people surveyed; 48% think that ventilation is good, but 41% responded neutral. On the other hand, 20% of the users believe the acoustics and artificial lighting in the building are bad and/or very bad. In general, the majority of users experienced good environmental conditions inside the building (Figure 10).