Propiedades de las arcillas

Launched in 2003 by the Green Building Council of Australia (GCBA), this rating system aims to reduce the environmental impact of buildings (GBCA, 2011). As well as evaluating environmental attributes, it assesses aspects that affect health and well-being issues, such as indoor environment quality and access to transport (GBCA, 2009). This system has nine categories and points are awarded for achieving specific credits in each rating category. One of the criticisms of Green Star is that it awards a rating for a building as designed, not as built. Research has shown that over 90% of buildings certified by Green Star at design stage translate into less than 10% reaching

that standard at construction stage (Warren, 2009). A summary of all the tools is shown in Table 3.1.

Name of tool and

Generic building type assessment criteria;

does not consider the specific requirements of sheltered housing

Focuses on functionality, build quality, and impact the building has on its occupants and its surroundings, by completing generalised questionnaire rather than evaluating or developing the designs Quantitative and performance

assessment, tends to neglect amenity issues

Assessment based on issues that the parties to the process consider as important – no objective criteria Needs an independent facilitator who would be an additional party to the process

Seminar style of assessment would be impractical in a bidding process operating in stages

Criticism that completion was too late to be useful led to a design process version Has special version for schools

Table 3.1: Summary and critique of existing design quality evaluation tools

Table 3.1 (continued)

views, some of which do not really relate to design quality

Focuses on functionality, build quality, and impact the building has on its patients and staff

Design briefing tool; determining and managing the design requirements

Quantitative and performance assessment (http://www.selondon.nhs.uk/documents/

1247.pdf, 2009)

Can be susceptible to tick box exercise Outcomes can be susceptible to manipulation

Impartial facilitator required

Missed opportunity to improve design quality

(http://www.pfcu.scot.nhs.uk/HomeEvents/

Previous/25_05_08/AEDET250508.pdf, 2008)

Established for staff and patients in the NHS and therefore not really relevant to sheltered housing

views, some of which do not really relate to design quality

Performance assessment; certifying fitness for purpose and value for money Compliance with minimum standards (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F7DBAF 24-FC86-4A24-A10F-FE6798A03516/0/

deep_eval_record.pdf, 2009)

Specific to military housing and therefore limited relevance to sheltered housing (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E9EA71 D4-248F-4692-B2EC-7FAAA3147369/0/

deep_summary.pdf, 2009)

Table 3.1 (continued)

Assessment is limited to standards and measurement

Based on objective facts or on measurement

Tool can be cumbersome to use Assessment of quality in three main categories: location, design and performance

Predominantly assesses the more

quantitative issues of design, that could be included in an output specification and measured

Not a tool for considering subjective aesthetic qualities

Not intended to cover the specialist requirements for sheltered housing

Criteria based on national planning policy guidance and urban design principles Quantifies the result and is subjective in nature

Initially applied to completed housing developments but later used as a planning tool

(http:/www.buildingforlife.org/

assessments, 2009)

Operates on an urban design scale (CABE, 2008)

Aims to quantify the experience of the people living and working in extra-care housing

Assesses environmental features that are associated with quality of life

Post-occupancy survey, measures user satisfaction

Check list tool

Table 3.1 (continued)

Developed from research into extra-care housing

Survey format is essentially a set of checklists

Measures user satisfaction

‘Yes’, ‘no’, ‘not in use’/‘not applicable’ type answers to checklist statements –

therefore not possible to score design development

improvements - excellent tool for property owners and facilities managers who will carry out assessments of usability Building usability tool – measuring operational efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction

Performance assessment tool that examines use of internal resources Not related to sheltered housing

Building Research

Checklist tool; broad range of categories and criteria from energy to ecology in checklist form

Performance assessment

Requires trained assessor, and tool can lack transparency

Only measures environmental issues – not design quality

Table 3.1 (continued)

Assesses building performance 2–3 years after completion

Measures user satisfaction

Assessment of technical , energy and social performance of the buildings Survey performance assessment tool Not relevant to sheltered housing and not applicable to design stage

Used throughout the design and construction phase

Similar to BREEAM and CfSH Limited to energy and environmental aspects

Based on design specification and expected performance

Number of credits adds complexity to rating system

Aims to reduce environmental impact of buildings

Rates designs which may be different from constructed buildings – a design and as built scheme is under development Primarily deals with greenhouse gas emissions, electricity and water usage

The critique in the above table illustrates that although aspects of existing evaluation tools may be used during the competitive dialogue phase of PFI projects, none of them would be wholly suit the specific conditions. It was

therefore concluded that a new tool would need to be constructed for the purpose.

3.2 Critique of Output Specification

As shown in the previous section, none of the available tools that have been devised to assess design quality suit the PFI competitive bidding process.

Therefore, it was clear that a new tool had to be generated from first principles. From the beginning, it was recognised that it would be appropriate to analyse the existing PFI documentation for guidance as to how the new tool could be structured. Therefore this section critiques the output specification in particular, and assesses its function and limitations. To add context to the critique, an exemplar sheltered housing project was selected, and a systematic appraisal of the building was undertaken to establish the principles of a design quality evaluation, and the role that the output specification could play in it.

The PFI documentation mainly consists of the instructions and guidance provided to the bidders, which includes the service delivery as well as technical, financial, commercial, legal and contractual information about the PFI bidding process. The North Tyneside Council output specification document, like any other output specification, has two parts. Part A, Design and Construction Requirements, details the standards that the bidders should meet in the design and the construction of the new and refurbished sheltered accommodation. Part B contains the Facilities Management Service Requirements, i.e. building maintenance, landscaping, cleaning, catering, security, etc., which is linked to the payment mechanism. Part A of the output specification document is essentially related to the delivery of design quality schemes, so only this part of the document is discussed in this research. Part A of the output specification document is referred to as the output specification document from this point.

Output Specification Document