PUBLIC A.CCEPT.A.NCE AND USER SATISF,A.CTIOH OF A ...
166
,A.PPROVEO: PUBLIC A.CCEPT.A.NCE AND USER SATISF,A.CTIOH OF A PROTOTYPIC HOU'.3ING UNIT IN BLACl<25URG, VIRGINIA by Louise Jones Sp.3id Thesis submitted to the F:~culty of the Virginia PolYtechnic Institute and :3tate University in partial fulfillment of the req~irements for the de·aree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Housing, Intarior Design, and Resource M.3nasement ::=::av.:1nnah :3. Day, Chairman Jeannette E. 8ci1,,_;ker
Transcript of PUBLIC A.CCEPT.A.NCE AND USER SATISF,A.CTIOH OF A ...
,A.PPROVEO:
PUBLIC A.CCEPT.A.NCE AND USER SATISF,A.CTIOH
OF A PROTOTYPIC HOU'.3ING UNIT IN BLACl<25URG, VIRGINIA
by
Louise Jones Sp.3id
Thesis submitted to the F:~culty of the
Virginia PolYtechnic Institute and :3tate University
in partial fulfillment of the req~irements for the de·aree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Housing, Intarior Design, and Resource M.3nasement
::=::av.:1nnah :3. Day, Chairman
Jeannette E. 8ci1,,_;ker
PUBLIC ACCEPT,A.NCE AND USER '.3A TISF ACTION OF A PROTOTYPIC HOUEING UNIT IN BLACr=:SBURG, VIRGINIA
t,v
(AE:'.3TRACT)
The Hillside Fourple>:, a structurally innovative hc,using unit t.•.1hich 1A1on a HUD
cornpetitic,n "Building Value Into Housing", ,,,ias constructed in Blacksburg, V.A., in
1982. The purpc,se c,f this study ,AJas to evaluate public acceptance of the unit as
evidenced at open house sessions, to evaluate user satisf.:1dion as eviden,:e of
livability, and to make recommendatfons fi:ir desisn changes before replication .. t.,n
80 item questionnaire, with a five point accept.:1t,le/non-accept.:1ble range, ~\ias
used to assess public acceptance. User satisfactic,n 1,1as assessed 1,<1ith a
self-administered •::iuestionnaire cc,ntaining sect-ions related t,:, residents' c,pinfons
c,f e:derior char.acteristics, interior characteristics, ~nnovative fe.atures, an,j
de:isn decisions. The 9uestionnaire, a modification of tr,e one us:::d to as:::ess
public ~c,:ept.,rnce (\,.iith the additfon of a 'five point not impc,rta:1t./imFcrtant <1nd a
fi'./e pi:,i:1t dissatisfied/satisfied range)i i.~13s a,jm~nistered to student
residents--as a pre-test (before occupanr:Y), as an initial post-test (after 4
',•.1eeks occup.:;ncY)1 and as .3 second pc,st-test (:~fter 20 1.,.ieeks occupancy), A ff!atrt-:
was created to c,:,rnbine responses to unimportant-important and
dissatisf-ied-satisfied ratings. Descriptive and statistical analY:::is indicated a
noted with tr1e l-1eating systems and aud~le privacy,
.A.CKNOWLED GMENTS
Sincere appreciation is e:,:pressed to Or. Savannah S. Day, major profess,:,r,
for her support, encouragement, and professi,:m::11 guidance throughout tt-1e ,AJriting
c,f this thesis. Gratitude is also e>:pressed to other thesis committee mernbers, Dr.
Jeanette 8ol•.,ker, Assistant Professor, and Robert Thee, Housing E::tension
Specialist, for their supp,:,rt and continued encouragement.
Appreciation is also conveyed tc, Horner Hurst. The Hillside Fourpie>r ~s the
result of his interest in innovative building techn,:,logy and dedication t,:, research
through the S-141 Southern Regional Project.
Gratitude is e>:pressed to Or. Robert Sct-1ulrrian and the Virginia Teet-: •
Consulting Center for statistical assistance. Further appreciation is e>:tended to
friends and coileagues for their faith and encouragement.
Special •3ratitude is given to mY parents for instilling in me a thirst for
knoi,.,ledge and a desire to succeed. And final1Y, tc, my familY, a special thank '.;ic•u is
given fc,r their kve, support, patience -:ind understanding.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT::::
ACKHOwLEOGMENT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION
II.
TTT ..1.J..1.1
I,, ¥.
Statement of the Problem Purpc,se c,f the Study Conceptual Framel.A.1ork
Introduction Historical Perspective Satisfaction Measurernent Evaluation Rationale Public Acceptance of Innovations Conclusion
Limitations Delimitations .Assumptions Hypotheses
Part I: Public: Acceptance of The Hillside Fc,urple>: Part II: User Satisfaction .. iith the Hillside F,:iurple>(
Definition of Terms
REVIEW OF LITERATURE Early Studies of Housing Sat is faction Recent Studies of Housing Satisfaction Sat is fact icin C,::int ingencies Current Research in Hi:,using '.3.at~sfactfon Put,lic .Acceptance Studies '.3ummarY
PROCEDURES Part I: Pubiic .A,:ceptance of The Hillside Foun=•le::•(
Instrument Sample Administration AnalYsis of data
Part II: User Acceptance of The Hillside F,:iurple;-: Instrurnent Samp1e .Administrab::in A.na 11/sis of data
Part III: Evaluation of The Hi11side FClurple>;
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Description ,::,f The Hillside Fc,urpie>( Descriptic,n of Open-House E;.3mple Oescr~r=1tic1n of Resident '.3arn~·le
iv
Pa•;e iii vi
vii
2 2
7 8 8 9
10
12
.13 15 i6 17 18
19 79
21.
24
25
:30
v.
VI.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Part I: Public Acceptance of The Hi1lside Fourple>:
Exterior Characteristics Interior Characteristic;;; Innovative Features Response to Design Decisions Discussion
Part II: User Accept.3nce of The Hillside Fourple>: E:-:terior Characteristics Interior Characteristics Innovative Features Response to Design Decisions Discussion
Part III: Evaluation of The Hillside Fourple:,:
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENOATION3 Summary Conclusions Recornroenda t ions
REFERENCE LIST
.A,PPENOICES A. Public Relation Information
8.
c.
o.
E.
VITA
Virginia Cooperative E>:tension Bulletin HUD Publication E>:cerpt--Value In Housing Ne\..ispaper Release Test Instruments
Questionnaire for Public Acceptance--Lo,•.1er Unit Questionnaire for Public A,:cept.3nce--Upper Unit Questionnaire for User :3atisfaction--Lo\•.,er Unit Questionnaire for User Satisfaction--Upper Unit
Public Acceptance Descriptive Data E::<terior of Housing Unit Interior of Housing Un·it Innovative Features of Housing Unit Design Decisions for Housing Unit
User Satisfactfon Descriptive Dat.3 E;.:terior of Hc,using Unit Interior of Housing Unit Innovative Features of Hc,using Unit Design Decisions f,;:;r Housing Unit
Selected Comments Ci:mcerning The Hillside F,:,urple:=< Visitors Residents
V
36 ,36
57
79 79 :31 81
83
85 86
94
107
7 14
l 54
i 59
Table
1.
'j .... 3.
LIST OF T A8LE'3
Oescriptfon c,f Visitors to The Hillside Fourple:,-:
Mean Scores fc,r Visit,:,rs: E>:terior Fe:,;tures
.A.nalYsis ,:,f Varian,:e o·f Overall Opinion c,f E>:terfor of Unit and Demographic Fac:t,Jrs ,:,f Visitors
4. Mean Rating for Overall Opinfon of E>:tericir of the Unit and
5,
6.
7.
9.
Demc:,graphic Factc:,rs
Mean Scores for Visitors: Interior Features
AnalYsis of Variance c,f Opinion c,f Intericir Features c,f Unit and Oeroographic Factc,rs c,f Visitors
Mean Rating fc:,r Overall c:,pinion ,Jf Interfor of the Unit and Dernograpt-iic Factcrs
Mean Scores fc:,r Visitc,rs: Innovative Features
Ana1Ysis ,:,f Variance for Opink,n ,:,f Innovative Features of Unit and Oemo•3raphic Factc:,rs of Visibrs
10. Mean Rating fc,r Overall Opinion c.f Innovative Features
14,
of the Unit and Demographic Fadc,rs
Visitc,rs' Opinion for A 1lc11:atfon of Monies
Visitors' Opinion for .A.llo,:ation of Spa,:e
Mean Rating for Resi,jents' Opinfon c,f E;derfor Features of The Hillside F,:,urpl-a:<
Mean Rating for Residents' Opinion c,f Interior Features of The Hillside Fourple:,-:
15. Mean Rating fm· Residents' Opinion c,f Innovative Features of The Hillside Fourpie>i
Residents' Opinfon for A llc<ca t ic,n c,f i'fonies
Residents' Opinion for A lkica tii:,n ,:,f :;:;pace
18. Pe-rcentages ,:if Residents ~lh,J Rated Features with a Matri>: Valueof9tol2
vi
Page
31
37
40
41
42
46
48
49
50
5:3
60
6:3
67
76
LIST OF FiGURES
Figure Page
l . Perspective Dra,,.1ing and Floorplan for The Hillside Fc,urple>( 27
E1evati-:m and Site Plan for The Hillside Fourple;< 29
3. Unimportant-Important/Dissatisfied-Satisfied Matri>( 5,-, ::;
4. Partitioned Imp,:,rtance/Satisfadfon Matrt-: for Grouping Design Features 74
vii
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
The escalating costs of ne1_.., construction have initiated an interest in the
reduc:tion of both initial costs and life cycle cc,sts for housin•3 units. Alternative
ene:rgy systems, innovative frarriing te,:hniques, modular systems and :-1Ybr1d
materials have evolved to help reduce these costs. In manY cases, these
innovations have been scientifi,:a11Y evaluated in terms of cost, energy use,
efficiency, and reli.3bi1ity after their incorpc,ratfon into prototypical hc,using units.
Prc,totypic hciuses may include design features 1.1Jhict-1 necessitate
adaptation by the resident. It is appropriate that perceptions ,,f user satisfactfon
with the livability of the unit be assessed. Livability can be defined as the ability
of a residential space to meet the dailY living needs c,f the hc,usehold thr,:,ugh its
design, arrangement, and construction (8eamist-,, 1982). Nc,t onlY must a rental
dt•.ielling unit be safe and functional, it must be fle:,:ible enough to meet the needs of
a succession of users.
Prototypical housing units r.-,ay not rneet people's ex;:;e,=tations as to size,
appearance 1::<r locatfon. It is therefore .appropriate to assess public acceptance i::if
the prcctotypic unit and the innovative features. It is als,:, desirable to determine
what factors influence this acceptance.
Statement c,f the Problem
Innc,vative technologies used in prototypic housing affect the size,
appearance, .arrangement, and features of the unit. \.Jill the public accept the unit
1
2
with its innovative features? Will residents find the unit livable, as evidenced by
user satisfaction? What factors affect this satisfaction and/or acceptance?
Purpose of the Study
A structura11Y innovative fourple>:, designed bY Homer T. Hurst, P. E., was
one of nineteen award winning designs in the 1980 design competition: "Building
Value Into Housing" bY the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
This unit, The Hillside Fourplex, was constructed in Blacksburg, Virginia, and IA•as
ready for occupancy in September, 1982.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate public acceptance of The
Hillside Fourple>:, as evidenced at an open house, as well as to evaluate user
satisfaction as evidence of livability. An atterm::.t was made to determine the
factors influencing acceptance and user satisfaction. This information was used to
evaluate the fourple>: in order to make recommendations for changes to be included
in any replication of the unit.
Conceptual Framewc,rk
Introduction
The United States housing situation has been, and continues to be, in a
period of e,-:treme change. This is due in part to demographic changes, including
effects of the "baby boom" and migration pattern changes, as \AJe11 as economic
factors such as energy supplies and costs, land development costs, and financing
costs.
Because housing is multifaceted, its study requires an interdisciplinary
approach. The integratiion of severa1 social scientific approaches to
understanding social processes with the interaction of human factors in an
3
environment stn1ctured bY architects is necessary, A conceptual framework for
housing is developing ,.,1hich is multidisciplinary, using ·multifaceted te,:hnc,1,:,gy. This
is necessary to transcend temporary conditieins, t•ihich are subject to rapid change,
and to prc,vide a framewc,rk witt-1 which 1'.:lne can analyze and evaluate any potential
housing situaticcn.
A brief revieiAJ of the development of this conceptual frame\.AJork fo1101•.1s in
c,rder that the reader might understand its evolutfon, linkages, and current state.
Historical Perspective
In the 1930s, Svend Reimer1 in some of the earliest and most thorough
investigations c.f user requirements, looked at human and prWsical attributes of
housing in order to formulate hurnane and effective housing standards and to
develop functional designs. His research rnethods 1AJere adapted bY researchers i,vith
the Jc,hn Pierce Foundation in the 1940s and are synonymous l.1 • .1ith most field
methc,ds currently in use (i.e., activity logs, sket,:hes, e:<pert panels, human factor
studies, projective techniques, and simulatfons). After these foundation studies,
research tended tc, be concentrated in individua 1 disciplines, including hc,rne
ecc,nomics, psychology, and sociology (Pr,:ishanskY et al., 1978).
Physiological research looks at biological contrc,l •'.:If the environment,
ignoring subject~ve responses (e.g., e>:perier.ce, preferen,=es, and cultural factors).
Hm ... ,ever, in an attempt to c,btain objective informatioi7, we must remember man has
emotional, psychological, and cognitive e::-;periences and needs that e>:ercise contr,:,l
over the envircmment. Research meth:11:folcJgy devek,ped t,:i e:,<pl,:ire motivation and
feeling is the origin ,:if clinical psycholcigy and psychiatry (Rut.in .3nd E;der, 19:30),
Sociologists have tended to think in teniis of the strudure of prnbabilistic
re ia tionships amc,ng ,:,peraticcnallY defined .Ana1Ytic:
(parametric:) research is typic:allY perfc,rmed in su,:h a , . .,ay as to e:,-:amine one
4
V-:Hiable while maintaining c:ontr,::il c,f all e>:tranec,us variables (Rubin and Elder,
1980). Multivariate research is, hot. .. ,ever, currentlY favored by some sc,c:ia 1
sc:ientists t,-ihc, claim the number and th':! comp1e:dty of v.:1ri.:1b1es and tt-,eir
interactions do not a1101A1 parametric researct-,. The world is c,::imple>: and to simplify
by emplo~ting inherentlY artificial procedures (,:ontrolled research) alters the
siti.1ation in a significant ,.,.iaY sc, that the findings may be misleading (Rubin and
Elder, 1980).
In 1970 Proshans!-::Y k<oked at the relatfonship beh,,ieen environment ::snd
behavior. In atte-rnpting to pull the field together, he defines .3 field of
environmental psychofogy and identifies problem are.:1s.
A new lan,3uage of vision is slot.•JlY rep lacing individualistic terms like taste or feeling lAiith terms of c,bjec:tive validity, Based ,:in bfo1ogica1 facts--both physical and psYchologic:al--it seeks to represent the impersonal cumulative e:,-:perien,:e of suc,:essive generations (Grc,pius, 1970, p, 4).
Satisfadfon Measurement
S,:11:ial s,:ientists have a formidable task in attempting to e::-:plain
man-environment relatic,nships. There are at least t,.,_,c, factors inv,:,lved: (a)
c,bjective measurement--the actual lavel of 1.,.1e1l being achieved or the measure of
unmet needs and (b) subjective measurement--satisfaction with tr,at level (Mcrris
and Winter, 1978). Assessment of the subjective reactfon tc:, the c,bjective conditfon
is necessary, Both user requirements and the perf,:,rrnance apprc,.3ch have evolved
to meet this need.
User requirements have, f,::ir th8 most part1 been defined bY the ;:,ers,::ina1
e;-:perienc:e of architects and their clients. But as S. ~:::liment (architect) e;-:plains!
"T,::iday's optfons .3re tc•o rr:anY, turnc,ver in te~hniques toe, si.,.iift, and the nature of
these techniques too sophisticated and exacting for architecture by hunch to be
anY kinser valid" (Caudi1i, 1971, p. 336).
5
M. Brill, a pioneer in the performance approach in the United States,
outlines a rationale for writing performance specificatic,ns and providing a method
of e>:ploring in detail the 'uses c,f a building.
The performance approach demands a statement of performance in terms of function. Since buildings serve people, function as defined bY the attributes is necessary tc, satisfy human re9uirements. Tt-,e means of delivering an attribute is left c,pen ... the philosc,phy of the performance approach begins and ends with--and puts its principal emphasis on--the satisfaction of human needs (wright, 1971, p. 17).
The premise of this apprnach is that the user is the starting P•::>int in design and
successful design is user satisfaction t . .1,1ith the end product. T;::> accomplish this, it
is necessary: (a) to determine the nature of user requirements and (b) tc, evaluate
buildings after occupancy to see if needs are met (Rubin and Elder, 1980).
Evaluation Rationale
The ·more comp le>: a qesign,. the m,::>re critica 1 • the need to integrate and
synthesize inf,::irmation ,:c,ncerning the design. Operation Breakthrough, a HUD
prc,gram to enc:01.Jrage the volume production of safe, durable, quality housing for
volume r,ousing markets, recc,,3nized that the
... design and planning of livin•3 units should r1ave a 1 .•. 1,::irkable1 man-centered basis. Provision shc,u1d be made for essentia 1 needs ,:.f veople for space, light, food, water, sleep1 safety, sanitation, ,:orofort, companionship, and periods of 9uietness. It is. ne,:essary that .:1dequate i-,ousing qua litY be provided, yet reconciled t_..iith minimum cost by efficient use of space (Pfran•3, 1970, p. 516).
The deve1oprnent of performance standards for evaluating prot,,type innovativ~ and
technolc<git:allY advanced h,::>usin•3 systeros 1.,.1as recc,gnized as .3 vital part c,f the
program,
Brill (1974) characterizes post ,::rccupancY evalu.3tic 1n as a means of
,:letermining the su,:cess of the plan in practi,:e and the e:dent t,::> 1.AJhich gc,a h •,,.1ere
a,:hieved, 1.,.:ith gc,als taking tt-1e form ,::>f :activities to be performed by bt..1ildin•2 users
6
in an environment with characteristics that enable the activity to be performed
proper1Y. The evaluation can be broken into t\..,o aspects: (a) gaining information on
the usefulness of a building and (b) using that information in the design and use of
ne\'I,! construction. The American Institute of Architects sees four missions for post
occupancy evaluation: (a) modification or correction of an e:;-dsting building, (b)
provision of guidelines for future buildings of the same type, (c:) evaluation of
programming criteria and design effectiveness, and (d) provision of data on use and
response to built environments.
One major problem with past evaluations is the concentr.:1ti,:m on general
attitudes and preferences, without adequatelY specifying design characteristics.
ConsequentlY, it is often difficult to determine the relationship of response to the
building as a whole and response to particular design features (Rubin and Elder,
1980).
Public Acceptance of Innovations
Rogers' (1971) studies have sho1.•m that those individuals who are aware of
innovations soon after their appearance in the market place (i.e., ear1Y l-::nowers)
sh.:1re certain characteristics. EarlY I-mowers in comparison to late ~::nowers: (a)
have higher levels of education, (b) have higher social status. (c) have mc,re
exposure to mass media, (d) have more change agent contact, (f) have greater
social participation, and (g) are more cosmopolitan.
The adoption or rejection of an innovation occurs at an individual level in a
process referred to as adoption (Rogers, 1965) or innc,vation-decision process
(Rogers, 1971 ). This process includes all mental processes from first a1A1areness of
the innovation, through the decision to adopt or reject, to cccnfirmation of this
decision. This innovation-decision is a specia 1 type of decisic,n-making situation
1,,;hich includes learning concepts, decisfon-making procedures, and dissonan,:e
7
thei:,ry. The cc,nceptualization of the process cc,nsists of 'four se·:iuential functfons:
(a) ~:::no1.JJledge--the individual becomes aware of the innovatic<n and gains son-1e
understanding of its function; (b) Persuasion--tt-ie individual develops a favc,rable
or unfavorable opinion of the innovati,:,n; (c) Decision--the individual adc,pts ot·
rejects the innc,vationi and (d) Confirmation--the individual seaks reinforcement
but m::iy reverse his decision if confronted t .. ,ith cc,nflicting evidence,
Conclusions
Tt-1e prim.arY task of architects is t,::, design spaces to accommodate ?Eop1e
and their activities (Rubin and Elder, 1980). If lAle understand bui1di;ig design as the
·manipulation and arrangement of spaces, then tt-,e, dimensfon of these spaces is
critical in order that buildings functfon as intended. Hm.; then d•::, \-.1e determine
these dimensions? LeCorbusier (1954) ans1.•.iers that the ultimate measure must be
man.
Both architects and psychologists share the assumptic,n that environment
has an influence on bet-,avior, although they may debate the magnitude c,f the
relationship. Nearly half a century ago, W.alter Gropius, cc,nscious of the n,~ed for
better human behavioral data, called for a better understanding of built design's
influence on beh.3vior. OnlY bY understanding this relatic<nship and ·feeding it into
the design prncess can buildings function as intended (Rubin and Elder, 1980).
Limitatic<ns
The study was int-,erentlY lirnited by:
1) The validity of the instrument.
2) The respondent's cooperatfon in responding 1.-.iillinglY and truthf,_\llY,
3:, The interpret.ation of questic,ns t,y respondents.
4) The characteristics of pre-test/post-test methodc,lc,gy,
8
De1imitations
The following boundaries were set by the investigator:
1) Evaluation was limited to one prototypic apartment building,
2) Sample for consumer acceptance was limited to those attending the open
house.
3) Sample for user satisfaction was limited to present occupants of the
prototypic unit.
4) Data were limited to that collected bY the questionnaires and closure
interviews with the occupants,
5) Evaluation was limited to the housing unit and as such did not include
neighborhood or community,
Assumptions
The following assumptions i.,,,ere made for purpos~s of the study:
1) The Hillside Fourple>, is a prototypic housing unit.
2) Residents are able to-evaluate their housing unit,
3) Livability is reflected bY housing satisfaction.
4) Housing satisfaction is governed bY the resident's perception that their
housing needs are met, As such, it is an indication of the goodness .-:if fit
between dwelling design and user needs.
5) Housing satisfaction can be objectivelY measured.
6) Visitors to a housing unit are capable of reporting their opinions of design
features.
7) Public acceptance is reflected by visitors' expressed opinions.
8) Visitors to the housing unit are involved in the innovation-decision
process.
9
Hypotheses
Part I: Public Acc,=.ptance
1) There is no relationship between the scores for the overall opinfon of the
e>iterior of the unit and the fo11m•.iing demographic factors fc,r
visitors to the fourplex:
a) age
b) se>:
c) c,ccupation
d) income level
e) location of permanent residence
f) tenure status.
2) There is no relationship bet1 ... 1een the scc,res for the ,:)verall opinion c,f the
interior of the unit and the fo110\•.1ing demographic factors for
visitors to the fourple:-::
a) age
b) se};
c) c,ccupa tion
d) income leve 1
e) lo,:ation of perrrianent residence
f) tenure status.
3) There is no relatic,nship between the accumulative sc,:,res for the opinion
c,f innovative features and the follQ\A.iing demographic factors:
a) age
c) c":cupatfon
d) incc,me level
10
e) kication of permanent residence
f) tenure status.
Part II: User Satisfac:tfon
4) There is nc:, difference in the ,AJeig!-tted mean s•=c•res for satisfacti,::in of th~
el{terior of the unit in the following test periods:
a) Pretest and first post-test
b) First post-test and second pc,st-test
c} Pretest and second post-test.
5) There is nc difference in the weighted mean s•=ores fc,r satfafactfon c.f the
interior c.f the unit in the folkiv.iing test periods:
a) Pretest and first post-test
b) First post-test and second p,:,st-test
c) Pretest .3nd second pc,st-test.
6) There is no difference in the v-.1eighted mean scores for siltisfa,=tfon i...rith
the inm,vative features of the unit in the follov,1ing test pericids:
a) Pretest and first post-test
b) First post-test and secc,nd p,nt-test
c) Pretest and second post-test.
Definitions ,:,f Terms
Housing Satisfactfon: A continuum c,f tt-,e level ,:if contentment 1,..1ith the housing
unit.
Housing Needs: A general term equated 1_..1ith cu1tura1 norms fc,r housing
encompassing both physiological and psycholo•3ical needs.
Housing Unit: A dl_.velling ,,.Jith prc,vision f,::ir ingress, foc,d preparation, rest, and
~ersona 1 hygiene.
11
Household: Those persons i.,.Jho share the same r,ousing unit.
Livability: Ability of a housing unit to meet the user needs of tr,e household.
Prototypic Housing Unit: A d~•.1elling i .•. rith innovative design features 1.A.1hich can serve
as a model for later construction.
Public Acceptance: The favorable reception of an item or concept bY the c,:nnmunitY
at large.
Tenure Status: The mc,de of housing possession; i.e., rental c,r o~•mership,
User Needs: The housing needs of those persons using the housing unit.
Chapter II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Rapc,port <1980) defines housing as a system of settings, within which a
particular set of human activities- occurs. To be satisfactory, it must be congruent
with the 1ifestYle, desires, and images of its users. Both the perception and the
evaluation of environmental quality are involved in the housing choice. Various
components of environmental quality (e.g., type and form of unit, maintenance, and
location) are matched against images and scherr,ata (ideals shaped bY
enc!.!lturation, adaptation, and e>:pectation). Generally accepted standards are
culturally defined as the latent functions of housing quality (e.•3., communication of
status). In summation, housing satisfaction is influenced by a series of factors
including, but not limited to, engineering, social, behavioral, cultural, and material
(Rapoport, 1969).
EarlY Studii:>s of Housi)"lg Satisfaction
The literature concerning satisfaction and livability is reasonably
abundant. Satisfaction is conceived to depend upon comparisons behveen the
situation as· e~-:perienced and the individual's standards, aspiratic:ns, and
e>:pectations (Campbell, Converse and Rogers, 1976). Ho~AJever, the approaches
taken in research are often quite specific. Studies may concentrate on soci-31,
econoroic, ?Olitical, enviromnental, psychological, or PhYsfoiogii:a1 aspects ,:,f
housing satisfaction; Seen (1979), realizing that housing is a comple:,-( issue
involving more than shelter, advocates a more g~nera1 "over.311 appr,:,ach". He
12
13
points to the positive correlations occuring between satisfac:tfon and various
ncnidentical factors in the fo11ov.iing summation of early research:
Mogey and Morris (1960) have found that satisfaction depends on a whole system of beliefs and opinions that the occupant entertains in respect to his dwelling and ~o\Jhich are not connected 1AJith its phYiical characteristics. Riemer <1954) connected this satisfaction with the value of the apartment in the market. Back <1962) has stated that a condition for satisfaction is ownership of the apartrnent as against rental of one. Rossi (1955) came to the conclusion that satisfaction is a function of the occupant's neighbors or of his opinion of them. A whole series of investigators have maintained the opinfon that satisfaction results from the prci>dmitY of friends or rnernbers of a related group in the neighborhood. Reimer and Cottan (1951) savv in the area units per head the point of departure for satisfaction. Mogey and Morris thought the number of roc,ms per fami1Y to be the factor that deter-mines satisfaction, and Chaplin (1938) ?ointed to the availability of space for different uses as the determinant. Morris and Mogey make satisfaction dependent on the possession of a private bathro,:im and kitchen. On the other hand, Wilner, Walkley, and Cook (1955) considered satisfaction to arise from the absence of various nuisances (such as rats, insects, etc:.), '.AJhereas Oates. <1969) maintained the opinion that the level of services supplied by the lo,=al authority is a contribution to satisfaction. Gal1ogy (1974) sa1..,1 the habitability, c:onvenien•=e c,f the apartment and the pt"JYsical appearance of the surroundings as a decisive factor (p, 129).
Recent Studies of Housing Satisfac:tic<n
'.vith the realiz"ation that satisfaction is not dependent on one factcir, but
is instead a function of a set of interrelated fa,:ti:irs, later studies used fac:tc,r
analysis in an attempt to synthesize a more accurate techni9ue.
Western, Weldon, and Tan Tsu Haung (1974) looked at occupant satisfaction
in Singapore using factor ana1Ysis. They f,:iund satisfaction to be related t,:i nine
primary variables <listed in descending order of importance: (a) sanitary facilities,
(b) washing facilities, (c:) cooking facilities, (d) size of apartment, (e) living roi:nns,
(f) ventilation, (g) noise factor, (h) refuse disp,:isal service, and (i) ,:1ean1iness of
the neighbc,rhood. Hi:i\A.1ever, these findings may c,r rnaY not be applicable across
c:w1tures.
14
Oniboken (1974) used a systems apprc 1acr1 v,1ith h-venty-eight indi,:es related
to seventy-four attributes cif the dt.•Jelling subsy::.tem. The most i'mpc,rtant
cr,aracteristics of housing satisfaction revealed in this analYsis t•Jere (in
descending order of importance): (a) ade•:iuacy ,:,f internal space, (b) adequacy of
equipment, (c) type of apartment, (d) ,:,ther apartment char:acteristics, (e) prwsicai
quality, and (f) privacy in the apartment. Because this study was done in Canada
using public: housing tenants, it may or may not be applicable to either the United
States or other socio-economic levels.
It seems evident after a revie•.,.., of the studies that housin;3 satisfaction is
nc,t static. There is an interrelated set ,:,f factors the cc,mposition of 1.~•hich vari2s
in accordance t.•.iith circumstances. Furthenriore, since housing quality a1sc, v.aries
tAJith time, b,:,th quality and satisfaction can c,nlY be defined in relative ter·ms (Soen,
1977).
Campbell, Converse, and R,:,gers <1976), in a study of tJ-ie quality c,f
Aff1erican life, found hc,using satisfaction was related to four C<t,jective
characteristics of the unit. (a) Ab,:,ut t•.AJc,-thirds of their respondents lived in
detached, sir,gle-family units, and these pec,ple \#Jere m,:,r~ satisfied \,..1ith their units
than ,..,ere those v.Jho lived in other types of structures. The least satisfied •.•Jere
thc,se who lived in apartments. (b) The size of the unit' as measured by the numbet-
of rooms i.,..1as related t,:, e:,-:pressed level of r,ousing satisfaction. Occupants tended
to be more satisfied \AJith both larger units (i.e., mc,re r,:,c,ms) and tAiith mm-e r•:iorns
per person. (,:) Residents of nei .•. 1 structures \AJere more satisfied than residents ,::f
,:,lder structures. (d) Appro:dmatelY 60 percent of the sample 01~ined their" housing
Lli'l7t1 and their e;-:pressed l";ousing satisfacti,:,n t ... ias cc,nsiderabiY higher than that
e:-:pressed bY renters. There ,AJas little relati::,nship bet\•.1een amount of rent paid
and housing satisfactfon. The relationship of m,:,neta(Y value ,:,f units i:11:cupied t,'.)I
15
owners and their e:,-:pressed satisfaction was alsc, i.,.1eak, although stronger than the
re1ationship behveen rent paid and hc,using satisfaction. However, statistical
analysis indicated c:nlY three-fourths of the e:-q:,lanatory pc,\•.1er of the hc,using
characteristics can be interpreted as being mediated by these charaderistics,
indicating that other unmeasured characteristics also ,:c,ntribute to housing
satisfaction.
S.3tisf:=,ctfon Contingencies
It l.AJ•::iuld seem reasonable to assume that people are able t,::i report their
feelings of satisfaction lAJith relative accuracy (Morris and Winter, i 978). Ho1 ... 1ever,
Butler (1969) fc,und that people do not ,:c,ns,:iouslY recc,gnize the features c,r
combinations of features that elicit positive c,r negative feelings. Therefore,
direct questions about preferences are nc,t reflections of satisfactions or
dissatisfactions. Morris and Winter agree that people 1,v!-10 are apathetic or feel
p,J\AJerless have a reduced sensitivity to deficits, thus a reduced tenden,:Y to be
dissatisfied and, therefc,re, a reduced tendency to repc,rt dissatisfaction. Their
findings indicate that people in the United States respond t.AJithin the satisfied
range for most satisfaction-dissatisfacticin •=iue-:.tion1:.. Some portfon of this is
related to true satisfaction levelsj ho\AJever, seemingly um•.1arranted satisfadfon
ri-1aY be attributed to: (a) lc,w salien,:e, (b) idfosYncr.3tic standards, (c) reporting
error (both random and systematic). They also found that satisfaction 1.,;ith current
housing maY be less related t,:, the presence of specific features than to increases
in those features. Dissatisfaction, theY feel, is produced bY the appearance, n,Jt
just the e>(istence ,:.f a deficit. In turn, satisfaction is produced bY the removal of
deficits1 not t•Y their -:ibsence. This 1.,.1ould seerri t,J support tr!e contentfon that
evaluations of current housing situ.3tfons by users are affected t,y previc<us
e>(PC•sure t,::, or e>(perience ,._iith particu1ar design features. That is, satisfaction is
16
seen as a product of the comparis,::in behveen assessment c,f their current life
situation and their internal standards, e;.:periences, and observations (Campbell,
et. al., 1976),
Occupant satisfaction depends, to some e:<tent~ on the ability of the unit to
fulfill the user's housing needs. C,::ioper (1975), in her evaluatfon study of E.:aster
Hill Village, California, found a needs hierarchy e;.:tending from: (a) shelter, at the
fo 1.•.1er endi throu•3h, (b) security, (c) corilfort, (d) cc,nvenien,:e, (e) socializin•3, (f)
self-e>:pression, and (9) aesthetics, at the upper end. Not until lo\•ier needs are met
tA1il1 higher ones emerge into c,:msciousness. She \,_1as then able t,::i trans1ate this
hierarchy into a set of variables \AJhich foster satisfaction of k<w in,:or;·,e pec,ple
\•.1ith pub lie housing: (a) interna 1 space sufficient for family activities, (b) rooms
and building materials faciiitating e.asy and ine;.(pensive maintenan,:e, (c) visual and
oral privacy from neighbors and passersby, (d) sufficient priv.acy i"iitriin the
apartment, (e) pleasant internal forms of the apartment, and (f) attractive
e>(ternal appearance of the building \•.1hich affords some individual characteristi>:s.
Hc,1 .• ,ever, it is not knm,m hc•\AJ applicable this variable set i_._1,::iuld be to other
socio-economic gr,::iups.
Current Research in Hc,using Satisfactic,n
There is iittle literature available pertaining specifica11Y to satisfaction
\ .... iith prototypic housing. This is due, at least in part, to the tirneliness of the topic
and the time lag that necessarilY e>(ists bett .. .1een field research and the subsequent
publication of f~ndings. Therefore, this stu,jy atte-rnpted t,::i determine 1-.•1hat factc:,rs
\•.iere relevant to acceptance of and/,:,r satisfadic,n t.•.iith a particular pr,Jt,::itypic
unit by a particular set ,:,f occupants. It is hoped that future studies \,1111 tr1en build
,:in thes.e findings to verify the applicability to other users a;id units.
17
Public Acceptance Studies
Members of tr,e Southern Regfonal Housing Research Committee (S-141) are
conducting multidisciplinary research in order to identify factors related to the
3cceptance of alternative housing forms. Ste\>Jart et al. conducted an acceptance
study of visitor's attitudes toward an earth sheltered, solar heated research
prototype built by the Rural Housing Research Unit, in cooperation i,,.1ith Clemson
University. The first objective of the study 1A1as to obtain visitor's attitudes
to\A/ard selected design features including size, spatial arrangement, lighting,
privacy, access, e>:pected maintenance costs and energy efficiency. The second
objective was to identify the potential market for this housing form. The majority
of the visitors to the housing unit 1A1ere well educated \>Jith ·moderate to high
incomes. Although this was the first visit to an earth sheltered house for over
three-fourths of the sample, the majority responded very favorablY to the earth
sl"ieltered concept. In addition, over one third \~ould have chosen to live in a
similiar unit if sized for their familY.
Visits to open house sessions have been used as a marketing device for
many years, but the adaption of research methodology in order to obtain
syste-rnatic design input has not been widely documented. A study of visitors'
acceptance offers a first impression response rather than an analYsis f,:,rmulated
over a period of time. Acceptance studies are especially applicable to emerging
housing forms in that information concerning the acceptance of the alternative
form can be obtained. As the cc,ncern for energy efficiency increases, the need fcir
data related to design acceptance is intensified, .A.,:ceptance studies pri::,vide
information of concern to (a) architects and designers tAiho strive to meet the needs
and desires of consumers, (b) these \.AJho are m-=rketing ne\~, house forms, and (c)
18
lenders and appraisers· tAJho may need to assess the acceptability within the
community (Stewart, Mcl<own & NewmEn, 1981 }.
SurnmarY
Tenure, size, value, needs, and norms have all been shotAJn to be related to
satisfaction with the housing unit. To be satisfactory, it must be cc,ngruent with
the lifestyle, desires, and images of its users. Current housing satisfaction
research has moved from the study of a single factor to the study of interrelated
factors. However, to date, there has been little research related to prototypical
housing units.
Acceptance studies are especiallY applicable to emerging r,ousing f,:,r-ms in
that information of interest to architects, designers, marketing agents, lenders,
and appraisers can be obtained in order to assess the acceptability of the housing
unit within the community.
Chapter III
PROCEDURES
The purposes of the study were to evaluate consumer acceptance of the
innovative design features present in the Hillside Fc,urple>: and to evaluate the
user satisfacticrn of the residents as evidence of livability. The information ,_..1.as
used to evaluate the fourple>: before it is replicated. Tr1e research •,•.1as divided
into three parts in c,rder to meet these elids. Part I analYzed public a,:ceptance of
the r1ousing unit as evidenced bY visitc,rs to an open h,,use. Part II ana lYzed
residents' satisfaction 1_..1itt-1 the !"sousing unit. Part III combined the inforrr1ation
from Part I and Part II to evaluate the unit.
Part I: Public .Acc,=.ptance of th,s: Hillside Fourple}:
Inst rurnent
A seif-adrninistered questic:innaire 1,,1as devekped to assess the public's
opinion of the design and features of The Hillside Fourple:,-:. Questfons fc11:used c,n
external characteristics (e.g., size parking, yard, entry), internal characteristics
(e,,3., size, privacy, light), and innovative features (e.g., buildin,3 systerri, p1an,
s~te), as 1A1el1 as demographi,:s fc,r the visitors. Tha final instrument \.<.Jas a
revision of one previouslY developed and pretested by the investigat,:,r, as part ,,f
a graduate course in housing. .A modified •=iuesticinnaire 1..i.:1s develciped for 1..isa in
the basen,ent apartments because of several design variatfons. After revisfon, the
questior,naires 1..,1ere tested bY inviting .3 grc,up of housing and/,:,r design e:,-:peds to
19
20
validity. Further revisions t.•.iere made as necessary in order to incc,rpcrate
suggestions into a finalized version of the questi,:mnaire.
:3amp1e
The population for the publk acceptan,:e survey included all persons
attending open houses scheduled bY the builder/,jesigner. A sample lAias selected
by inviting every second persc,n attending the open house to an:.i,ver the
quest ionna ire.
Administratfon
Each respondent tNas met at the dc,c,r and1 after a brief introdw:tii::1;1, t.•.J.3.5
invited to participate in the survey. Tables, chairs, and pencils were provided
1,..,ith the e:,-:pectation that respondents t•.1ould complete the questfonnafre after
tc,uring the unit and prior to leaving the unit. Tc,urs of the unit included a s1ide
presentation and an e>:planation of a mc,del c,f the structure and heat transfer
system. In additic,n, resc,urce persons : .• .1ere available to anst•1er questions.
Distribution of the instrument alternated bet,.._ieen upper unit queE-tionnaire (v.1hite
in col,::ir) and loi ... ,er unit questfonnaire (yellc,w in cc,kir). E::!ch questionnaire was
numbered in order ti:, determine the quantity of ,:,uestfonnaires d,~livered,
c,:nnpleted, and returned. The number of persc,ns declining to p.3rticipate 'A'as alsc,
r ecc:,r ded.
Ana lYsis of data
The information on the quastic,nnaires 1 .• ;as ,:oded, transferred to ,:,:,rilputer
cards and vetified ·for accuracy. The data 1.,1ere then subjected:,:, descriptive and
statistical anaiysis.
Descriptive anaiysis consisted c,f a computation ,:,f the mean and a
frequency distribuation f,:,r each item on the questionnaire. Fact::,r analYsis was
p1anned to redu,:e the rn.rmt,er of iterris t,:, a smaller nurnber c,f variabies in ,:,rder to
21
determine underlYing factors which influence satisfaction. Statistic.al ana1Ysis
was used to test the hypotheses at the .05 level of significance.
Hypothesis 1. The null hypothesis that there is no relationship bet\.,1een the
scores for the overall opinion of the e~<terior of the unit and the demc,graphic
factors for visitors to the fourple>( \.,1as tested against the alternative
hypothesis. A one way ANOVA was used to assess tenure status relationships; a
one ~1ay ANOVA with linear trend 1.AJas used tr:i assess age, incorrie level, and
location of permanent residence re1ationshipsj and a t-test \AJas used to assess
se:-: and occupation relationships.
Hypothesis 2. The null hypothesis that there is no relationship beti . ..ieen the
scores for the overall ,:,pinion of the interior of the unit and the demographic
factors for visitors to the fourplex t .. ias tested asainst the alternative
hypothesis. A one way ANOVA was used to assess tenure status relationships; a
one way ANOVA with linear trend was used to assess ase, income level, and
location of permanent residence relatic,nshipsj and a t-test \..ias used to assess
se>: and occupation relationships.
H~tpothesis 3. The null hypothesis that there is no relationship beti.,Jeen the
scores for the overall opinion of the innovative features of the unit and the
demographic factors fc,r visitors to the fourple>( was tested against the
alternative hypothesis. A one way ANOVA ¼ias used to assess tenure status
relationshipsj a one way ANOVA with linear trend was used to assess age, income
level, and location of permanent residence relationships; and a t-test \•!as used tc,
assess se:-; and occupation relationships.
Part II: User Satisf:=lction of the Hillside Fourple>~
Instrument
A self administered 9uestionnaire t,,1as developed t,:, assess user
22
Sdtisfa,:tion 1_.,iith the design and features c,f The Hil1side Fourp1e:,-i. This
instrument was a modification of the questicinnaires used in Part I t1Jith 9uesb:,ns
cc,ncerning the (a) interior and (b) e>iterior ,:,f the unit as v..1e11 as (c) the innc,vative
features. A sectfon was a,j,jed to report the ran!-dng c,f eacr, item on a !:ii-polar,
irnportant-not important measure.
Sample
The theoretical population for the user satisfaction survey 1 .. 1as all
students interested in off campus rental hc,using. The 1,._1orking populatfon 1_..:as
,:,btained bY calling all persons 1--.1ho signed leases to c,ccupy The Hillside Fourp1e:,-:
and inviting them to participate in the study, All thc,se ,_..:ho agreed to participate
cc,nstituted the sample.
Administration
The questfonnaire ~..ias administered as a pre-test, bef,:,re occupancy
occurred. The instrument and a cover letter were ·mailed to each person signing a
lease for The Hillside Fourple:,-i, using a hc,me ::iddress. A self ad,jressed,
pre-starnpe,j envelope ~•1as included and respc,nde'7ts 1_._1ere requested to return the
questicinnaire ,_..,ithin ten days. Any respondent not c,:,mpl:!ing in fourteen days \•Ja::;
cc,ntacted by phone and encouraged to comp1Y,
Four weeks after occupancy c,ccurred the questicinnaires l.•.Jere adrninistere,:
as a post-test. The respondents were contacted bY phone to arrange a time for
deiiverY of the questionnaires. Colie,:ti,:;n ,:,ca.:urred three days after delivery;
another c:,11ection was made -five days after delivery to cc,liect any questic,nnaires
incomplete at the time of the first cc,lle:ctic,n.
Tl.•.Je:ntY \"ie:eks after c,ccupancY ,:,ccurred the ·=iuestic,nnaire:s , .• Jere .3gain
a,jministered as a pc,st-test. The respeindents 1_.<1ere contacted bY ph,:,ne t,:; .arrange
a time f,:,r delivery of the questionnaires, Cc,lle,:tion occurred tr,ree days after
23
delivery. Another collection 1.,1as made five days after delivery to co17ect any
questionnaires for the second post-test that 1.1 • .1ere incomplete at the time of the
first collection .
. AnalYsis of Data
• The inf,::irmation on the questionnaires :.AJas coded, transferred to computer
cards and verified for accuracy. The data were subjected tc, descriptive and
statistical analYsis.
Oe:scriptive analYsis consisted of the ,:c,mputation .-:if means and frequen,:Y
distributions for each item on the questionnaire. :3tatistica1 anaWsis-used paired
t-tests t,::i test the hypc,theses at .05 alpha leve1.
Hypothesis 4. The null hYpc,thesis that there is no difference in the
l_,\Jeishted mean scores for satisfai:tion of the e>,.terior of tt-,e tested
:.:i. gains t the a 1t er native hypothesis in the f i:, 110_1,v in g test per i c, d s:
.3) Pretest and first post-test
,:) Pretest and secc,nd p,:,st-test.
Hypothesis 5, The null hypothes-is th.3t there is no difference in the
t.,Jeigt-ited mean sc,::ires for satisf.3ctfon of the interior c,f the u:;it , ... ,as tested
.3gainst the alternative hypothesis in the fol1ot.,.1ing test periods:
a) Pretest and first post-test
b) First pc,st-test and second pc,st-test
,:) Pretest and second post-test.
Hypothesis 6. The null hYp,:,thesis that there is no difference in the
t.,ieighted mean scc,res for satisfaction 1.•.1ith the innovative fe3tures of the un-1t
t.•.1as tested aga-inst the a1ternative hypothesis in the folk,i .. ,,ing test periods:
a) Pretest and first post-test
24
b) First post-test and second post-test
c) Pretest and second post-test
Part III: Evaiuation of the Hillsi~e Fourp1e:-i
This section of the study attempted to synthesize all the information
gained in the data analYsis of the previous sectii:ins.
The means and frequency distributicins as 1.•.1ell as changes in the means for
each item were used to determine pubiic acceptance and user satisfaction for
each design feature or concept, Specific recommendations were then offered as to
any changes that might be made 1.,.Jhen and if the unit is :-eplicated,
A judgement was ·made as to livability as evidenced bY user satisfaction of
the features and concepts tested. This 1.i.Jas in turn used to evaluate the success
of the unit in meeting the housing needs of the occupants.
An attempt was made, through factor analYsis, to determine 1.AJhat factors
were instrumental in mediating satisfaction with the housing unit. These v-.1ere to
be discussed and a hierarchy developed to sho1,v ranking of i·mportance eif each
factor in deter·mining satisfaction. Ho\,,.1ever, insufficient variance from the mean
caused this to be inadvisable.
Chapter IV
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This ,:hapter contains a description ,:,f The Hillside Fourp1e>: and a synopsis
c,f the demographic: information cc,llected from vis~tors to the open house. In
addition the resident sample used for the pretest, first, and second post-test is
des,:ribed.
Desc:riptfon of The Hillside Fourp 1e>~
A struc:turallY innovative fourple:,-:, designed by Homer T. Hurst, P, E., \~ias
one of nineteen a,,...iard winning designs in the 1980 Design Competition sp,:,nsored by
the Department of Housing and Urban Developrnent (HUD): "Buil,jing Value Int,:,
Housing", The prototypic: unit, The Hillside Fourple:,{, 1•.1as constructed in
Blacksburg, Virginia, and 1..._1as ready f,::ir ,:,ccupanc:Y in Septe-rnber, 1982.
The Hillside Fourple>: contributed to an objective c.,f a re•;fonal housing
research project, "Housing for Lc,t.•J and Moderate Incc.,rne Familie.s" (S-i 41 ), October
1, 1878-Septernber 30, 1984, The study 1,.._1as designed to devise methc,ds of helping
101.AJ and moderate incmne families \•Jho 1_,.iere living in rural ar,::as t,:, obt2in
a,:ceptab ie, ec:onornica llY feasible housing t.•Jhich uses both energy and t,uilding
materials efficientlY, The fourple:-: contributed tc, Objective A (i.e., the design and
constructfon of innov.ative prototypic: housing systems and subsysterns) of this
research projed.
The Hillside Fc.,urple>: Housing Demonstration is described in a t,r,:,d·;ure
written bY J. Smith, E:,itension Housing Specialist, (1982), and distributed by t:-,e
Virginia C,:,operative E:,-:tension :3ervic:e Program. lSee Appendi::-: A, p. :37), The
housing unit is described as a unique oppc,rtunitY for pr,Jdui:t suppliers,
rnanufac:turer·s, .and educators interested in emer•3ing struc:tur-:1, mec:h2nic:a1, and
25
26
interior environmental concepts to participate in a national hc,using demonstration.
In addition planners, zoning offic:ia 1s, b;.Jiiders, building officials, housing
commissions, building code administratorsi and others, having an interest in
today's housing, were offered educatic,na1 opportunities and p.3rticipatic,n in the
demonstration~
Housing constructed using this design concept is e:-:pected to be worth more
than its costs for two reasons: (a) special attention was given to liv.;abi1ity .• rnd
desirability and (b) cost effecti_veness 1A1as considered both initia11Y and throughout
the life-cycle of the housing unit. Each living unit is to provide 'adequate living
space and generous storage for the large number c,f pec,ple \AJho can no 1onser
afford typical single-family housing. Cost effectiveness is achieved initia11Y by the
(a) compactness of the building, both verticallY and horizontally, (b) concentration
of plumbing and mechanical parts, and. (c) integration of a bi_;ilding system that
eliminates over half of the structural materials normallY require,j in conventional
contruction, while facilitating heat distribution by gravity and convective forces.
Operational cost effectiveness is achieved bY c,:mstructing e.3ci-t housing unit s,:, as
to (a) conserve energy and (b) tc, utilize solar energy to provide 40% of the spa,:e
heat requirements. Energy conservation is accomplished by (a) elirninating windo~vs
on tl1e east and 1>.1est side, (b) minimizin•3 1>.iindo1A1 area on the north s,ide, and (,:)
thoYough1Y sealing and insulatin•3 to reduce air infiltration and radiant heat loss.
(Smith, 1982}.
The structurally innovative fourple>i is descrit,ed in a HUD
publication--Building \f.3lue Into Housing, H,::,using and Sc,c~ety, Volume 8, Number 3,
l 98i, and The Roanc,ke Tirnes and \./orld News, ,i:1,ugust 8, 1982 (see App~ndi:-: A, p.
86). A reviei.AJ of the floor plar, of the fourple>i (see Figu-re 1) reveals b.1c11
b~io-bedroom, living units on the lol,..1er level and ti .• ,,:,, four-t,edrc,om, duple:,-: units on
- -·-=-~-... - • .,:r; -:"!'f,?',
--#~ .. _ aa:YJ1.
~--·,····::sf! 11
27
L _______ J ~------..J I ' I l _______ _; :., ________ .J
Upper Level
It f L _______ _: L-------'
·., ~-,. __ f.b.
~·~.
UVING l.tvtNQ
' I, ' I 11 __J t... _____ ., r.--
Mid-Level
I I I I L ______ ___: ~-------J
28
the middle and upper levels. Ea,:h living unit has its ov-in remote entry tc, provide
ma:,-:imum personal privacy, Daytime spaces are arranged to provide sc,uthern
e;-:posure to obtain 'itia:>drnum heat gain. In additicin, tr,e upper living units have h,Jo
spa.::es 1.,._ihicr-1 can be interchanged a,:cording ti:, the user's needs as either living
room of familY room areas, The clustering of kitchens and baths permits the use ,:)f
onlY one plumbing v-Jall. The elevations and section dra,,.iings (see Appendi:,-: A, p. 92)
of the h,10 and one-half stc,rY building iliustrate alternatives to ci::,nver:tional
building methods, Wa 11s are constructed of rough sa\•Jn l" :,-: 611 studs spaced 16" c,n
center. Floors of 3" concrete, to act as solar st,:)rage, are en steel decking and -:ire
supported by rough sa,,m 111 >: 1 O" joists, spliced tc, form continu,:)1..1s beams, and/or
floor trusses. The corrugated roof 1:)n ,:ontinuous t.•.ic,c,den purlins eliminates
conventiona 1 sheathing/rafter /truss systems. The brkk-faced foundatieon , .. va11
utilizes 2" polYurethane (R 16) c,:,re above grade for insulatfon. Fiber·,alass batts in
the walls (Rl 7) and in the attic (R 38) ,:,f the upper unit complete the envelope's
insulatic,n package. The site plan (see Figure 2) dem,:,nstrates t:-,e building's
orientation and placement as the key to its energy .and planning success. In
addition to passive solar heating prc,visions, energy efficiency is enhanced by
setting the fower floc,r into the sloping site and thus capitalizing on the earth's
insu1ative prc,perties. (Hm,.1ever, the decisic,n to use a flat k<t re9uires e>:tensive
grading and lands,:apins to create and h,:,ld a sfope.) Windbreaks in the form of
evergreen piantings are utilized along t:-,e northi..,est edge of the site to further
reduce heat losses.
The heating system for the f,:,urple>i is a passive s,:,lar design with a
mechanical forced hot air .au>riliarY suppc,rt system. The sc,lar s~1stem ,:cnsists ,:,-fa
belov.i the structural systern. Ceiling grills above the southerr1 tAiindo\.•.JS -':l.dmit sc,1ar
29
South Elevation·
-=--- •=:.- ; - -= - --==-=--s •~=:--_ i c·s-=-- - -
- - --- I - ',
North Elevation ·- ··-- --- ·=-===-~·==--
,£..partment Are.3s: Two t,e,::lrc,c,m--82:3 sg. ft. Fcur bedroom--1728 sq, ft.
- -- •
---------------·
Figure 2 Eievatfon .3nd E:ite Plan f,:,r Tr,e Hiil:;;ide Fc,urp1e:,.,:
30
heated air 1..,rhict-1 ffo1.A1s thrc,ugh the p1enurn to the north 1A1al1 of the unit 1.,vt-1ere it
e>:its through ceiling grflls above the bedrc,om 1•.1indc•1•.rs and returns via open
t,edroorn dc,c,rs to the living room are.3, there to be reheated and recirculated. The
convection loop system operates i:m an flciors and in all units (a total of si>: k,opsl.
The upper units are independently served by gas-fired hot-air furna,:es 1...,i;ti-1 a
positive air supplY to the ceiling plenurn c,n the entry level. The heated air travels
by convection from the entry level living space to the upper level then e>:its
through a central return duct to the furnace room. A heat exchange system uses
exhaust heat from the gas furnaces serving the upper units to preheat the hot
water for all f.::iur units and/c,r to supplY awdliarY heat to the lo1.,,1er units
efficient lY.
Description of Open-House Sample
A tot a 1 of 82 questionnaires 1,.iere completed during the five open house
se~sfons scheduled by the builder of the fourp1e:,-:--38 questionnaires t.'Jere returned
for the lo1.,1er unit and 44 for the upper u11it (see Table l i. A tc,tal ,:,f 2:::
questionnaires 1.AJere nc,t raturned. In that every secc,nd visitor 1.•1as asked to
participate, an attendance for the open house sessic,ns can be computed at 210
visit,:Jrs, indicating a •:iuestionnaire response rate ,:Jf 78%.
Of the kiwer unit respondents, 61 % had visited a passive s,:,lar unit
previous1Y .3nd 15% had at one time lived in a passive sc,lar hc,using unit. The,
largest grc;up of visitors (47%) made their permanent home in 8lacksburg, Virginia.
F,:,r most 1 the housing unit i_._1as a single-family detached structure (68%) \~ihich they
1 .• .1ere empl,:iyed in prc,fessions included in U.S. Census grc,upings l 0-:34 (i,2.,
administrator, -:ngineer, scientist, teacher, ,:n~ative artist)(50%). There t_;.Jere
31
Table 1
Description cf Visitors t,::i Tr1e Hillside F,::,urple:,<
Characteristics
LOWER UNIT
Location of residence Rural .3rea Tc,1.,m/citY of fe\•Jer than 10,000 people To,.•m/i:ity of more than i G,000
but fewer than 50,000 !3uburb of city of more than 50,000 people
Strudure type .-:if residence Single familY deta,:hed house Apartrnent in a multi-family unit Single family attached house Mobile home Other No response
Tenure status O1 .• _1n Rent Ott-,er
Sex of person cc,rnpleting form Male Female !'-lo response
Occupation cf person c:c,mpleting form .Administrator, engineer, scientist,
teacher, creative artist Technical, clerical, or sales positfon Service pc,sitions Precisicin prc,duction, craft, or repair p,:,sitfon Hon-•,•.1crkin•3 position:
!'stud~nt, retired, or unemploYed) Mo resp,::,nse
Number
N=38
7 s
16 9
26 i= ·-' '71 ... ~. .;. '71 '-
l
27 9 •'j '-
26 n l
19 4 4 1 7
. ., --·
Percent
T=l00%
18.42 15.79
42.11 23.68
68.42 13.16 5.26 5.26 5.26 2.63
71.05 23.68 5.26
68.42 28.95 2.63
50.00 10.53 10,53 2.53
18.:42
7,90
32
Table 1--C,:,ntinued
Characteristics
A;e c,f person completing form 16-24 25-:34 35-44 45-59 60 or c,lder
People in hc,usehc,ld One Two Three Four Five or more
.Annual income fc,r household 0-$14,999 $15,000-29,999 $30,000-49,999 $50,000 or more No response
UPPER UNIT
Location of residence Rural area To,AJn/citY of fei.AJer than 10,000 pec,ple Tc,1.,m/city ;:if more than 10,000
but fe,,.1er than 50,000 City of more than 50,000 people Suburb of city of more than 50,000 people No response
Structure type of residence Single familY detached house .Apartment in a multi-familY unit Sin•;le familY attached house Mobile home Other Ne, respc,nse
Number
12 8
10 7
1 15 7 6 9
5 11 13 6 3
N=44
9 7
20 1
2
29
'j ...
Percent
2.63 31.58 21.05 26.32 18.42
2.63 39.47 18.42 15.79 23.6:3
13. i 6 2:3.95 34.21 15.79 7.90
T=100%
20.46 15.91
45.46 2.27
11.36 4.55
65.91 l i .36 11.36 4.55
33
Table 1--Continued
Characteristii:s
Tenure status Own Rent Other Ne, respc,nse
Se>: of person completing form Male Female No response
O,:,:upaticin of person completing form Adrninistra tor, engineer, scientist,
teacher, creative artist Technica 1, clerica 1, or sa 1es posit ion Servii:e positions Non-working p,:,sition:
(student, retired, or Linemplccye,j)
Age of persc,n cornpleting form 1 S-24 25-:34 35-44 45-59 60 or older
People in household One Two Three Four Five or more
Annual incc,rne fc,r household 0-$14,999 $15,000-29,999 $20,000-4'3,999 $50,000 ::,r more
Number
30 68.18 12 27.27 1 2.27 1 2.27
31 70.46 9 20.46 4 9.09
23 ,:;''j ,,_ I
9 20.46 2 4,55
10 22.73
3 6.82 12 27.27 , 'j '._, 29.54 12 ,-,.-, •j/
..! I
4 9.09
2 4.55 17 38.64 :3 18.18
11 25.00 6 13.64
7 15.91 16 36.:36 16 36.36
,:: _, 11.36
34
responses in all age groupings, frc,m 16 to 60+, with fairlY even response numbers in
the 25-:34 group (32%), 35-44 grciup (21 %), and the 45-59 (25%) group. The largest
number of hc,usehc,lds consisted of ti .. .10 persons (39%). The largest prc,p,Jrtfon of
households had a total incc,me of $30.000-49,999 (34%), l.AJith the ne:d largest (29%)
having a ti::ita 1 household income of $15,000-29,999 .
. Of the upper unit respondents, 59% had visited a passive sol;ar unit
prevfousiY and 6% had at one time lived in a passive solar housing unit. The largest
group of visitors (45~4) m:ade their permanent heirne in Blacksburg. For most, the
housing unit in \~1hich theY lived was a singie-f.,HnilY detacr,ed structure (65%) 1.,.1h~ch
they 01.,med (68%). Most of tr1e persons completins the questfonnaire l.•.1ere male (70%)
and ,_.,iere ernploYed in prc,fessions included in U.S. Census gr·c;upings 10-34 (i.e.,
adrriinistratc,r, engineer, scientist, teacher, ,:reative artist, (52%),
respc,nses in a 11 age groupings, from 16 to 60+, i.AJith fairlY even resp,::inse numt,ers in
the 25-34 • group (27%), :35-44 grc,up (30%), and the 45-59 ,3roup (27%), The largest
pr,::,porticin of households consisted of h~10 pers,:,ns (39%), alth,:,ugh 25% had four
people in the current household. An equal percentage of hc,useholds had a t,:,t.31
inc,::,rne of $15,000-29,999 (36%) and $:30,000-49,999 (36%).
Statistical analysis indicated no significant differen,:e beb.1een
respondents for the upper and lower units for (a) a,3e, (b) se>i, (,:) ,:,ccupation, (d)
income level, (e) location of permanent residence, or (f) tenure status.
A profile c.f the typical visitor to the f,:,urple:,-: unit 1A1as a male, t_,.it-11:, c,.,med
a single-familY detached d~•.1elling in 81acksbur,3, Virginia. He \.AJas employed as .an
administratcr, engineer, scientist, teacr1er, or creative artist with a tc,tal
h,:iusehold incc,me of $30,000-49,000 to support b.~10 pecple.
35
Description c,f Resident :3ample
Thirteen persons were origina llY scheduled to be residents of The Hillside
Fourple>:, st-: females and seven males. Pre-,JccupancY questir::innaires 1_...,1er1:
c,btained froro ten--five fernales and five males. 1\•.10 potentia1 residents did nc,t
realize their intent to occupy and one failed to complete the questic,nnaire befc,re
c,ccupancy. The sample for the pretest, tr,erefc,re, consisted of ten· persons a11 of
whc,m • .. ,.,ere students at Virginia PolYtechnic Institute and State University and
ranged in age from 19-21. A break-do1,vn by units shov.,s: upper unit A, three
fema iesj upper unit B, three ·ma lesi loi.,.1er unit A, hiJ•J fema lesi .and lo"'ier unit B, b,-c,
males.
The sample for the first post-test included all those students 1.,.1ho
participated in the pretest. In additfon, questionnaires \•Jere cc,mpleted by_ tt,,,JC
females in upper unit A and one male in upper unit B, for a total C<f thirteen
residents. The sample for the second post-test \1Jas identic-31 to the sample for the
first post-test. Clc<sure intervie\AJS \AJere obtained \,.;itr, .all residents of the
Chapter V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter contains the ana1Ysis of Part I: Public Ac,:eptance cif The
Hillside Fourp1e>:, and the analYsis of Part II: User Satisfaction of The Hillside
Fourplex. Both sections present descriptive findings, e::-:aminatfon of the
hypotheses, and discussion. Part III: Evaluation of The Hillside Fourple>: con,:ludes
the chapter.
Part I: Public Acceptance of the Hillside Fourple:,-:
Public acceptance of the fourple::-: was assessed with the use of a self
administered questionnaire containing sections related to respondent's opinions of
Ca) e~derior characteristics, (b) interic,r characteristics (c) innovative features,
and (d) design decisions. In addition tr,e questionnaire contained a section for
c,btaining demc,graphic information.
E>(terior Characteristics
Descriptive AnaiYsis: E:-:aminatfon of the frequency distribution (see
Appendi>: C, p. l 06) indicated a general acceptance of the e::-:terior characteristics
of The Hillside Fourple:-:. Respondents replied in the ade9uate to very gc,od ran,3e on
all questions more than 73% of the time. The l01.~er scores were related to questionE;:.
concerning the adequacy of Yard for outdoor living space and access to the unit for
moving furr,iture. An e>:amination of the means for these questions confirmed the
respondents' acceptance of the e::-:terior features (see Table 2)j the mean fc,r the
question related to the overall opinion of the e:derior of the unit t..vas 3.65 of a
36
37
Table 2
Me.3n Scores for Visitc,rs: E:<terior Features
Feature N !'-•lean Standard Deviation
LOWER UNIT
General attractiveness of t,uilding 38 3.74 0.79 i..ocatfon c,f parking :36 3.75 0.80 Adequacy of Yard for outdoor living space :38 3.40 0.82 .Access to the unit
for dailY entry 37 3,95 0.74 for moving furniture 37 :3165 0.95
Security and safety from outsiders 37 3.81 0.81 Overall ,:,pinion of the e:derior of the unit 38 3.89 0.69
UPPER UNIT
General attractiveness of building 41 3.59 0.67 Location of parking 43 3.63 0.66 Adequacy of yard for outdoor living space 41 2.95 0.84 Access to the unit
for dailY entry 42 3.79 0.81 fc,r moving furniture 42 3.33 0,98
Security and safety from outsiders 43 3.58 0.73 Overall opinion of the e::-:terior of the unit 44 3.40 011:32
38
p:,ssible 5.0. On all items the mean 1•.1as lo\A.ier for the upper units than for the lm .. ier
units.
E>:amination of Hypothesis 1: There is nc, relationship beti.,.ieen the scores
for the overall opinion of the e:derior of the unit and the fc,1101 .. iing dem,:,graphii=
factors f,Jr visitors to the fourple>::
(a} age
Cb) se:,:
(c) occupation
(d) income level
(e) location of pennanent residence
(f) tenure status,
Separate calculations were made fclr lc,wer and upper hc,using units due t,:,
design variations in the units. The Pearsc,n product-rnoment c,:,rrelation 1.._ias
calculated to e:,:amine the relationship beb.•Jeen the average scc,re for questions
concerning spec:ific exterior characteristics and the questfon asking f,:,r ,:,verall
c,pinion of the exterfor of the unit. The correlation ,:,f tr,e average for ,::;uestic.ns
cc,ncernins the e:,-:terior ,Jf the unit and the question asking for overall opinfon of
the e>:terior of the unit 1.AJas 0.66j this i.._1as ac,:epted as high since respc,nses were
limited to onlY five ,:a tegories for over a 11 opinic,n of the e:,-:terior. Therefore, U-,e
average ,:,f specific characteristics 1..vas used to test the null hypothesis for a more
po1AJerful .:1nalYsis (Hinkle, Wiersma .~, Jurs, 1979). One 1.•JaY .an.:11Ysis of varian,:e
(ANOVA) 1_._1as used t,J e;-:amine the relationship beti_..ieen opiniccn of the e>:teric<r and
age, in,:ow,e level, lcccation of permanent residenca1 .:1nd tenure status !,_1hile a
t-test ,.,ias used to e>:amine the relatfonship behveen c,pinion of the e::-:terior .:1nd
both occupation and se:,-:. Linear trends 1_..1ere e>:amined f 1:ir age, inc,:,me level, and
location of permanent residen,:e. No statistical signifi,:ance 1 .• .1as fc:,und for a-3e,
39
sex, occupation, income level, location of permanent residence, 1-:ir tenure status in
either the lo~•Jer or upper unit analysis (see Table 3 & 4). Therefore, the null
hypothesis ~A.las not rejected.
Interfor Ch-3racteristics
Descriptive Ana1Ysis: E}:amination of the frequency distribution (see
Appendi>: C, p, 107) indicated a general acceptance of the interior characteristics
of The Hillside Fc,urp1e:=<, Respondents replied in the adequate to very good range en
all questions 72% of the time. The high scores for the lo~•ier unit were con,:erned
with the amount of natural light in the living/dining area, the arrangement c,f the
rooms and the traffic patterns. The lo1•1er scores for the lc<1.AJer unit ,._iere concerned
,._iith the size c,f the living roc,m and bath, ade9uacY c,f spa,:e for furniture
placement in the living room, storage for seasc,nal items, and amount ,Jf n.3t'.Jral
light in the bedrooms. The higher scores frir the upper unit ,._1ere c,:rncerned with the
amount of natural light in the living/dining area, the kitchen, and the upper living
room. The kMer scores for the upper unit t•.iere related tc, •:iuestfons cc,n,:erning the
size of the lot .. ier living rc,om and dining area, adequacy i:::if space for furniture
placement in the lower living rc,orn, storage for seasonal itew,s, -~nd 1,..1or!-::-manship.
An e:-:amination c,f the means for these quest ic,ns ccnfirms the respc,ndents'
.3cceptance of the interior features (see Table 5)i the mean fc,r the questfon
related to the c,verall opinion of the interior of the unit \A.ias 3.89 ,:,fa possible 5.0.
f.::,r the overall opinion of the interfor of the unit and the fi:11101,..iing demographic
factors for visitors to the fourple:,{:
(a) age
(b) se:,-:
(c) occupation
40
Table 3
Ana lYsis of Variance of Over-311 Opinion of E:derior of Unit and Oemogr.3phic Factors of Visitors
Factor Source of Sum of Degree Mean F Variance Squares Freedom Square
LOWER UNIT Age
Sehveen 0.24 4 0.06 0.1 "3 Within 10.44 ·j':)
"-J-.J 0.32 Linear trend 0.00 1 0.01
Incc,me Level Bett.AJeen 1 .03 3 0.35 1.15 Within 09.27 31 0.30 Linear trend 0.45 1.50
L,:ica t ion of permanent residence
8eh ... 1een 0.33 3 0.11 0.37 Within 10.35 34 0,30 Linear trend 0.18 , 0.59 0.4S
Tenure status 8eh,1een 0.41 2 0.2i 0.71 Within 10.27 35 0.29
UPPER UNIT Age
Bett.•Jeen 1.06 4 n .,..-_ ...... o 0.81 Within 12.68 :39 0.33 Linear trend 0.12 1 0.38
Income Leve 1 Between 0.24 3 0.08 0.24 Within 13.50 40 0.33 Linear trend 0.21 0.62
Lc,cation of permanent residence
Between 0.35 3 0.12 0.33 Within 13.14 38 0.35 Linear trend 0.10 , 0.30
Tenure status Bet~ ... ,een 0.06 2 0.2:3 0.08 Within 13.39 40 0.33
Probability Level
0.94
0.93
0.34
0.23
0.78
0.50
0.53
0.54
0.87
0.44
0.80
0.59
0.92
Variable
LOWER UNIT -:>~.::, ... , ·--·,
Male Female
Occupation Category 1 Category 2
UPPER UNIT Se>~
Male Female
Occupation Category 1 Category 2
41
Table 4
Mean Rating for Overail Opinic:,n ,:,f E>:terfor of the Unit and Demographic F~dors
N Mean Difference In Means
26 3.7833 11 3.5151 -0.2682
19 3. 7175 19 3.7140 -0.0035
31 3.4736 9 3.4814 0.0078
23 3.3876 21 3.5556 0.1680
Probability Level
0.17
0.98
0.97
0.33
Note: Category 1 = occupations included in U.:3. Census Groupings 10-34 Category 2 = all other occupations
42
Table 5
Mean Score fc,r Visitors: Interi,:,r Features
Feature N Mean Standard Deviation
LOWER UNIT
Size of rooms 1iving room :38 2.89 0.56 dining area 38 :3.29 0.98 kitchen 38 :3.21 0.93 bedrooms 38 3.05 0.46 bath 38 4.24 2.32
Adequacy of space for furniture placement in living room 38 3.26 0.98 in dining area 38 3.63 0.85 in bedri::ioms 38 3.71 0.77
Arrangement of the rooms 38 4.05 0.66. Traffic patterns \AJithin the unit 37 4.05 0.66 Adequacy i:1f storage
in the kitchen 37 3.91 0.89 in the bedrooms 37 3.68 0.85 for seasonal items :36 3.03 0.94
Privacy for residents frcim others in the apartment 37 3.65 0.95 from others in the fourple>: 37 3.89 0.74 from outside noises 35 3.91 0.74
Amount of natural light in living/dining area 38 4.53 0.51 in kitchen 38 4.15 0.89 in bedrc,o,ns 38 3.55 1.08
Location of laundry 30 3.50 0.90 Wc,rkmanship 38 3.60 0.79 Over a 11 c,pinion of interior of the unit 38 3.89 0.95
43
Tat,le 5--C,:mtinued
Feature
UPPER UNIT
Size of rooms lm,1.1er living room dining area kit,:hen bedroc,ms baths upper living roc,m
Ade•=iuacY c.f space for furniture placement in lo\,1.1er living roc:irn in dining area in bedrooms in upper living roorn
Arrangement of the rooms Traffic: p.atterns 1,1.1ithin the unit Adequacy of storage
in the kitchen in tr,e bedrooms for seasQnal iterns
Privacy for residents frc,m others in the apartment from others in the fourplex fr,::,rr1 outside noises
,C..m,:,unt of natural ligM in living/dining area in kitchen in bedrc,oms in upper 1iving rc,om
Loca b:m of laundry Workrnanship Overall opinion c,f interior ,::,f the unit
N
44 44 44 44 44 44
43 44 44 42 44 43
4" ·'-
42
42 41 40
44 44 44 41 33 43 44
Mean
3,20 3.23 3.27 3.36 3.09 3.91
3.12 3.29 3.77 3.98 3.77 3.76
3.29 :3.51 3.35
3.55 3.93 3. 70
,1 r:-, "'1' • ._I I
4.30 3.98 4.46 3.51 3.44 3.89
Standard Deviation
1.23 1.17 0.87 0.87 1.23 1.58
0.76 0.70 0.71 0.81 0.77 0.61
0.74 0.67 o.:35
0.97 o. 71:f 0.72
0.62 0.73 o. 73 0.67 0.67 0.98 0.65
44
(d) income level
(e) lo,:ation of permanent residence
(f) tenure status.
Separate calculations were made for lo\•.Jer and upper housing units due tc,
design variations in the units. The Pearson prc,duct-mc,ment correlation \•Jas
calculated to e::-(amine the relationship between the average scc,re for questions
concerning specific e:derior characteristics and the question asking fc,r over.=111
,:,pinion of the e>:terfor of the unit. The correlatfon c,f the avera,3e for questions
concerning the e>(tericr of the unit and the 9uestfon asking for overall c,pinion ,:::f
the e:deric,r of tt-,e unit was O. 74i this \•.las accepted as high since responses 1_..1ere
limited tc, ,:inly five categories for over a 11 c,pinion of the e:,deric,r. Therefore, tt-;e
average t.>Jas used to test the nun hYpc,thesis for a more pc,11-.1erful analYsis (Hinkle,
wiersma & Jurs, 1979). One \•.,aY ana lYsis of variance (ANOVA) 1.-.,as used to e>(amine
the relationst-,ip t,etween opinion of the e>:terior and age, income level, focatfon ,:if
permanent residence, and tenure status 1.,,hile a t-test was used to e>,:aroine the
relaticinship between c,pinion c,f the e;<terfor and both occupation and se:,-:. ~fo
statistical significance 1.•Jas found for age, se>:, occupatfon, in,:c,rile level, locatfon
c,f permanent r~siden,:e, er tenure status in either the lo\ .. ,er or upper unit .analYsis
(see Table 6 & 7). Therefore, the null hypothesis ,.,.,as neit rejected.
Innovative Features
Descriptive Analysis: E:,-:aminatfon of the frequency distribution (see
Appendt-: C, p, 109) indkated a general acceptance of the innc,\Jative features of
The Hillside Fourple:=•'., Respondents replied in the sc,me\AJhat .a,:ceptabie to definitely
acceptable ran•3e on all questions ·more than 57% of the time and responses t1 • .1ere in
the neutral tc, definitelY acceptable range ,:m all questions more than 75% of the
tin-,e. The highe:t scores 1.>Jere related t,::i the .arrangement of daytime :-pa,:es,
45
Table 6
Analysis of Variance of Opim,:m of Intericir Features of Unit and Oemc,graphic Factors cif Visit,:,rs
Fador S,:,urce of Sum c,f Degree of Mean F Variance Squares Freedom S9uare
LOWER UNIT Age
Behveen 0.11 4 0.03 0.10 Within 8.97 33 0.27 Line.ar trend 0.00 1 0.01
Income Level Between 1 .08 3 0.36 1.45 Within 7.72 31 01 'jC:'
'•"--'
Linear trend 0.05 1 0.05 0,18 Loe at fon of permanent
residence Between 1.43 3 0.48 ·? , ,
'-• I J
Within 7.66 34 0.23 Linear trend 0.03 l 0.14
Tenure status BehAJeen 0.04 ·? ... 0.02 0.07 Within .9.05 35 0.26
UPPER UNIT Age
Between 1.04 4 0.26 i .43 Within 7.15 39 0.18 Linear trend 0.14 0.76
In•=orne Level BehAJeen 0.39 :3 0.13 0.67 Within 7.80 40 0.20 Linear trend 0.26 1.:36
Lc,cation of permanent residence
Bett .. .1een 0.60 3 0.20 l .01 Within 7.55 -:,o
._11-1 0.20 Linear trend 0.32 1.61'
Tenure status 8eti.,.1een 0.55 2 0.2!3 1.50 within 7.34 40 0.18
Probability Level
0.98
01t93
0.25
0.67
0.12
0.71
0.93
0,24
0.39
0.58
0.25
0.40
II ,;1 :_, 11,,. 1
0.23
Variable
LO\,,/ER UNIT Se::-{
Male Female
Occupatic,n Category 1 Cate,3orY 2
UPPER UNIT ~3e::-{
Male Female
Occupation Category 1 Category 2
46
Table 7
Mean Rating for Over.311 Opinicrn cd Interfor of the Unit and Oernographic Factc,rs
N Mean Difference In Means
26 3.6906 11 3.8955 0.2049
19 3. 7155 19 3.80:39 0.0:384
31 3.7485 9 3.7062 -0.0423
23 3.6984 21 3.7763 0.0779
Pr,:,babilitY Level
0.26
0.59
0.81
0.56
Note: Category 1 = c,ccupations included in U.S. Census Groupin•3s 10-34 Category 2 = all c,ther occupations
47
sc,uthern windo1.AJs with adjustable shades and singular· plumbing 1.<Jall. The lo1A1est
score was related to the use of concrete blcick for interfor 1•.1alls in the lo1A1er unit
(20% neutrali 57% some1AJhat to definitelY unacceptable). An e:,-arninatfon of the
means f,::ir these questions confirms the resp,::indents' acceptance of the innovative
features in that values ranged from 3.3 to 4.5 on a scale c,f 1 (definitelY
unacceptable) to 5 (definitelY acceptable). (See Table 8,)
E:,-:arnination of HYpothe-=.is 3: There is no re1atfonship betv,1een the scc,res
for the overall c,pinion of the innov.ative features of the unit .and the fol101 .• _;ing
demc,graphic factors f,:,r visitors to the fc,urple>::
(.a) age
(b) se:,-:
(c) occupation
(d) income level
(e) location of pennanent residence
(f) tenure status.
The average score for questions concerning the inn,;:;vative features c.f the
unit 1-.ias used ti::i test the nu11 hypothesis. Separate cakulations ,_..1ere made for
101.AJer and upper housing units due to design variations in the units. One ,.,iaY
analYsis of variance (ANOVA) 1 .... ,as used to e>:arriine the relationship beti ... ,een c,pinion
of the e)-:terior and age, income level, k":ation c,f permanent residence, and tenure
status VJhile a t-test was used to examine the relatfonship bet\,.ieen ,:,pinfon c,f the
e:derior and both c,cc:upatfon and se>=:. Linear trends \•Jere e:,{amined fc,r age, incc,rne
level and k<cation c,f permanent residence.
No statistical significance v . .1as found f.:;r a•:ie, se::-::, oc:cupatic<n, in,:,Jme
level, local fon ,:if permanent residence or tenure status in either the k<,,.1er ,:,r upper
unit analYsis. Therefc,re, tr1e nu11 hypotriesis t..,1as not rejected. (See T.3t,1e '3 & 10.)
48
Table 8
Mean S,=ores for Visitc,rs: Inncvative Features
Feature
LOltJER UNIT F,:,urple;-: format Daytime spaces arranged to utilize sc,lar
energy for 40% of space he.ating South 1,vindo\AJS \•.iith adjustable shades Ornissfon of ea st and \"1est windc•\•JS Clustering of baths and kitchens
on one plumbing ,.>Ja 11 Pian included lower unit set intc, site Use of concrete block frir inter for \._;alls Support fk<ors of 3" concrete on steel
N
34
36 35
35 33 35
decking supported bY l ":,d O"s on 3'centers 36 Corrugated roof on continuous woc,den
purlins to eliminate conventfonal rafter/truss/sheathing systern
Integration of a building system that eliminated over 1 /2 of the structural material usually required
UPPER UNIT Fc,urple:,: f,:,rrnat Daytime spaces arranged to utilize solar
energy for 40% of sp.ace heating South wind,JtAJS 1,1.,Jith adjustable shades Omission of east and •.,1.,1est ,.,.iindm•.1s Clustering of baths .and kitchens
on one plumbing • .. •.1a ll Plan included ko\1Jer unit set into site Use of concrete block for interfor \._1alls Support floors of 3" concrete on steel
:36
36
44 44 44
44 43 44
decking supported by 1 ";-:1 O"s on 3'centers 44 C,:,rrugated roof ,:,n cc,ntinuous v-.ic,oden
purlins to eliminate conventional rafter/truss/sheathing system
Inte•3ratic,n of a building system th.at eliminated ,:,ver 1 /2 of the structura 1 material usua11Y re•::iuired 44
1'11ean
4.41
4.64 4.57 4.08
4.77 4.09 3.63
3.33
3.97
4.58
4.11
4.50 4.48 4.05
4.43 3.90 3.95
4.11
:3.95
4.20
Standard Deviation
0.78
0.64 0.65 1.08
0.42 0.77 1.21
0.76
0.97
0.60
0.89
0.66 0.59 0.83
0.70 1.00 1.10
0.99
1.02
0.95
49
Table 9
Ana1Ysis of Variance for Opiriic,n of Innovative Features of Unit and Demographic Factors of Visitors
Factor Source of Sum of Degree of Mean F Variance Squares Freedom Square
LOWER UNIT Age
Between 1 .79 4 0.45 2.11 Within 6.56 31 0.21 Linear trend 1.07 1 5.08
Income Level Betl.,een 0.06 .3 0.02 0.09 Within 6.94 29 0,24 Linear trend 0.00 1 0.01
Location of permanent residence
Behveen 0.69 3 0,23 0.96 within 7.65 2:2 0.24 Linear trend 0.39 1 1.64
Tenure status Between 0.38 2 0.19 0.79 within 7.96 33 0.24
UPPER UNIT Age
8etit . .1een 1.85 4 0.46 1.35 Within 13.35 39 0.34 Linear trend 0.77 1 ..,. ..,.,
'-•"-1
Income Level 8ett..veen 0,50 3 0.17 G.45 Within 14.70 40 0.37 Linear tr 1:nd 0.27 1 0.73
Lc1cation of permanent residence
Between 0.20 3 0.07 0.18 Within 14.66 38 0.39 Linear trend .0.07 1 0.18
Tenure status Between 0.54 2 0.27 0.75 within 14.34 40 0.36
Probability Level
0.10
0.03
0.96
0,92
0.42
0.20
0.46
0.27
0.14
C.72
0.40
0.91
0.68
0.4:3
Variable
LOWER UNIT Se::-{
Male Female
Occupation Categc,rY 1 Category 2
UPPER UNIT Se~<
Male Female
Occupation Categc,ry 1 Categc,rY 2
so
T3ble 10
f•.•1ean Rating fc,r Overall Opinfon of Innc,vative Features of the Unit and Demc,graphic: Factc,rs
N Mean Difference In Means
25 4,2987 10 4.2~356 -0.01 37
18 4.3105 1 ·~ ·-· 4.3129 0.0024
31 4.0921 9 4.4889 0.3968
23 4.0850 21 4.2640 0.1790
Probability level
0.94
0.99
0.07
0.32
Nc.te: Categc,ry 1 = occupations included in U.S. Census Gr,:,upinss 10-34 Category 2 = all c,ther oc,:upatfons
51
Response to Design Decisions
Descriptive analysis of the •:iuestfons 11-.1hich requested the responder,ts tc,
indicate hm .. I theY would !-!ave allocated fun,js and sp:~ce generallY indicated suppc,rt
of the desi•3ner's decisic,ns. For the questi0ns concerned with the alfocations o-f
·monies, 50% c,r more of the repondents indicated they would have spei7t the s.3.rne
amount as the designer (see Table 11 ). Hm,1ever, more than 18% 1_.,;ould have spent
·more c,n \AJindc,1.,.1s and wind0t.,.1 treatments; rnore than 30% (29->t.:, k<1.-.1er uniti 32% upper
unit) 1_..1ould have spent more on finish ·materials. Fecr the •=iue::tions r-:lated tc, the
designer's decisic,ns •.,.iith the one e::<cepticn: (47%) size of the loft (see Table 12).
Descriptive ana lYsis of the questi<:,ns ,.,.it-:ic:h e:,<amir,ed the desire ::;f the
respc,ndents to live in a sirni~-3.r unit or have a similar unit located in their
neighborhoc,d generallY indicated a favorable response tc, the fc,urple::< unit. J\•1..:,re
than 80% of the respondents \•Jould want to live in a similar unit if sized for their
fa milY. More than 70% t.AJould choc,se tc, ha v-: a si-rnila r unit foca ted in their
nei•3hborhood if sized for ,::inly one famiiY (see Appendi::: C, p. 110).
Descriptive .3na1Ysis of tr,e ,:ost for ,:ontrc,1 of tt-:e heating .3.nd c•:«Jling
manual control. An additional 22% wc,uld have spent nc, more than ten dollars 2>itr.;.
per month (see Appendi:,-: C, p, 11 CU.
Oiscussic,n
There was a general acceptance of the f2atures and characteristics of
52
T_abie 17
Visitors' Opinion fc,r A 11ci,:a t ion of M,:,nies
Feature No Spent Less Response %
LOWER UNIT (N=3:3)
l,vindcH•.1s ,1, t .. iind,:,t.,, treatment 6 Mechanic:al heat systems 7 tvlechanic:al ventilation system 7 Insuiation 7 Structural ·materials 5 Finish materials 6
UPPER UNIT (t--J=44)
WindO\•.lS i, v.iindo,,...1 treatment Mechanical heat systems Mechanical ventilatfon system Insu lat i,'.Jn Structural materials Finish ma teria 1s
4 3 4
4 •j ..
0.00 2.63 7.90 o.oo 0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OG 0.00
Spent :3ame %
65.79 76.32 60,53 65.79 7:3.68 50.00
70,46 :31.:32 88.64 81 irE:2 86.:36
Ni:,te: Percentages may not total 100% due to missing respi:,nses.
Spent mi:,re %
1:3.42
1:3.16 15.79 13.16 28.95
20.46 9.09 2.27 9.09 4.54
53
Table 12
Visitors' Opinion for Allocation of Space
Room/area No Omit Smaller S.3.me Larger Change Response % % % % Floors
LOWER UNIT (N=38)
KitcJ-ien 4 o.oo 10.53 73.68 5.26 o.oo Dining Area 4 2.63 13.16 71.05 2.63 o.oo Living room 4 0.00 2.63 55.26 31.57 0.00 Bedroom #1 4 .o.oo 2.63 73.68 13.16 o.oo Bedroom #2 4 .o.oo 10.53 71.05 7.90 o.oo Bath 4 0.00 o.oo 68.42 21.05 0.00
UPPER UNIT CN=44)
i<itc:hen 6 o.oo 6.82 68.18 S.82 o.oo Dining area 8 o.oo .9.09 63.64 9.09 0.00 Lot.AJer living room 7 6.82 4.55 56.82 13.63 .o.oo Lower bedroom #1 7 0.00 ,D.00 79.55 4.55 15.91 Lower bedroom #2 7 0.00 -2.27 79.55 2.27 o.oo Lower bath 8 0.00 2.27 63.64 18.18 0.00 Upper living room 8 2.27 .9.09 68.18 2.27 0.00 Upper bedroom #3 8 o.oo 2.27 72.73 6.81 o.oo UF•Per bedroom #4 7 0.00 4.54 72.73 4.54 0.00 Upper bath 9 o.oo 0.00 61.36 22.73 0.00 Loft area 6 4.54 2.27 47.73 25.00 o.oo
Note: Percentages may not. total 100% due to missing respc,nses.
54
analYsis, to determine which factors were import.:1nt in determining satisfaction,
was not advisable.
Although the demographic characteristics c,f the visitc,rs did not
necessarily indicate a homogenous group, Roger's (1 '371) w,:,rk indicates that earlY
I-mowers of an innovation share certain characteristics 1>.1hich were also e::-:hibited
by the visitor group. More than half of this group are in professional occupatic,ns,
thereby, indicating higher levels of edu,=atfon, higher social status, and possiblY a
more cosmopolitan attitude. It is also conceivable, that this group ~•Jould have had
more e::-:posure to both mass media and interpersonal channels of comr11unication,
and would have greater opportunities for social participation. It maY be that
visitors to the open house composed an hc,mogenous grc,up of earlY kno1.AJers and that
this accounts for the similarities in responses. The adoption or rejection of an
innovation occurs at an individual level in a prc,cess referred tc, in Roger's ,,.iork as
innovation-decision process. The process includes a11 ·mental processes frc,m first
ai .. ,areness c,f the innovation, through the decision to adopt or reject, to
confirmation of the decision. It .. ,ould seem reasonable that visitors to the fourp1ex
could have been involved in the innovation-decision and thus seeking inf,:,rrnatic,n to
assist in either making or confirming their decision,
Rapoport (l 969) found housing satisfaction t .. ,as influenced by a series of
factors including but not limited to engineering, social: behavi,:1ral, cultura1, and
material factors. He also determined (1981]) that in c,rder to be satisfactc,rY
hc,using must be congruent tAJith the lifestyle, desires, and irnages of its users in
ti-,at various cc,mpc,nents of envirc,nmental quality are matched against their images
.:1nd schemata. Soen (1979) found housing satisfacticcn to be a functfon of a set of
interrelated factors. The findings of this study , .... ,ou1d seem to suppc,rt the
cc,ntention that satisfaction is based c,n a series of interreiated factors (if
55
acceptance is interpreted as satisfaction). Ho\AJever, further 1.AJork is necessary in
order to differentiate these factors. In th.at visitors were quite accepting of the
features addressed by the study, it would seern that the fourple>: matched visitors
i·mages and schemata of acceptable housing quality.
Visitors were, in general, accepting of the e>:terior features of the
fourple>:, The major problem reported \AJith the e>:terior of the unit \AJas the
adequacy of the Yard for outdoor living space, and access to the unit for moving
furniture. Since the grading \•Jas incomplete and the parking facilities 1,1.1ere not
designated at the time of the open house, perhaps these responses c-Em be
understoc,d as stemming from incomplete infonnation.
The lack of agreement for designating probler.-1 areas fc,r upper and lo1 .• _1er
units probablY resulted from variations in the plan of the units (see Figure 1 ).
Storage of seasonal items and the amount of natural light in the bedroc,·ms were
seen as less than adequate in the lower unit, as was the size of the living rc,om and
bath and the adequacy of space for furniture placement in the living roc,m. Since
tt-,e unit is set into the site thus placing the 1.•.iindows belo1A; grade, perhaps the
concern for light in the bedrooms can be readilY ,:omprehended. The living morn is
not a separate area in that it functions -3S .an entry area and as an access area
for the private areas in the apartment; in addition there is onlY ,::ine 1•.1a1l 1,,.1hich is
suitable for furniture placement. It would seer11 reasonable to assume tl"iese factors
influenced visitors' dissatisfaction with this space. The concern with storage and
bath size is less easi1Y understood. There is a ·1arge storage cl,::iset in additfon to
the bedroom closets. Perhaps visitors were ,:cmcerned 1.AJith the lack c,f stc,rage f,::ir
"outside items" such as bicycles, tires or grills, or \AJith access to the closet, since
the door opens into the living roorn. The bath wc,u1d seem to be adequate in size for
two people and is 1~Jithin the average size range fc,r rental apartments in the
56
Blac!-::sbur•3 area. Problern areas for the upper unit included t.;orkmanship, stora;e
of seasonal items, and the size c,f the lot .. ier living and dining areas as \•.Jell as
adequacy of space for furniture placement in the fot•Jer living roorn, The cQn,:ern
\>Jith 1 .• ,orkmanship maY be related tc, the fact that neither the dry\,._1all finishing
(several -rriiss-cuts were Yet tc, be patched and nail-pops 1A1ere in eviden,:e) n,:,r the
kitchen cabinet installation \•Jas complete at the tirne of the open house. The living
rc,orr, area serves as access to the dining-kitchen area and has only one 1A1al1 for
furniture placement. This may have influenced visitor's c,pinions c,f the .ade•:iua,:Y o:,f
the space. The dining area is not separate frc,m either the living c,r kitchen space
and cc,uld be rather ,:ramped if c,ccupants had a serving piece in additi<::,n to a tab1e
and four or more chairs. Visit,:,rs may have been anticipating this problem or
rejecting the "great roc,m" con,:ept. Storage for seasonal items is mc,re difficult to
understand since there is a closet in the entry, in addition to space under the
stairs and a storage area adjacent to the lc,ft. Perhaps these areas were not
evident to visitors or they f,::,und .access difficult fc,r ,:,utdoor iterns.
Visitors 1.AJere •=iuite accepting of the innc,vative features; the onlY prc,blem
area 1.,,as the use of cc,ncrete block for tr,e interi::cr .. ,alls of the k<\~1er unit. The
builder stacked the block vertically in an attempt to improve aesthetics rather
than using a staggered placement. It cannot be determined •~1hetr1er vis"itors f,:,und
the block to be visuallY non-pleasing or if they perceived a functional prc,blem \AJith
a b1,::,ck \AJall.
Visitor satisf.3ction may have been a result of their e:,-:pe,:t.:ation that The
Hillside Fourp1e::-: 1,•.1ould in fact be energy and cost efficient. This per,:ept ic,n of the
unit cc,uld have affected their evaluatfon if energy and ,:,:,st savings 1.,1ere hi•;hW
valued bY the visitors. It is c:,::ir.,:eivabl:2 they ,..._iere mc,re accepting c,f the design
57
features then they might have been if they had not ;:,erceiv~d the ber,efits p,nsible
in terms of ener•.aY -and cost savings,
Perhaps tt-1e most revealing respc,nses indicated that more than 80% ,:.f the
visitors would choose to live in a similar unit if sized for their family and mc,re
than 89% would choose tc, have a similar unit in their neighborhood if sized ·for only
one familY, These resp,Jnses would so:em to indicate a general .3.c,:eptance of the
features and characteristics of the h,,using unit.
Part !I: User S:t~sfacb:m cif tt-.e Hillside =ourole:,<
User satisfadion of the fourple}( 1,vas assessed with tt-,e use c,f a self
administered questionnaire containing sectfons related to resident's opinfons of (a)
e;-:terior characteristics, (b) interior characteristics (,:) innovative features, an,j
(d) design decisions. This questionnaire was ·= modification of the one us-::d tc,
assess public acceptance of the f,,urple:;.: l.\lith a section added to report the
ranking of each jtem on a bi-,)olar, important-not important measure. The
questionnnaire was administered three times, first as a pretest (t,efore
occupancy), second as an initial post-test (after four tJJeeks c,f occup.;;ncy), and
fina llY as .3 second post-test (after 20 \ ... 1eeks of ,,ccupar,cY), In .-a,:2dib:in, ,:1osure
intervie,.1Js 1Aiere .:rbtained tJJith the residents rJf each unit.
E::terior Characteristics
Descriptive: Analysis: E>:amination of the frequency distributions for tt-,e
pretest, first post-test, and second post-test indicated a ,;eneral s.-at~sfactfon
58
the residents rated the importance of the features included on the questionnaire
with a value c,f three or mc,re (see Appendix D, p.116). An e:,-:.3mination c,f the -rne.3n
scores indicated residents considered the e:,-:terior features to range frc,m neutral
(3.4) to very important (4.5) on the imp,::irtance s,:.3le and also indicated
satisfaction t.AJith the e:,-:terior features ranged from neutral (3.2) tc, very satisfied
(4.7) on the· satisfaction scale. In additfon, values tended to increase for bc,th
imp,::irtance ratir:•35 and satisfai:tion ratings frorn tr1e initial test to the secc,nd
post test (see Appendi:,< D, p, 117).
A matri:,-: 1.AJas created to combine the responses to the un"imp,::irtant
important and the dissatisfied-satisfied rankings (see Figure 3). With a r.,rnge of 0
(dissatisfied tAiith an important feature) t,::i 12 (satisfied \~iith an imp,:,rtant
feature), ·more than 70% of the residents generated a s,:c,re of s.i>: or greater for
the question tAihich requested a rating for the overall opinfon c,f the e>:terior of tr,e
• unit (see Appendh: D, p.120). In addition, the sc,::ires increased iAiith ea,:h
adrninistration of the test.
Statistical Analysis: Hypothesis 4 1.,.ias e>:arnined fc,r user satisfadfon :.,Jith
the e:-:terior of the unit:
Hypothesis 4: There is no difference in the 1_,._1eighted mean scores f,::ir
satisf.3ction ,:if the e>:teric<r of the unit in the follm,_iing test peric,ds:
a) Pretest and first pc,st-test
b) First pc,st-test and secc,nd pc,st-test
c:) Pretest and second p,:,st-test.
Pa.ired t-tests 1.AJere used to test the hYP•Jthesis a•;ainst the alternative =1t
an alpha level c,f .05. The matri;-: value combining respcmses for Lmirnpc,dant-
important and ,jissatisfied-satisfied rankings 1.-,,as used to ,:c,mpute the 1•.1ei9hted
·mean scc,re for each feature e>:a·mined. Significant differences t,,1ere fs:,un,:l an,j
IMPORTANT
5
4
3
2
1.iNIMPORT ANT
59
TISF!EQ
2 3 4
C 3 e 9
3 6 9
2 4 a e
3 5 e 7
4 5 6 7
Figure :3 Unimportant-Imp,Jrtant/Dissa tisfied-Sa t ~sfied Ma tri>t
5
12
11
10
9
e
60
therefore the null hypotheses 4 and 6 i_....1ere not rejected (see T:~ble 13). Mean va 1ues
cc,nsistentlY improved l~iith each administration c.,f the test (7.89 t,:, 8.83 to 9.43).
Differences 1,,..1ere significant for bc,th pretest to first post-test and pretest tc:,
second post-test indicating visitc,rs' opinions c,f the ei-:terior c,f the unit improved
during these t v,10 t irne periods.
Interfor Characteristi,s
Descriptive Analysis: fa(.amination c,f the fre•:iuencY distribution indicated a
,3eneral s.atisfaction with the interior characteristics of the Hillside Fourple:,-:.
Using a L ikert type scale of one (dissatisfied) to five (satisfied, 60% of the
residents rated their satisfactiC<n of the interim· features 1,._1ith a value c,f three or
rric,re, \1Jith the e:-:ceptiC<n c,f paint, laundry, comfortable \•.!'inter ternperature,
absence c,f drafts, and \~1orkmanship (see Appendi::-: D, p.121 ). Using a L ikert type
scale c.,f one (unimpc.,rtant to five (important), 60% or m,:,re of tr,e residents rated
the importance of the features inc1uded c.,n the 9uestfonnaire \1Jith a value of three
,:,r more (see Appendi::-( D, p.126). An e:,-:amination of the mean scores (see Appendi::-:
0, p. 131) indicated the residents considered the interior features to range from
neutral (3.4) to very import.ant (4.8) on the importance scale. Satisfa,:h::in ,.,iith tr,e
interior fe3tures ranged frcrrn neutral (3.1) to very satisfied (5,0) ,:,n the
satisfaction scale, (see Appendi:,-: D, p, 133) i,vith the e>:c2ptfon c,f painted i.,.1alls,
comfortable te·mperatures1 temperature uniformity in i,vinter, absence of drafts and
,AJorkmanship (2.3 t,::i 3.0). The mean score fi:,r convenient trash disp,::isal dr,:,pped
from the pretest (3.2) to the first pc,st-test (2.9) but dirnbed ,,.iith the second pcist-
test (3.6).
A matri:,{ i .• .1as created to ,:,::irnbine the resp,:inses to the unirnportant-
important and the dissatisfied-satisfied rankings (see Figure 3). \v1ith a range of 0
(dissatisf"ied i.,;ith an important feature) t,::i 12 (satisfied ,,,.1ith :rn irnportar.t
61
Table 13
Mean Rating for Opinion of E>:terior Features of The Hillside Fourple>:
Variable N Mean Difference Standard In Means Deviation
HYPOTHESIS 4 Pretest iO 7.886 First Pc,st-test 13 8.837 1,045 1.347
First Post-test 13 8,837 Secc,nd Post-test 13 9.429 0,592 1.438
·Pretest 10 7.886 Second Post-test 13 8,837 1.414 1.240
Note: Difference in means may not equal subtracted value due to differences in sample sizes.
Significance Level
p(.05
non-sig,
p(.01
62
feature), more than 90% of the residents ·;;enerated a score of si::-: or greater for
the question which requested a r2ting for the overall op~nion cf the i:1terior ,:f the
unit (see Appendi>: D, p, 138). Hcn .. iever, the sccres declined 1.,.iith each administration
of the test.
Statistical AnalYsis: Hypc,thesis 5 ~•.ias e:,<arnined for user satisfaction t.•.iith
the intericir of the unit:
Hypothesis 5: Thete is nc, difference in the \,-1.Jeighted mean scc,res for
satisfaction of the interfor of the unit in the follo~-.iing test pericids:
a) Pretest and first post-test
b) First post-test and secc,nd post-test
c) Pretest and seccn~d post-test.
Paired t-test 1.-.iere used to test the hypothesis a•;ainst the alternative at
an a lph.a level of .05. The matri~-: value cornbining respc,nses fr,r unirripc,rtant-
important and dissatisfied-satisfied rankings , . ..,as used tci cc,mpute the ,,.,1eighted
mean score for each interior feature e:,,:amined. ~.Jo significant differences 1,,.iere
found and therefore the null hypc,theses were not rejected (see Table 14).
Innov~tive Features
Des,:riptive .AnalYsis: E:,-:amination of the frequency distributfon indicated a
general satisfaction tAiith the innovative features c,f The Hillsii:ie Fourple:,-i. Using a
Likert type scale of one (dissatisfied) to five (satisfied), 69% of the residents
rated their satisfactii::in c,f these features i . .,1ith a value c,f three ,::ir more (see
Appendi:,-: D, p.145). Using a Likert type scale of c,ne (unirnpc,rtant) tc, five
(i'mp,::irtant), 72% of the residents rate,j the impc,rtance of the features included en
the questic,nnaire 1.A.iith a value of three ,jr more (see Appendi>: 0, p. 146). .An
e>:amin.ation of the mean scores indicated residents found the inn,)vative features
to be generallY neutral to very import.ant (values c,f 2,:3 to 4,5) t.•.iith ,,,.1all
63
Table 14
Mean Rating f,:ir Opinic<n of Interfor Features of The Hillside Fc,urple:<
Variable N Mean Difference Standard In Means Deviatfon
HYPOTHESIS 5 Pretest 10 8.640 First Post-test 13 8.295 -0.502 1.295
First Pc,st-test 13 8.295 Secc,nd Pc,st-test 13 8.683 o.:388 1.567
Pretest 10 8.620 Secc,nd Post-test 13 8.683 -0,218 "'I ., r::--
} • I._,!;)
Note: Difference in means may not equal subtracted value due to differences in sample sizes.
Significance Level
non-sig.
n,:in-sig.
n,:in-s"ig.
64
construction of rough satAJn l "::-:6" studs placed 16" on center being the ,:mlY feature
to consistentlY score 3.0 or less on all three tests. Further e:,<aminati,:,n (!:.ee
Appendi:,-: D, p.150) indicates genera1 satisfaction ~,11th the innovative features,
values ranged frorri neutral (3.2) t,:, very satisfied (4.6j, ,_.;ith the e:,:ceptfon c,f the
integraticin ,:,f a building system that eliminates over 1 /2- of the structural
materials usually required (v.alue decreased 1.AJith e:ach test--3.8 tc, 3.1 t,:, 2.7).
A matri:,-: tAJas created tc, c,::irnbine the respc,nses t,J the uni"mportant-
important and the diss.atisfied-satisfied rankings (see Figure 3). With a range ,:,f 0
(dissatisfied t-.iith an impc,rtant feature to 12 (satisfied i .• iith an imp,::,rtant feature),
more than 70% of the residents generated a score of si::< or greater (see .Append"i::<
D, p, 152).
Statistical Analysis: Hypc,thesis 6 ~1as e~-:amined f,::,r user satisfa,:tfon i .•. iitr;
the innovative features cif the unit:
Hypothesis 6: There is no difference in the 1,•1eighted mean sc,:,res for
satisfa,:tion \-vith the innovative features c,f tt-1e unit in the follmAling test
periods:
a) Pretest and first pc,st-test
b) First post-test and second post-test
c) Pretest and seccind pcist-test.
Paired t-tests trJere used to test tr,e hypothesis against the -31ternative at
an alpha level of .05. The matri>: value combining responses for unirnp,:,rtant-
important and dissatisfied-satisfied rankings tAJas used to ,:ornpute the weighted
mean score -for each feature e:,-:arnined. ~,lo significant differences vJere found and
therefc,re the null hYP•Jtheses t.•Jere neit rejected (see Table 15).
65
Table 15
Mean Rating for Opinion of Innovative Features of The Hillside F,::iurple:,:
Variable N Mean Difference Standard In Means Deviation
HYPOTHESIS 6 Pretest 10 • 7.780 First Post-test 13 7.854 -0.123 1.507
First Post-test 13 7.854 Second Post-test 13 7.562 -0.293 2.014
Pretest 10 7.780 Second Post-test 13 7.562 -0.600 2.126
Note: Difference in means may not equal subtracted value due to differences in sample sizes,
Significa n,:e Level
non-sig.
non-sig,
non-sig,
66
Design Decisions
Descriptive .Analysis! Mc,st residents of The Hi11side Fourp1e>( agreed 1 .. iith
the designer in the a11oc-3tion of floor space and in the a11cication of funds in the
initial and first pc,st-test (see Table 16 & 17). Hm .. ,ever, at the secc,nd p,:,st-test
many chose to spend more for the mechanical heating systems, structural
materials, and finish materia1s. The majority consistentlY preferred manual control
of the heating and cooling system in lieu of additional cc,st.
Respondents ~•Jere questioned (both as a part of the questionnaire and
during closure intervie~•.1s) as to 1.A.1hat they liked rnost and least abc,ut living in the
fc,urple:<, Most liked the pro>:imitY to ,:ampus and the size of the unit. ManY disliked
the feeling ,:,f being on display, feeling it tc, be an invasic,n of privacy. Landford and
maintenance problems 1.AJere also noted. (See Appendi>( E, p, 159),
Discussion
Campbell et al. found satisfaction ~•.,as dependant upon c,:,mparis,:,ns
between the situation as e:>:perienced and the individua1's standards, .3spirations,
and e:,-:pectations. Soen (1979) stressed the static nature of housing satisfaction.
He perceive,j a set of interrelated. factors whc,se composition varies vJith
circu-rnstances. Furtl";ermore, since 1"1ousin9 quality varies , .. .1ith time he sa\A/ both
quality and satisfaction as defined in relative terms. Housing satisfacticin tAJith the
Hillside F,:,urple}-: seemed to replicate the findings of Soen in several ways. He
found respondents to be more satisfied \AJith both larger units and \~dth ne,,ver units.
Residents of the fourple>: tended to be satisfied with their housing and the fourp1e>:
\_l..1as both newer and larger than most rental apartment units i.l 81acksbL:r9,
Cooper (1975) found a hierarchy c,f needs ,:onsistent 1.,.iith e.3r1ier studies by
i'-'1aslc,1.•J (1970). In her study c.f public hc,using, the hierarchy e:dended fr,:,m (a)
shelter, at the lo\.,1er end, thrc,ugh, (b) security, (c) ,:,::,mfort (d} convenience, (e)
67
Table 16
Residents' _()pinion for A 1k,cation iJf M,:;nies
Feature
Windo1.,1s S! 1,vindc,1.,, treatment Pretest First post-test Secr.md post-test
Mechanical heat systems Pretest First post-test Sec,::,nd post-test
Insulah:,n Pretest First post-test Se,=c,nd pc,st-test
Structura 1 materials Pretest First post-test Second post-test
Finish materials Pretest First post-test E;econd post-test
10 13 1:3
10
13
10 13 13
10 13 13
10 13 13
Spent Less
0.00
30.77
0.00
0.00
0.00 70.00 30.00
1 o.oo 15.39 30.77
10,00 15.39 30,77
Spent Same %
90.00 46. l 5 38.46
90.00 46.15 23,08
0.00 69.2:3 23.08
60.00 30.77 15.35
60.00 30.77 15.:39
Nc,te: Per•=entages maY not tc,tal to 100% be,=ause ,::,f n,:,n-respcinses.
:3pent m,:,re %
10.00 7.6'3 7,6'3
10.00 15,38 5:3.85
0.00
30.77
30.00 46.15 3:3.46
30.00 46.15 38.46
68
Table i 7
Residents' Opinieon for A llc<caticon ,:,f Space
Roc,m/.3rea N
LOWER and MID-LEVEL
!<itchen Pretest 10 First pc,st-test 13 Second post-test l ·-=· ·-·
Dining area Pretest 10 First post-test 13 Secc,nd post-test 13
Living room Pretest 10 First pc,st-test 13 Second post-test 13
Bedroom #1 F·retest 10 First pest-test , .-.
1-:,
Se,:c,nd pc,st-test 13 Be,jroom #?
Pretest 10 First pc,st-test 13 Second p,Jst-test 13
Bath Pretest 10 First post-test 13 Secc,nd p,:,st-test 13
Omit ~, "'
o.oo 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0,00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
Smaller %
l 0.00 0.00 7.69
10.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 7.69 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
10.00 0.00
15.39
0.00 0.00 0.00
80.00 76,92 76.92
80.00 69.2:3 76.92
70.00 69.23 84.62
80,00 76.92 69,23
70,00 76.92 S9,23
80.00 69.23 76.92
Lar•3er %
0.00 0.00 0,00
0.00 7.69 7.69
20.00 0.00 0.00
l 0.00 0.00
15.39
10.00 0.00 o.oo
l 0.00 7.69 0.00
Change
D.00 o.oo i].,0!]
0.00 o.oc 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 o.oo
69
Tab1e 17--Continued
Rc,om/area N Omit f:maller Same Larger Chan·ae % % ,,, *' Floeirs ..-~ -'*
UPPER LEVEL
Upper living r,::,om Pr-:test 5 0.00 16.67 h-.,- .--, _o,o, o.oo 0.00 First pc,st-test '3 0.00 0.00 t,6.67 .o.oo o.oo Second pc,st-test 9 ,o.oo 0.00 77.78 l 1. 11 ,0.00
Upper bedroom # ·:) -· Pretest 6 0.00 0.00 :3:3,33 0.00 o.oo First pc,st-test 9 0.00 0.00 66.67 •0.00 0.00 Second post-test 9 .o.oo 0.00 88.89 o.oo 0.00
Upper bedr c,c,m #4 Pretest 6 o.oo 0.00 :33.3:3 o.oo o.oo First post-test 9 :0.00 0.00 66.67 0.00 0.00 Secc,nd post-test 9 ;IJ,00 o.oo 88.89 0.00 0.00
Upper bath Pretest 6 o.oo 0.00 66.67 16.67 0.00 First post-test 9 0.00 0.00 55.56 11.11 0.00 !3e,=,:;nd post-test 9 0.00 0.00 8:3,:39 0.00 0.00
Leift area Pretest ,-
0 0.00 0.00 33.:3:3 50.00 0.00 First post-test 9 11.11 0.00 ':,•j •j.., . .,..., 0,GO ·-'•-•1•-·--· '-~•'-'-
Second p,::,st-test 9 l 1. 11 0.00 77.78 0.00 0.00
70
s,:Jcializin,3, (f) self-e::<pression, and (g) aesthetics1 at the upper end. Not until
1o,,..1er needs are met 1.,,ill higher ones emerge intc:, cc,nsciousness. The residents of
the fc,urple:,-: expressed satisfaction with the basic she1ter and security prnvided by
the unit. Hm,.iever, they seemed to be dissatisfied t.•.iith the features related to
thermal corr.fort. Only after these concerns i.,1ere e:,<pressed did they mentfon
prob1erns tA.iith oral priva,:Y c,r 1.,rnrkrnanship. This , ... ,ould seerri to support the
hierarchy devefoped by Masl,)t.•J and supp,)rted in Cc,c,per's study.
Campbell (1976) found satisfaction 1.,.1as a prc,du,:t c,f the c,:,mparis,:,n
beb•Jeen assessment of the current life situat fon and an individua 1' s interna 1
standards, e>:periences, and observatfons. The residents of the fc:,urple:,-; seemed to
be comparing their current housing situation to both previcius e:,<per~ences and t,:J
their c,\ .. in and visitc,r 's observations. This \ .. ,ould seem to supp,:Jrt Carnpbe li' s
Residents of The Hillside Fc,urple:,-: i,..1ere generallY satisfied with the
e:,-:terior features of tt-,e unit and their s.3tisfactfon tended to increase 1 .•. dth time,
This can perhaps be understc,od since the grading and yard 1.,.1,)rk, inc1uding the
parking facilities, 1.,.iere incomplete at the time of both the pretest and initi.a l
post-test. In addition, they t .. .1ere satisfied with access to the unit and generally
felt secure and safe ,.,..,;thin the unit. Triis wc:,uld seem to ini:::fi,:.::1te res"idents agreed
1.,vith the designer's choice of separate entries. f,:Jr ea,:h unit.
nc,tat,le e:,<ceptions. Intervie•,,.Js t.,.:ith the residents revealed several preiblems t.,.iith
t:-,e heatin,3 system and these 1_.1ere reflected in the ,jeclined s-atisfadfon \•.lith both
"c,::irnfortable , .. .1inter temperatures" and "absence ,:,f drafts". The residents did nc,t
71
(residents rep,::irted movement of the dr.3periesi, cc,ndu,=tion losses through the
gl3ss (no night-time insulation 1 .... ,as utilized), inadequate insulation in the •=losets
(ck,sets C-:rntilever beyond the foundation ,.._iall .3nd residents repc,rted 15 degree
temperature differences), or inadequacies in the circulation path when the
r/'lechanical system i_ ... ,as in operation. It is aiso pc,ssible that residents closed their
bedroecrn doers and tt-1us interfered v..iith the heat cir,=ulati,:,n patterns. Residents
als,:, indicated it 1.•.1as neces.sarY to use au:=<iliary heat as seion as, if not befm·e, the
sun set--peissiblY indicating inade•:iuate heat st,:,rage. Part of the dissatisf.3ctfon
~•1ith the temperature can be understoc11j 1.,.1t-1en ,:,ne realizes the residents i.,.iere
1.,.1ithout heat f,:ir several t.•.ieeks due t,:i a mechanical failure. In .3,:/dition, the heat
e:,-:cr1an,3e system did n,;:;t functi,:in as planned and electric baseboard heaters had t,:,
be installed in the fo1 .... 1er units. The prc,blem ,:if unacceptable drafts maY have been
due tei the characteristics of a convection lc,c,p system, the character~st"ics eif t:-1e
duct/return system fc,r the mechanical unit, or pr,:,blems 1,vith air infiltration, The
probiem l•.iith 1.,1orkmanst-iip 1.,.1as related at least in part to nail pc,ps and dc,ors , .• Jhii:h
ce.ased to c1ose. The residents believed the unit to be shifting ,:in the foundation, It
seems mcire likelY tc, have been a prc,blem \•.iith humidity. The pr,:,blern •-.•1ith paint
seemed t,:i be rel3ted to b,:itt-1 the applicatic,n and the •::;uality. In an atternpt t,:,
reduce cc,sts and t::, corr1p1ete the '..!nit on schedule, c,:,llege students 1_,._1ere hire,: t:,
finish the interior painting. Unf,:irtunatelY, this required some repair c,f the dry
1..,1a11 t_,._ihich m.ay have been beYc•nd their abilities, The residents did not feel the
paint withstood the cleaning tt-!at 1_...ias necessary f,:,llc,1.,;in•3 the c,pen !-1ouse and \_.\:as
therefore of p,:,c,r ,::;ualitY. Ori•3inal plans f,:,r trash disp,:,sai 1. ..... 1ere tc, utilize a
dumpster and not insta11 garba,3e dispc,sals, However, the durr;pster 1.._;.3s n::,t in p1.a,=e
.at the tirne eif ,:,ccupancY sin•=-= the e::<teric,r grading 1_._1.as irKc,n-1plete. P1-2ns i.,.lere
d·,.3nged at the residents' request .3nd garbage dispc,sals and e:,der"ior trash ,:ans
72
were supplied. This may e>:plain the drop (pretest t,:, first pc,st-test) and tr,en
subsequent improvement (first p,nt-test to second pest-test) in satisfactfon i,.Jith
trash disp,:,sal. The overall opinion of the interior c.f the unit de,:lined i . ..,ith each
ad·,11inistratfon of the test. This may r::~ve been related to the per,:eptfon ,:,f mor-:
problems 1.,.iith the passage of time, or negative faeling·s caused t:,y per,:eived
heating pn:,blems, or to a redu,:tfon in the e:,-:citement of living ir. a ne~•i,
tensions.
Residents of the fourple:,-! tended t,:i be satisfied 1_..iitt-1 the innc,vative
features of the prot,:,typic unit. The residents i.AJere iess setisfied ,.,i~th the used
1":,-:6" studs ,:,n 16" cente-rs and the integration of a buiidin•; sY::.tem 1.,.1hich e1iminates
over 1/2 of the structural materials uswa11Y re•~uired. As satisfaction declined \.,.1it;-1
each test, residents may have ;-elated tt-,ese features t,:i per,:eived structural
stability of the unit.
Design decisions were initially acc:eptat:,1e to the resider.ts fo-r the
.3lfocation of both space and funds. Ho1 . ..,ever, •.4Jith time the resi,jents ,.,.iou1d ha\,e
materia1s. This may 1.AJell have been due to per,:edved pr,:,b1ems in these .ar-e.3.s, P•,s
heating ,:osts i.,.1ere higher than e;.:pected costs it is perhaps unde-rstandab1e th.3t
the residents preferrad ·manua1 control c,f heating and cooling s,1ste·,-r1s in 1-ieu of
additional costs. Ho1.A1ever, the c,:mtrol unit for the mc,vab1e shaces \..Jas still n.Jt in
adjustrnents to tt-:e systf:rm.
73
as evidenced by user satisfaction .-;.f the features and ,:,::incepts tested. A
detenninaticin· ,::,f public a,:ceptanc:e and 1Jser satisfa,:tic,n is ·made and su•3gestions
eiffered as to changes to be made v.;hen and if the unit is replkated.
There i.,.1as an entl",usiastic acc:ept.an,:e ,::,f the four;;le:-:: evidenced .at the
c,pen house. The c1n1Y features which received a score of less than adequate \,.iere
size c,f the lm, . .1er unit living r,::,,:nn and ade,:;ua,:y of the Yard fc,r outdoor living
space.
The matrt-: ,:reated tc, combine the resp,:,nses tc, the unimp,.:artant-im;:,ortant
and the dissatisfied-satis.fied rankings, ,:an be used to determine \•Jhich features
.are desirable and v-.Jhich features are potentia11Y prc,blem are.as. :3ince the Hi11side
F,:,urple:-: l.•Jas given an a\•.,ard fc,r "building value int,:; housin,3 11 it is import.3nt tc,
understand i.,._1hic:h features contribute to satisfa,:ti,:,n .and are therefc,re 1.•.1c,rthY of
their cost. It is likewise necessary to nc,te problem are.as in order to make
nec_essary corredions in design or allo,:ation of funds. Values c.f O to :3 indkate
pr,::,blem areas; these features shc,uld be e:,-tamined before the unit is replicated.
Values .::,f 9 to 12 indicate desirable features ~-•-.1hicr: sh,:,uld be ·;i:aintained if the u:1~t
is replicated. Si::-: is a neutral value; values ::,f 4 or 5 indicate pc,ssib1e problem
areas \,.1hich might require attentic•n 1•.1hereas values ::,f 7 ,:,r :3 indicate features
,_.1hic:h are sc,me,.•.1h.at desirable and probat,ly should be ffiaintained dur~ng replication.
(3ee Figure 4.)
The residents. i . ..iere ,3enera11Y satisfied ,,,._,ith the fc,urple;<, A va1ue c,f O t::, :3
indicates dissatisfac:tfon i_._,ith a feature cc,nsidered imp::,rtant bY the user,
temper:ature (50%), co-rnf,:,rtab1e ternperature (:31 %)1 and .:1bsence ::,f drafts (50%),
unsatisfact::,ry, Several additional features were perceived as prc,blen-, areas b;-'
iJISSA TISF!EO
!MPQRTANT
5
4
3
2
74
2 3 4
5 s 7
5 s 7
KEY
0-3 Pr,:,blem Area 4-5 Possible Prcibiem Area 6 Neutral Area 7-8 Some\.\Jhat Desirab1e Area 9-12 Desirable .Area
Figure 4
5
e
Partitioned Imp,:,rtance/:3.atisfai:tion Hatri::-,: f,:,r (3r,:,upir:g Design =eatures
75
mc,re than 30% of the residents in the post-occupancy evaluatfon. Thesa included:
security and safety (15%/31 %--the first figure in brackets is the percentage from
the first post-testi the second figure is the per,:entage from the second post-
test), privacy for residents from others in the fourple:>( (23%/38%) 1 amount of
, natural light in the bedrc,oms (8%/38%), adequacy of space for furniture placement
in 1ot-.ier living room (31 %/31 %), convenient trash disposal (38%/:31 %), 1A1orkmanship
(23%/38%), and assessment of painted walls (38%/31 %).
A value of 9-12 indicates satisfaction tAJith a feature that is considered
important to the user. The majority of features tested received scores of 9-12 by
more than 50~4 c,f the residents. These features would seem to be worth their ,:c,st
and should be replicated, (See Table 18,)
User satisfaction indicated tt-1e unit was successful f,::sr the most part in
meeting the needs of the residents. With a fe1>.1 e:,:ceptions, livability -:1.s evidenced
• by user satisfaction was quite high. For most features, including the innovative
features ,::sf the prototypic unit, responses 1A1ere positive and deviatic,n from the
mean was so slight that a factor analYsis to isc,late factors mediating
satisfaction 1,1\;as not advisable. It is not clear if all features 1 .• .1ere equallY
impc,rtant in determining satisfaction (i.e. there is no hierarchy) or if the study
only included those features 1.•Jhich \ .. ,ere important to the users.
An e)-,amination of the matri:,, indicated several suggestic,ns for the builder
i.,._1hen and if the unit is replicated. It \A.1ou1d seem to be advisable to evaluate the
varic<us components of the heating system to deter·mine possible \.;eaknessesi in
that thennal comf,:irt was a majc,r proble"in, The prc,biem of privacy \•.rithin the
fourple>, -seerned to be assc,ciated 1,vitr, s,::sund trans-rrdssion (indicated in t"::sth
t,vritten comments and closure interviews). If this is not a functfo:1 of tt-,e dud
sY:-tem (resident's belief), it should be addressed as a separate issue. The prc,blem
76
Table 18
Percentages of Residents w'h,:, Rated Fe:atures With a Matrt-: Value c,f 9 to 12
Feature
EXTERIOR General attractiveness i::if building Location of parking Adequacy of Yard for outdc,or livin•3 space Access t,:, the unit for dailY entry Ac,:ess to the unit for movin•3 furniture
INTERIOR '.3ize c.f k,v-.rer living rc,c,n-, :3ize of dining area Size of kit,:hen Size c,f bedrc,oms Size of upper living room Adequacy of spa,:e for furniture placement:
in k<\A.ier living roc,rn in dining area in bedn,oms ~n upper 1ivin·3 r,:,om
Arrangement of roc,ms Traffic pattern v..iithin the unit .A.dequacY of storage in the kitchen Adequacy c,f storage in the bedrooms .Adequacy i::Jf storage in the bath Adequacy c.f stc,rage fQr seasonal items Privacy frc,m others in the apartment Priva,:y from others in the fourple>: Amc,unt of n.atural light:
in living/dining area in kitchen in upper living r oc,·m
First Pc,st-test
%
46 77 '32 85 80
100 ,:;c:-\-'•-'
77 69
100
46 38 85 67 77 :35 85 oc-·-··-' 69 67 46 -,::o -..J'-'
;35 :~::1
100
Pc,st-test %
62 QC' '..J•-'
100 100 69
92 85 77 ,:,,:-1..1._I
100
62 f-,-'j _,,._ 85 89 77 69 85
100 85 69 54 54
l 00 77
100
77
Table 18--C,:,nb,ued
Feature
Assessment of finish materials: floor coverin•;/carpet flcu::;r covering/vinyl •=ei1ing material •=abinet finish kitchen applian,:es artificial lighting electrical outlets (•:iuantity)
Comfc,rtable hurrii,jitY level Temperature unifc,rrr1itY Ventilation fc 1r summer ,:c,c,1ing Separaticon of wc,rk, living and sleeping areas Separation of public and private sp.aces Convenient tr a sh dispc,sa 1 Locatic<n of laundry
INNOVATIVE FEATURES Four p le>: forrna t Daytime spaces arranged to utilize solar energy f-:,r 40% c,f space heating re9uirements
South 1,.,1indi:)1.,.1s tAiith adjustable shades Ornission of east and west ,,....,indc,•.,..is Plan \ .. 11th lcii.,.:er unit set into site
First P,:ist-test
l 00 61 53 62 F; ·? _,_ -'-69 67 ,r-, 01
56 69 69 46 3:3
54
:35 62 42 •'jr •.JO
Second Post-test
9-;,
77 41 M., -'-77 69 62 46 34 8E, 62 7-, . I
F.., _,,_ 62
-,-, I I
77 .. - -, 01
69 5:3
78
with security and safety seeme,j ti:, be perceived c,nlY bY residents of the k<1Aier
unit, 1A1ho felt the wind,:,1,,.1 in the door and the ade·~uac:Y ,:.f the k«:k t,J be potential
problems. l'-lateria l specifi,:atfon changes c,:,u ld c,Jrrect this problem. Eince the
amount c,f light in the bedrc,c,ms is a functic,n of the unit being set intc, the site,
this maY 1.•1ell be a trade-off \A.1ith pc,tential energy savings. Quality of ~,;orkmanship
and finish materials versus ,:ost must be evaluated by each builder ,Jn an individual
basis. Both the vi!:-itors and the residents fc,und problerns 1.•.1ith the living roc,m area
in the 1o\•.1er unit. As tt-iis space serves as an entry and as access tc, b,:,th the
kitchen and private spaces, enlargement ,Jr rearrangerrient cif the space may be
desir.able. Although visitc,rs tc, the unit did not find the out.:foc,r living space to be
adequate, the re!:-idents disagreed. Tr,e grading of the Yard \,..ias inc,Jmplete at the
time of the open house and this could account for tr,e lm.,1er eva1uati,:,n t,y the
visitc,rs.
In viev.1 c,f the escalating costs of nei.•.1 ,:onstructfon in terms c,f both initial
cost and life cycle cc,st, The Hillside F 1Jurple:,-: 1.,1ould seem tc, be a viable
alternative hc1tising unit. Both a,:cept.ance c,f the unit t,y the public and
satisfactic<n t.•.iith the unit bY users seem tc, be quite p,:,sitive, based c,n the results
of this study, Although tt-,ere are a fe1.,1 problem areas t,:, be addressed t~1e unit
•.•.11Juld cert.:1inly seem to be worthy c,f repii,:ation and c,f future study,
Chaplet· VI
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMEN0,A. TIONS
Summary
The escalating costs of new construction have initiated an interest in
innovative building designs to reduce both initial costs and life cYcle costs.
However, prototypic housing roaY not meet people's e:,:pe,:tations .ss to size,
appearance or location. Prntotypic units may also include features which
necessitate adaptation by the users.
A structurallY innovative fourple:-: 1 .. 1as one of nineteen a1.,1ard 1..iinning
designs in the 1980 design ,:ompetition "Building Value Into Housing" sponsored by
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This unit, The Hillside
Fc,urple:,:, 1.AJas constructed in Blacksburg, VA, so as to be ready fer occupancy in
September of 1982.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate public acceptance of the unit, as
evidenced at builder scheduled open house sessions, as \•Jell as tc, evaluate Ltser
satisfaction with the unit as evidence of livattilitY, An attempt was made tc,
determine the factors influencing this a,:ceptance or satisfaction. The infc,rmatfon
1,vas used to evaluate the fourp1e:,: in order to make recommended design changes
before the unit is replicated.
An 80 item questionnaire, with a five point a,:ceptable/non-acceptable
range, 1,vas used at open hc,use sessi,:ms, dr::H•Jing the s.srnple by inviting even-'
second visitc,r t,:, participate. A total of 82 questfonnaires were cc:irnpleted during
the five open house sessions scheduled by the builder (78% return rate). The prc,f~le
79
80
detached d\AJelling in Blacksburg, VAi v..ias employed as an adminsistrator, engineer,
scientist, teacher, or creative artist, with a total household incc,me of
$30,000-49,000 to support two pec,p1e.
User satisfaction c,f tt-,e fc,urple:,-: 1A-1as assessed 1 .•. 1ith the use of a :-elf
administered questionnaire ,:ontaining sections related to resident's opinfons of (a)
e>:terior characteristics, (b) interic<r characteristics, (c) innovative features, and
(d) design decisions. The questionnaire 1_..,as a mc,dificatic,n of the one us.ed to
assess publii: a,:ceptan,:ei a five point not i-rriportant/important and a five pcdnt
dissatisfied/satisfied range iA1ere added for use 1.;ith the residents. The cc,nter:tion
was made that there is a difference in satisfaction 1,..Jitr, a feature that c,ne
considers important and in satisfaction 1,..iith a feature that one ,:c,nsiders
unimportant. The questionnaire ,...,as administered three ti·mes, first as a pretest
(before cu:cupancY), second as an initial post-test (after four \.\leeks of occupancy),
and finally as a second post-test (after 20 weeks of occupanc~I). In addition
closure intervie\•JS 1,..1ere obtained \AJith the residents of each unit. The sa-rnple fc,r
user satisfaction was obtained bY inviting all those tJ,Jho signed leases for the
fourp1e>: tc, participate in the stu,jy. Of the thirteen persons originally scheduled
for occupancy, ten realized their intent and completed the pretest--five males and
five females. Thirteen students of Virginia PoWtechnic Institute and State
University, the originia1 ten plus two males and one female, constituted the sample
for the post-tests. Al1 \AJere single and ranged in age fr,:,·m 19 to 21.
A matri>: was created ti:, ,:ombine the responses to the uni'mportant-
important and the dissatisfi<ad-s.3tisfied rankings in c,rder tc determine whii:h
features 1~1ere desirable and 1 .. ihich features 1.-.iere pc,tentiallY problem areas. '.3incc:
The Hillside Fourp1e~-: was given an a1A1ard for "building value into housing" it is
important tc, understand 1.1Jhicl1 features cc,ntribute to satisfaction and are thus
81
,_..1orthY of their cost. It is like: .•. lise necessary to nc,te prr.:,blern areas in c,rder tr.:,
make necessary cr.:,rrections in design or allo,:ation of funds.
There 1,1;as a general acceptance of the features and ,:haracteristics of
The Hillside Fourplex by visitors to the unit. Respc,nses tc, the features c,f the
protc,typic unit were generally positive and more than 80% c,f the visitors 1.,rnuld
choose tc, live in a similar unit if sized fc,r their familY and more than 89% 1•.1::,uld
,:h,:,,:,se to have a similar unit in their neighborhc«:,d if sized for c,nly one f.:1mi1Y.
User satisfactic,n indicated the unit ,_.;as successful f,:,r the m,:,st part in
meeting the needs of the resi,jents. With a fei....i e:,{ceptions, livability as evidenced
bY user satisfactic,n 1.;as relatively hi•3h, For most features, including the
innovative ones, responses were positive-- 1,AJith the e:,{ception ,:,f prc,blerns 1,.iith the
heating system and audile privacy. There v..1as also si::irr,e dissatisfadion ,_..iith tt-,e
space in the lo\A.1€ff unit living rc,om.
In vie1AJ of ti"!e escalating c,:,sts of nev,1 ,:onstructi,:,n in terms ,:,f bc,th initia1
cost and life cYcle cost, The Hillside Fi::iurple>: 1.,.1e,uld seem t,:i be a viable
alternative housing unit.
Recorn-rrienda t ions
Even thciugh acceptance ,:,f the unit t,y the public and satisfactfon 1 .. ,rith the
unit by users seemed t,:, be positive, based cin the results c,f this stud':/, it t_,,1,::,uld
seem tc, be -sdvisabie t,:, evaluate the vari,:,us cc,mponents of the he.stin•3 ::.ysterif tc,
detennine pc,ssib1e t_..;eaknesses, in that thenrial ,:ornfort ,.,ias a maj,:,r prc,blem. The
problem ,,.iith s,:,und transmissfon needs tc, be addressed as d;:ies the arrangement of
82
Residents of ti""!e fourple>'. did ni:,t seem to understand the significance of
the innovative features e::-mployed. Neither were they a1 .. 1are of the structural
testing that h-3d been cc,mpleted prfor tc, construction. Perhaps an introdudc,;--y
session to help residents understand the building pr,:,cess and encour.3,3e .a feeling
of participation in the innovative process \..\iould be beneficial.
Future study 11Jc1uld be desirable tc, assess 1ivabilitY ,::,f the unit over a
1,::,nger period of t irne, in different geo•3r aphica 1 1oc.a t ions, and 1 .. iith different
occupant groups. It is nc,t possible to dra1•J cc,nclusfons as tc, livability fm·
non-student singles, c,r fc,r far:dlies. Neither can an evaluatfon be m.ade fc,r other
geographical areas.
Further refineri1ent of the instrument is necessary in order t<:1 define the
features 1•.1hich mediate satisfactfon 1,iith the unit. It 1.1Jould also be .::dvisable to
pursue research comparing the similarities of the visitor grc,up and Rc,ger 's <1971)
definition of innovators. If visitors are inn,:,vatc,rs, can they influence the adc,ption
In vie1,.1 c,f the escalating ,:osts of ne1.,.J construction in terms of bc,th initial
cc,st .and life cycle cost, The Hiilside F,:,urple:,-: 1 .... ,ould seem to be a viable
alternative housing unit. Although there are a fe1,..1 problem areas tc, be addressed
the unit certainly see·ms 1_,J::,rthy of replication and of future study.
REFERENCE LIST
American Institute of Architects. i=ri'lerging techniciues 2: Architectur.:.1 programming. Washington, O.C.: Autt-1or, 1969.
Beamish, J. 0, An evaluation and comparis,::,n ,::,f the livability c,f prototYpe and conventional houses: The devel,::,prrient and- testing of a methodofogy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation proposal, Virginia PolYtect-,nic Institute and State University, 1982.
Brill, M. Evaluating buildings on a performance basis. In .J. Lang (Ed.), Designin·a for human behavior: Architecture and the behavior~, sciences. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, 1974.
Butler, E, W. Moving behavior and residential choice. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1969.
Campbell, A,, Converse, P. E., and Rodgers, W. L. The quality ,:.f ,A,merican life: Perceptic,ns 7 evaluations, and satisfactions. New Y,::irk: Russeil Sage Foundation, 1976.,
Caudill, W. W. Architecture bY team. Net.A.I Yc,rk: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971.
Coc,per, C. C. Easter Hill Vi11a•;e, Ne,.AJ York: MacMillan, 1975,
Davis, J. A. Elementary survey ana 1Ysis. Engle\•Jc .. ::id Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Ha 11, 1971.
Gropius, W. Scope c,f tot a 1 architecture. Ne\•J York: MacMillan, 1975.
Hinkle, 0. E. Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Chicago: Rand Md·la11Y, 1979.
Le Corbusier. The rn,:,du1or. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954,
Maski~._:, A. H, Motivation and personality (2nd Edition), Nei.•J York: Harper and R,J\.•J,
1970.
Morris, E. W., and Winter, M. Hc,using 7 family and s,::,,:ietY. !'-let.AJ York: J,::,hn W.ileY and Sons, 1978.
Oniboken, A. G. Evaluating consumers' satisfaction iA1ith h,:,using: An app1icaticon ,:.f a systems approach ... Jciurnal of the .American Institute c,f P1ai1ners, 1974, 40 (5), 189-200.
Pfrang, E. O. Guide criteria f:,r the evaluation c,f ,::,peration breai-,:thrnugh hc,using systems, multifarriilY lov,i rise (Vol. ID. i,,Jashingkn, 0,C.: Natis:snal Bureau ,:if Standards, 1970.
83
84
F'rcishanskY, H. r--•1,i Ittleson, \.J, H., and Rivlin, L. G., (Eds.}, Environmental psYchc,k,gy: Man and his PhYsical settin•z, Ne1 .• _1 York: Hc,lt, Rinehc,it, and Winstc,n, 1970.
Reimer, :3, L ivability--.3 net•.J factor in home value. The .Acpraisa 1 .Journ;::i 1, 1946, 14 (2), 148-158.
Rapapc,rt, A. House Fc,rm and Culture. Eng1e• .. •J•:•c"j Cliffs, N.J: F'retice Halli 1'369.
Rapaport, A. Envirc,nmental preference, habitat selection and urban r1,:t1..1sing. Jc,urna 1 c,f S,::,,:ia 1 Issue·s, 1980, 36 (3), 118-135.
R,: .. 3ers, E. M. Diffusion of innov;::ition. Ne\•.J Y,::,rk: Free Press, l '3f,'5.
Rc,gers, E. M. Communication ,:if innovatfon. Ne1.,.1 Y,:,rk: Free Fress, 1971.
Rubin, I. A., and Elder, .J. Buildinq for pe,Jple. Washingt,:,n, D.C.: U.S. Gc,vernment Printing Office, 1 '380.
S-14 i Cooperative Regfona 1 Prcijer:t Outline. Housing for fo1_,.J-and -rnoderate-in,:ome families. Mineographed, 1979.
Smith, .J, Hillside Fo11rp1e>~ housin,;i demonstraticin. Blacksburg, VA: Vir 03inia C,Joperative Extension Service, 1982.
Soen, Habitabi1ity--occupants' needs and d\•.1elling satisfactfon, Ekist-ics, 1979, 275 (2) I 129-134.
Ste\A.Jart, K. r=::., Md<oi.,m, C., and Ne•,...;man, J. O. Attitudes c.f Visitors ti:, an Earth Sheltered :3olar House. Housing and Societ'I, 1981, 8"(2), 108-116.
United St.ates Department c.if Housing and Urban Devekipment. 8u71r::!ing va ,u.,, intc, h,Jusing. washington, O.C.: U.S. G,:,vernment Printing Office, 1 '380.
Western, .J. A,1 Weldc,n, P. :3., and Haung, Tan Tsu. Hc1usin•3 .:1nd satisfaction ,.,rith envirorrment in Singapore. .J,:,urnal c,f the Jl,rrierican Institiite of Pl;::irmers, 1974, 40 (5), 205.
Wright, J. R, Perfc,rman,:e criteria in buildings. Scientif-ic .A.merio:an, 1971, 224 (:3), 17-24.
APPENDICE:3
85
86
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC RELATION INFORMATION
Virginia Cc,operative E>:tension Bulletin HUD Publicatic<n: 8uildin•3 Value Into Hc,using Roanoke Times and 1_,,iorld t---J,=.1_.1s Press Release
87
VIRGINIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
VIRGINm TECH
Hillside Fourplex Housing Demonstration Blacksburg, Virginia
Some Questions and Answers January 1982
VIRGINm Slm:E
W-nat is the HiZZsicle Fou:rpZe: Hou.sing Demons-trati<m and who is it e--pected to help?
The Hillside Fourplex project is a unique opportunity for product suppliers, manufacturers, and educators interested in emerging structural, mechanical, and interior environment concepts to participate in a national housing demonstration. The project also offers participation and educa-tional opportunities to planners, zoning officipls, builders, building officials, housing commissions, building code administrators, and others having concerns for todays housing. The Hillside Fourplex is one of 19 award winning designs selected from 285 submitted to HUD in its 1980 Design Competition "Building Value into Housing."
;./ha-ti specific chaz•acteristics and advantages does tho project ha-Je over ~onven~ionaL st:.->datures?
Housing resulting from this design is expected to be worth much more than its costs for ~wo reasons: (1) Special attention has been given to livaoility and desirability by large numbers of people who no longer ca~ afford typical single family housing; and (2) Cost-effectiveness and value engineeringhave been achieved in many ways, initially and throughout the life-cycle of each building resulting from the design. Each unit has adequate, if not liberal, inside and outside living space with a high degree of storage.
Cost effectiveness is achieved initially by the (l) compactness of the building, both vertically and horizontally, (2) concentration of plumbing and mechanical parts, and (3} integration of a building system that eliminates over half of the structural materials normally required in conventional construction •,ihi1e facilitating heat distribution by gravity and convective forces.
Operational cost effectiveness is achieved by building each house to (1) conserve energy and (2) utilize solar energy, passively, to provide up to 40 percent of the space heat requirement. Energy conservation is accomplished by (1) eliminating windows on the east and west ends, (2) minimizing window area on the north side, and (3) thoroughly sealing and insulating against air infiltration and radiant heat loss.
/"~1n14 Cooperi1uve ::xrens1on Service ~l"OC}rdr=JS. ac!1v111es. 4nd em;:iioymenr oppcr1um:1es dre ovdaiaCle 10 d.i ;::eople "'e<.;d~c!ass 01 ~dee cei0r :-e11g1on. St:tlC. ;1qe. :iduondi onq1n. hdnd1c~0 or pollf:cai di!:himon An eau.2i
c,:,corrun11v/~ihr:nd11Ye dC11on empiover •
An Eciuc .. mcndi S'1rv1ce ct ine V,rq1nia ?CJiv1echn1c lns111u1~ <1nd S1,a1e Univers11y ""d V1rqln1<l S:dre Un,vers11y V,rQ1nia s Land-Gren! !nsutunons. w11h U.S. Sepctttmen! 01 Aqncuill-ore ~nd l...;cdl Guvernmen1s CooP:Jr,:rnnq.
88
Structurally, the ~NO and one-half story build4ng offers innovative alternatives to conventional building methods. Its walls are constructed. of rough sawn l" x 6" studs spaced 16" o.c. Floors of 3" concrete on steel decking act as solar -storage mass and are supported by rough sawn l" x 10" joist~ snliced to form continuous beams.
-:Ls
' c:r::J • • a :
---f-1 • -~~--~tr;_]_ ---r:; _. __ -. - ~---·.
South Elevation
The large south facing glass areas admit sunlight for direct heat gain during winter, while adjustable exterior shades offer surr.mertime protectior.. The north elevation windows, exposed to winter winds, are appropriately reduced in number and size. To avoid the negative effects of both seasonal extremes, east and west faces are completely free of all glazing.
The four living units, consisting of two two-bedroom and b10 duplex four-bedroom versions. are arranged with "daytime" spaces along the southern exposure, where views and direct heat gain are most important. Clustering of baths and kitchens permit use of one economical plumbing wall to serve all four units.
Each living un-it has its own remote entry to maximize personal privacy. Family and living rooms can be interchangeably located.
W'riat pZans r.ave been made t;o er.abZe perscns to tour and learn. more abot(t the project?
The demonstration role in the project is designed to describe and document the project, its technical, social, and environmental aspects, and to utilize the project as a learning tool for Extension education.
The project is open continually through construction with an open house planned upon completion. A photographic record is being prepared for future educational purposes.
;,/'nere can .I get; l!fl''t1-$-J, i:nfo?'f11at;:.on?
Jerry Smi\h, Demonstration Coordinator Extension Housing Specialist, Agricultural Engineering 214-C Seitz Hall Va. Tech Blacksburg, VA 24061 (703) 961-6052
15 Sfructurallv Innovative Fourplex
l'rojec1 Sponsor/Duig11er: llmn,r T. llurst, I'.£. Blu,·hbur11, Vir11ini1<
Consultunu: Jolin Spears, £11ert)' S11e,·i,di,1 Clurl Len/l, ,t,../,ii,,·1 Ore,o,y & Rogas, ,1,.-hitau J, 8, IJ)US,
Ritly Luwrenu
'lliis design incorporates cosl uving energy componenls, geu«ous space provisions, •nil innovative 11ruc1u,al COllCCplS .. ,
····-·--------- .. ------·----------------------------------·
00 \0
floor Plans Tia~ 1111..r hv111i un1b, con~1~1ing of I\A.'O two· l,i,;tltuom unJ IWO Juplct r,Mtr-l.ctlruom VCHIUUlli, a1~ ,u,anl!l'tl wi1h "tl,1y1imc" ~p.&l"c~
illunt! 1hc ~oulhcrn c~pulliurC, where view~ a1ul Jiu:d he.al ga111 .arc rnollil i111pmlanl. ('lullilcr-
I
I II X::. ' 1 :i: ! ! ,'•: '
'' '"'"~ " ' 1•,li,11
'! I.,
I ov.l~I I cvd
I I 11' 211
in1 ol b.alh~ anJ kill'hc:.n) pcrmili use of one ct:ononu1.:i1I plu111hi11g w;,dl lo icrvc MIi four unia.s.
El.Lia liv111g uoil has its own rciuocc cnrry 10
maximilc pcho11al p,iva..:y lhc l;,ugc, Ju-
MiJ Level
~lclCS h•v• lcrr.1<:cs. Family aml livin~ <1Mllm
can l>c inlcn.:hangcably loco11c,J a..-cohling 10 the homcownc::r·) wh.hcs..
'I' ,I
Apartmtlfl Ar,,u: Tw" b,-J,omn --81,'I .,q. JI. ,-~CJur b,Jro,,m-1. 7!8
'" /1.
Upper Level
------- -------·------------------------------------ ·---------------------~-- •
I.O 0
Elevations and Section ·1 lie l•rgc :i.outl1 f.k:ing gl.t:i.:i. ilrc.a:ri. a,lmu :auohiht lur Juc:rt hciU 1:.ain Jurrng w1nlcr, wluk ii,lju:i.16tlilc: 1.:Al~r11u !iihohk:a ,.(fer :.ummcr-llmc pwh.:L11011. The uorlh dcvitiliou winJow:i., 01M..1~cJ lo w1u1cr wiuJ:i., a,c iipprop1 i.1h:ly
Sou1h t:kv.atiun
No11h 1:1..:YJllon
rcd,u:cJ in nuwhcr uuJ :i.itc. ·1u MvoiJ the ncgill&YC clfc..:b of both :.ca:.un.-1 cllrcnu:::i., c:.a:at ind wc:i.l l,u:c:. au: ldt ,:01111>lch.:ly h.:c of •II ,1.,iuK.
I.
i I] l--, t---
butlJmM, uUcri in11ovlltivc ;,J1cruativc!li lo convcn1iun6'I builJing mc1huJ:i.. II~ WJII:. uc UM1:ri.truch.:J oi llMJjh 11,awn I"' J. O" :i.tu,J:. 11,11lM:cd 111• o.c. •u11>011i111 R,w11• ul 1• liih1wci1l11 roncrclc on •l«I Jcdini. The dcclini. in lurn. is :i.Ul>JMlllcJ by roui;h :..awn I" ll IO"
joi:.h spliced to form conlinuou:. bc1111u, on l' - o• ccn1cr,.
1-C, I-'
Wall Section The roof ii l'O\'c11:J wilh tOHUJillCJ il)pl,ah ~hcc:.b over ..:unrinuous wood purlini., dim-ini\llOaJ: l:unvcn1io11il ~hcouhin1 1uJ r.aflcr/lna)i 1)SICIH).
fhc hailk.-faccJ bllk.'k fouuJ.ttion Widl ulilitc)
w.11 Scdlun
f
1 2• polyun:ih•nc (lt 16) co,c above aroJc. l'ibcrgl1>• b,11, in 1hc walls (R-171 and in''"' •Ilic (R-381 complclc 11.: <11Ydupc'• in,ula-lion. lhc concrclc Ooorin1 h•• 11wufold advo,uagc: ii pwvi~, 1uud acou•lical Kpar1-1ion bct"'-ccn floors. auJ serve, H a pai!iivc iolu he.a 1lur.ai.: mcJium lo rcJut:c hea1in1 ,o~li.
· 12'" IUo..,·n lmulMtun on 6 Mil Vapo, Barner
Site Plan llic buifdina's o,ienlallon and pla,:cn1en1 arc ley 10 ils energy anJ pl•nning soc.-c••· In aJJi1ion 10 p•••ive ,ol.., '"'•ling provi,ions, energy efficiency Is enh•nccJ by Klling lhc lower ftoo, inlo lhe •loping silc anJ
Sile 1'1111
I I
I
I
I I
I /; _,
··, \;>
) tf'
capi111izing on lhe .. nh', i,nulacive ,,..,...,,,. lits. Pl11n1ing ol ev<rgrecn• provide• windbrcoh 110111 1hc n1Nlhwo1 eJic u( II.: JNUf>CrlY reduce, he .. lo••••·
\C N
Professor 1s building for-future !!vCZZEOSIOIN ---=iu. - Far ,-n. S- a-___ .,...,.IO __ _ .. --.
flit 1dal laftD't cu.pt oa tu .,., tw4 llu.bclllcr..i .. 11u-rocopuo,101<1>o U.S.llopanll,ootota-qlll4t:rl>allO.....,. -R«etlr . ._ _ • IIO.JOO ~- f""'1 IIUD. tbl trura !!dcnl cnat :ie baa recwtfld fear !&ii i,o.-au" ldeu u. 11iome coma"DCCaa.
TNla1atCUD11farllildaa.poladuJG .__...powofo,s<ncunl-port.
n. etllmut• tDGl'9 thaa two,,(hirdl of the franuac tWIMr. rat~ roac sa.. """'-oahne'""""'*'""- ........ fOWldACICL iddlW-. C'GIQ &ft l"llllllCad !>ecaUll~OII WDt I.I~.
Ham ll bwdlat a "fOllll'plU'° at lOI SL. W. !»tocu IOlltl,.. ot .ai..caoarcs Tow. lia.il. ~i.dauta.c-.A&mu..ru.r
"""" 11'ht boaN ,nil be 009 to tbe DIIOilc ffflat t UL tot p..m. todaf .a Ule :wm boars Aq. lt ad lS.)
Rllnl. a raaatCb prof...- al ':'edl's acn-':11.itarai encu-,- tlClm.lca u. bluld&zlCcmt11"il8Nqtat..OOCl30a,qure fOCK. a laflDIII smm raca cc-. u. ntema.c abouc $41 ... tN !llacabwt-Roeoau =r...b..wqwlliun.-Ulljl-
ol. :be YW141 CODI from .. ot U leut ,o :,en:,al I- lmmar :JIU oorma! 111 ad OlllUUftCL OU. ?IIODa'1.......ac Id- UICloM UM: d--C ot bacM UIS. IWcbma to p.t'l!lllt me ef oae ecoaaaucat PUIIDOulC -.a to 3W'ft Ml low \1121&1. Tbe C'OUql,IC1NII oi tM bm1d1ac ailO CID -. .. .,....,
a .. 1oae bu ad'racalad ta - a, • !IUIIDll'111tliel:Da.Sew,s!Ul~sa.~ Ule ll&IDOW Wilen tt'S DINdM; lu" ll oal __.. u's oot. DNdM.'" Ra hu prond bJI u.ar, to !sla s.uaiaeuoa. 1M $GIiie b8lldas.,... do DOI, p,e 1Auu.iytoeu.ace,uwK,,,uc&L.
S,to,waJ '"" .ieo - blfoN bcae "-1dmc fell iD!O UM doklnma - imnc .,_. IA a pl~ Ulal 111 lM bwJdlDc Of: 2 mllUoo boma. It bulloa UII £.,iruac caaMI baaaH4 at All~ !JQII uz.u.,.. folloNd. Tbef_ ... ___ _
mer.a 011 me P"OIIDll flQQI'. oae :~ .io.vc:z:.ac.oataeNCaDQQour-&all ..... OIIUIII .......
i'ec!a smaam..., .. u. bul4tac puc ao, rented UM &OU'UINIIIII ._.. LCD Ull wu1 ma,111 Ul~Sepc.l.
:i....,...._ ... _1 ... -acn. uae smaJJ <:OIi tor SlM. a..,.. mil_. uaJICl.l1 moacty wuJ. ta.a care at :aaac:aaa sam:e rillr'R Ud to~~ u. aa I! ;,ercmc ime9I naa Bara II Gaal U1e pro,-ec'l wa11e OD a.mmat Nn.
K'llr.ll lllll tllliy II YYUlf oa COSQ. rw, enacaac tn:rtkr' ,.¥UICI tram Im • ._-:-....._ ... _,..,_ .. _
.:y frN~UDpa"Cl,mtJ'-.t '"1l lM906a:r pu:uV&.
A.C'COrd.tDC ta r:aJcuaaom, Ulil 1D11M1 UDII& 4' ot !.De b9.&l WW. CunmDl!ll by tbe .._Zl•S&&d..ByUU.timlcat..,_.,u.JIIOal&or. lDC t:> be dolle OIi UM N1l41nc w\11 pw .accarata Worm.woo oa Jail tow mDCA th ~._...,. 4ellp &a1 ba,,De4 Oil tM HM tlil.l1.
T'»SQllwtllcoa:»Uan,qa~SOI._,. !- ot C:aol~ 1'1DGOW9 oa ue ,aa:ta saa ol t» eoar.,ta. rw.-, a mwmmn ol oa lh•oort!sSMM&MDOMoatMaa~ .... n. bu1ul1!2C •• .s.&JN ttoroa4Aly uct iDRl.aCH aa.wuc au- uwltnuoa am racSL&at a.al lo&
.\.ilt.le1~c:,Uneoocr,,c.erloan-1 u:.a.t 1'U.l ~ttract aJtd ltoW tM 11111'.s MM to
~,,~1l'JaelQN. 9'lll ot Ud:t aoutmeet form a ·~ooo. ..
so wvc w cu c:ar.:c4r.e U'el':J ll'OWM. aca ot tn..mua.
·we t-...an. i.:I Wr.t. •a «rft!OOII oa adl tlolr.·• saw t{Qr.11. n. f-..&n11iee taa -uJ 11a14t ,-a 11t:ht0a:C1U.~••~
93
------:._ • • __
. ·.'""-.._
··r • -~ ---;,t·-- -
• -.. ;?" .;·_·j·.·· •,:O, ;.".,"'!. --;; ..
,n.l .... K1...,_L
'1-
_;.: -·
111.-.--W\lltw, ... tM mL n.. wt.lJ: lie opantell !rom Ute um4e bf cnaaof Ula~--- boaCI at pul la th aoct.a. Hara ""'4 ILa" llbd V..ca o1lDdl 011u.oamo.-uio.popam111£11r'OOLBa tlecoaWa't .. u.a,, LIi u. coaDUT, - De.,.. eca me bolt cru.c .--
'lllo !ia,Jdia1 b.u oo aa !Jaa lllo '.l:,pa'~Cl~lo-.i.:lanaalf&.aL ':be i.oWIIII' IOL."'UDma IN -=- (b&ft ... .JI:) Ga t;i,o Side ta.u ud ~UGO saaud t-,. t:.aCOlli.BVSll.l.,a.
t-:, .. baa.Ld1Dc a.cuw1, ... Ult I llllJ.sade. &acaaM bet Cl&i.ldJ.ac It
oa • nu lot. !w's unac c.o JDmll a ta.&nr Larte amoaa Cit llll SQCII ttlllCI u t'IWAlllC .-..JJa. •.Some of tlll * ;in,,.nwa .....-k wu ~•drltbNNe.Mlt.aa~~ <»:.....:.a~,
Homer Hurst stands at one of thelar;e winciows in the apartmenl house he has built in ~urg; the apartments (be4cw)are expected to be rMdyfcr occ:upanc:y around Sept. l.
w-.. JMJC-
7 \ ...
!lolbellNOoqiletllohll•---1'°- aadtl._~ tar~par.lllla--1&"1 WlUk.D two l:a&oca ol Ula 7edl c::ampa - idiN,,I 1ar........,
aunrs :tnade !~ is ooa °" tN 1, IWVO-WUIIDDC •ectld :ts ,u,,. Cla.d ifUO U1 lta ltll 4mCII "l!1aw'lac Valoe udO 8-c. •
1..ooliDc at tbe hmln. Barst Sift-.. w.ac •..oaecna.aam.m111wnaaalaq-,~ c--=-crana1&ty.
._,.,._.,.tmail.it'J--7" OOC Olll tM Uva&:IWCy ...
lie----·--"' WTtUDCa!naf~Gcu~tllal"• :.mp)C"WlC.~lilldoat...,,.u,s,-:euaaomc:t.
~~•~_,., .. eau.a-• 1olo(QC11111DamU1•~"'
94
.APPENOI\ E
tJuestieinnaire fj:ir Public Acce:=,tani:e--Lt]'t,JER ur~IT ()uest iecnna ire f1:,r Public A;=,:e:=,t a nce--U?F'ER U!··.JIT Quest'icrnnaire fc,r User ::::at;sf.;;,ch:,n--LO\ . ..,iER ur·,HT Ciue::.tionnaire for User Sati:.facticin--UPPEP UNIT
95
LOWER UNIT As :,ou ::a:, l<::low, !::::i:: s:nI.S::::: :Oi.-a!'U::C !:as r=aived a E!t!ll desig:1 awar:i
fer bu:U.di::.; ~"al.t:a :.:i.:0 l10us:f.:1?,. 'ii'ou.!.d you ;,lusa ca.Joa a :;,r.., i::f.:ui:as : 0 c:c:;,lec~ ~·quasc:!.om:ai:e :.:i. order co :alp evali:.aca .n:i :U..-=e =:.cat Please :ark :ha ::=.ber which ::osc c:losaly rulac::s yo= opi:u.ou.
;'e ::-scog?t:.:e :.::ac e!::a :10U.3.i:1 ~..-.U of !z:z:il!.u t:tay d:..!:ar ==e:i t:.=.e :ae,is of. a g-:ou;, of si:g!.e ?•raoes. You ::ay c:l:iaosa co evali:.ai:a ;=.:!..s a;,ar:-::a:e fa: et.:e: a !.mily a: f:,::- a. ,r-=u;, o: s:.=.;!.e ~•:-sous.
l!:vali:.ac:!.o:i. of. ::e ~: i.s f0-: __ a ::=i!.7 or __ a r-ct:? of. .s:!.:s;la ;ie-:soi:is.
2. I.Qc:ac:!.01:1 of ;,a-:lci::3
VZll'! !'COlt
l.
l
3 .. W•~=c:y of ya-:d for oucdoor l:!.v'..:g space 4. Acc:eu CQ :!la u:u.:: fc-: daily e:ic:-y
l
S. f:r cav-'..::ig . ==:--..i=•
6. Secu..-:!.:y a:d. sa:fei:,- == c:u:.sid~rs 7. Ove:all o;,i:lic:1:1 of ce a:::e:io: of u::u:
n."Tn!C'!t QI
l
l
L
Su• of -:aacu Oe!:!.:u.:aly c:io s:iiall
Sccr..:h.a:
8. l!.rt:g ro= 9. d!.:li:g area lO. ld.cc:en ll. becirooc.s U. 1:a:l:. 13. q~•scioc c:i:::ed
l l
·l l l
Adeqi:.ac:y of .space fo: ~!:!::'• :,lac:s:a:i.c
l4. :f.:1 l!.v-'..::i; roe: lS. in d!:u:lg area
16. :f.:1 bed-:oo:i.s
Ade,rac:,- of. scorage 20. 1::. ::ia !d:::e:i.
i:-!.~cy :o:o =ui:ic:.:.s
13. :== cC:a::s !.: cha a-pa:=sa:
24. == aces 1: ca f::=;,la..-.: 2.5. &em ou:.s!<ia :icisas
A:a=c of :a=al li;:11:
25. i: Livi:?,/ d!.:1:.:!!: a-:ea
Z7. i: ld.::c:ia:i. Zll. i: bauco:i.s
3l. '.lo-:!c::au.sl:i:!.;t
Slllall 2 2 2 2 z
vn-r i'003.
l
l
l
l
:. l
l
l
l
l
l
l
:.
l
l l
l'CClt 2
2
2
2
2
2
z
Adequaca
3 3
z 2
2
2
z
z
z
z z
3 3 3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
VO.'! GOOD s s s s s s s
S=ewhac
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
L'l:i• 4 4 4 4 4
·V'n'.! G.lOD GOOD
4 5
4 3
4 S
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
s s
s .s s
3
5
5
34. •~aye!::e Spaces" a:::a.:i1ed. ea ~:!l!:e sol.a: ece:gy !oi: 40i o: s;iaca i:iea:!::ig
JS. Sou:::h wi:dovs vi.ch adjustable shades 36. Om.ission of east and vest V"'..=ciovs Ji. Cl~s:e:i:g o! ba:~s and ki:::ens
on one plu:nbi::.g wall
38. Plan included love:=:!.: se-:: !:.::, site 39. Use of c::c:ece block ::ii: !::1:a:io:
valls
40. S1::100:c :n.oo:s of 3" co=•=• on s:eel deci:c!:::g sii;ipo::ad by~ on 3',:au:ei:
41. Cor.:-~gaced :oof on con:i=us wooden pw:li:ls to eli:::!.::ate conve:::io=l i:a::r./t:-~s/sbea:hiug systc
42. I:icag:-a:ion of a bw.ldi.:; sys:m ~= el~cad eve: l/2 of c:e s:=::-.:::al mate:i.\l usually :a~,;!.:ed
l
!.
l
:. l
l.
l
l
l
96
z
z
:: z
z
2
z
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
43. 1"ould you vane to live :I.:!. a tm:!.: 'lli:h s!::ilia: f-=as if sued fin 70= family? __ n:s _No
44. l,'c,uld you vane a =it wit: si=-Uia:' faa::i..-:es to be located !::1 yo= :eig!:co::ood? 4S. :l.f s:!.:ad fo: one !m:l.l.7?
_n:s _!IO
_n:s __ :;o
4
4
4
4
4
4
46. ':ha syscm :e~es ::w.-ual co::::ol of t!:.e ':.ea::!.:g a=.d cocl!.::s syst==. Would you pi:e£a: au~c::.c co:c:ol i.! !.: cos: ::.e oc:1r,1a:1::
l':Lfa: ~lO :a:e $25 c:a:ee $SO :o:e .~: :my ~L- pe: moncb_ per =~ pc :a::ca.,_ cos: __
s s s
s s
s s
s
:! :iv- c!:a s.a::a a::o,mt of :o::ey i::.cli:aca hov you 'llOuld !:ave alloca:ed f=:.s. (~oi:e: I! =• !.s spe:11: on one i:e= ::.im. less =st be s;,en: on auot:ie: !.:e:)
Si'!NT USS Sit:IT S..\M! S?::m' 47. '.:1::dovs a:::d ¥1:ldov ::aac::e:: l z t.a. Mec!u:ical !:.eac ·sys:a::s l 2 49. Mec:hazu.c.l vci.t'l.' .~an sys ca l 2 so. !:I.Rl&:io: l 2 51. Sc:-.:,:::-.:al macc-'..als s=i:1 a.a l 2 52.
li=A-, c:=c:;eca, .not:~. ac:. 1•~• •" ·:iace:-'..als 1u:ll. as pai:1-:, vall paver, ca:,ae~. cabuacs
l z
:! g'.!.ve: ca sa:a a:::c,mc of !loo: s;,aca, indicaee how you ,.-oulci have al:.cc:aead space. ('Noi:s: C::i eacll.. i:"l.oo:, :!.: ona a:u is la:ge: a:oc::e: a:aa :mac ba s::alla:)
SJ. S4. 53. 56. S7. 38.
Xii:c!um Oi:ing a:ea Uviz:ig :co: aad:oom !il 3ed:oOIII IZ aai:."i
OMIT l l l l l l
2 2 z z 2 2
SA.'!!'.: 3 3 3 3 3. 3 ..
3 3 3 3 3
3
lro?.::
97
65. Rave you evar l!.vad in a ;,ass:!.va sol..: =!.::?
66. I.s :re= P•=en:: h.=a :n.ac:ksll=g
-:awer :::.an 20 ::iles f::= 3lac:lc3curg --u CCI 99 :iles f::-0111 3lack.sb=g =lOO Cll:' 111C1ra ::u.les :::CIIII 31..ac!t.sb=;
67. t.s 10= pe::::a:enc ho:11e lccacad in a =al area
__ ?ZS __ :ro
__ T!S __ !."0
--::c...:1/cit:7 cf fever ::han 10,000 oaoela --i::=/ci1:7 cf c:::,ra ell.au 10,000 buc :awar ::=-a:i 50,000 people --,u.b=b of cic:,- of fawe: c.lla:i. 50,000 paoole --ciey of =r• :!:I.an 50,000 people • -.si;c=ll of·c::!.::, of =r•. :::h.a.:i. 50,000 peo;,la
69. I.s ;a= =enc h=a a (a.:i.) suigle :am.l7 de~c:b.ed house
-•~a:-ae: ~n a :ul:i-fa::t:.ly uni: --si:lgla fam:.17 a::-:ac:b.ed house (i!.l;. :::::i= honse) ==bi.le b.ame __ oca:-
70. &=bar of ;,eople i:1 yo= c:-..:=a:i.t: hcu:se~ld __ t __ z __ 3 __ 4 _s 01:' -core
71. Age of par.so11 c:om;,lac:!.:1.g t:hi.s fci=
__ 15-24 _25-34 __ 35•44 __ 45-59 __ 60 ol:' oldel:'
72. Sex of pe:so11 c:c,::plec:!.:g chis :or.:: __ ::ala
74. Toal ;u:iusehcld i.:c:=• fol:' persa:1. C:ct::?laC:!.:1.g ~:u.s f:::ir.: _o-Sl4,999 _su.ooo-z9,999 _sJo,ooo-49,999 _sso.ooo or =ra
is . :Yl! AilDr.:':ONAI. cc~.rs
98
As you may k..~ow, TdE F.I~LS!DE :OL"RPLLX has =eceived a HUD desig-:i a~ard fer buildi.:lg value i..~co housing. Would you please :ake a few :ninu;es :o complaca chis ·quescionr.aire in orcie= co help ~valua~e :~is ar.d i~=~~e u~ic~? Plea3a c.ark ~he nu::Oer ~hieh Mos= closely =eilec:s you= opi~ion.
Ya =ecognize cha~ :ha housing needs of fa:!!~lies CJ.ay ~!!=e= f:oc needs o: a grou? cf single persons. Yc1.: t::ay choose- :o e·val.ua~e :=:.is apar:-~&nt for ei::her a fa:!ly er fo= a g~oup of single pe~sons.
E:·,1alu.ation of cbe uni: is for __ a family or -- a g:-cup of single ?C=sons.
EX:'nIOR QI~ !filg V::RY ADEQ· v~~Y ?OOR ?OOR t:A7! GOOD GOOD
l. Gene:-al att=activeness of building l , 3 4 5
2. tocacion o:: ;,a:king !. 2 3 I. 5
3. Adequacy of yard for outi:ioo= living space l 2 3 I. 5
... Ac:ess co che uni: fo:- daily en::-y l 2 3 I. 5
5. for :novi::g .:urnit'.::-e l 2 3 4 3
6. Secu=ity and safec7 fro:n ou:sid1?:-s l 2 3 4 5
7. Ove:-all opinion of che ex::a:ior of u:iit l 2 3 4 5
I~'r!RIOR gr~ !1?!!! Size of rOO'Q.S Definicaly Somewha: Adec;uace Some .. ,,;!,.a-: 'Oefi:.i:ely
coo small st:iall la:ge :oo l~=ge 8. lowe: li·.ring :'000 l 2 3 4 , 9. dining area l 2 3 4 5 10. kicchen l 2 3 4 5 ll. bed-:ooms l 2 3 4 5 !2. bat:!:l 1 2 3 4 5 13. uppe:- living rooc l 2 3 I. 5
Ade~uacy of space :or fu.r:1i:u-:-e place:nent: VE:?..Y ADEQ• \'E?..? POOR POOR u.;.::: GOOD GOOD
14. in lower living room l 2 3 4 5
l!;. in dining a:!:3. l 2 3 4 5
16. in bec!:-ooms l 2 3 4 5
1·7. in uppe:- living -:-oom l 2 3 4 5
18. A.---::-angemen: of t:he rooms l 2 3 4 5
19. T::af:ic pac:er::.s wichin c!:le u:iic l 2 3 4 5
Adequacy of storage
20. in che ki:chen l 2 3 4 5
21. in che bed:o=s l 2 3 4 5
22. for seasonal !.:ir.:13 l 2 3 I. 5
?:-ivacy for :-esidents
23. f:-om oc!:.e:s ill 1:he ap=::,enc l 2 3 4 5
24. fro:n ochers in che four;,lex l 2 3 4
25. f:-0t:1 oucsicle noises l 2 3 4 5
..:\l:count of nat:ural lighc
25. ill living/dining a:ea l 2 3 4 ;
27. in kicchen l 2 3 4 5
::s. i.!'1 bedroolll.S l 2 3 4 5
29. in '.:pper living :oom !. 2 3 4
30. Locacion of lau.~drv : 3 I.
31. ·,.;ork::nanship 2 4 5
3:2. o"·e:-a:.1 ..."."..:-..:,::.,. o:: :b? ..:--e-.:-- --t.:.:-.i:: :
34. "Oayci=e Spaces" a:Tanged :o u::!.11:e solar energy for 40! of S?ace heae!ng
.3S. Sou::h ,,!nciovs w!ch adjuscabla shades
36. Ocl!ssion of ease and vese vindovs
37. Cluscering of bai:.'u a.:id lc!::chens on one pl=b!ng vall
.38, Plan included l0Wer uni: sec inco siee
39. Walls constr,:ceed of rcugh sawn ~" scuds ?lac11d 16" on cencar
40. Su?;,orc floors o:: J" ~pncr11ce 011 scael decking SU??or:ad by lxlo's on J 'cence:
41. Co::-r-.igaced roo:: on concin,:c,us vooden pu::lins co elil:li:ace convencional rafcer/c:-.1ss/sheaching sysce=
42. !ncag:ac!on of a buildi.~g sysca ca:: eli:::Lnaced o•re: l/2 of Che sc:-.ic=al cacerial usually :a~ui:ed
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
99
43, Would you 1o1a:1e :o live in a unit vith si:lil!a:
2
2
z z
2
z
2
z
3
3
3
3
3
3 -
3
3
3
fea=es if s!:ed for your f=ily? __ Y"'-5 __ ~10
44, Would you wan: a u.-u.c nth sil:liliar faa=as co be locacad in yc-ur neighborhood? __ n:s __ NO
45. if sized for one fa:ily? __ n:s :,o
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
46, The presenc sysce:i req:ures ::ianual con:rol of che heac:::tg ar.d cooling s7s:ec. Would you pre~er au:.,mac!c concrol if it cos: :he oc:upan::
?refer $10 ==e S25 =re $50 =ore At any :nanuaL_ per ::onc_h __ pe: mcn:h __ ?•r :oncL_ cosc __
5
5
s
5
s
s
s
5
s
!f given the sa::ie a,:icu:ic of money ir.dicaca hew you -:,ould have allocaced l:'.!.~ds. (~oca: !f =r• .is spenc on one itec :hen less !!.USC be s;,enc on anccher i:e::i)"
SPE.'lT LZSS S?ENT SA.'!!:: Sl'n!T MCRZ 47. windcws and -.:1.ndcw c:eac:ienc l z 48. Mechanical heac sysce:is l 2 49. Mec!iani::.al ven:ilacion syscem l :? 50. !:1.sulacion l 2 Sl. Scr.:c=al macer:!.als such as l 2
lumber, ccnc:-sca, roof!ng, 11cc. 52. :'i:u.sh macer!als such u bainc, l 2
wall ;,aper, ca:;,ec:1.ng, ca inecs :f given che same amcunc of floor space, indicac• how you -:,cul~ have alloca:ed space. (Noce: On each :loor, i! one area is larger anocer area =sc be s::ialle::)
w.!T SMALUlt S.\.'!Z :.ARcn c:;;.."iGZ 53. i:.!.cchen l 2 3 4 5 54. i:>:!.ning area l 2 3 4 ; S3. I.over living reom . z 3 4 5 56. I.o-Je: bedroom #l l 2 3 4 5
. 57. I.over bedroom i2 l 2 3 4 s sa. l'..ovu ba~ l 2 3 .:. 5
59. Up;,er lir.:; room l z 3 4 . s 60. O;,;,e:: bedroom ;13 l 2 3 4 3 61. Uoi:,er bedroom ij4 l 2 3 4 s 62. U;,per ba::h l .. 3 4 5
63. I.o:c area l 2 3 4
3 3 3 3 3
3
FLOORS
100
e4. Rave you ever visi:ed a passive sol.a: •.mi: be:ore?
55, aave you ever lived in a passive solar uni:? 66. :s Your pe=anen: ho:e
Slacksbu:; --fawer :han 20 c:.les :roe Blacksb= 6 --21 co 99 miles from !lacksbu:; =lOO or more ::iiles :roe Blacksbu:: 6
67. Is you: P•=ent h01111l located in a :-u:al area
__ n:s __ NO
__ Y~ __ NO
--:ovtt/ci:y of fewer than l0,000 people --:o-wn/ci:y of mere than l0,000 but fewer than 50,000 people --suburb of city of fe-Jer than 50,000 peopla =ciey of more than 50,000 people __ l~bu:b of cicy of 1:10re_c;un 50,000 people
68. Oo you c=ently Ovtl
--:enc -ocb.er
69. Is you: cu..-rent hoce a (an) single- facily decached house
--a~a:t::enc in a 2U.:!-fac.il7 u::.i: --single f=ily attached house (e.g. co~T. house) --=ooile h01:1e -other
i0. Number of people in your =rrenc household __ l __ 2 __ 3 __ 4 __ s or mare
71. Age of person CO!ll?leci.~g :his for:i __ l6•24 __ 25-34 __ 35-44 __ 45•59 __ 60 or older
72. S= of person cccplecing c;iis fo= __ ca.le __ female
73. Occupation of pe:son completing ::us fo=
74. ?otal household incoce-for person cccple:ing :his :o= _0-$14,999 _$15,000-29,999 _$30,000-49,999 _sso.ooo or ::ore
i5. £ AODI7ION;..I. co~-:s
::..UiX YOU for caking- :!::le co help us, '•• :iope you cave enjoyed your ~'"!.sit.
101
LOWER UNIT 99 :llJC IIIU.Sm? ?O'C'UUX KAM!! Oil! =
... -:\~ ~<>· ~"I" ...... .,.;,. ..... -4•
./' ~Oil O!' l!Ot!S?SG l!YIT ~.,,;, ~..,. •"i.U" Dill ?Cu U1.Z Oil Dinn:z
1 3 4 .5 1. Gaulral ac=c:1.,_...11 1 3 4 .5 of buildi=g
l 1 3 4 .5 z . Lacal:!Oll at par!w:I g 1 l 4 .5
l : 3 4 5 3 • .t.~ of 7ari for % 3 4 .5 OIICdcor 11'1::li 9l'ac8
kca•• co t!>• um.c % 3 4 .5 4. for daily m:ry l % 3 4 .5
l % 3 4 .5 .5. for :lllffi.Dg !l:.r:11:1'.., % 3 4 .5 l 1 3 4 .5 6. S.c:u=.:y &cl uf•ty l 1 3 4 .5
frca oac»1o!an
1 3 4 .5 7. Oftrall opi.11.iCG of the 1 3 4 .5 u:cartor ot thll ,auc
IYI?U:Oll O!' IICl!S!!IG mr.:
Sue of.....,,.
1 3 4 ., !. 1-r u.,....,,, = 1 3 4 .5
l 1 3 4 5 ,. d1:u:11 ...... 1 3 4 5
l 1 3 4 ., 10. ld.c=- 1 3 4 ., l 1 3 4 .5 11-be~ 1 3 4 .5
l 1 4 ., u. 11.ull l 1 3 4 ., l % 3 4 .5 question oc:!.:~ed : l 4 .5
n.zu.w:,, tor fumie--1.-. plua-,-: .. affaccacl by sll- of .._ loc.ad.011 of vinclon mcl/<rr: doon, ecc:
1 3 4 .5 14. m lo,Mr ll'>ml ...,_ : 3 4 .5
1 l 4 ., 1.5. 1:1.~gana : 3 4 .5
l 1 3 4 .5 16. m ucirocaa l 1 l 4 ., l 1 3 4 .5 quasciau oc:i.c:ad 1 3 4 .5
1 3 4 .5 18 • .t.rra-cof room 1 3 4 .5
1 3 4 ., u. fiaffu paccam 1 3 4 .5 ~tlwl di& :&1C
.i.aq....., of sconp
1 J 4 .5 %0. m :a ld.c=- l : 4 .5
1 3 4 .5 %1. 11'1 =-~ 1 3 4 .5
1 1 3 4 .5 :1. m =a baa 2. 3 4 .5
1 3 4 .5 13. tar -CIIL&l. 11:- 1 3 4 .5
l 1 3 4 .5 14. oci..r % 3 . 4 .5
P:iY&CT tor ....,:1,c1&u
1 3 4 .5 1.5. f=- oci..:n v1cn:I.: . 3 4 s . :lla~C . 3 4 .5 :5. f::os oclan 1:1. thll . 1 4 5 focplu
102
.. $' .if ,., .. .,,0~ ;.{' ,.., ..
~" .f Amot.ac of ucunl. Ullbc .iL\r DIii YOC LIXZ 01. DISLDJ!:
2 3 4 ' 27. 1'l liviAg/&:!.cg ana l 2 3 4 ' 2 3 4 ' 28. 1'l kicdlc 2 3 4 ' 2 3 4 ' z,. 1'l bed.....,.. 2 3 4 ' 1 z 3 4 ' 30. 1'l "PfleC Uv:ln1 :aoa 2 3 4 ' Maas-c of ff;aub macarl.als
z 3 4 ' 31. floor cOff::!z>g-car;ec 2 3 4 ' z 3 4 ' 32. floor COfllrln l"""UlY 1 2 3 4 ' 2 3 4 ' 33. cailing -••r.!.al 2 3 4 ' 2 3 4 ' 34. pdAta4 v.U. 2 3 4 ' z 3 4 ' 3.5. c:abi:wc t:!Aiab 2 3 4 ' 2 3 4 ' 36. lc£Ccbu appliccaa 2 3 4 ' z 3 4 ' 37. ani.fid.al liabtin1 2 3 4 s
l 2 3 4 ' 31. elac:i:ncal. ouc.!atll 2 3 4 ' 4~r.!.o c:caditicu
l z 3 4 ' 39. aa.forulta te-rarura 2 3 4 ' (11biclt area or nom)
z 3 ·4 ' 40. hUlllidicy z 3 4 ' la-.1.
z 3 4 ' 41. tnii,arai::an uaifo::d.l:y- 2 3 4 ' -r
2 3 4 ' i.z. lmi!or=.ty- 2 3 4 ' 2 3 4 ' 43. altN11ca of drafts l 2 3 4 '
l 2 3 4 ' 44. -ui.e1cm tor ..,_., 2 4 s c:aoU,,.g
2 3 4 s 45. S.,,antioa of vau, living, 2 3 4 ' .,4 alaepizlg ......
z 3 4 ' 46. s.puat:iaa of cd z 3 4 ' puillio
2 3 4 ' 47. ~t trult 2 3 4
z 3 4 ' 48. t.>c:ac:tm of lamd:rJ 2 3 4 ' 2 3 4 s 49. Wo.aauob1;1 2 3 4 ' 2 3 4 ' 50. Oftrall op:lm,c,a ol 2 3 4 ' of ,:ha uait
Il!IIOV4lT/% l"'..4?UUS
1 3 4 ' 51. l'oarpl- forac l 3 4 ' : 3 4 s ,2. "Dqc1:a s,ecu"an&g,ad 2 3 4 s to IICil1ze aolar cerv far 40% at .,..,. haaUAg
2 3 4 ' 53. Sautll vudova "1.tb a<ljuac- 2 3 4 ' altla 1bacu : 3 4 ' 54. OlliuiOll of euc md 2
.... c "'1Ad..,. 3 4 '
103
... A j,"'--.1> ., • ..P ~" .¢~ V
¥ ~'t~ ...,.., ._$' w.i= !ltl) 1l't t..:l: aa otstr~
1 3 4 5 SS. Cluacad,lg of bacha & :.:i.:- 2 3 4 ' clMna 011 caa pl1Zllil111.g n.U
2 3 4 5 56. l'la vi:la 1-r uiu.: 2 3 4 ' .. c ill.co sic.a
1 % 3 4 5 37. ll&l.ls """"cr,,cuci of :"Ou9il •- 1":i:6" scwla pl.acacl
2 3 4 ' 16" a c: .. car
1 2 3 4 ' 58. Supporc floon of 3" c:aacraca 2 3 4 5 OIi scaal dac:ld:,g ""l'JIOZ-..ad by l":1:10"• m 3' cm.t:ars
2 3 4 5 59. C:On-upc:aci :"OOf OIi CCl>Cill.UOC>8 % 3 4 ' wooclea purl.111.s co al..1.:1:u>au c:c,,_,.c::I.Oll&l ral:er/ erva,,/ sllaaduzl I ,ryac-
1 3 4 ' 60. IAc:a,;ratiou of a bui.l<l:tAg % 3 4 5 1179,:- tllac .U.W.acaa awr 1/2 of tlla acr,,c:uraJ. ...,.r-1al ......U7 raqut.:.ci
61. th• 11ra-c .,..,.. nqul.ru -ual c:mcr.il of the ba&cill.1 cd cooU..i .,..,. .. llould "°" pnlar a cocalJ.7 aaCOlllllca<i .,_., .. U ic ccac ,..,..r bC111Hllold:
$10 ..,... $25 a,i,t $50 •N U &7 l'rafar par _ell_ par -=- par mau:ll_ cosc __ ..... ...i __
62. l!Gv otull do "°" maka adjuaCIIIIICS co tll• baac:!:lg cd coolill.1 S:,9Caa? (Fill !A CIUI)
If, aa Clla """ -ra g1-.- tlla •- -a&C of ..,,..,., izlclieaea how ,.... would t,..,. &Uoc:acaci f,..da. (lroc:a: If mn ia ll'l)CU OIi caa i:q tllao lesa =uc be 811-C OIi aaoellar)
S1'ESr USS sn?IT SM!! SP!!l'r !'ll!'3 63. lludGn cd vmci<lw cra-c 1 2 3
64. lfac:llaaiul haac .,...,.. 1 1 3
"· ?Mul.&c:ialo 1 3
66. Stnc:llnl. •cadAl.a sucllu 2 3 luabe~. c:mcnca. roo.f"...u1. •cc.
67. 1u1a -~ llucll u pauc. 2 J wall. p_r, =rpac, uiw,.acs, ecc:.
::: si.._ tlla •- ..,_c of floor s,ac:a, 111.ci:1c:aca i,.,,, you """14 1,...,. allDc:acad 911aca. (loca, 01a MCI: floor, 1! caa ana ia larpr cacher an& mac be -U...-)
68. Ucc:!ua 69. 1Ha:m1 ana ;"O. t.a..r li,iug -71. t.a..r bec:iooa #1 n. .. --12 73. t.o.r bell
OHJ:r S!W.t!I S.4!llt t..w:ZI. Clill!r<Z Ft.OOIS 1 : 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 S 1 1 3 4 5 1 2 3 " S 1 Z : 4 5 l l '! 4
79. -&ac Cb=- tlwlp do you :uka "'"" ailouc l!'l'ill1 111. n.a ll!llaida FOU?lezf 1. 2. J.
ao. Wllac craa :11.iap d.o ,,... Ula :i..ue aoou u~, m !lie !!Ulude r~i.zr 1. 1. 3.
104
:m: l!ILLS!ll! !'01JVLc: llAM! DAR = UPPER UNIT
... ~l 4) ,;f.. .,'I, ... .._ .. 'I.
... ,./' lltnIOll O'P !!ot!SI:IC UlitT *"- ,..;. d" . .aAl' Dill ~C11 t.Ir.Z Oll DISLD:!: z 3 4 5 1. C&eral. accracU,,_..• 1 3 4 5
of ~u:L.tdiAg
z 3 4 5 z. ·t.4C&Cim of pulw11 z 3 :, 5
1 z 3 4 5 3. &daq"'""7 of yard !or z 3 • 5 °"C400r li"14g apace
AccaH to the uDJ.c
z 3 4 5 4. for daily cc:ry z 3 4 5
z 3 4 5 S. tor_.,., f=itun z 3 4 5
z 3 4 5 6. S.curi:y zd oafeC7 z 3 4 5 fros couc,:1.den
z 3 4 5 7. O,,,,rall op:1.:1:1.cm of the 1 z 3 4 5 -=ar:l.or of the u,u,,:
=noa O'P !IOUSill'C 1:Y!T
Sia of -z 3 4 5 !. 1-r liT1:>s raoa z 3 4 S.
1 z 3 4 5 ,. dimA1 &tte z 3 4 5
2 3 4 s 10. ld.tdlaQ z 3 4 5
z 3 4 5 11. bed- 2 3 4 5
1 z 3 4 5 U. batll 1 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 13. ,apper lirto1 nos z 3 4 5
rl,,n::Ll>:1.licy for t,mi:U:11:e place-..,.c aa affac:ad by shape of :oa.., lo,:&Ucm ot villdolle cd/or doors. etc
1 ::. 3 4 5 14. ill lawr U-.m1 ....,. ::. 3 4 5
z 3 4 5 15. iA dJJwi.g ana ::. 3 4 s % 4 5 16. ill"·~ z j 4 5
z 3 4 5 17. :IA unar UviA1....,. : 3 4 5
z 3 4 5 18. Affzaa-c of re- 2 4 5
2 3 4 s 19. Traffic pac:ai= 1 % 3 .. 5 w:1.1:11:m :lla<m:I.C
of ocanp
z l 4 s 20. :IA clla ld.t:cl,.e : 3 4 s : 3 4 5 21. ill :Ila bed- 2 3 4 s z 3 4 5 ll. ill dla b&Cll z 3 4 5
l 2 l 4 5 23. tar~ 11:- 2 3 4 5
z 3 4 s 24. oCb.ar 2 3 4 5
l'rt""1 tar :eucl&ta
% 3 4 5 %5. f:oa oCb.an V:1.t!nzl 2 l 4 c11a-,-c
% 3 4 s 26. f:aa ocllan ill cb1I z 3 4 s fOGZllles
105
.,.. <F""
.,.,~ # "'¥7' --~ ,-;· .....
..-;.:I' Q~ -~ ,._-. .. .... .;-
""'°""c of ucur.al li;!,c <;'-lo"i!Al' CID YOU t.r!Cl!! Oll OI:.un
1 J 4 ' 17. 1A llv1:lg/<i1D.1As an.a : J 4 ' 2 J 4 ' 18. 1A k:tc=- l % 3 4 ' l 1 J 4 .5 29. :lzl b41draom 1 J 4 ' l 1 3 4 .5 quasciou O!lliCcsd 2 J 4 ' .u .... •-c of t;!Aiall -d..al.s
l 2 3 4 ' 31. tloor cownsi.~c 2 J 4 s 1 3 4 ' 32. tlaor ccrNring-nnyl 2 3 4
l % J 4 ' 33. c:ail.iD.1 :,,aced.al. : 3 4 .5
l 1 J 4 .5 34. p&iAcad vall.a l % 3 4 ' 1 2 3 4 ' ll. c:ail:u,,o: t:mula l % 3 4 ' 1 1 3 4 ' 36. k:ttchu ai,pU&cu 2 3 4 ' 1 2 3 4 .5 37. ani!id.al. !!ala~, 2 3 4 .5
1 2 3 4 ' 31. &l.ec:c.c:al. ou:i.ca % J 4 .5
1.--,i..nc CC1Lclit:l.ma
1 1 3 4 ' 39 • ..,_o.-ullla c-ncura l 2 3 4 ' (lilucllaraaor-)
1 % 3 4 .5 ,IQ. callforcal>la h-.c11:7 2 3 4 ' la-1
% 3 4 ' 41. ~1."&C=it UDJ.!o:cm.~ 1 3 4 ' _., % 3 4 .5 4Z. ca,..ncun ucilor.:iU:y- 2 3 4 .5
"1.D.car
% J 4 .5 43. ali-ca of dratca 1 J 4 ' 1 3 4 ' 44. ,,_t::U.ui.cla far su:aar % J 4 .5 coolills
l 1 J 4 ' 4'. S.,anc:1.ca of ....,:i., livi:lg. 1 2 3 4 .5 &cl alMpua araa
1 J 4 ' 46. S.,uacm of vrt.,.ca aul 2 J • ' palllic SIi.,...
1 3 4 ' 47. ~c l 2 J 4 .5
% 3 4 ' 41. t.>cacm ot 1-lcl:'f 1 3 4 ' " 3 4 !S 49. Wo~ 2 4 .5
1 1 3 4 .5 !O. O..n.U opiD.ial ot % J 4 ' iacartor ot tlla ,mC
Illll«n'&:rrn.: ?'..&=s
2 3 4 ' , 1. !'oaq,la !or.:iac :: J 4 ' 1 3 4 ' 5%. "l)a,.a:. r,r-"acapd 2 3 4 ' ,:o u:ili:a solu for
40: ot space beac:1
2 3 4 ' ,3. 5ouCII v:IAdaw wiell a.11:1 ... c- 1 J 4 .5 aitla lllu!aa
2 3 4 .5 , .. Oal.asim ot aac ad : -c~
3 4 5
106
,..~I- ~..,4> ,.4,# ~l ~ .:, ... .... e:'t' . .,.I· ..
l!Ill Yt'l' I..."l:l!: 01. Distin l 1 3 4 5 ss. ci ... cen,,g of baclla 4 ld.c- 1 3 4 5
cbae ca """ plU11111m1 w&U
2 3 4 5 "· Pla wicla lowr lalic l 2 3 4 5 MC mco •Ue
l 1 3 4 5 57. ll&lle ccucncu,t of ..,..@II 1 3 .. ' •- l":m" acuca pl.lce,t 16" • cmcar
1 3 4 5 "· Su,porc noon of 3" cmcnce 1 3 4 ' ca 1t:eel. dec:ic!Ag ovpport:a,i 117 l"zlO"• m l' cm.can
1 l 4 5 59. Coft'llpca,t roof m cmt:1A...,... 1 3 4 5 -"- purU... co alimlaaca cm-c:1.0ll&l mur/c.,,.,../ aluaaclwlc .,.caa
l 1 l 4 5 60. J:1111:agraeim at a buUdmt: 1 l 4 5 IIJIIC- cllac d:l.lldaaCM Oftr 1/% of Clla scnccural uca:r-1al ......u, nqm.n,t
61. flla ,_c "111'- nqm.na -ua1 caoc:ol of Clla haacmg •" coolmc s,acea. would ,oa pn.far • cac&U, aucaucacl SJSC- if it: :,oar IIOUHbol4:
namn szs • ..., ssa ...... .a.ca, par -=- par ,...ell_ per·-=- COIIC __
__ c:!aa par day __ C:!aa per wek
u. aa Cha dn:l.par. :ro• .. ..,. g:1..._ Clla •- -=c of·--,r, !a.tlc:aca 11- ,.,,., woal.t 11 .... allocaca,t f,aade. (llc,ce: If :ion :I.a -,-c m me it- cba lau :mac be "llflC ca aaocbar)
5P!!l1: USS S1'mr !All£ Sl'!ll't l!DltB 63. Wfadaw aMl 1dA<low cru-c l 1 3
64. Macb&ic:al lla.U s,acaa l 1
65. Iu,al.uiall l 1 3
66. Scn&e=-1 ucartala ncla u 2 3 lUllbar. cmc:nc•• roof:l::lg, ace:.
67. 1'1Aula macarl.ala lucb sa pa:l::lc. 1 3 vaU p_r, ,:upec. c:abiDaca, ecc.
If s:1.- Clla •- -•c at floor apace. aclf.cace 11- ,..,.. bfta allacau,t 59aca. (lfoce, Cb --= floor. if cu ana 18 larpr aaocllar aru mac ba ....U.•d
Ola% SHALt%Z SAIi! t..WZll CIUIIGZ n.oau 68. Ucchaa l 2 3 4 5 69. 1Hma1 ..... l 2 3 4 5 70. r-r U-nag - l 1 3 4 5 71. i:.a.r ""- #1 l 1 3 4 5 72. i:.a.r ba.iz- 11 l 1 3 4 5 73. t.awr bub L l -' 3
74. Vppar li-nag room : 3 4 s 1,. 'G'nar bauoowl 2 3 4 s 76. Vppar ba.iz- 14 :. : 4 5 77. llppar becll 1 : 4 ' 71. tote aru : 4 5
79. libac cbru clamp 4o :,o,a Ulla ••c aboac 11-naa :1::1 ::.. l!illa:l.4o l'ourplnr 1. 1. 3.
ao. llbc cbru cbmp 4o :ro• 1!ka lauc ailou 1:1.-nas :IA 'nla llills:l.4o F....r,laz? 1. z. 3.
107
APPENDIX C
PUBLIC .ACCEPTi-\NCE OE3CRIPTIVE 0.ATA
E::<terior of H,J1.lsing tJnit Interior cf H,:,using Unit Innov.~tive Featuri:s i:,f Housin,3 Ur-i~t Cesi•:;;n Decisions for Housing Unit
108
EXTERIOR OF HOUSING UNIT FREQUENCIES FOR OPEN HOUSE
LOWER UNIT Very Adeq- Very N Poor Poor uate Good Good ,. General atractiveness
of building 38 '0.00 2.63 39.47 39.47 18.42
2. Location of parking 36 :0,00 2.78 38.89 38.89 19.44
3. Adequacy of Yard for outdoor living space 38 0.00 7.90 52,63 26.32 13, 16
Access to the unit 4. for daily entry 37 o.oo 0.00 29.73 45.95 24,32
S. for moving furniture 37 0.00 10.81 35.14 32.43 21.62
6. Security and safety from outsiders 37 o.oo 5.41 27.03 48.65 18.92
7. Overall opinion of e>:terior 38 0.00 o.oo 28.95 52.63 18.42
UPPER UNIT Very Adeq- Very N Poor Poor uate Good Good
1 . General atractiveness of building 41 o.oo 2.44 43.90 46.34 7.31
2. Location of parking 43 0.00 0.00 46.51 44,19 9.30
3. Adequacy of yard for outdoor living space 44 2.44 24.39 53,66 14.63 4.87
Access to the unit 4. tor dai1Y entry 42 o.oo 7.14 23,81 52.38 16.67
5. for moving furniture 42 2,38 14.29 45.24 23.81 14.28
6. Security and s_afetY from outsiders 43 o.oo 4.65 41.86 44.19 9,30
7. Over a 11 opinion of exterior 44 2,67 6.82 45.46 38.63 6 .~,, •'-'"-
109
INTERIOR OF HOUSING UNIT FREQUENCIES FOR OPEN HOUSE
LOWER UNIT
Room size N OefinitelY Somewhat Adequate Somewhat OefinitelY too small small large too large
8, Living 38 o.oo 21.05 68.42 10.53 0.00
9. Dining 38 o.oo 10.53 60.52 26.31 o.oo 1 O.Kitchen 38 o.oo 7.90 73.68 15.78 0.00
11 .Bedroom 38 o.oo 7.90 78.94 13.16 0.00
12.Bath 38 o.oo 13.16 55.26 5.26 26.32
13.0mitted 00 0.00 o.oo o.oo 0.00 o.oo
Adequacy of space for N Very Poor Adeq- Good VerY furniture placement Poor uate Good
14. in living room 38 5.26 13.16 39.47 34.21 7.90
1 5. in dining room 38 o.oo 5.26 44.74 31.58 18.42
16. in bedrooms 38 o.oo 2.63 39.47 42, 1 l 15,79
17. omitted 38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
18. Arrangement of rooms 38 o.oo 0.00 18.42 57.90 23.68
19. Traffic patterns 37 o.oo o.oo 18.92 56.76 24.32
Adequacy of storage 20, in kitchen 37 o.oo 5.41 27.03 37.84 29.73
21, in bedrooms 37 0.00 5.40 40.54 35.13 18.92
22, for seasonal items 37 5.56 22.22 38.89 30.56 2.i9
Privacy for residents 23. from others in
the apartment 37 o.oo 10.81 35.14 32.43 21.62
24, from others in the foun•le>: 37 o.oo 2.70 24,32 54.05 18.52
25, from outside noise 37 0.00 o.oo 31.43 45.71 22.86
Amount of natural light 26. in living/dining area 38 o.oo 0.00 0.00 47.37 52.63
27. in kitchen 38 o.oo 5,26 15.79 36,84 42,11
28, in bedrooms 38 o.oo 21.05 26.32 28.95 23.68
29. omitted 00 o.oo a.co 0.00 0.00 0.00
30. Location of laundry 30 3.33 3.33 46.67 33.33 13.33
31. \olorkmansnip 38 o.oo 2.63 50.00 31.57 15.i9
32, Over a 11 opinion of interior of tne unit 38 o.oo o.oo 34.21 50.00 13.16
110
INTER!OR OF HOUSING UNIT FREQUENCIES FOR OPEN HOUSE
UPPER UNIT
Room size N Definitely Somewhat Adequate Somewhat Definitely too small small large too large
8. Living 44 o.oo 20.46 56.82 18.18 o.oo 9, Dining 44 o.oo 13.64 68.18 13.61 4,55
1 O.Kitc:hen 44 o.oo 4.54 72.73 20,46 2.27
11 .Bedroom 44 o.oo 2.27 68.18 27,27 o.oo 12.Bath 44 2.27 18.18 65.91 9.09 4.46
13.Upper 44 0.00 4.54 45.46 38.64 11.36 living room
Adequacy of spac:e for N Very Poor Adeq- Good VerY furniture placement Poor uate Good
14. in living room 43 o.oo 18.61 55.81 20.93 4.65
1 5. in dining room 44 o.oo 9.09 56.82 29.55 4.55
16. in bedrooms 44 o.oo o.oo 38.64 45.46 15.91
17. in upper living room 42 o.oo 2.38 26.19 42.86 28.57
18. Arrangement of rooms 44 o.oo ,2,27 36.36 43.18 18.18
19. Traffic: patt~rns 43 o.oo 2.33 25.58 65.i2 6.98
Adequac:Y of storage 20. in kitchen 42 2.38 4.76 59.52 28.57 4.76
21. in bedrooms 43 o.oo 2.33 51.16 39.54 6,38
22. for seasonal items 42 o.oo 14.29 45.24 30.95 9.52
Privacy for residents 23. from others in
the apartment 42 2.38 11.91 28.S7 42.86 14.29
24. from others in the fourp lex 41 o.oo 4.88 19.51 S3.66 21.95
25. from outside noise 40 o.oo 7.50 22.50 62.50 7.50
Amount of natural light 26. in living/dining area 44 o.oo 0.00 6.82 29.55 63.64
27. in kitchen 44 o.oo o.co 15.91 38.64 45.46
28. in bedrooms 44 o.oo 2.27 20.46 54.55 22.73
29. in upper living room 41 o.oo o.oo 9.76 34,15 56,iO
'30. Location of laundrY 33 o.oo 3.03 48.49 42.42 6.06
31. Workmanship 43 2.33 13.95 34,88 34.88 13.95
32. Over a 11 opinion of interior of the unit 44 o.oo o.oo 27,27 56,32 15."3i
LO\./ER UNIT
33. F ourp le:: formal
34, Daytime spaces arranged lo utihze solar energy for 40'4 of space heating
35. South ,,,indo1,.,s 1,./lt h adjustable shades
36. Omission flf east and west hJlnd(H"1S
37. Clustered baths & kitchens onto one plumbing wall
38. Plan includ<,d lo•.~er unit set into site
39. Use of concrete b loci, for interior walls
40. Support floor of 3" concrel e on st ee 1 decl-"ing suppor led by 111 ~:lO"s on 3' ce11ters
41. Corrugate roof on continuous wooden purlms to eliminate conv~nt 10na l rafter /truss/ she3lhing system
42. Integration of building system that eliminated over l/2 of the material usually required
N
34
36
35
36
35
33
35
36
36
36
INNOVATIVE FEATURES OF HOUSlt·IG UNIT FREQLIEIJCIES FOITTlPEFfTTuOSr-
0.00 2.91 8.82 32.35 55.88
0.00 0.00 8.33 19.44 72.22
0.00 0.00 8.57 25.71 65,71:
0.00 13.89 11. ll 27. 78 47 ,22
0.00 0.00 0.00 22.86 77.14
0.00 0,00 24.24 42,42 33.33
UPPER UNIT
33. Fourple>: formal
34, Oayt ime spaces arranged to utilize solar energy for 40'4 of space heating
35. South windows with adjustable shades
36, Omission of east and west windows
37. Clustered baths & kitchens onto one plumbing wall
38. Plan included lower unit set into site
39, Walls constructed of rough
N
38
44
44
44
44
43
2.85 20.00 20.00 25,71 31.43 sa,...-n 1 .. >:611 studs 1611 on center 44
o.oo 0.00 16.67 33.33 50.00
2.78 2.78 22.22 38.89 33.33
0.00 0,00 5.56 30.56 63.89
40. Support floor of 3" concrete on steel decldng supported by l 11>:l 0 11s on 3 1 centers
41. Corrugate roof on continuous wooden purlins to eliminate conventional rafte,r/truss/ sheathing system
42. lntegrallon of building sv,tem that ehminated over l /2 of the material usually required
44
43
44
0.00 5.26 18.42 36.84 39.47
0.00 0.00 9.09 31.82 59.09
0,00 0.00 4.55 43. 18 52.27
o.oo 2.n 2s.oo 38.64 34.09
0.00 '2.27 4.55 40.90 52.27
2.32 4.65 25.58 34.88 32.56
4.55 4.55 20.46 31.Bl 38.64
2.27 2,27 22,73 27.27 45.46
2.32 4.65 25.58 30.23 37,20
2.27 2.27 IS.90 31.82 47.73
DESIGN DECISIONS FOR THE HOUSING UNIT FREQUENCIES FOR OPEN HOUSE
LOWER UNIT <38 Respondents>
43, Would you want to live in a unit with similiar features if sized for Your family? N•34 YES~ NO 7,90
44. Would you want a unit with similiar features to be located in Your neighborhood? N=35 YES~ NO 21,05
45. if sized for your familY? N=34 YES 89.47 NO 0.00
46. The present sYstem requires manual control of the heating and cooling system. Would you prefer automatic control if it cost the occupant: N=35
PREFER Sl 0 MORE $25 MORE SS0 MORE AT ANY MANUAL 73.68 per month 18.42 per month 0,00 per month 0,00 COST 0.00
If given the same amount of money indicate how You would have allocated funds. No'te: If more is spent on one item then less must be spent on another,
N SPENT LESS SPENT SAME SPENT MORE
47. Windows & window treatment 32 0.00 65.79 18.42
48. Mechanical heat systems 31 2.63 76,32 2,63
49. Mechanical ventilation system 31 7.90 60.53 13.16
so. Insulation 31 o.oo 65.79 15.79 •
51. Structural materials 33 o.oo 73.68 13.16
52, Finish materials 32 5.26 so.co 28,95
If given the same amount of floor space, indicate how You would have allocated space, Note: On each f1oor, if one area is larger another area must be smaller.
N OMIT SMALLER SAME LARGER CHANGE FLOORS
53. Kitchen 34 o.oo 10.53 73,68 5.26 o.oo 54. Dining area 34 2.63 13.16 71.05 2,63 o.oo 55. Lower living room 34 o.oo 2.63 55.26 31.S7 o.oo 56. Lower bedroom #1 34 o.oo 2.63 73.68 13.16 o.oo 57. Lower bedroom #2 34 o.oo 10.S3 71.05 7.90 o.oo 58, Lower bath 34 o.oo o.oo 68,42 21,05 o.oo NOTE: Percentages may not tot a 1100% due to missing responses
113
DESIGN DECISIONS FOR THE HOUSING UNIT FREQUENCIES FOR OPEN HOUSE
UPPER UNIT (44 Respondents)
43, Would You want to live in a unit with similiar features if si:ed for Your tamilY? N=41 YES 93.18 NO 6.82
44, Would You want a unit with similiar features to be loc:ated in Your neighborhood? N=42 YES 70,46 NO 25,00
45. if sized tor your tamilY? N=42 YES~ NO..k.il
46, The present sYstem requires manual c:ontrol of the heating and c:ooling system. Would you prefer automatic: c:ontrol if it c:ost the oc:c:upant: M=42
PREFER $1 0 MORE $25 MORE $SO more At ANY MANUAL 59.09 per month 22.73 per month 9,09 per month 2.27 COST 2.27
If given the same amount of money indicate how You would have allocated funds, Note: If more is spent on one item then less must be spent on another.
N SPENT LESS SPENT SAME SPENT MORE
47. Windows & window treatment 40
48, Mec:hanic:al heat SY!:tems 41
49, Mec:hanic:al ventilation system
SO, Insulation
51 . Struc:tura 1 materials
52, Finish materials
40
41
40
42
0.00
2.27
0.00
2,27
o.oo o.oo
70.46
91,92
88.64
81.92
86.36
63,63
20.46
9.09
2,27
9,09
4.54
31,82
If given the same amount of floor spac:e, indicate how You would have a lloc:ated spac:e. Note: On eac:h floor, if one area is larger another area must be smaller.
N OMIT
53, Kitc:hen 36 0,00
54, Dining area 36
55. Lower living room 37
56. Lower bedroom #1 37
57. Lower bedroom #2 37
58. Lower bath 36
59, Upper living room 36
60. Upper bedroom #3
61 , Upper bedroom #4
62. Upper bath
63. Loft area
36
37
35
38
o.oo 6,82
0.00
o.oo o.oo 2,27
0.00
o.oo 0.00
4,54
SMALLER SAME LARGER CHANGE FLOORS
6,82 68. 18 6,82 0,00
9,09
4.55
o.oo 2,27
2,27
9,09
2.27
4,54
0.00
63.64
56.82
79.75
79,55
63.64
68.18
72.73
72.73
61,36
47,73
9.09
13.63
4.55
2,27
19,18
2.27
6,81
4,54
22.73
25.00
0.00
o.oo 15.91
0.00
o.oo 0.00
o.oo o.oo 0,00
NOTE: Percentages may not total 100% due to missing responses,
114
E>~teric,r c,f Hc,usin-3 Unit Interic,r i:!f Hc,us~n,3 Unlt
115
EXTER!OR OF TH§ HOtJSING UNIT D !SSA TISFIED/SA TISFIED MEASURE FOR RESIDENTS
1. General attra<:tivenes:s of building
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=l3 N=l3
1. 00.00 00,00 7,69 2, 30.00 7,69 00.00 3. 40.00 46,15 23.08 4. 10.00 38,46 30,77 5. 20.00 7,69 38.46
2, Location ot parking
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=l3
1. 00,00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 7.69 3. 30.00 7,69 7,69 4. 50,00 15.39 23,08 5, 20,00 76.92 61.54
3. Adequacy of Yard tor outdoor living space
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO Nzl3 N=l3
1. 00,00 00.00 00.00 2, 00.00 00.00 7,69 3. 30.00 7.69 00.00 4, 20.00 30,77 30.77 5, 50.00 61,53 61,54
4, Access to the unit for daily entry
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N•10 N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 20.00 15,39 00.00 4. 40.00 7.69 30.77 5. 40.00 76.92 69.23
5. Access to the unit for mcv,ng furniture
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N•10 Nz13 N=13
1. 00,00 00,00 00.00 2. 30.00 15.39 00,00 3. 10.00 23.08 23.08 4. 30.00 38.46 15.39 5. 30.00 23.07 61.54
6. Security and satetY from outsiders
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=9 N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 7.69 7.69 2, 22.22 7.69 23.08 3. 22,22 38,46 15.39 4. 44.44 23,08 15.39 5. 11.11 23.08 38.46
7. Overall opinion o-f the exterior of the unit
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00,00 00.00 00.00 2, 00,00 15.39 00,00 3. 30.00 ,5.39 15.39 4. 60,00 61.:4 61.54 " ..,, 10,00 7.69 23,08
116
~XTERIOR OF THE HOUSING IJN!T NOT IMPORTANT /IMPORT ANT MEASURE FOR RESIDENTS
,. General attractiveness of building
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 'POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 20.00 00.00 00.00 3. 30.00 23.08 30.77 4. 10.00 53,85 38.46 5. 40.00 23.08 30.77
2. Location of parking
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=l3
1. 00.00 7.69 00.00 2. 10.00 00.00 7.69 3. 50.00 23.08 15,39 4. 30.00 46.15 38.46 5. 10.00 23.08 38.46
3. Adequacy of yard tor outdoor living space
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 10.00 00.00 7.69 3. 30.00 7.69 7.69 4. 50.00 76.92 53.85 5. 10.00 15.39 30.77
4. Access to the unit tor daily entry
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=l3 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 20.00 7.69 7.69 4. 50.00 53.84 46.15 5. 30.00 38.46 46.15
5. Access to the unit tor moving furniture
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N,.13 N=l3
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 20.00 15.39 7.69 3, 10.00 15.39 15.39 4. 50.00 30.77 30.77 5. 20.00 38.46 46.15
6. SecuritY and safety from outsiders
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 t-1=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3, 10.00 7.69 15.39 4. 60.00 30.77 23.08 5. 30.00 61.54 61.54
7. Overall opinion of the exterior of the unit
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO Ncl3 N=13 ,. 00.00 00.00 00.00
2. 10.00 00.00 00.00 3. 10.00 33.33 23.07 4. 60.00 58.33 53.84 5. 20.00 :3.33 23.0:3
EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSING UNIT EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSING UNIT UNIMPORTANT /IMPORT ANT MEASURE FOR RESIDENTS DISSATISFACTION/SATISFACTION MEASURE FOR RESIDENTS MEAN COMPARISON MEAN COMPARISON
1. General attractiveness of the building 1. General attractiveness of the building
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 3.70 4,00 4.00 3.20 3.46 3,92
2. Location of parking 2. Location of parking
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 3.40 3.77 4,08 3.90 4.69 4.38
3. Adequacy of Yard for outdoor living space 3. Adequacy of Yard for outdoor living space
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 3.50 4.08 4.00 4.20 4.54 4.46
4. Access lo the unit for daily entry 4. Access to the unit for daily entry
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 I-' 4.10 4.31 4.38 4.20 4.62 4,69 I-' -...J 5. Access to the unit for moving furniture 5. Access to the unit for moving furniture
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 3.70 3.92 4.15 3.60 3.69 4.38
6. Security and safety from outsiders 6. Security and safety from outsiders
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 4.20 4.54 4.46 3.44 3,46 3.54
7. Overall opinion of the e)-:terior of the unit 7. Overall opinion of the e>:terior of the unit
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 3.90 3.75 4,00 3.80 3.61 4.07
118
EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSING UNIT MATRIX MEASURE FOR RESIDENTS
MEAN COMPARISON
1. General attractiveness of the building
PRETEST 6.20
2. Locatfon of parking
PRETEST 7.90
POST-TEST 1 7.38
POST-TEST 1 10.08
3. Adequacy of Yard for outdoor living space
>
PRETEST 8.60
POST-TEST 1 10.00
4. Access to the unit for daily entry
PRETEST 9.20
POST~TEST 1 10.38
5. Access to the unit for moving furniture
PRETEST 7.60
POST-TEST 1 7.92
6. Security and safety from outsiders
PRETEST 7.11
POST-TEST l
7. Over a 11 opinion of the e:,-:terior c,f the unit
PRETEST 8.30
POST-TEST 1 8.08
POST-TEST 2 8.31
POST-TEST 2 9.69
POST-TEST 2 9.77
POST-TEST 2 10.69
POST-TEST 2 9.46
POST-TEST 2 7.54
POST-TEST 2 9.00
EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSJNT UNIT MA TRIX MEASURE FOR THE RESIDENTS
l.General attractiveness of the building 3. Adequacy of Yard for outdoor living space
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 7.69 1, 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 30.00 7.69 00.00 3, 00.00 00.00 7.69 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00,00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00,00 00.00 5. 00.00 00,00 00.00 6. 40.00 46.15 23.08 6. 30.00 7.69 00.00 7. 10.00 00.00 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 7.69 8. 00.00 00.00 7.69 8. 20.00 00.00 00.00 9. 00.00 38.46 23.08 9. 10.00 30.77 23.08 10. 10.00 00.00 23.08 10. 10.00 7.69 7.69 11. 00.00 00.00 00.00 11. 30.00 46.15 30.77 12. 10.00 7.69 15.39 12. 00.00 7,69 23.08
N=lO N=13 N=13 N=lO N=13 N=13
2. location of parking 4. Access to the unit for dailY entry ,_. PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 ,_.
0. 00.00 00.00 00.00 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 lO
l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 7.69 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 30.00 7.69 7.69 6. 20.00 13.39 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 40.00 15.39 00.00 8. 10.00 00.00 00.00 9. 20.00 7.69 30.77 9. 30.00 7.69 30.77 10. 00.00 15.39 7.69 10. 00.00 7,69 7,69 11. 10.00 30.77 15.39 11. 30.00 30.77 23.08 12. 00.00 23.08 30.77 12. 10.00 38.46 38.46
N=lO N=13 N=13 N=lO N=13 N=l3
,: '"'· Access to the unit for moving furniture 7. Overall opinion of the e::terior of the unit
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 20.00 10.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 8.33 00.00 C 10.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 -'• 6. 10.00 10.00 23.08 6. 30.00 16.67 15.39 7. 10.00 00.00 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 00.00 00.00 7.69 8. 00,00 8.33 00.00 9. 20.00 40.00 15.39 9. 60.00 58.33 61.54 10. 00.00 10.00 7.69 10. 00.00 8.33 7.69 11. 20.00 20.00 23.08 l l. 10.00 00.00 7.69 12. 10.00 10.00 23.08 12. 00.00 00.00 7.69
N=lO N=lO N=l3 N=lO N=l2 N=l3
6. Security and safety from outsiders
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 0. 00.00 7.69 7.69 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 .... 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 N 3. 22.22 7;69 23.08 0 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 22.22 38.46 15.39 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 11.11 00.00 7.69 9. 33.33 23.08 7.69 10. 00.00 7.69 00.00 11. 11.11 00.00 00.00 12. 00.00 15.39 38.46
N=9 M=l3 N=13
INTERIOR OF THE HOIJSIMG UNIT OISSA TISFJED/SA TISFIED MEASURE FOR RESIDENTS
8. Slze of lower hving room 1~- Size of upper living room
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
N=lO N=13 N=13 N=6 N=9 N=9
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00
2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2, 00.00 00.00 00.0(1
3. 30.00 00.00 7.69 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00
4. 40.00 46.15 23.08 4. 16.67 22.22 00.00
5, 30.00 53.85 69.23 5. 83.33 77,78 100.00
9. Size of dining area 14. Adequacy of space for furniture placemerit in lower living room
PRETEST. POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
N=lO N=13 N=13 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00,00 1. 00.00 7,69 7.69
2. 10.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 23,08 30.77
3. 10.00 7.69 00.00 3. 20.00 23.08 00.00
4. 50.00 38.46 30.77 4. 50,00 38.46 38.46
5. 30.00 53.85 69.23 s. 30.00 7,69 23.08
10. Size of kitchen 15. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in dining area
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
N=lO N=13 N=13 N=lO N=13 N=13 I-'
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1, 00.00 7.69 7.69 N
2. 00.00 15.39 7.69 2. 00.00 00.00 7,69 I-'
3. 40.00 7.69 7.69 3. 00.00 46,15 15.39
4. 40,00 7.69 30.77 4. 30.00 30.77 46.15
5. 20.00 69.23 53,83 s. 70,00 15.39 23.08
11. Siz~ of bedrooms 16. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in bedrooms
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
N=lO N=13 N=13 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00
2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2, 00.00 00.00 00.00
3, 20.00 00.00 7.69 3. 50.00 00.00 00.00
4. 40.00 30.77 23.08 4. 40.00 76.92 53.85
5. 40.00 69.23 69,23 5. 10.00 23.08 46.15
12. Size of bath 17. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in upper hving room
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
N=lO N=13 N=13 N=6 N=9 N=9
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00
2. 00.00 15.39 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 11.11
3. 10.00 00.00 7.69 3. 33.33 33.33 00.00
4. 70.00 53.85 30.77 4. 60.00 22.22 44.44
~-20.00 30.77 61.54 5. 16.67 44.44 44.44
18. Arrangement of the rooms 23. AdequacY of storage for seasonal items
PRETEST POST-TEST I POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=l3 N=lO N=12 N=l3
1. 00.00 00,00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2, 00.00 00.00 00.0_0 2. 20.00 00.00 7.69 3. 40.00 23.08 7.69 3. 20.00 16.67 7.69 4. 20.00 30.77 46.15 4. 30.00 41.67 23.08 5. 40.00 46.15 46.15 5. 30.00 41.67 61.54
19. Traffic patterns within the unit 24. Adequacy of storage for other items
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=l3 N=6 N=lO N=lO
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 10.00 10.00 3. 40.00 7.69 23.08 3. 33.33 10.00 20.00 4. 20.00 53,85 38.46 4. 33.33 50.00 20.00 5. 40.00 38.46 38.46 5. 33.33 30.00 50.00
20. Adequacy of storage in the kitchen 25. Privacy for residents from others in the apartment
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13 N=lO N=l3 N=l3
1. OD.DO DO.DO 00.00 1. OD.OD 7.69 00.00 2, DO.OD 00,00 00.00 2. 00.00 7.69 7,69 3. 20.00 15.39 7,69 3. 20,00 30.77 38.46 I-'
N 4. 40.00 38.46 23.08 4. 40.00 38.46 30.77 N 5. 40.00 46.15 69.23 5. 20.00 15.39 23.08
21. Adequacy of storage in the bedrooms 26. Privacy for residents from others in the fourplex
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=l3 N=lO N=l3 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 I. 00.00 15.39 15.39 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 7.69 23.08 3. 50.00 7.69 00.00 3. 20.00 38,46 7.69 4. 20.00 53.85 23.08 4. 40.00 23.08 23.08 5. 30.00 38.46 76.92 5. 20.00 15.39 30.77
22, Adequacy of storage in the bath 27. Amount of natural light in hving/dining area
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=l3 N=13 N=IO N=l3 N=l3
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 I. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2, 00.00 23.08 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 20.00 00,00 00.00 3, 10.00 7.69 00.00 4, 30.00 38.46 30.77 4. 50.00 23.08 23.08
-·· 50.00 38.46 69.23 5. 40.00 69.23 76.92
28. Amount of natural light in the kitchen 33. Ceiling matedal
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.(10 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 10.00 00.00 7.69 2, 00.00 30.77 25.00 3. 40.00 7.69 7.60 3. 50,00 15.39 25.00 4. 10.00 23.08 23.08 4. 20.00 30.77 25.00 5. 40.00 69.23 61.54 5. 30.00 23.08 25,00
29. Amount of natural light in the bedrooms 34. Painted walls
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 7.69 15.39 1. 00.00 23.08 15.39 2. 10.00 7.69 23.08 2. 30.00 23,08 30.77 3. 20.00 46.15 15,39 3. 20.00 15,39 38.46 4, 30.00 15.39 15.39 4. 30.00 23.08 7.69 5. 40.00 23.08 30.77 5. 20.00 15,39 7,69
30. Amount of natural light in upper living room 35. Cabinet finish
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST~TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=6 N=9 N=9 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 7,60 2, 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 15.39 00,00 1--' 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 10,00 23.08 23,08 N 4. 33.33 22.22 00.00 4, 50,00 30.77 23.08 w 5, 66.67 77.78 100.00 5, 40,00 30.77 46,15
Asses=,ment o1 finish materials 36. Kitchen appliances
31. Floor covering/carpet PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 1. 00.00 7.69 00.00 N=lO N=13 N=12 2. 20.00 15.39 00.00
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3, 20.00 15.39 23.08 2, 00.00 00.00 00,00 4. 50.00 30,77 15.39 3. 20.00 00.00 8.33 5. 10.00 30,n 61.54 4. 20.00 23.08 16.67 5. 60.00 76.92 75.00 37. Artificial lighting
32. Floor covering/vinyl PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 1. 00.00 00.00 7.60 M=lO N=13 N=12 2. 00,00 15.39 00.00
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 20.00 23.08 7.69 2. 00.00 15.39 00.00 4. 50.00 30,77 46.15 3. 40.00 00.00 33.33 5, 30,00 30,77 38.46 4, 20.00 23.08 00.00 5. 40.00 61.54 66.67
38, Electrical outlets (quantity) 43. Absence of drafts
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=l3 N=l3 N•lO N•l2 N=l2 l. 00,00 7,69 7.69 l. 00.00 23.08 41.67 2. 00.00 7.69 00.00 2. 00.00 7,69 8,33 3, 10.00 7.69 23.08 3. 20.00 38,46 16.67 4. 60.00 30.77 23.08 4. 40.00 7.69 25.00 5. 30.00 46.15 46.15 5. 40.00 23.08 8.33
Atmospheric conditions 44. Venhlahon for summer cooling
39. Comfortable temperature PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=9 N=7 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 N=lO N=l3 N=l3 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 l. 00.00 23.08 23.08 3. 30.00 22.22 14.20 2. 10.00 15.39 7.69 4. 30.00 33.33 28.57 3. 20.00 30.77 61.54 5. 40.00 44.44 57.14 4. 40.00 15.39 7.69
5. 30.00 15.39 00.00 45. Separation of work, living, and sleeping areas
40. Comfo,t ab le humidity level PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=l3 N=l3 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 N=lO N=l3 N=l3 2. 00.00 7.69 7,69 I-' l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 30,00 00.00 23.08 N· 2. 00.00 8.33 7.60 4. 20.00 46.15 23.08 ,I::-
3. 30.00 16.67 38.46 5. 50.00 46.15 46.15 4. 40.00 41.67 30.77 5. 30,00 33.33 23.08 46. Separation of private and public space5
41. Temperature uniformity/summer PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=l3 N=l3 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 N=lO N=l3 N=6 2. 20.00 7,69 00.00 l. 00.00 00,00 16.67 3, 10.00 15.39 15.39 2. 10.00 11.11 16.67 4. 10.00 30.77 38.46 3, 30.00 22.22 33.33 5. 60.00 46.15 46.15 4. 30.00 33.33 00.00
5. 30.00 33.33 33.33 47. Convenient trash dlsposal
42. T ernper a lure uniform it YI winter PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=l3 N=l3 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 l. 10.00 30.77 15.39 N=lO N=9 tJ=l2 2. 20.00 7.69 15.39 l. 00.00 25.00 41.67 3. 30,00 15.39 7,69 2. 10.00 25.00 8.33 4. 20.00 30.77 15.39 3. 30.00 25.00 41.67 5. 20.00 15.39 46. 15 4. 40.00 8.33 00.00
5. 20.00 16.67 8.33
48. Location of laundry
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 38.46 7.60 2. 00.00 7.69 23,08 3. 10.00 00.00 00.00 4. 40.00 23.08 7,69 5. 50.00 30.77 61.54
49. Worhmanship
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=l3
1. 00.00 00.00 15.30 2. 00.00 38.46 30.77 3. 30.00 46.15 38.46 4, 50.00 7.69 15.38 5, 20.00 7,69 00.00
50. Over a 11 opinion of the interior of the unit
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=l3 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 7.69 00.00 I-' 3. 20.00 15.39 53.85 N 4. 40.00 53.85 23.08
V,
5. 40.00 23.08 23.08
INTERIOR OF THE HOUSING UNIT NOT IMPORT ANT /IMPORT ANT MEASURE FOR RESJOEtffS
8. Size of lower living room 13. Size of upper living room
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 tJ=lO N=13 N=13 N=6 N=9 N=9
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 OD.DO 2. 00.00 00.00 00,00 3. 00.00 7,69 7.69 3. 00.00 11.11 11.11 4. 60.00 69.23 46.15 4. 33.33 77.78 33.33 s. 40.00 23.08 46.15 5. 66,67 11.11 55.56
9. Size of dining ~rea 14. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in lower living room
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=l3 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 10.00 7.69 00,00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 30.00 15.39 23.08 3. 40.00 30.77 23.08 4. 30.00 61.54 30,77 4. 50.00 53.85 46. 15 5. 30.00 15.39 46.15 5. 10.00 15.39 30.77
10. Size of ldlchen 15. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in dining area
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00,00 00.00 00,00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 r-' 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 20.00 00.00 00.00 N 3, 30.00 15.39 15.39 3. 40.00 46,15 23.08 0\
4. 40.00 61.54 38.46 4. 40.00 38.46 46.15 s. 30,00 23.08 46.15 s. 00.00 15.39 30,77
11. Size of bedrooms 16. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in bedrooms
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 7.69 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 10.00 7.69 15.39 3. 50.00 23.09 23.08 4. 40.00 61.54 30.77 4. 40.00 46.15 38.46 5. 50.00 23.08 53.85 s. 10.00 30.77 38.46
12. Size of bath 17. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in upper living room
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13 N=6 N=9 N=9
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 10.00 15.39 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 30.00 15.33 23.08 3. 00.00 11.11 11.11 4. 40.00 53.85 33.46 4. 66.67 77.78 44.44 5. 20.00 15.39 38,46 5, 33.33 11.11 44.44
18. Arrangement of the rooms 23 .. Adequacy of storage for seasonal items
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PR~TEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO 11=13 N=13 N=lO N=l3 N=l3
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 20.00 15.39 7.69 2. 40.00 00.00 00,00 3. 10.00 23.08 15,39 3. 00.00 23.08 7.60 4. 50.00 30.77 46.15 4. 40.00 30.77 15.39 5. 20.00 30.77 30.77 5. 20.00 46,15 15.39
19. Traffic patterns within the unit 24, Adequacy of storage for other items
PRETEST POST-TEST I POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST I POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=l3 N=6 N=II N=IO
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 I. 16.67 00.00 00.00 2. 30.00 7.69 7,69 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 20.00 23.08 15.39 3. 16,67 36.36 10.00 4. 30.00 38.46 46.15 4. 50.00 27,27 30.00 5. 20.00 30.77 30.77 5. 16,67 36.36 60,00
20. Adequacy of storage in the kitchen 25. Privacy for resident,; from others in the apartment
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST I POST-TEST 2 N=IO N=l3 N=13 N=lO N=l3 N=13
l. 00.00 00.00 00,00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 10.00 7.69 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 30.00 7.69 15.39 3. 30.00 7,69 7.69
I-' 4. 50.00 30.77 15.39 4. 30.00 23.08 15.39 N 5, 10.00 53.85 69.23 5. 40.00 69.23 76.92 -..J
21. Adequacy of stC1rage in the bedrooms 26. Privacy for residents from others in the fourplex
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 IJ=lO N=13 N=13 N=lO N=13 N=l3
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 I. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3, 10.00 15.39 7,69 3. 30.00 7.69 15.39 4. 60.00 46. 15 23.08 4. 10.00 23.08 7,69 5. 30.00 38.46 69.23 5. 60.00 69.23 76.92
22. Adequacy of stC1rage in the l>alh 27. Amount of natural light in living/dining area
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST I POST-TEST 2 N=lO M=l3 N=13 N=lO N=13 N=13
I. 00.00 00.00 00,00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 ~- 10.00 7.69 7.69 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 40.00 7,69 15.39 3, 00.00 15,39 7.69 4. 40.00 38,46 15.39 4. 60.00 53.85 30.77 5. 10.00 46.15 61.54 5. 40.00 30.77 61.54
20, Amount of natural light in the htchen 33. Ceiling material
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=l3 N=l3 N=lO N=l3 N=l3
l. 10.00 7.69 00,00 1. 00.00 00,00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2, 00.00 7.69 00.00 3. 20.00 15.39 30,77 3. 40.00 30.77 23,08 4. 30,00 46.15 15.39 4. 30,00 30.77 30,77 5. 40.00 30.77 53.85 s. 30.00 30.77 46,15
29. Amount of natural light in the bedrooms 34, Painted walls
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=l3 N=l3 N=lO N=l3 N=l3
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. OD.OD 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 30.00 30.77 7.69 3. 10.00 15.39 30.77 4. 30.00 38,46 38.46 4. 50.00 46.15 30.77 5. 40.00 30.77 53.85 5. 40,00 38.46 38.46
30. Amount of natura 1 light in the upper living room 35, Cabinet finish
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=6 N=9 N=9 N=lO !'1=13 N=l3
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00,00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2, 00.00 00.00 00,00 3. 00.00 l 1.11 11, 11' 3. 20.00 15.39 38,46 I-' 4. 33.33 44.44 22.22 4. 50,00 61.54 30.77 N
00 5. 66.67 44.44 66,68 5. 30,00 23.08 30,77
36. Kitchen appliances Assessment of finish materials
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 31, Floor covering/carpet N=lO N=13 N=l3
l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 2, 00.00 OD.OD DO.OD N=lO N=l3 N=l3 3, 30.00 15.39 15.39
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 20.00 30.77 30.77 2. 00.00 DO.OD 00.00 5. 50,00 53.85 53.85 3. 00.00 7.69 15.39 4. 50.00 46.15 30.77 37, Artificial lighting 5, 50.00 46.15 53.85
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 32. Floor co1,1er lng/vinYl N=lO N=13 N=l3
l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 N=IO N=13 N=l3 3. 20.00 15.39 23.08
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 50.00 30.77 30,77 2. 00.00 00.00 00,00 ~-30,00 53.85 46.15 3. 10.00 7,69 23,00 4. 60.00 61.54 23.08 t ~-30.00 30.77 53.85
38. Electrkal outlets (quantity) 43. Absence of drafts
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
N=lO N=13 N=13 N=lO N=13 N=13
J. 00.00 00.00 00,00 1, '00.00 00.00 00.00
2, 10.00 00.00 00.00 2. 10.00 7.69 00.00
3. 10.00 15.39 15.39 3. 00.00 23.08 30.76
4. 40.00 46.15 23.08 4. 10.00 00.00 7.69
5. 40.00 38.46 61.54 5. 80.00 69.21 61.54
Atmospheric conditions 44. Ventilation for summer cooling
39. Comfortable temperature PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=IO N=l2 N=9
PRETEST POST~TEST I POST-TEST 2 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00
N=lO N=l3 N=13 2, 00.00 00.00 00.00 ,. 00.00 00.00 '00.00 3. 00.00 33.33 22.22
2. 10,00 7.69 00.00 4. 20.00 16.67 00.00 3, 10.00 23,08 23.08 5. 80.00 50.00 77;79 4. 10,00 7.69 23.08 5, 70.00 61.54 53.85 45, Separation of worl<, living, and sleeping areas
40. Comfortable humidity l"'vel PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 ,. 00.00 00.00 00.00
N=lO N=13 N=13 2, 00.00 00.00 00.00 I-' 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 10.00 38.46 23.08 N 2, 10.00 7.69 00,00 4. 50.00 15.39 7.69 \,C)
3. 10.00 30.77 30.77 5. 40.00 46.15 69.23
4, 20.00 15.39 15.39 5. 60.00 46.15 53.85 46. Separation of private and public spaces
41, Temperature uniformity/summer PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=IO N=l3 N=13
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 N=lO N=13 N=8 2. 00.00 00,00 00.00
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 20.00 38.46 15.39
2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 30.00 23.08 30,77
3. 20.00 41.67 25.00 5. 50.00 38.46 53.85
4. 10,00 8.33 12,50 r .... 70,00 50.00 62.50 47. Convenient trash disposal
42. Temperature uniformity/winter PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00
N=lO N=lJ N=13 2, 10.00 00.00 00.00
1. 00.00 00.(10 00.00 3. 00.00 23,08 23.08
2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 40.00 30.77 30.77
3. 20.00 30.77 23.07 5. 50,00 46.15 46,15
4. 10.00 7.69 7,69 5. 70.00 61.54 69.23
48. location of laundry
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=l0 N=l3 N=l3
l. OD.DO 00,00 00.00 2, 10.00 DO.OD 00.00 3. 10.00 38.46 l?,39 4. 20.00 00.00 23.08 5. 60.00 61.54 61.54
49. \lorl:ma nship
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=l0 N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 10.00 23.08 23.08 4. 20.00 23.08 15.39 5. 70.00 53.85 61.54
50. Overall opinion of the interior of the unit
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=l0 N=l3 N=l3
l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 OD.DO I-' 3. OD.OD 30.77 15.38 w 4. 30.00 15.39 7.69 0 5. 70.00 53.87 76.92
INTERIOR Of THE HOUSING UNIT NOT IMPORTANT /IMPORTANT MEASURE FOR RESIDENTS
~1EAN COMPARISON 8. Size of lower 1;ving room
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 4.00 4,54
9. Size of dining area
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 4,00 4.46
1 0. Size of ldtchen
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 3.80 4.31
11, Size of bedrooms
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 4.20 4.69
12. Size of bath
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 4.00 4.00
13. Size of upper living room
PRETEST 4,83
POST-TEST 1 4.78
POST-TEST 2 4,62
POST-TEST 2 4,69
POST-TEST 2 4.31
POST-TEST 2 4.62
POST-TEST 2 4.54
POST-TEST 2 5,00
14. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in lower living room
PRETEST 3.10
POST-TEST 1 3.15
POST-TEST 2 3.38
15. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in dining area
PRETEST 3.70
POST-TEST 1 3.46
POST-TEST 2 3,69
16. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in bedrooms
PRETEST 3.60
POST-TEST l 4.23
POST-TEST 2 4,46
17, Adequacy oi space for furniture placement in upper living room
PRETEST 3.83
POST-TEST 1 4.11
POST-TEST 2 4.22
Hi. Arrangement of rooms
PRETEST 4.00
POST-TEST 1 4,23
19. Traffic pattern within the unit
PRETEST 3.80
POST-T.EST 1 4.31
20, Adequacy of storage in the kitchen
PRETEST 4.20
POST-TEST 1 4.31
21. Adequ,cY of storage in the bedrooms
PRETEST 3,80
POST-TEST 1 4.31
22, Adequacy of storage in the bath
PRETEST 4.30
POST-TEST 1 3,92
23, Adequacy of storage for seasonal items
PRETEST 3,70
POST-TEST 1 4.25
24, Adequacy of storage for other items
PRETEST 4,00
POST-TEST 1 4.00
POST-TEST 2 4.38
POST-TEST 2 4.15
POST-TEST 2 4.62
POST-TEST 2 4.77
POST-TEST 2 4,69
POST-TEST 2 4,38
POST-TEST 2 4,10,
25. Privacy for residents from others within the apartment
PRETEST 4.20
POST-TEST 1 3.46
POST-TEST 2 3.69
26. Privacy for residents from others in the fourplex
PRETEST 3.80
POST-TEST 1 3.15
POST-TEST 2 3.31
27. Amount of natural light in the living/dining area
PRETEST 4.30
POST-TEST 1 4.62
POST-TEST 2 4,77
28. Amount of natural 1ight in the Utchen
.PRETEST 3.90
POST-TEST 1 4.92
29. Amount of natural light in the bedrooms
PRETEST 4.10
POST-TEST 1 4.00
POST-TEST 2 4.23
POST-TEST 2 4.46
30. Amount of natural light in the upper living room PRETEST POST-TEST I POST-TEST 2
4.67 4.33 4.56
Assessn1ent of finish tnaterial1
31. floor covering/carpet
PRETEST POST-TEST I 4.50 4.38
32. floor covering/vinyl
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 4.20 4.23
33. ceiling tnatarial
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 3.90 3.85
34. painted w•ll•
PRETEST POST-TEST I 4.30 4.23
35. cabinet finish
PRETEST POST-TEST I 4.10 4.08
36. tdtch•n appliance1i
PRETEST POST-TEST I 4.20 4.38
37. artificial lighting PRETEST POST-TEST 1
4.10 4.38
38. electrical outlets (quantity)
PRETEST 4.10
POST-TEST I 4.23
POST-TEST 2 4.38
POST-TEST 2 4.31
POST-TEST 2 4.23
POST-TEST 2 4.08
POST-TEST 2 3.92
POST-TEST 2 4.38
POST-TEST 2 4.23
POST-TEST 2 4.46
50. Overall op1nion of interior of the unit
PRETEST 4.70
POST-TEST I 4.23
Atmospheric cond1dions
39. comfortable temperature
PRETEST 4.40
POST-TEST I 4.23
40. c010fortable humidity level
PRETEST 4.30
POST-TEST I 4.00
41. temperature unifor•itY/sui:runer
PRETEST 4.50
POST-TEST 1 4.08
42. tefflperature unifortnilV/winter
PRETEST 4.~o
43. abBence of drafh
PRETEST 4.60
POST-TEST 1 4.31
44. v•ntilatton for summer cooling PRETEST POST-TEST I
4.80 4.17
45. Separation of work, living, and sleeping areas
PRETEST 4.30
POST-TEST 1 4.08
46. Separation of private and public spaces
PRETEST 4.30
POST-TEST 1 4.00
47. Convenient trash disposal
PRETEST 4.30
48. Location of laundrV
PRETEST 4.30
49. Wodnnanship
PRETEST 4.60
POST-TEST 2 4.62
POST-TEST 1 4.23
POST-TEST 1 4.23
POST-TEST 1 4.31
POST-TEST 2 4.31
POST-TEST 2 4.23
POST-TEST 2 4.38
POST-TEST 2 4.46
POST-TEST 2 4.31
POST-TEST 2 4.56
POST-TEST 2 4.46
POST-TEST 2 4.38
POST-TEST 2 4.23
POST-TEST 2 4.46
POST-TEST 2 4.38
1--' (.,J N
INTERIOR OF THE HOUSIMG UNIT OISSA TJSFIED/SA TISFIEO MEASURE FOR RESIDENTS
MEAN COMPARISotl
8. Size of lower hving room
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 4.40 4.15 4.38
9, Size of dining area
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 3,80 3.85 4.23
10. Size of ldtchen
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 4.00 4,08 4,31
11. Size of bedroom•
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 4.40 4.00 4.38
12, Size of bath
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 3,70 3.69 4.15
13. Size of upper living room PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
4.67 4.00 4.44
14, Adequacy of space for furniture placement in lower living room
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 3.70 3.85 4.07
15. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in dining area
PRETEST 3,20
POST-TEST 1 3.69
POST-TEST 2 4,08
16. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in bedrooms
PRETEST 3.60
POST-TEST 1 4.08
POST-TEST 2 4.15
17. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in upp2r living room
PRETEST 4.33
POST-TEST l 4.00
POST-TEST 2 4.33
18. Arrangement of rooms
PRETEST 3,70
POST-TEST 1 3.77
19. Traffic pattern within the.unit
PRETEST 3.40
POST-TEST 1 3,92
20, Adequacy of storage in the kitchen
PRETEST 3,60
POST-TEST l 4.31
21. Adequacy of storage in the bedrooms
PRETEST 4.20
POST-TEST 1 4.23
22. Adequacy of storage ·in the bath
PRETEST 3.50
POST-TEST 1 4.23
23, Adequacy of storage for seasonal items
PRETEST 3.40
POST-TEST 1 4.23
24. Adequacy of storage for other items
PRETEST 3.50
POST-TEST 1 4.00
POST-TEST 2 4,00
POST-TEST 2 4.00
POST-TEST 2 4.54
POST-TEST 2 4.62
POST-TEST 2 4.31
POST-TEST 2 4.310
POST-TEST 2 4.10
25. Privacy for residents form others within the apa[tment
PRETEST 4.10
POST-TEST 1 4.62
POST-TEST 2 4,69
26. Privacy for residents form other in the fourple,:
PRETEST 4.30
POST-TEST 1 4.62
POST-TEST 2 4,62
27. Amount of natural light in the living/dining area
PRETEST 4.40
POST-TEST 1 4.15
POST-TEST 2 4.54
28, Amount of naluro I li!lhl in the kitchen
PRETEST 3.80
POST-TEST 1 4.62
29. Amount of natural light in the bedrooms
PRETEST 4.00
POST-TEST 1 3.38
POST-TEST 2 4.38
POST-TEST 2 3-23
30. Amount of natural light in the upper living room
PRETEST 4.33
POST-TEST 1 4.77
A-is~assmant of finish mataria11
31. floor covering/carpel
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 4.40 4.77
32. floor covering/vinyl
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 4.00 4.31
33. ceiling mateda I
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 3.80 3.46
34. painted walls
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 3.40 Z.85
35. cabinet finish
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 4.30 3.77
36. kitchen appliances
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 3.50 3.62
37. art if 1 lighting
PRETEST POST-TEST I 4.10 3.11
38. electrical outlets (quanlitv>
PRETEST 4.20
POST-TEST I 4.00
POST-TEST 2 5.00
POST-TEST Z 4.67
POST-TEST Z 4,33
POST-TEST Z 3.50
POST-TEST Z Z.62
POST-TEST 2 4.00
POST-TEST Z 4,38
POST-TEST 2 4.08
POST-TEST 2 4.00
50. Overall oplnion of interior of the unit
Pf>ETEST 4.20
POST-TEST 1 3.92
Atmospheric conditions
39. co,nfortable temperature
PRETEST 3,90
POST-TEST 1 2,85
comfortable hu,nidilY level
PRETEST 4.00
POST-TEST 1 4.00
41. unifonnitY/1u111ner
PRETEST 3,80
POST-TEST 1 3,89
42. unifor1111tV/winl•r
PRETEST 3.77
43. abHnc• of drafh
PRETEST 4.20
POST-TEST 1 Z.67
POST-TEST 1 3.00
44. ventil•Uon for summer cooling
PRETEST 4,10
POST-TEST 1 4.22
45. Separation of work, living, and sleeping areas
PRETEST 4.20
POST-TEST 1 4.31
46. Separation of private and public space•
PRETEST 4.10
POST-TEST 1 4.15
47. Convenient trash disposal
PRETEST 3.20
Location of laundry
PRETEST 4.20
49. Wod~wnan1hip PRETEST
3,90
POST-TEST 2 3.69
POST-TEST 1 2.93
POST-TEST 1 3.00
POST-TEST l 2.85
POST-TEST 2 2.54
POST-TEST Z 3.69
POST-TEST 2 3.17
POST-TEST Z 2.25
POST-TEST 2 2.50
POST-TEST 2 4.43
POST-TEST 2 4.08
POST-TEST 2 4,31
POST-TEST 2 3.62
POST-TEST 2 3.92
POST-TEST 2 2.54
..... w
INTERIOR OF THE HOUSING UNIT MA TRIX MEASURE FOR RESIDENTS
MEAN COMPARISON
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Size of lover living room
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 9.00 10.15
Size of dining area
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 9.00 9.85
Size of kitchen
PRETEST POST-TEST l 8.30 9.31
Size of bedrooms
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 9.60 10.38
Size of bath
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 8.80 8.62
Size of upper living room
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 11.33 10.56
POST-TEST 2 10.46
POST-TEST 2 10.46
POST-TEST 2 9.62
POST-TEST 2 10.38
POST-TEST 2 10.08
POST-TEST 2 11.44
14. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in lower living room
PRETEST 6.40
POST-TEST 1 6.46
POST-TEST 2 7.00
l 5. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in dining area
PRETEST 7.60
POST-TEST l 7.23
POST-TEST 2 7.85
16. Adequacy o1 space for furniture placement in bedrooms
PRETEST 7.80
POST-TEST 1 9.23
POST-TEST 2 9.92
17. Adequacy of space for furniture placement m upper living room
PRETEST 8.50
POST-TEST 1 8.77
POST-TEST 2 '3.33
18. Arrangement of rooms
PRETEST 8,70
POST-TEST 1 9.15
19. Traffic pattern within the unit
PRETEST 8.30
POST-TEST l 9.46
20. Adequacy of storage in the "itchen
PRETEST 9.00
POST-TEST 1 9.69
21. Adequacy of storage in the bedrooms
PRETEST 8.30
POST-TEST 1 9.69
22, Adequacy of storage in the bath
PRETEST 9.20
POST-TEST 1 8.77
23, Adequacy of storage for seasonal items
PRETEST 8.00
POST-TEST 1 9.50
24. Adequacy of storage for other items
PRETEST 8.83
POST-TEST 1 8.80
POST-TEST 2 9.62
POST-TEST 2 9.00
POST-TES I 2 10.54
POST-TEST 2 11.00
POST-TEST 2 10.54
POST-TEST 2 10.08
POST-TEST 2 9.20
25. Privacy for residents from others within the apartment
PRETEST 9.10
POST-TEST 1 7.38
POST-TEST 2 8.37
26. Privacy for residents from others in the fourple>:
PRETEST 7,90
POST-TEST 1 6.46
POST-TEST 2 6.62
27. Amount of natural light in the living/dining area
PRETEST 9.80
POST-TEST 1 10.31
POST-TEST 2 11.00
..... w VI
28. Awiount of natural light in the k1tchen
PRETEST 8.30
POST-TEST 1 10.23
29. Amount of natur.a11ight in the bedrooms
PRETEST 8.70
POST-TEST 1 6.92
30. Amount of Jigh in the upper living roo11
PRETEST 9.67
POST-TEST 1 10,89
A'lil@tlisment of Unish matuials
31. floor cover ing/carpttt
PRETEST 9.90
POST-TEST 1 10.92
32. floor cover ing/vinV1
PRETEST 8.60
33. ceiling material
PRETEST 8.30
34. painted walls
PRETEST 7.20
35. cabin•! finish
PRETEST 9.50
36. tdtchen appliances
PRETEST 7.30
37. artificial lighting
PRETEST 9.00
POST-TEST 1 9.54
POST-TEST 1 7.00
POST-TEST 1 5.46
POST-TEST I 7.85
POST-TEST I 7.46
POST-TEST 1 8.23
38. electrical outlets (quantity)
PRETEST 9.10
rosT-TEST l 8.69
POST-TEST 2 9.850
POST-TEST 2 6.540
POST-TEST 2 11,56
POST-TEST 2 10.58
POST-TEST 2 9.67
POST-TEST 2 7.17
POST-TEST 2 5.00
POST-TEST 2 8.62 •
POST-TEST 2 9.77
POST-TEST 2 8.85
POST-TEST 2 8.85
50. Overall opimon of intal'ior of the unit
PRETEST 9.50
POST-TEST 1 8.38
Atmospheric conditions
39. coMfortable temperature
PRETEST 8.60
POST-TEST 1 5.31
40. comfortable humidilV leva-1
PRETEST 8.90
POST-TEST I 8.75
41. temperature uniforsnilV/suwuaer
PRETEST 8.30
POST-TEST 1 8.44
42. lell'lf)eratur•
PRETEST 8.00
43. of
PRETEST 9.50
POST-TEST 1 s.oo
POST-TEST 1 S.69
44. ventilation for suramer cooJtng
PRETEST 9.20
POST-TEST 1 9.33
45. Separation of wort<, living, sleeping areas
PRETEST 9.40
POST-TEST 1 9,38
46. Separation of and public spac•H
PRETEST 9.20
POST-TEST 1 9.08
47. Convenient trash disposal
PRETEST 6.60
48. Location of laundrV
PRETEST 9.20
49. Workmanship
PRETEST 8.60
POST-TEST 2 7.92
POST-TEST 1 5.85
POST-TEST 1 5,38
POST-TEST l 5.54
POST-TEST 2 4.69
POST-TEST 2 8.08
POST-TEST 2 6.33
POST-TEST 2 3.83
POST-TEST 2 4.33 ,
POST-TEST 2 10.29
POST-TEST 2 9.23
POST-TEST 2 9.69
POST-TEST 2 8.00
POST-TEST 2 8.54
POST-TEST 2 4.62
HHER!OR OF THE HOUSltiG Ut-llT MA fRTxT!EASURE FOR THE RESIDENTS
e. Sue of lower hvmg room 11. Size of bedrooms
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 30.00 00.00 7.69 6. 20.00 00.00 7.69 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 7. 00.00 7.69 00.00 8. 00.00 00.00 00.00 e. 00.00 00.00 7.69 9. 40.00 46.15 23.08 9. 40.00 23.08 15.39 10. 00.00 7.69 7.69 10. 00.00 7.69 7.69 11. 00.00 30.77 23.08 11. 00.00 38.46 23.08 12. 30.00 15.39 38.46 12. 40.00 23.08 38.46
N=lO N=13 N=13 N:10 N=13 N•13
9. Size of dmlng area 12. Size of bath PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 7.69 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 10.00 7.69 00.00 I-' s. 10.00 00.00 00.00 6. 00.00 00.00 7.69 w 6. 10.00 7.69 00.00 7. 00.00 7.69 00.00
..._, 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 30.00 7.69 15.39 8. 20.00 7.69 15.39 • 9. 40.00 38.46 15.39 9. 30.00 30.76 15.39 10. 00.00 7.69 7.69 10. 00.00 7.69 7.69 11. 10.00 15.39 23.08 11. 00.00 30.77 30.77 12. 10.00 7.69 30,77 12. 30.00 15.39 30.77 N=I0 N:13 N=13
N=lO N=l3 N=13 13. Size of upper living room
10. s;,., of Utchen PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 0. 00.00 00.00 00.00 0. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3, 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 15.39 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 s. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 40.00 7.69 7.69 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 a. 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 10.00 00.00 7.69 9. 16.67 22.22 00.00 9. 30.00 7.69 23.08 10. 00.00 11.11 11.11 10. 00.00 15.39 7.69 11. 16.67 55.56 33.33 11. 00.00 30.77 7.69 12. 66.67 l 1.11 55.56 12. 20.00 23.08 38.46 N=6 N=9 N=9
N=IO N=13 N=l3
14. Adequacy of space tor turniture placement in lol<Jer living room 17. Adequacy of space tor furniture placement in upper living room
o. 00.00 00.00 7.69 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 1. 00,00 00.00 00,00 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2, 00,00 7,69 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 23.08 23.08 2, 00.00 00.00 00,00 4, 20.00 00.00 7.69 3, 00.00 00.00 1 I. 11 5. 00,00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 50.00 23.08 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00,00 7. 00.00 00.00 0Ci,00 6, 33.33 33.33 00.00 8, 10.00 00.00 7.69 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 9. 20.00 38.46 30,71 8. 00,00 00.00 00.00 10. 00.00 7.69 7.69 9. 50.00 22.22 44,44 11. 00.00 00.00 00.00 10. 00.00 11. 11 11.11 12. 00.00 00.00 15.39 11. 00.00 33.33 11. 11
N=lO N=13 N=13 12. 16.67 00.00 22.22 N=6 N=9 N=9
15. Adequacy of space for furniture placement in dining area 18. Arrangement of rooms
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 0. 00.00 00.00 7.69 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 I. 00.00 7.69 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 7,69 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3, 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00,00 00.00 00.00 I-' 6. 30.00 46.15 15.39 6. 40.00 23.08 7.60 w 7. 10.00 00.00 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 7.69 00 8. 30.00 7.69 7.69 8. 00.00 7,69 7.69 9. 30,00 23.08 38.46 9. 20.00 30.77 30.77 10. 00.00 7,69 7.69 10. JO.OD 7.69 7,69 11. 00.00 00.00 00.00 11. 10.00 7,69 15,39 12. 00.00 7.69 15.39 12. 20.00 23.08 23.08
N=l0 N=13 N=13 N=l0 N=13 N=13
16, Adequacy ot space for furmture placement in bedrooms 19. Traffk pattern within the unit
o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 • POST-TEST 2 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2, 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5, 00.00 00.00 00.00 4, 00,00 00.00 00,00 6. 50.00 00.00 00,00 5. 20.00 00,00 00.00 7, 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 20.00 7.69 23.08 a. 00.00 15.39 15.39 1, 10.00 00.00 7,69 9. 40,00 61.54 38.46 8. 00.00 7,69 00.00 10. 00,00 7,69 7.69 9. 10.00 53.85 30,77 11. 00.00 15.39 15.39 10. 10.00 7.69 7.69 12. 10.00 00.00 23.08 11. 10.00 00.00 15.39
N=l0 N=13 N=13 12. 20.00 23.08 15,39 N=l0 N=13 N=13
20. Adequacy of storage ln the hltche:n 23. Adequacy of storage tor seasonal items
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00,00 l. OD,00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00,00 00.00 00,00 3, 10.00 OD.OD 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00,00 4. 00.00 00.00 7.69 5. OD.OD 00.00 00.00 5. 10.00 00.00 00.00 6. 20.00 15.39 7.69 6. 20.00 16.67 7.69 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 7. 10,00 00.00 00.00 8. 10.00 7.69 7.69 8. 00.00 16.67 7.69 9. 30.00 30.77 15.::S9 9. 20.00 25.00 15.39 10. 20.00 00,00 7,69 10. 00.00 00.00 00,00 11. 10.00 15.39 7,69 l 1. 10,00 8.33 00,00 12. 10.00 30.77 53,85 12, 20.00 33.33 53.85
N=lO N•13 N=13 N=lO N=13 N=13
21. Adequacy of storage in the bedrooms 24. Adequacy of storage tor other items
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 0. 00,00 00.00 00.00 o. 00,00 00.00 00.00 1. 00,00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 OD.OD 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00,00 00.00 00.00 3. 00,00 00.00 oci.oo 3, 00.00 00.00 OD.OD 4. 00,00 00.00 00.00 4. 00,00 -10,00 10.00 I-' 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00,00 00.00 w 6. 50.00 7.69 00.00 6. 33,33 10,00 20.00 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 10.00 8. 00.00 7.69 00.00 8. 00.00 20.00 00.00 9. 20.00 46.15 23.08 9. 33.33 30.00 10.00 10. 00.00 00.00 7.69 10. 00,00 00.00 00.00 11. 10,00 15.39 15.39 11. 16.67 10.00 00.00 12. 20.00 23.08 53.85 12. 16,67 20.00 50.00
N=lO N=13 N=13 N=6 N=lO N=lO
22. Adequacy of storage in the bath 25. Privacy tor residenh from others within the apartment
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 00,00 00.00 00,00 1. OD.OD 00.00 00.00 0. 00.00 7.69 00,00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 7.69 00.00 2. 00.00 00,00 00.00 4. 00,00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 7,69 7,69 5. 00,00 7.69 OQ.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 20.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 7,69 6. 20.00 30.77 38.46 8. 10.00 7.69 7.69 7. 00.00 00,00 00.00 9, 20.00 30.77 lS.39 e. 00.00 00.00 00,00 10, 20.00 00,00 7.69 9. 40.00 30,77 30.77 11. 20,00 7,69 lS.39 10. 20,00 00.00 00,00 12. 10.00 30.77 46.15 11. 10.00 00.00 00.00
N=lO N=13 N=13 12. 10.00 15.39 23,08 N=lO N=13 N=l3
26. Privacy 1or res1dcnts 1rom others m the fourp1e>: 29. Amount of natural hght in bedrooms
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 20.00 15.39 15.3~ 0. OD.OD 7.69 15.39 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00,00 00.00 3. 00.00 7.69 23.08 3. 00.00 00,00 23.08 4. 00.00 00.00 00,00 4. 10.00 7.69 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 OD.OD 00.00 6. 00,00 38.46 7,69 6. 20.00 46,15 15.39 7. 00.00 00.00 00,00 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 20.00 00.00 00.00 8. 10.00 00.00 00.00 9. 20.00 23.08 23.08 9. 20.00 15,3'9 15.39 10. 10.00 DO.OD 15.39 10. 10.00 15.39 7.69 11. 10.00 00.00 00.00 11. 10.00 00.00 00.00 12. 20.00 15.39 15.39 12, 20.00 7.69 23.08
N=lO N=l3 N=l3 N=lO N=l3 N=l3
27. Amount ot natural hght in hvmg/dimng area 30. Amount of natural light in upper living room
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 0. 00.00 00.00 00.00 o. 00,00 DO.OD 00,00 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2, 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00,00 3, 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00,00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 I-' 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 s. 00.00 00.00 00.00 ,I:--6. 10.00 7.69 00.00 6. 33.33 00.00 00.00 0 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 a. 00.00 7.69 00.00 8. 00.00 00.00 00.00 9. 50.00 15.39 23.08 9. 00.00 22.22 00.00 10. 00.00 7.69 7.69 10. 00.00 11.11 11.11 11. 10.00 30,77 15.39 11. 33.33 22.22 22.22 12. 30.00 30.77 53.85 12. 33.33 44.44 66.67
N=lO N=13 N=13 N=6 N=9 N=9
28. Amount of natural hght in the kitchen Assessment of finish mateda ls
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 31. Floor covering/carpet o. 00,00 00.00 00.00 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 10.00 00.00 00.00 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 7.69 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.09 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 40.00 7.69 7.69 4. 00.00 00.00 00,00 7. 00.00 7.69 00.00 5, 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 00.00 00.00 7.69 6. 20.00 00.00 8.33 9. 10.00 15.39 15.39 7. 00.00 OD.DO DO.DO 10. 00.00 7.69 7.69 8. 00.00 00.00 00.00 11. 10.00 30.77 15.39 9. 20.00 23.08 16.67 12. 30.00 30.77 38.46 10. DO.OD 7.69 8.33
N=lO N=l3 N=l3 11. 30.00 23.08 25.00 12. 30.00 46.15 41.67
N=lO N=l3 N=l2
32. Floor covering/vmYl 35. Cabinet finish
PRETEST P.OST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 00.00 00,00 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 7.69 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 15.39 00.00 3. 00.00 15.39 00.00 4. 00,00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 :,. 00,00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 40.00 00.00 33.33 6. 00.00 23.08 23.0B 7. 00.00 23.08 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 00.00 00,00 7,69 9. 20,00 23.08 00.00 9. 00.00 30.77 15.39 10. 10.00 7.69 8.33 10. 00.00 15.39 7,69 11. 20.00 23.08 16,67 11. 00,00 15.39 23.08 12. 10.00 30.77 41.67 12. 00.00 00.00 15.39
N=lO N=13 N=l2 N=lO N=13 N=13
33. Ceiling materia 1 36. Kitchen apphance5
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 00,00 00.00 o. 00.00 7,69 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 15.39 25.00 3. 10.00 15.39 00.00 4. 00.00 15.39 00.00 4. 10.00 00.00 00.00 I-' 5, 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 ,I:,-6. 50.00 15,39 25.00 6. 20.00 15.39 23.08 I-' 7. 00.00 00.00 00,00 7. 00.00 00,00 00.00 8. 00.00 7.69 8,33 a. 20,00 00.00 00.00 9. 20.00 30.77 16,67 9. 30.00 30.77 15.39 10. 00.00 7.69 8.33 10. 00.00 15,39 7.69 11. 10.00 7.69 8.33 11. 10.00 7.69 23.08 12. 20,00 00.00 8.33 12. 00.00 7,69 30.77
N=lO N•13 N=12 N•lO N=l3 N=13
34. Painted walls 37. Artificial lighting
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 15.39 7.69 o. 00.00 00.00 7.69 1. 00.00 7.69 7.69 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2, 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 20.00 15.39 15.39 3. 00.00 7.69 00.00 4. 10.00 7.69 15.39 4, 00.00 7.69 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 20.00 15.39 38.46 6. 20.00 23.08 7.69 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 10.00 00.00 15.39 9. 30.00 23.0B 7.69 9. 40.00 30,77 30.77 10. 00,00 7.69 00.00 10. 00.00 7.69 7.69 11. 10.00 1,69 7.69 11. 20.00 00.00 7,69 12. 10,00 00.00 00.00 12. 10.00 23.08 23.08
N•lO 1!•13 1·1=13 N=lO N=13 N•13
38, Electncal outlets (quanllty) 41. Temperature unitormitY/5ummer
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 7.69 00,00 o. 00.00 00,00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 7.69 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00,00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 7.69 00.00 3. 10.00 1 I, 11 16.67 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00,00 00.00 s. 00.00 00.00 00,00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 00.00 7.69 23.08 6. 30,00 22.22 33.33 7. 00.00 00.00 00,00 7, 00.00 00.00 00.00 8, 00.00 7.69 7.69 8. 00.00 00.00 00.00 9. 00.00 23.08 15.39 9, 30.00 33.33 00,00 10. 00.00 7,69 7.69 10. 00.00 11.11 00.00 11. 00,00 7,690 00,00 11. 10.00 00.00 16.67 12, 00.00 30.77 38,46 12. 20.00 22.22 16.67
N=lO U=l3 U=l3 N=IO N=13 N=13
At mospher 1C condition• 42, Temperature uniformilY/winter
39, Comfortable temperature PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 00,00 25.00 33.33
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 1. 00.00 00.00 8.33 0. 00,00 23.08 15.39 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 7,69 3. 10.00 8.33 8.33 2. 00.00 00,00 00,00 4, 00.00 16,67 00.00 ..... 3. 10.00 7.69 7.69 5, 00,00 00.00 00.00 .,::-. 4. 00.00 7.69 00,00 6. 30.00 25.00 41.67 N 5, 00.00 00.00 00,00 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 20.00 30.77 61.54 8. 00.00 00.00 00.00 7, 00,00 7,69 00.00 9. 40.00 8.33 00,00 8, 00,00 00.00 00.00 10. 00.00 8.33 00.00 9. 40,00 7,69 7.69 11, 10.00 00.00 00.00 10, 00.00 7.69 00.00 12. 10.00 8.33 8.33 11. 10.00 00.00 00,00 N=IO N=l2 N=l2 12. 20.00 7.69 00.00
N=lO N•l3 N=l3 43, Absence of drafts
40. Cumfortable humid1IY level PRETEST POST-TEST 2 POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 23,08 41.67
PRETEST POST-TEST I POST-TEST 2 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 u. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 7.69 8,33 2. 00,00 00.00 00,00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00,00 4. 00.00 8.33 7.69 6. 20.00 38,46 16.67 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 7. 00,00 00.00 00.00 6. 30.00 16.67 38,46 8, 00,00 00.00 16.67 7, 00.00 8.33 00.00 9. 40.00 7.69 8.33 8, 00.00 00.00 7.69 10. 00,00 15.39 00.00 9. 40.00 33.33 23.08 I 1. 10.00 00,00 00.00 10. 00.00 8.33 00.00 12. 30.00 7.69 8,33 11, 10.00 00.00 00.00 N•lO N=l3. N~12 12. 20.00 25,00 23.08
N•lO tl=l 3 N•13
44. Ventllatlon for summer coo hng 47. Convenient trash disposal
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 7.69 00.00 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 10.00 7.69 00.00
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 7.69 15.39 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 20.00 7.69 15.39 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4, 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00,00 00.00 00.00 5, 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00,00 00.00 00.00 6. 30.00 15.39 7,69 6. 30.00 22.22 14.29 7. 00.00 00.00 00,00 7. 00.00 00.00 00,00 8, 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 00.00 11.11 00.00 9. 20,00 30,79 15,39 9. 30.00 22.22 28.57 10. 00,00 7,69 00.00 10. 00.00 11.11 00.00 11. 10.00 00.00 15,39 11. 10.00 00.00 00.00 12, 10.00 7,69 30.77 12. 30.00 33.33 57.14 N=lO N=l3 N=13
N=lO N=l3 N=l3
45. Separation ot work, hving and sleeping areas 48, Location of laundry
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 10,00 38.46 7,69
0. 00.00 00.00 00,00 1, 00.00 00,00 00,00 1, 00.00 00.00 00.00 2, 00,00 7.69 00,00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 15.39 3. 00.00 7.69 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 7,69 4. OD.OD DO.DO 7.69 5, 00,00 00.00 00,00 ,I::-5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 00.00 00.00 00.00 w 6. 30.00 00.00 23.08 7. 10.00 00.00 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 10.00 15.39 7,69 8, 00.00 23.08 7.69 9, 20,00 7.69 00.00 9. 20.00 23.08 15,39 10, 00.00 23.08 00.00 10. 00.00 15.39 00,00 11, 10.00 00.00 23.08 11. 20.00 00.00 00.00 12, 40.00 7.69 38.46 12. 30.00 30.77 46,15 N=lO N=l3 M=13 N=lO N=l3 N=13
46. Separation of private and public spaces 49. Workmanship
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 00.00 15.39 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 OD.DO 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 23.08 23.08 3. 10.00 7.69 00.00 4. 00,00 15,39 7,69 4. 10.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00,00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 30.00 46.15 38,46 6. 10.00 15.39 15.39 7. 00.00 DO.DO 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 a. 10,00 DO.OD 7.69 8. 00.00 7.69 23,08 9, 40,00 7.69 7.69 9. 10.00 23.08 30.77 10. 00,00 7.69 00.00 10. 00.00 15.39 7.69 11. 00.00 00.00 00.00 11. 20.00 OD.DO 00,00 12, 20.00 00.00 00.00 12. 40,0(1 30.77 38.46 N=lO N=13 N=l3 N=lO N=\3 11=13
50. Overall opinion of interior of the unit
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 o. 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 2, 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 7.69 4. 00.00 00.00 s. 00.00 00.00 6. 20,00 15.39 7, 00.00 00,00 8. 00.00 23,08 9, 40.00 30.77 10, 00.00 7.69 11. 10.00 00.00 12. 30,00 15.39
N=lO N=13
POST-TEST 2 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 33.85 00.00 00.00 23.08 7.69
00.00 15.39 N=13
....,
.p..
.p..
INNOVATIVE FEATURES OF THE HOUSltJG UNIT OISSA TISFIEO/SA TISFIED MEASURE FOR RESIDENTS
51. Fourple>: format
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 7.69 00,00 3. 20.00 1S.39 lS,39 4. 40.00 38.46 7.69 Y• 60.00 38.46 76,92
52. Daytime spaces arranged to utihze solar energy for 40'1 of space heating requirements
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 00,00 1S.39 2. 00.00 00.00 7.69 3. 30.00 15.39 00.00 4. S0.00 23.08 15,39 s. 30,00 61.54 61.S4
53. South windows with adjustable shades
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=12
1. 10.00 00.00 16.67 2. 00.00 15.39 8.33 3. 40.00 15.39 8.33 4. 30.00 15.39 00.00 5, 20.00 53.85 66.67
54. Omission of ea!:.t and west windol..,S
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=12 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 7.69 2. 00.00 8.33 00.00 3. 00.00 33.33 7.69 4. 80.00 2S.00 23.08 5. 20.00 33.33 61.S4
55, Clustering of baths and kitchens on one plumbing wall
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO M=12 N=l l
1. 00.00 00.00 18.18 2. 00.00 8.33 00.00 3. 50.00 33.33 27.27 4. 20.00 25.00 36.36 s. :moo 33.33 18.18
S6. Plan with lower unit set into site
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=ll N=l2
1. 00.00 9.09 8.33 2. 10.00 00.00 00.00 3. so.oo 27.27 25.00 4. 30.00 27.27 33.33 5, 10.00 36.36 33.33
57. Walls constructed of rough sawn l">:611 studs placed 1611 on center
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 10.00 20.00 30.00 3, 40.00 SO.OD 60.00 4. 40.00 20.00 10.00 s. 10.00 10.00 00.00
58. Support floors of 311 concrete on steel decking supported by 1">:lO"s on 3 1 centers
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=lO N=lO
l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 10.00 10.00 3. S0.00 S0.00 60.00 4. 20.00 30.00 20.00 s. 30.00 10.00 10.00
59. Corrugated roof on continuous wooden purlins to eliminate conventional rafter /truss/sheathing sYstem
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=ll N=lO
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 9.09 00.00 3. 60.00 S4.5S 70.00 4. 20.00 27,27 30.00 s. 20.00 9.09 00.00
60. Int egr a lion of a building system that eliminates over 112 of the structural material usually required
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=ll N=lO
1. 00.00 00,(10 20.00 2. 00.00 18.19 10.00 3. S0.00 63,64 50.00 4. 20.00 9.09 20.00 s. 30.00 9,09 00.00
I-' .:,-. V1
INNOVATIVE FEATURES OF THE HOUSING UNIT NOT IMPORTAtH/IMPORTANT MEASURE FOR RESIDENTS
51. Fourple,: format 56. Plan with lower unit set into site
52.
53.
54.
55.
PRETEST N=IO
l. 00,00 2. 10.00 3. 10.00 4. SO.OD 5. 30.00
POST-TEST 1 N=l3 00,00 7.69
30,77 30.77 30.77
POST-TEST 2 N=13 00.00 7,69
38.46 00.00 53.85
Daytime spaces arranged to utilize solar energy for 40'1. of space heating requirements
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=l3 N=l3
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 23.08 7.69 4. 50.00 7.69 30.77 5. 50.00 69.23 61.54
South windows with adjustable shades
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=l3 N=l2 ,. 00.00 00.00 00.00
2. OD.DO 00,00 00,00 3. 40.00 3B.46 25.00 4. 20.00 15.39 8.33 5. 40.00 46.15 66.67
Omission of east and west windows
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=12 N=13
1. 00.00 8.33 00.00 2. 10.00 00.00 7.69 3. 30.00 33,33 30.77 4. 30.00 16.67 15.39 5. 30.00 41.67 46.15
Clustering of baths and l~itct-1ens. on one plumbing wall
PRETEST POST-TEST I POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=l2 M=l2
I. 00,00 16.67 8.33 2. 00.00 8.33 00,00 3. 00.00 58.33 66.67 4. 00.00 16.67 25.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=ll N=l3
1. 00,00 9.09 7.69 2. 10.00 18.18 7.69 3. 30.00 36.36 46.15 4. SO.OD 9.09 30.77 5. 10.00 27.27 7.69
57. Walls constructed of rough sawn l">:611 studs placed 1611 on center
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=lO N=ll
1. 10.00 00.00 9.09 2, 00.00 00.00 18.18 3. 20.00 00.00 45.46 4. 40.00 OD.OD 18.18 5. 30.00 00.00 9.09
58. Support floors of 3" concrete on steel decl:ing supported by 1°xl0"s on 3'centers
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=lO N=ll
l. OD.OD 10.00 9,09 2. 20.00 20.00 00,00 3, 30,00 50,00 72.73 4. 40.00 10.00 1B.1B 5. 10.00 10.00 00.00
59. Corrugated roof on cont;nuous wooden purlins to eliminate conventional rafter /truss/sheathing system
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=ll N=ll
l. 00.00 9.09 9.09 2. 20.00 9.09 9.09 3. 30.00 63.64 72,73 4. 40.00 9.09 9.09 5. 10.00 9;09 00.00
60, Integration of a building system that eliminates over 1/2 of the structural material usually required
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=ll N=ll
1. 00.00 9.09 9.09 2. 20.00 9.09 00.00 3. 20.00 54,55 72.73 4. 60.00 18.18 9.09 5. 00.00 9.09 9.09
147
INNOVATIVE FEATURES OF THE HOUSING UNIT NOT IMPORTANT /IMPORT ANT MEA:;URE FOR RESIDENTS
MEAN COMPARISON
52. Fourple>: format
PRETEST 4.00
POST-TEST 1 3,85
POST-TEST 2 4.00
53, DaYtime spaces arranged to utilize solar energy for 40% ot space heating re<1uirements
PRETEST 4.50
POST-TEST 1 4.46
54. South windows with adjustable shades
PRETEST 4.00
POST-TEST 1 4.08
55, Omission ot east and west windows
PRETEST 3.70
POST-TEST 1 3.83
POST-TEST 2 4.54
POST-TEST 2 4.42
POST-TEST 2 4.00
56. Clustering ot baths and kitchen on one plumbing wall
PRETEST 3.20
POST-TEST 1 2.75
57. Plan with lower unit set into site
PRETEST 3.60
POST-TEST 1 3.27
POST-TEST 2 3.08
POST-TEST 2 3.23
58. Wall constructed of rough sawn 1 ":<6" studs placed 16" on center
PRETEST 2.90
POST-TEST 1 2,80
POST-TEST 2 3.00
59. Support floors of 3" concrete on steel decking suported by l "xl O"s on 3' centers
PRETEST 3.40
POST-TEST 1 2.90
POST-TEST 2 3.00
60, Corrugated roof on continuous wooden purlins to eliminate conventional ratter /truss/sheathing system
PRETEST 3.40
POST-TEST l 3,00
POST-TEST 2 2,82
61. Integration of a building system that eliminates over 1 /2 ot the structural materiais usually re<1uired
PRETEST 3.40
POST-TEST 1 3.09
POST-TEST 2 3.09
148
INNOVATIVE FEATURES OF THE HOUSING UNIT DISSATISFACTION/SATISFACTION MEASURE FOR RES.DENTS
• MEAN COMPARISON
52, Fourple>: format
PRETEST 4.20
POST-TEST 1 4.08
POST-TEST 2 4.62
53, Daytime spaces arranged to utilize solar energy for 40% of space heating requirements
PRETEST 4.10
POST-TEST 1 4.46
54. South windows with adjustable shades
PRETEST 3.50
POST-TEST 1 4.08
55, Omission of east and west windows
PRETEST 3.20
POST-TEST 1 3,83
POST-TEST 2 4.00
POST-TEST 2 3.92
POST-TEST 2 4.31
56, Clustering of baths and kitchen on one plumbing wall
PRETEST 3.80
POST-TEST 1 3.83
57. Plan with lower unit set into site
PRETEST 3.40
POST-TEST 1 3.82
POST-TEST 2 3.36
POST-TEST 2 3.83
58. Wa 11 constructed of rough sawn 1 ">:6" studs placed 16" on center
PRETEST 3.50
POST-TEST 1 3.20
POST-TEST 2 2.80
59. Support floors of 3" concrete on steel decking suported bY 1 ">:1 O"s on 3' centers
PRETEST 3,80
POST-TEST 1 3.40
POST-TEST 2 3.30
60, Corrugated roof on continuous wooden purlins to eliminate conventiona 1 rafter /truss/sheathing system
PRETEST 3,60
POST-TEST l 3.36
POST-TEST 2 3.30
61. Integration of a building system that eliminates over l /2 of the structural materials usually required
PRETEST 3.80
POST-TEST 1 3.09
POST-TEST 2 2,70
149
INNOVATIVE FE.A. TURES OF THE HOUSING UNIT MA TRIX MEASURE FOR RESIDENTS
52. Fourplex format
PRETEST 9.20
MEAN COMPARISON
POST-TEST 1 8.69
POST-TEST 2 10.31
53. Daytime spaces arranged to utilize solar energy tor 40% of space heating requirements
PRETEST 9.10
POST-TEST 1 9.92
54. South windows with adjustable shades
PRETEST 7.30
POST-TEST 1 8.69
55, Omission of east and west windows
PRETEST 6.40
POST-TEST 1 8.17
POST-TEST 2 8,69
POST-TEST 2 9,42
POST-TEST 2 9.31
56. Clustering of baths and kitchen on one plumbing wall
PRETEST 9.00
POST-TEST 1 7.50
57. Plan with lower unit set into site
PRETEST 7.10
POST-TEST 1 7.73
POST-TEST 2 6.82
POST-TEST 2 7.75
58. Wall constructed of rough sawn l ">:6" studs placed 16" on center
PRETEST 7,30
POST-TEST 1 6,40
POST-TEST 2 5.70
59, Support floors of 3" concrete on steel decking suported by l ">:l 0"s on 3' centers
PRETEST 8.00
POST-TEST 1 6.70
POST-TEST 2 6.60
60. Corrugated roof on continuous wooden purlins to eliminate conventiona 1 rafter /truss/sheathing system
PRETEST 7.50
POST-TEST 1 6.64
POST-TEST 2 6,60
61. Integration of a building system that eliminates over l /2 of the structural materials usually required
PRETEST 7,90
POST-TEST 1 6.18
POST-TEST 2 5.30
!_f·itlOv>1llVE FEATURES OF THE HOUSlllG urrn MATRI >' MEASURE FOR RF51DEfff~
51. Fourple:{ format 54. Om1£E1on o1 east and we:st \ ... indows
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 00.00 00,00 o. 00,00 00.00 7.69 ,. 00.00 00.00 00.00 ,. 00,00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2, 00,00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 7.69 00.00 3. 00,00 8,33 00,00 4. 00.00 00.00 00,00 4. 00,00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 15.39 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 30.00 15.39 00.00 6, 80.00 33.33 7,69 7. 00.00 7.69 00.00 7. 10.00 00.00 7,69 8. 00.uO 15.39 7.69 a. 00.00 16.67 7,69 9. 20.00 15.39 00,00 9. 10.00 8.33 7.69 10. 10.00 7.69 23.08 ,o. 00,00 8.33 15.39 11. 20.00 7.69 00,00 11. 00.00 00.00 7.69 12. 20.00 23.08 53.85 12. 00.00 25.00 38.46
N=lO M=l3 N=13 N=lO N=l2 N=13
52. Daytime spaces arranged to utilize solar energy for 40'1. ot space S5, Clustering of baths and kitchen on one plumbing wall heating requirements
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 o. 00,00 00.00 00.00
0. 00.00 00.00 15.39 ,. 00,00 00.00 9.09 ,. 00.00 00.00 7.69 2. 00,00 00.00 9,09 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 DO.OD 00.00 4. 00.00 8.33 00.00 I-' 4. 00.00 00.00 00,00 s. 00.00 00.00 00.00 lTt
0 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 50.00 33.33 27.27 6, 20.00 15.39 00.00 7. 00.00 8.33 00.00 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 a. 00.00 16.67 18.18 8. 00.00 00.00 00,00 9. 30.00 8.33 18.18 9. S0.00 23.08 15.39 10. 00.00 25.00 18.18 10. 20.00 23.08 7.69 11. 10.00 00.00 00,00 11. 00.00 00.00 15.39 12. 10.00 00.00 00.00 12. 10.00 38.46 38.46 N=lO M=l2 N=ll
N=lO N=l3 N=13
56. Plan with lower unit set into site: 53. South wmdows w1lh adjustable shadEs
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 9.09 00,00 o. 00.00 00.00 16.67 ,. 00.00 00.00 8,33 ,. 10.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00,00 00.00 00.00
2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 10.00 DO.OD 00.00 3. 00.00 15.39 • 8.33 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 s. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 50.00 27,27 25,00 6. 40,00 15.39 8.33 7. 00.00 00.00 8.33 7. 00.00 00.00 00.00 8. 00.00 27.27 00.00 8. 10.00 7.69 00.00 9. 30,00 9,09 25.00 9. 20.00 • 7.69 00.00 10. 00.00 9.09 33.33 10. 10.00 23.08 16.67 11. 10.00 00.00 00.00 11. 00,00 00.00 00.00 12. 00.00 18.18 00,00 12. 10.00 30.77 50.00 N=lO 1;=11 N=12
tl=lO M=l3 f·i=l 2
57. \Jalls con5,tructed vt rough sawn l":.,6"" studs placed hi*' on center
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 00.00 00,00 l. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00,00 3. 00.00 00.00 10.00 4. 00.00 10.00 10.00 5. 10.00 10.00 10.00 6. ~o.oo 50.00 60.00 7. 00.00 10.00 00.00 8. 10.00 10.00 00.00 9. 20.00 00.00 10.00 10. 00.00 10.00 00.00 11. 00.00 00.00 00.00 12. 00.00 00.00 00.00
N=l0 N=l0 N=l0
56, Support floors of 3'1 concrete on steel decking supported by l 11>:l O"s on 3 1centE:r•s
PRETEST POST-TEST l POST-TEST 2 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 10.00 4. 00.00 10.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 50.00 10.00 60.00 7. 30.00 10.00 00.00 8, 00.00 20.00 10.00 9. 00.00 10.00 10.00 10. 00.00 10.00 10.00 11. 10.00 00.00 00.00 12. 10.00 00.00 00.00
N=l0 N=lO N=l0
59. Corrugated roof on continuous wooden purhns to eliminate convent 1onal ratter ttruss/sheath1ng system
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 o. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 9.03 00.00 4. 00,00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 6. 60.00 54.55 70.00 7. 00.00 oo.,:,o 10.00 e. 00.00 27 .27 10.00 9. 30.00 00.00 10.00 10. 00.00 9,(19 00.00 11. 00.00 uo.oo 00.00 12, 10.00 00.00 00.00
M=lO ti= 11 1-1=10
60. Integration of a bU1ldin9 system tt.at elimmatcs over l /2 ot the stru,:tur al materials usu a llY required
PRETEST o. 00.00 1. 00.00 2. 00.00 3. 00.00 4. 00.00 5. 00.00 6. 50.00 7. 00.00 8. 00.00 9. 30.00 10. 00.00 11. 20.00 12. 00,00 • N=lO
POST-TEST l 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 18.18 00.00 63.64 00.00 9.09
00.00 9.09
00.00 00.00 N=ll
POST-TEST 2 10.00 00.00 10.00 00.00 10.00 00.00 50.00 00.00 10.00 10.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 N=lO
1-J U1 1-J
DESIGN DECISIONS FOR THE HOUSING UNIT FREQUENn DISTRIBUTION FOR RESIDENTS
61. The present system requires manual control of the heating and cooling system, Would you prefer a totally automated system if it cost Your household:
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N•13 N=13
1. 20.00 7.69 23.08 2, 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 00.00 00.00 00.00 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. BO.OD 69.23 76,92
62, How often do You mal:e adjustments to the heating and cooling system
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=lO N=13 N=13
1. 20.00 46.15 38.46 2. 30.00 7,69 7.69 3. 00.00 15.39 46.15
If, as the designer, vou were given the same amount of money, indicate how You w"uld have allocated funds. Note: If more is spent on one item then less must be spent on another item.
65. Insulation
PRETEST N=lO
1. 00.00 2. 70.00 3, 30.00
66. Structura 1 materials
PRETEST N=lO
1, 10.00 2. 70.00 3. 20.00
67. Finish materials
PRETEST N=lO
1. 10.00 2. 60.00 3, 30,00
POST-TEST 1 N=13 00.00 69.23 23.08
POST-TEST 1 N=l3 00.00 46,15 46.15
POST-TEST 1 N=l3 15,39 30,77 46.15
63. '.Jindows and window treatment If given the same amount of floor space,
POST-TEST 2 N=13 00.00 53.85 30.77
POST-TEST 2 N=l3 7.69
38.46 38.46
POST-TEST 2 N=13 30.77 15.39 38.46
indicate how You would allocated space, Note: On each floor, if one area is larger another
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 be smaller, N=lO N=13 N=13
1. OD.OD 38.46 30.77 68. l<itchen 2. 90.00 46.15 38.46 3. 10.00 7.69 7.69 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
N=lO N=13 N=13 64. Mechanical heat system 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00
2. 10.00 00.00 7.69 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 3. 80.00 76.92 76.92 N=lO N=13 N=13 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00
1. DO.DO 7.69 00,00 5, 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 90.00 46.15 23.08 3. 10.00 15,33 53.85
I-' V, N
have must
59. Dining area 74. Upper living room
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
N=lO N=13 N=l3 N=6 N=9 N=9
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00
2. 10.00 00.00 00.00 2. 16.67 00.00 00.00
3. 80.00 69.23 76.92 3. 66.67 66.67 77.78
4. 00.00 7.69 7.69 4. 00.00 00.00 11.11
5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00
70. Lower living room 75. Upper bedroom #3 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=6 N=9 N=9
N=lO N=13 N=13 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00
2. 00.00 7.69 00.00 3. 83.33 66.67 89.89
3. 70.00 69.23 84.62 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00
4. 20.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00
5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 76. Lipper bedroom #4
71 . Lower bedroom # 1 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=6 N=9 11=9
N=lO N=13 N=13 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00
2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 83.33 66.67 88.89
3. 80.00 76.92 69.23 4. 00.00 00.00 00.00
4. 10.00 00.00 15.39 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 I-' \J1
-'• 00.00 00.00 00.00 w 77. Upper bath
72. Lower bedroom #2 PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=6 N=9 N=9
N=lO N=13 N=13 1. 00.00 00.00 00.00
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00
2. 10.00 00.00 15.39 3. 66.67 55.56 88.89
3. 70.00 76.92 69.23 4. 16.67 11.11 00.00
4. 10.00 00.00 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00
5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 78. Loft area
73. Lower bath PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2
PRETEST POST-TEST 1 POST-TEST 2 N=6 N=9 N=9
M=lO N=13 M=13 1. 00.00 11.11 11.11
1. 00.00 00.00 00.00 2. 00.00 00.00 00.00
2. 00.00 00.00 00.00 3. 33.33 33.33 77.78
3. 80.00 69.23 76.92 4. 50.00 22.22 00.00
4. 10.00 7.69 00.00 5. 00.00 00.00 00.00
5. 00.00 00.00 00.00 MOTE:Percentages may not total to 100% because of non-responses.
154
AF'F'E:-lOI/ E
:3ELECTED COMMENTS CONCERNING THE HILL:3IOE FCURF'LE/
Visitors Residents
155
SELECTED COMMENTS BY
VISITORS TO OPEN HOUSE
Engineer: "I was very impressed 1 .• Jitt-1 this project."
Banker: "t,fore attention should be given as to labc,r and materials cost
sa\iings vs cc,nventional construction costs!"
Architect: "Costs to construct this facility \.•Jill impact greatlY c,n future
rnarket ... l'-'1ake list-,t wells larger and c,::,ver 1.AJith p1e:dg1ass dome.
Greater need to study traffic flot.•J thru living r,:,om c,f lc,,.,,.ier unit and
possible add air lcick entry. Foot traffic has drum effect on ,:c,ncrete
, abc,ve--needs further study,"
Carpenter: "Construction ,costs could be dropped if studs are culled tc, a
greater e>:tent. This would cut finishing cc,sts."
Secretary: "Like the b,:,okcase. Need sma 11er (not as deep) unit over toilet."
Retired Air Force: "I believe •=iuarters of tt-iis type to be very .adequate and
:.,1ill be energy savings,"
Historian: "Gc,od try."
Program Evaluation: "Don't like the plastic siding. Design excellen:,"
Engineer: "Concerned about each .aparhr,ent having more ,:ontr,::,l of
temperature quickly, Cc,uld use ·rrp::,re trirri c,::,lc,r on ,:,utside."
Hou'Eewife: "Put closets and built in sb:,rage around •,•.1indo1.,vs c,n north sid.;;:, Is
visa door glass insulated?"
President ,::,f Cc,nsulting & Rc,c,f Testing Firm: " This structure is e:,-:,:ellent in
~ts incc,rporation of therrnai ,::lesign c,:,nsider.atfons. I aff1 very
impressed \•.Jitt-1 the utilization ,:,f ·mini'murn structural inclusi,:,ns which
pr,:,vide rt1a)dmum utility at minirriuro cost."
156
V.P. Research: "Very goc,d."
Anthrcq::•ologist: "I thc,ught the upper unit seemed very ,:c,ff1fc,rtable ... I think
the lm~1er unit 1,.1ould be quite dark .and grirn."
Graduate student: "Needs therma 1 blanket or ott-,er night insulaticin for s,:,uth
glazing."
Soil Conservatic,nist: "Very good job."
Colle•3e faculty: "On energy management--see ... mect-,ani,:al engineering."
.A.rchitect: "G,:u:,d job. espe,:iallY ,3oc,d unit planning."
University Administraticin: "l.,Jould prefer nc,t tc, enter in i-::it,:hen-dinin•3 area."
Student: "N,:, dishwasher!"
Engineer: "Would have considered fi>:ed 4' overt-,ang. Architectural appearance
could have been imp-roved up,:,n. Upper level ·may need ·more heat
control--sep.arate frc,m middle and lo1.,1er fk,,:,r,"
157
COMMEt·H'.3 BY RE:3IOENT:3 GROUPED gy· CATAGORIE:3
"Liked the m,::.st"
Aesthetics
Cost
E>:periment3l nature
Fini:-h ma teria is
Landford/tenant issues
Laundry
Out.,:::!,:,,:,r space
Parking
Priv.3cy
:;:;paci,:,usness
"L i:-,:ed the least"
C,:,nstrucb::.n integrity·
Cost
Pretest
+
,_
0
6
4
0
I]
2
3
"' ._,
D
P,:,st-test
+
3
D
,_
0
6
.., '-
6
c:-·-'
c:-·-'
15
l D
Post-test 2
+
(I
0
0
0
3
.., ,_
10
4
7
7 7
' , I I
Closure Inteviet . .-.,1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ci
0
0
4
0
4
0
4
2
158
~--Jo dist-11..;.3. sher 3 .-, 2 .-, ,._ ,._
E>:perimenta l nature./testin,3 . ., 7 4 ~·
E>:terfor •.~ialk/stairs 0 :3 . ., .-, '- ,._
Finish ·materials 4 f::. 1 ' . I 4
Floor plan 5 6 9 4
Insu lat i,:,n 0 f::. 3 4
Landlord/tenant issues h-- 12 6 4
Laundry ·"j lO 7 .., ,._ ~·
Leii_,._,er bedroorn vvindc,1.,.1s ·"j 4 0 2 '-
Outdo,:,r Space 0 0 0
Parking . ., •"j ·-· ,._
Privacy 3 4
Security . ., ,._ 3 3 .-, ,._
Eh-3.de system 4 6 4 4
:3tcirage 2 1 ·"j ,._
Thermal comfort •"j '- 15 35 4
Trash disp,::,sa 1 c, ·-· C" ~· 5 4
\,,Jc,r.!-::manship 0 11 9 4
·:T,entioi1ing i~-s!..!e.
The vita has been removed from the scanned document
