Mihaela Zamfir (Grigorescu)
Lecturer PhD Arch., Department of Synthesis of Architectural Design, Faculty of Architecture, “Ion Mincu”
University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, Romania
web: https://mihaelagrigorescu.wordpress.com/ I http://www.uauim.ro/
e-mail: mmg_architecturestudio@yahoo.com
phone: +40741124972
ACADEMIC PROFILES:
-GOOGLE SCHOLAR: https://scholar.google.ro/citations?user=v87C6B8AAAAJ&hl=ro
-ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mihaela_Zamfir_Grigorescu
Skills and Expertise:
community architecture I interdisciplinary research-architecture-medicine-psychology-sociology I perspective of ages in architecture I intergenerational architecture I elderly architecture I environment for people with dementia I accessibility I lifelong learning I communication and media I
YOUNG RESEARCHER AWARD (2012)-National Conference of Geriatrics and Gerontology-paper-Frail elderly and ageing in community. Interdisciplinary principles of GerontoARCHITECTURE. -together with MD. Mihai Zamfir.
Mihaela ZAMFIR (Grigorescu) (born in 1978) graduated in 2003 of Faculty of Architecture - University of Architecture and Urbanism “Ion Mincu”, in 2005 obtained the Master Degree in “The rehabilitation of built heritage” and in 2014 PhD degree with the thesis “Towards a community architecture interdisciplinary highlights for the contemporary urban society”. She is Lecturer at Faculty of Architecture, “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest. She has an experience of 13 years in teaching and tutoring (6 years in architecture for elderly), and also she has an experience of 13 years in architectural professional field. She is the author of over 40 communication at international and national conferences and the author of over 30 architecture scientific articles, with an interdisciplinary opening, especially with medicine, psychology and sociology. Mihaela Zamfir is specialized in community architecture, architecture for elderly, dementia environment and in intergenerational architecture. She introduced the concepts of COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE and GerontoARCHITECTURE. She was Member of the scientific committee and lecturer in events and training programs with interdisciplinary open - EURAU 2016 (European Symposium of Architecture and Urbanism), Alzheimer National Conference (2016, 2015), Long-term care services and demographic changes (2016), ICAR-International Conference on Architectural Research (2015), PsihoArhitectura (2015), Healing Architecture (2014), INCLUSIVE ARCHITECTURE (2013), GerontoASSIST-Multidimensional.
assistance of elderly in family and community-interdisciplinary training program (2013).
Mihaela Zamfir (Grigorescu) has her own design studio MMG from 2006. She realized over 40 individual
dwellings and residential complexes, over 30 interior designs for dwellings, apartments and banks. She has
also 4 years experience in real estate.
University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest, Romania
web: https://mihaelagrigorescu.wordpress.com/ I http://www.uauim.ro/
e-mail: mmg_architecturestudio@yahoo.com
phone: +40741124972
ACADEMIC PROFILES:
-GOOGLE SCHOLAR: https://scholar.google.ro/citations?user=v87C6B8AAAAJ&hl=ro
-ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mihaela_Zamfir_Grigorescu
Skills and Expertise:
community architecture I interdisciplinary research-architecture-medicine-psychology-sociology I perspective of ages in architecture I intergenerational architecture I elderly architecture I environment for people with dementia I accessibility I lifelong learning I communication and media I
YOUNG RESEARCHER AWARD (2012)-National Conference of Geriatrics and Gerontology-paper-Frail elderly and ageing in community. Interdisciplinary principles of GerontoARCHITECTURE. -together with MD. Mihai Zamfir.
Mihaela ZAMFIR (Grigorescu) (born in 1978) graduated in 2003 of Faculty of Architecture - University of Architecture and Urbanism “Ion Mincu”, in 2005 obtained the Master Degree in “The rehabilitation of built heritage” and in 2014 PhD degree with the thesis “Towards a community architecture interdisciplinary highlights for the contemporary urban society”. She is Lecturer at Faculty of Architecture, “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest. She has an experience of 13 years in teaching and tutoring (6 years in architecture for elderly), and also she has an experience of 13 years in architectural professional field. She is the author of over 40 communication at international and national conferences and the author of over 30 architecture scientific articles, with an interdisciplinary opening, especially with medicine, psychology and sociology. Mihaela Zamfir is specialized in community architecture, architecture for elderly, dementia environment and in intergenerational architecture. She introduced the concepts of COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE and GerontoARCHITECTURE. She was Member of the scientific committee and lecturer in events and training programs with interdisciplinary open - EURAU 2016 (European Symposium of Architecture and Urbanism), Alzheimer National Conference (2016, 2015), Long-term care services and demographic changes (2016), ICAR-International Conference on Architectural Research (2015), PsihoArhitectura (2015), Healing Architecture (2014), INCLUSIVE ARCHITECTURE (2013), GerontoASSIST-Multidimensional.
assistance of elderly in family and community-interdisciplinary training program (2013).
Mihaela Zamfir (Grigorescu) has her own design studio MMG from 2006. She realized over 40 individual
dwellings and residential complexes, over 30 interior designs for dwellings, apartments and banks. She has
also 4 years experience in real estate.
less
InterestsView All (7)
Uploads
Papers by Mihaela Zamfir (Grigorescu)
The methodology of the present article is based on defining the academic space and topics directions, presenting themes and research concerns, defining the role of the 21st Century and the role of the architect in a context of globalised and emergent world, initiatives on international and national events: discussions – communication – and – dissemination of research and research by design, various involvements of the university and its members in scholarly academic Romanian and international field, advanced studies, doctoral inquiries/research, facts and data on involvement participators and results in publication. The authors of the paper are part of a interactive team that have organised within and at its call International Relations Office, UAUIM, the international conferences, establishing a new tradition on Romanian architectural space: ICAR (International Conference on Architectural Research) conferences. The two developed conferences ICAR (2012[1], 2015[2]) have gathered a wide numbers of architects specialist from the field of research to practice, architecture, constructions, management, academic, restoration, heritage and patrimony, urban planning, landscape design, interior and product design, arts, humanities, social sciences, construction field and interdisciplinary flow from life sciences and mathematics.
Inquiries on building an architectural academic space are based on scholarly FAQ regarding the notable innovation research results, projects (both doctoral and advanced_), notable papers, books, journals (new and journal issues-special topics), national and international workshops (some having a tradition of 10 years now), roundtables, discourses, the connection and communication with Romanian and International architects society. As a reflection of the intense actions of scholarly field within the university, we could mention the increasing number of initiatives from up to bottom, besides the conferences: the appearance of journals like: Argument [3] (architecture based theme, since 2009; the articles published in the journal proceed the annual session of scientific communications), sITA – studies in History and Theory of Architecture [4] (from 2013), JULPreview – Journal of Urbanism Landscape and Planning [5] (from 2016), and improving the quality of wide publication of doctoral studies contains in books (isbn) for knowledge and research theme and methodology dissemination, professionals special results on design, research or research by design, and not least maintaining the traditional publications as: the Analele Arhitecturii (Architecture’s Annual), Anuarul Centrului de Studii de Arhitectură Vernaculară (Center for Studies in Vernacular Architecture Annual), UAUIM, Dealu Frumos.
Centrul de Studii Arhitecturale și Urbane (CSAU) – Center for Architectural and Urban Studies of UAUIM, in collaboration with Romexpo, holds, four times a year, the International Symposiums which accompany the most important expositional events for the presentation of materials and systems used in architecture, urban and interior design: Ambient, Romhotel, BIFE, ExpoEnergiE. The proceedings are published constantly at the UAUIM Publishing House.
From 2011, the Technical Science Department of UAUIM is annually organising “Atelierele de la Sibiu”, a scientific communication session dedicated to professors, researchers, specialists or students, which aims to debate different issues regarding using of technology as a bridge between concept and architectural implementation.
Present initiatives from bottom to up are increasing effervescence of the young professionals enrolled and passionate on research and research by design: events with special topics on interdisciplinary architecture, workshops and round tables, from young researchers and academics, gathering a wide audience in the students’ space and communication with other fields.
We mention „The Museum Space at its Boundaries” event (comprised of the The Museum Space at its Boundaries. Between Architecture and Discourse conference and the „Places beyond the threshold” workshop), held between March 31 and April 13, 2014 by "Ion Mincu" University of Architecture and Urbanism in collaboration with The National Museum of the Romanian Peasant. The event marked the openness of our institution towards both theoretical and practical interdisciplinary approaches. The subject brought together architects, sociologists, anthropologists, artists, ethnographers, and geographers, eager for debate and collaborations.
Architecture of today extracts it’s innovative essences from interference with other disciplines- psychology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, medicine etc. From this point of view, are significant the following conferences, organized by our university: Inclusive Architecture [6] (2013), Healing Architecture [7] (2014) and Psychoarchitecture [8] (2015), Equal Design - Architecture for All [9] (2014).
Inclusive Architecture proved an interdisciplinary theme due to the common concerns of the participants to an environment where physical or mental barriers can be overcome by a careful design to different users.
Healing architecture was dedicated to the therapeutic properties of the environment and was organized together with Experiential Psychotherapy Society SPER.
Psihoarhitecture targeted multidisciplinary connections in the education of future architects and designers, the perception of built environment and the psychological effects, psychological aspects in the relation man-city-community and the multisensorial architecture.
Last, but not least, the tradition of International Diploma Juries (17 years old), now a coveted gathering of academics and professionals around the world, is an important part of scientific evaluation of the final projects of our students and a quality warranty for those. This academic year, December 2015, UAUIM has organised in cooperation with European Association for Architectural Education (EAAE) and The Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE): European Architectural Medals for the Best Diploma Projects [10] which is an annual “European competition that awards excellence in crossing the threshold from education to profession”.[10]
The paper is proposing to review the present and new directions in building an architectural discourse within architectural academic space, results input and future thoughts of “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest (UAUIM).
Acknowledge: “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest
Books by Mihaela Zamfir (Grigorescu)
ISBN 978-606-638-141-3
1262 pages
28-30th September 2016
UAUIM Bucharest
http://eurau2016.uauim.ro/
Honor Committee
Ministry of National Education and Scientific Research
Ministry of Culture
Emil Barbu Popescu – Honorary President of UAUIM
Guillermo CISNEROS – Rector de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.
Luis Maldonado - Director de le Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid
Carlos Alberto Esteves Guimarães – President of Faculdade de Arquitectura
da Universidade do Porto – FAUP
Promoting Committee
Farid AMEZIANE, National Superior School of Architecture of Marseille
(ENSAM), Founder of EURAU
Roberta AMIRANTE, University of Naples Federico II
Joaquin IBAÑEZ MONTOYA, Madrid Polytechnic University
Madalena PINTO DA SILVA, Porto University
Javier SÁNCHEZ MERINA, Alicante University
Gulsun SAĞLAMER, Former Rector, Istanbul Technical University
Organizing Committee
from Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning Bucharest
General Chair
Zeno BOGDĂNESCU, Former UAUIM Rector
Local arrange chair
Beatrice-Gabriela JÖGER, Dean Faculty of Interior Architecture
Daniel COMŞA, Head of International Relations Office
Andra PANAIT, Visual Identity and Publications Coordinator
Sections
1. Actions, permeability, reflexivity
Chair: Prof. Augustin IOAN, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
Assistant chair: Lecturer Oana DIACONESCU, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
2. Actors, processes, constraints
Chair: Prof. Ana-Maria DABIJA, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
Assistant chair: Research assist. Anda SFINTEȘ, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
3. Projects, methods, results
Chair: Assoc.Prof. Françoise PAMFIL, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
Assistant chair: Assoc.Prof. Iulius CRISTEA, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
Assistant chair: Lecturer Mihaela ZAMFIR, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
4. Future challenges
Chair: Assoc.Prof. Beatrice-Gabriela JÖGER, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
Assistant chair: Lecturer Marina MIHĂILĂ, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
Assistant chair: Assoc.Prof. Marius VOICA, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
From Partner Institutions
Meltem AKSOY, ITU Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul
Ainhoa DIEZ DE PABLOS, ETSAM
Carla GARRIDO, Faculty of Architecture, Porto University
Manuel MONTENEGRO, Faculty of Architecture, Porto University
Maria Luna NOBILE, University of Naples Federico II
Maria José PIZARRO, ETSAM, Madrid Polytechnic University
Conference secretariat at UAUIM
Daniel ARMENCIU
Scientific Committee
Meltem AKSOY, Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture
Farid AMEZIANE, National Superior School of Architecture of Marseille
(ENSAM)
Roberta AMIRANTE, University of Naples Federico II
Ozan AVCI, Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture
Francisco BARATA, Faculty of Architecture, Porto University
Zeno BOGDĂNESCU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Cosmin CACIUC, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Teresa CÁLIX, Faculty of Architecture, Porto University
Rodrigo COELHO, Faculty of Architecture, Porto University
Iulius CRISTEA, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Daniel COMŞA, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Ana-Maria DABIJA, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Pelin DURSUN, ITU Faculty of Architecture
Codina DUŞOIU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Cristina ENACHE, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Arzu ERDEM, Faculty of Architecture, Abdullah Gul University
Fatma ERKÖK, ITU Faculty of Architecture
Orfina FATIGATO, National Superior School of Architecture Paris Malaquais
(ENSAPM)
Tiberiu FLORESCU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Ştefan GHENCIULESCU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Celia GHYKA, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Ángel Benigno GONZÁLEZ AVILÉS, Alicante University
Joaquin IBAÑEZ MONTOYA, Madrid Polytechnic University
Augustin IOAN, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Beatrice-Gabriela JÖGER, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Nurbin Paker KAHVECIOGLU, ITU Faculty of Architecture
Arda INCEOGLU, Faculty of Architecture, University of MEF
Rafael GURIDI, Madrid Polytechnic University
Prof. Marta OLIVEIRA, Porto University
Zina MACRI, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Marius MARCU LAPADAT, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
José PARRA MARTÍNEZ, Alicante University
Marina MIHĂILĂ, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Anca MITRACHE, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Marian MOICEANU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Elodie NOURRIGAT, National Superior School of Architecture of Marseille
(ENSAM)
Françoise PAMFIL, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Andra PANAIT, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Gabriel PASCARIU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Alexandru PETRIŞOR, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Madalena PINTO DA SILVA, Porto University
Carmine PISCOPO, University of Naples Federico II
Rui PÓVOAS, Porto University
Monica RĂDULESCU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Javier RUÍZ, Madrid Polytechnic University
Claudiu RUNCEANU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Javier SÁNCHEZ MERINA, Alicante University
Gulsun SAĞLAMER, Former Rector, Istanbul Technical University
Paola SCALA, University of Naples Federico II
Federico SORIANO, Madrid Polytechnic University
Jose María TORRES NADAL, Alicante University
Marco TRISCIUOGLIO, Politecnico di Torino
Fernando VELA COSSÍO, ETSAM, Madrid Polytechnic University
Marius VOICA, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Ana Maria ZAHARIADE, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Mihaela ZAMFIR, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Keynote SPEAKERS
Danilo VESPIER, RPBW - RENZO PIANO BUILDING WORKSHOP
Andrei SERBESCU, ADNBA
LIST OF AUTHORS:
Beatrice-Gabriela Jöger, Ana-Maria DABIJA, Augustin IOAN, Daniel COMŞA, Francoise PAMFIL, Oana DIACONESCU, Marina MIHAILA, Mihaela ZAMFIR GRIGORESCU, Anda SFINTEȘ, Danilo Vespier, Andrei Șerbescu, Cosmin Caciuc, Foued Bouzahzah, Naouel Hanane Boudjab, Gioconda Cafiero, Maria Bostenaru Dan, Alex Dill, Unciuleanu Oana, Andrea Giachetta, Turturică Ștefan Ciprian, Marta Rabazo Martín, Aurora Perra, Alexandra Vișan, Păcescu Alexandra, Sálvora Feliz Ricoy, Angela Juarranz, Vlad Thiery, Iana Codruța, Carlos Arcos Ettlin, Ruth Adalgiza Constantinescu, Genţiana Iacob, Irina Mereoiu, Sonja Lakic, Francesca Oggiano, Hakim nia Mostafa, Kaveh Nazanin, Moisescu Radu-Ioan, Marta Busnelli, Rosa Herrero, Sam Howard, María José Martínez, Mariana Sastre, Letiția Bărbuică, Tobias Baldauf, Florian Otto, Marie-Theres Okresek, Rupert Halbartschlager, Bianca Okresek, Kay Strasser, Bahareh Bathaei, Pablo Berzal Cruz, Ivo Vidal, Ciro Vidal, Delia-Alexandra Prisecaru, Federico Aru, Mihaela Staicu, Daniela Buonanno, Carmine Piscopo, Stefania Victoria Ruse, Guillaume Baron, Regina Campinho, Claudia Chirianni, Diana Ștefan, Javier Ruiz Sánchez, María José Martínez Sánchez, Francesca Avitabile, Bruna Sigillo, Oana Anca Abălaru, Milena Tasheva-Petrova, Claudia Piscitelli, Francesco Selicato, Daniel Nicolae Armenciu, Stefan Mihailescu, Sorina Vlaiescu, Andreea Nitu, Catalin Caragea, Stefan C. Popa, Silvia Colmenares, Mirela I. Weber-Andreșcov, Bárbara Fernandes LEITE, Angelica Stan, Hanna Derer, Belén Butragueño, Javier F. Raposo, Mariasun Salgado, Massimo Carta, Elena Teresa Clotilde MARCHIS, Giorgio GARZINO, Giovanni Multari, Claudia Sansò, Arian Heidari Afshari, Ana Horhat, Francesca Addario, Mirko Russo, Maria Luna Nobile, Manuela Antoniciello, Ioana Virginia Craiovan, Marco Bovati, Katrin Rappl, Leandro Medrano, Maria Pia Amore, Marianna Ascolese, Chiara Barbieri, Adriana Bernieri, Marica Castigliano, Vanna Cestarello, Francesca Coppolino, Raffaele Spera, Andra Panait, Luciana Macaluso, Flavia Zaffora, Fernando Ferreira, Cidália Ferreira Silva, Alessandro Gaiani, Norma Bellini, Luigi Siviero, Pina Ciotoli, Marco Falsetti, Davide Buccione, Alberto Calderoni, Giampiero Castiglione, Veronica Maria Zybaczynski, Mario Coppola, Pedro Bragança, Marta Oliveira, Giovanni Zucchi, Guglielmo Avallone, Markella Menikou, Adonis Cleanthous, Mircea Alexandru Mogan, Angela D’Agostino, Luigi Stendardo, Giovanni Battista Cocco, Silvia Alberti, Matilde Plastina, Mihaela Şchiopu, Ioana Moraru, Giorgia Di Cintio, Mehrnaz Rajabi, Paola Scala, Elena-Codina Duşoiu, Barbara Coppetti, Elena Fontanella, Chiara Toscani, Giorgia Cedro, Cristina Enache, Mihaela Hărmănescu, Andrei Eugen Lakatos, Radu-Matei Cocheci, Francesco Marras, María A. Leboreiro, Simona Canepa, Simona Butnariu, Ana-Maria Machedon, David Hidalgo Pérez, Moayyer Rouhollah, Simona Guergova, Ifonima Essien, Alessia Allegri, Filipa Serpa, Mihai-Viorel Zamfir, Adriano Dessi, Ana Nevado, Dorina Tarbujaru, Ana Muntean, Alexandra Tatar, Beatriz del Rio-Calleja, Alfonso Garcia-Santos, Alexandru-Ionut Petrisor, Andrei Mitrea
According to data provided by UN, we are witnessing an unprecedented demographic shift, if in 2015 the elderly population was 12%, it is estimated that in 2050 the percentage will reach 21% at a global scale and to 34% in Europe (United Nations 2015). Basically, one in three people will be over 60 years. The process of population ageing must be considered together with the process of urbanization, these being two major trends of the XXIst century.
The trend for public policies on health and ageing is to pass from a functional perspective -the state as provider of care services- to a perspective that has in its center the individual and has as core principles participation and empowerment (United Nations, 2002). These core principles are encountered in the concept of active ageing – the process of optimizing opportunities for health, participation and security in order to enhance quality of life as people age (WHO, 2007).
Healthcare costs for elderly are increasing, ageing of patients is also described. A solution proposed in the second half of the XXth century was long-term institutionalization (Bogdan C., 2011). However, it was found that this public policy has less favorable outcomes in community integration of the elderly. In addition, long-term care costs are considerable and widespread practice is economically demanding even for developed countries.
All these reasons have led to search for alternative flexible solutions that have the main objective ageing in place - maintaining elderly in community as long as possible. Together with other disciplines- psychology, sociology, medicine, engineering, arts- ARCHITECTURE became to develop new concepts, age-friendly strategies.
The article reviews three care options for elderly, in community and institutionalized, focusing on community based day care centers:
• Caring in community with maintaining the residence- home care, other social and medical services, daycare centers, community based daycare centers;
• Caring in community that implies changing of the residence- Assisted Living Facilities (ALF), Specialized Dementia Care Facilities (Memory Care Assisted Living), Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC);
• Institutionalized assistance- long term care-Nursing Homes and temporary care-Respite Centers.
The paper aims to reflect the importance of building and designing of day-care centers for elderly at a human, residential scale. Regarding the scale of these centers, it is recommended to be as reduced as possible, for a small number of users, especially for elderly with dementia.
What is a daycare center? A daycare center provides day-time socio-medical assistance for elderly, giving them the opportunity of socialization. It enables carers to carry out other activities. Generally they are small buildings, mostly developed on the ground-floor or one with floor only, with a modest architecture and a domestic expression.
The present article investigates some of the fine architecture contemporary examples of daycare centers for elderly and for elderly with dementia: Day center for elderly Vialonga (2009, Portugal), Day Center for elderly in Cordoba (Spain, 2013), Day Care center for people with Alzheimer Dementia in Alicante (Spain, 2011), Day Care center for people with Alzheimer Dementia in Pontevedra (Spain, 2006). All these examples provide small scale buildings with a residential design. The paper underlines the importance of an appropriate use of architectural instruments- light, shape, color, texture.
In conclusion, it is recommended a small scale of the daycare centers corroborated with a generous palette of socio-medical services, avoiding an aspect of institutionalization in interior and exterior design. Contemporary architecture is an architecture for an ageing society and brings an integrative perspective, by corroborating information from related field- geriatrics-gerontology, psychology and social care. For the future challenges of an ageing society, architecture also must encourage active ageing, designing age-friendly supportive environments that allow older people to live their life and to maximize their contribution to the society.
Keywords: daycare center, ageing in place, active ageing, architecture for elderly, age-friendly architecture, dementia environment, community care
The present article investigates the relation between multifunctional space and the scale of community centers. The volumetrical-spatial scale of community centers it is a quantitative criterion (but not just this) of classification for contemporary community centers relevant for community, for social policies of district/ area/ city level and for the community architecture.
From about 100 analyzed examples of community centers, was proposed a classification in three scale categories: S- small community centers (100-1000mp), M- medium community centers (1001-3000mp) and L, XL- large and very large community centers (3001->15000mp). For each category were established subcategories.
Multifunctionality respectively multifunctional space was defined as an essential principle in designing contemporary community centers. From the same about 100 analyzed exemples were identified three types of multifunctionality: merging-concomitance, polyvalence-adaptability and hybrid solutions, resulting from combining the first two.
Merging-concomitance principle assumes the existence of several spaces with different, precise destination, functioning simultaneously under the same roof. The exact functional destination customizes spaces, makes them recognizable, confers a certain character, a special ambience, expresses the users’s wish at least at a certain time. These spaces may not be so easy to change, have some functional inertia.
Unlike the principle of merging-concomitance, the polyvalence-adaptability principle assumes interior or exterior spaces which by different organization (interventions on furniture or subdivision items) allow the deployment of several activities, concomitantly or delayed in time. The polyvalent space is easily adaptable and can meet the changing requests of today society. Polyvalent space supposes an initial neutral conception, customizing of this being made ephemeral for each event in part.
Contemporary community centers can use both contemporary principles separately or simultaneously, in which case occurring hybrid solution of multifunctionality. Most times it is necessarily to take place concomitant several types of activities that requires well-defined spaces and also are needed spaces that can morph, adapting according to the requirements.
Very few of contemporary community centers examples have a spatial functional structure fully functional determined. Although prevails quantitatively spaces with clear, customizable functions, polyvalent, multifunctional spaces are almost always present, even if subordinated. Community centers generally function after scenarios commonly agreed with the community, being available, at
least for a certain time, in the life of that community.
Multifunctionality strictly interpretated as merging-concomitance works especially for large centers that allow a wide range of spaces intended for various destinations (eg. Clayton Community Center, Australia-S=6650sqm). Are functions that are requiring specialized spaces (eg. sporting, cooking facilities) or meet better the community’s requires if are customized (we talk especially about elderly people, more conservative by definition).
The hybrid multifunctionality is the most widely used, almost always for the medium centers (eg. Community Center Herstedlund- S=875sqm) and most times for large centers (eg. The Gateway Center, Wetschester Community College, USA- S=70000sqm). From the functional scheme point of view, it correspond the best to the community as a whole, offering both specificity, stability as well as flexibility, adaptability.
Multifunctionality, however understood as polyvalence, always brings an extra to the community centers in adapting to the changing requirements of today. Multifunctional spaces represents the unexpected, the anticipation of future nonanticipation. These occur subordinated in the case of large or medium community centers or can be independent for small centers. Small community center constitutes an interesting exercise in terms of multifunctionality, shifting to the POLYVALENCE-FULL ADAPTATION. In this case, the functional scheme can be simplified even to use only polyvalent space (eg. Youth Centre Amsterdam-Osdorp, Holland, S=285sqm).
In conclusion, the multifunctional space in community centers expresses the refusal of predetermination and the awareness of the rapid changes of the present society, eliminating complex functional schemes, proposing instead adaptable, flexible ones, possibly to be used in various ways, that fold specifically over the scale of space and on the specifics of the community.
Keywords: multifunctional space, merging-concomitance, polyvalence-adaptability, community center, scale
The methodology of the present article is based on defining the academic space and topics directions, presenting themes and research concerns, defining the role of the 21st Century and the role of the architect in a context of globalised and emergent world, initiatives on international and national events: discussions – communication – and – dissemination of research and research by design, various involvements of the university and its members in scholarly academic Romanian and international field, advanced studies, doctoral inquiries/research, facts and data on involvement participators and results in publication. The authors of the paper are part of a interactive team that have organised within and at its call International Relations Office, UAUIM, the international conferences, establishing a new tradition on Romanian architectural space: ICAR (International Conference on Architectural Research) conferences. The two developed conferences ICAR (2012[1], 2015[2]) have gathered a wide numbers of architects specialist from the field of research to practice, architecture, constructions, management, academic, restoration, heritage and patrimony, urban planning, landscape design, interior and product design, arts, humanities, social sciences, construction field and interdisciplinary flow from life sciences and mathematics.
Inquiries on building an architectural academic space are based on scholarly FAQ regarding the notable innovation research results, projects (both doctoral and advanced_), notable papers, books, journals (new and journal issues-special topics), national and international workshops (some having a tradition of 10 years now), roundtables, discourses, the connection and communication with Romanian and International architects society. As a reflection of the intense actions of scholarly field within the university, we could mention the increasing number of initiatives from up to bottom, besides the conferences: the appearance of journals like: Argument [3] (architecture based theme, since 2009; the articles published in the journal proceed the annual session of scientific communications), sITA – studies in History and Theory of Architecture [4] (from 2013), JULPreview – Journal of Urbanism Landscape and Planning [5] (from 2016), and improving the quality of wide publication of doctoral studies contains in books (isbn) for knowledge and research theme and methodology dissemination, professionals special results on design, research or research by design, and not least maintaining the traditional publications as: the Analele Arhitecturii (Architecture’s Annual), Anuarul Centrului de Studii de Arhitectură Vernaculară (Center for Studies in Vernacular Architecture Annual), UAUIM, Dealu Frumos.
Centrul de Studii Arhitecturale și Urbane (CSAU) – Center for Architectural and Urban Studies of UAUIM, in collaboration with Romexpo, holds, four times a year, the International Symposiums which accompany the most important expositional events for the presentation of materials and systems used in architecture, urban and interior design: Ambient, Romhotel, BIFE, ExpoEnergiE. The proceedings are published constantly at the UAUIM Publishing House.
From 2011, the Technical Science Department of UAUIM is annually organising “Atelierele de la Sibiu”, a scientific communication session dedicated to professors, researchers, specialists or students, which aims to debate different issues regarding using of technology as a bridge between concept and architectural implementation.
Present initiatives from bottom to up are increasing effervescence of the young professionals enrolled and passionate on research and research by design: events with special topics on interdisciplinary architecture, workshops and round tables, from young researchers and academics, gathering a wide audience in the students’ space and communication with other fields.
We mention „The Museum Space at its Boundaries” event (comprised of the The Museum Space at its Boundaries. Between Architecture and Discourse conference and the „Places beyond the threshold” workshop), held between March 31 and April 13, 2014 by "Ion Mincu" University of Architecture and Urbanism in collaboration with The National Museum of the Romanian Peasant. The event marked the openness of our institution towards both theoretical and practical interdisciplinary approaches. The subject brought together architects, sociologists, anthropologists, artists, ethnographers, and geographers, eager for debate and collaborations.
Architecture of today extracts it’s innovative essences from interference with other disciplines- psychology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, medicine etc. From this point of view, are significant the following conferences, organized by our university: Inclusive Architecture [6] (2013), Healing Architecture [7] (2014) and Psychoarchitecture [8] (2015), Equal Design - Architecture for All [9] (2014).
Inclusive Architecture proved an interdisciplinary theme due to the common concerns of the participants to an environment where physical or mental barriers can be overcome by a careful design to different users.
Healing architecture was dedicated to the therapeutic properties of the environment and was organized together with Experiential Psychotherapy Society SPER.
Psihoarhitecture targeted multidisciplinary connections in the education of future architects and designers, the perception of built environment and the psychological effects, psychological aspects in the relation man-city-community and the multisensorial architecture.
Last, but not least, the tradition of International Diploma Juries (17 years old), now a coveted gathering of academics and professionals around the world, is an important part of scientific evaluation of the final projects of our students and a quality warranty for those. This academic year, December 2015, UAUIM has organised in cooperation with European Association for Architectural Education (EAAE) and The Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE): European Architectural Medals for the Best Diploma Projects [10] which is an annual “European competition that awards excellence in crossing the threshold from education to profession”.[10]
The paper is proposing to review the present and new directions in building an architectural discourse within architectural academic space, results input and future thoughts of “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest (UAUIM).
Acknowledge: “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urbanism, Bucharest
ISBN 978-606-638-141-3
1262 pages
28-30th September 2016
UAUIM Bucharest
http://eurau2016.uauim.ro/
Honor Committee
Ministry of National Education and Scientific Research
Ministry of Culture
Emil Barbu Popescu – Honorary President of UAUIM
Guillermo CISNEROS – Rector de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.
Luis Maldonado - Director de le Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid
Carlos Alberto Esteves Guimarães – President of Faculdade de Arquitectura
da Universidade do Porto – FAUP
Promoting Committee
Farid AMEZIANE, National Superior School of Architecture of Marseille
(ENSAM), Founder of EURAU
Roberta AMIRANTE, University of Naples Federico II
Joaquin IBAÑEZ MONTOYA, Madrid Polytechnic University
Madalena PINTO DA SILVA, Porto University
Javier SÁNCHEZ MERINA, Alicante University
Gulsun SAĞLAMER, Former Rector, Istanbul Technical University
Organizing Committee
from Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning Bucharest
General Chair
Zeno BOGDĂNESCU, Former UAUIM Rector
Local arrange chair
Beatrice-Gabriela JÖGER, Dean Faculty of Interior Architecture
Daniel COMŞA, Head of International Relations Office
Andra PANAIT, Visual Identity and Publications Coordinator
Sections
1. Actions, permeability, reflexivity
Chair: Prof. Augustin IOAN, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
Assistant chair: Lecturer Oana DIACONESCU, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
2. Actors, processes, constraints
Chair: Prof. Ana-Maria DABIJA, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
Assistant chair: Research assist. Anda SFINTEȘ, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
3. Projects, methods, results
Chair: Assoc.Prof. Françoise PAMFIL, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
Assistant chair: Assoc.Prof. Iulius CRISTEA, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
Assistant chair: Lecturer Mihaela ZAMFIR, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
4. Future challenges
Chair: Assoc.Prof. Beatrice-Gabriela JÖGER, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
Assistant chair: Lecturer Marina MIHĂILĂ, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
Assistant chair: Assoc.Prof. Marius VOICA, Arch, PhD, UAUIM
From Partner Institutions
Meltem AKSOY, ITU Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul
Ainhoa DIEZ DE PABLOS, ETSAM
Carla GARRIDO, Faculty of Architecture, Porto University
Manuel MONTENEGRO, Faculty of Architecture, Porto University
Maria Luna NOBILE, University of Naples Federico II
Maria José PIZARRO, ETSAM, Madrid Polytechnic University
Conference secretariat at UAUIM
Daniel ARMENCIU
Scientific Committee
Meltem AKSOY, Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture
Farid AMEZIANE, National Superior School of Architecture of Marseille
(ENSAM)
Roberta AMIRANTE, University of Naples Federico II
Ozan AVCI, Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture
Francisco BARATA, Faculty of Architecture, Porto University
Zeno BOGDĂNESCU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Cosmin CACIUC, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Teresa CÁLIX, Faculty of Architecture, Porto University
Rodrigo COELHO, Faculty of Architecture, Porto University
Iulius CRISTEA, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Daniel COMŞA, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Ana-Maria DABIJA, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Pelin DURSUN, ITU Faculty of Architecture
Codina DUŞOIU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Cristina ENACHE, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Arzu ERDEM, Faculty of Architecture, Abdullah Gul University
Fatma ERKÖK, ITU Faculty of Architecture
Orfina FATIGATO, National Superior School of Architecture Paris Malaquais
(ENSAPM)
Tiberiu FLORESCU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Ştefan GHENCIULESCU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Celia GHYKA, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Ángel Benigno GONZÁLEZ AVILÉS, Alicante University
Joaquin IBAÑEZ MONTOYA, Madrid Polytechnic University
Augustin IOAN, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Beatrice-Gabriela JÖGER, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Nurbin Paker KAHVECIOGLU, ITU Faculty of Architecture
Arda INCEOGLU, Faculty of Architecture, University of MEF
Rafael GURIDI, Madrid Polytechnic University
Prof. Marta OLIVEIRA, Porto University
Zina MACRI, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Marius MARCU LAPADAT, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
José PARRA MARTÍNEZ, Alicante University
Marina MIHĂILĂ, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Anca MITRACHE, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Marian MOICEANU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Elodie NOURRIGAT, National Superior School of Architecture of Marseille
(ENSAM)
Françoise PAMFIL, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Andra PANAIT, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Gabriel PASCARIU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Alexandru PETRIŞOR, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Madalena PINTO DA SILVA, Porto University
Carmine PISCOPO, University of Naples Federico II
Rui PÓVOAS, Porto University
Monica RĂDULESCU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Javier RUÍZ, Madrid Polytechnic University
Claudiu RUNCEANU, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Javier SÁNCHEZ MERINA, Alicante University
Gulsun SAĞLAMER, Former Rector, Istanbul Technical University
Paola SCALA, University of Naples Federico II
Federico SORIANO, Madrid Polytechnic University
Jose María TORRES NADAL, Alicante University
Marco TRISCIUOGLIO, Politecnico di Torino
Fernando VELA COSSÍO, ETSAM, Madrid Polytechnic University
Marius VOICA, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Ana Maria ZAHARIADE, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban
Planning Bucharest
Mihaela ZAMFIR, Ion Mincu University of Architecture and Urban Planning
Bucharest
Keynote SPEAKERS
Danilo VESPIER, RPBW - RENZO PIANO BUILDING WORKSHOP
Andrei SERBESCU, ADNBA
LIST OF AUTHORS:
Beatrice-Gabriela Jöger, Ana-Maria DABIJA, Augustin IOAN, Daniel COMŞA, Francoise PAMFIL, Oana DIACONESCU, Marina MIHAILA, Mihaela ZAMFIR GRIGORESCU, Anda SFINTEȘ, Danilo Vespier, Andrei Șerbescu, Cosmin Caciuc, Foued Bouzahzah, Naouel Hanane Boudjab, Gioconda Cafiero, Maria Bostenaru Dan, Alex Dill, Unciuleanu Oana, Andrea Giachetta, Turturică Ștefan Ciprian, Marta Rabazo Martín, Aurora Perra, Alexandra Vișan, Păcescu Alexandra, Sálvora Feliz Ricoy, Angela Juarranz, Vlad Thiery, Iana Codruța, Carlos Arcos Ettlin, Ruth Adalgiza Constantinescu, Genţiana Iacob, Irina Mereoiu, Sonja Lakic, Francesca Oggiano, Hakim nia Mostafa, Kaveh Nazanin, Moisescu Radu-Ioan, Marta Busnelli, Rosa Herrero, Sam Howard, María José Martínez, Mariana Sastre, Letiția Bărbuică, Tobias Baldauf, Florian Otto, Marie-Theres Okresek, Rupert Halbartschlager, Bianca Okresek, Kay Strasser, Bahareh Bathaei, Pablo Berzal Cruz, Ivo Vidal, Ciro Vidal, Delia-Alexandra Prisecaru, Federico Aru, Mihaela Staicu, Daniela Buonanno, Carmine Piscopo, Stefania Victoria Ruse, Guillaume Baron, Regina Campinho, Claudia Chirianni, Diana Ștefan, Javier Ruiz Sánchez, María José Martínez Sánchez, Francesca Avitabile, Bruna Sigillo, Oana Anca Abălaru, Milena Tasheva-Petrova, Claudia Piscitelli, Francesco Selicato, Daniel Nicolae Armenciu, Stefan Mihailescu, Sorina Vlaiescu, Andreea Nitu, Catalin Caragea, Stefan C. Popa, Silvia Colmenares, Mirela I. Weber-Andreșcov, Bárbara Fernandes LEITE, Angelica Stan, Hanna Derer, Belén Butragueño, Javier F. Raposo, Mariasun Salgado, Massimo Carta, Elena Teresa Clotilde MARCHIS, Giorgio GARZINO, Giovanni Multari, Claudia Sansò, Arian Heidari Afshari, Ana Horhat, Francesca Addario, Mirko Russo, Maria Luna Nobile, Manuela Antoniciello, Ioana Virginia Craiovan, Marco Bovati, Katrin Rappl, Leandro Medrano, Maria Pia Amore, Marianna Ascolese, Chiara Barbieri, Adriana Bernieri, Marica Castigliano, Vanna Cestarello, Francesca Coppolino, Raffaele Spera, Andra Panait, Luciana Macaluso, Flavia Zaffora, Fernando Ferreira, Cidália Ferreira Silva, Alessandro Gaiani, Norma Bellini, Luigi Siviero, Pina Ciotoli, Marco Falsetti, Davide Buccione, Alberto Calderoni, Giampiero Castiglione, Veronica Maria Zybaczynski, Mario Coppola, Pedro Bragança, Marta Oliveira, Giovanni Zucchi, Guglielmo Avallone, Markella Menikou, Adonis Cleanthous, Mircea Alexandru Mogan, Angela D’Agostino, Luigi Stendardo, Giovanni Battista Cocco, Silvia Alberti, Matilde Plastina, Mihaela Şchiopu, Ioana Moraru, Giorgia Di Cintio, Mehrnaz Rajabi, Paola Scala, Elena-Codina Duşoiu, Barbara Coppetti, Elena Fontanella, Chiara Toscani, Giorgia Cedro, Cristina Enache, Mihaela Hărmănescu, Andrei Eugen Lakatos, Radu-Matei Cocheci, Francesco Marras, María A. Leboreiro, Simona Canepa, Simona Butnariu, Ana-Maria Machedon, David Hidalgo Pérez, Moayyer Rouhollah, Simona Guergova, Ifonima Essien, Alessia Allegri, Filipa Serpa, Mihai-Viorel Zamfir, Adriano Dessi, Ana Nevado, Dorina Tarbujaru, Ana Muntean, Alexandra Tatar, Beatriz del Rio-Calleja, Alfonso Garcia-Santos, Alexandru-Ionut Petrisor, Andrei Mitrea
According to data provided by UN, we are witnessing an unprecedented demographic shift, if in 2015 the elderly population was 12%, it is estimated that in 2050 the percentage will reach 21% at a global scale and to 34% in Europe (United Nations 2015). Basically, one in three people will be over 60 years. The process of population ageing must be considered together with the process of urbanization, these being two major trends of the XXIst century.
The trend for public policies on health and ageing is to pass from a functional perspective -the state as provider of care services- to a perspective that has in its center the individual and has as core principles participation and empowerment (United Nations, 2002). These core principles are encountered in the concept of active ageing – the process of optimizing opportunities for health, participation and security in order to enhance quality of life as people age (WHO, 2007).
Healthcare costs for elderly are increasing, ageing of patients is also described. A solution proposed in the second half of the XXth century was long-term institutionalization (Bogdan C., 2011). However, it was found that this public policy has less favorable outcomes in community integration of the elderly. In addition, long-term care costs are considerable and widespread practice is economically demanding even for developed countries.
All these reasons have led to search for alternative flexible solutions that have the main objective ageing in place - maintaining elderly in community as long as possible. Together with other disciplines- psychology, sociology, medicine, engineering, arts- ARCHITECTURE became to develop new concepts, age-friendly strategies.
The article reviews three care options for elderly, in community and institutionalized, focusing on community based day care centers:
• Caring in community with maintaining the residence- home care, other social and medical services, daycare centers, community based daycare centers;
• Caring in community that implies changing of the residence- Assisted Living Facilities (ALF), Specialized Dementia Care Facilities (Memory Care Assisted Living), Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC);
• Institutionalized assistance- long term care-Nursing Homes and temporary care-Respite Centers.
The paper aims to reflect the importance of building and designing of day-care centers for elderly at a human, residential scale. Regarding the scale of these centers, it is recommended to be as reduced as possible, for a small number of users, especially for elderly with dementia.
What is a daycare center? A daycare center provides day-time socio-medical assistance for elderly, giving them the opportunity of socialization. It enables carers to carry out other activities. Generally they are small buildings, mostly developed on the ground-floor or one with floor only, with a modest architecture and a domestic expression.
The present article investigates some of the fine architecture contemporary examples of daycare centers for elderly and for elderly with dementia: Day center for elderly Vialonga (2009, Portugal), Day Center for elderly in Cordoba (Spain, 2013), Day Care center for people with Alzheimer Dementia in Alicante (Spain, 2011), Day Care center for people with Alzheimer Dementia in Pontevedra (Spain, 2006). All these examples provide small scale buildings with a residential design. The paper underlines the importance of an appropriate use of architectural instruments- light, shape, color, texture.
In conclusion, it is recommended a small scale of the daycare centers corroborated with a generous palette of socio-medical services, avoiding an aspect of institutionalization in interior and exterior design. Contemporary architecture is an architecture for an ageing society and brings an integrative perspective, by corroborating information from related field- geriatrics-gerontology, psychology and social care. For the future challenges of an ageing society, architecture also must encourage active ageing, designing age-friendly supportive environments that allow older people to live their life and to maximize their contribution to the society.
Keywords: daycare center, ageing in place, active ageing, architecture for elderly, age-friendly architecture, dementia environment, community care
The present article investigates the relation between multifunctional space and the scale of community centers. The volumetrical-spatial scale of community centers it is a quantitative criterion (but not just this) of classification for contemporary community centers relevant for community, for social policies of district/ area/ city level and for the community architecture.
From about 100 analyzed examples of community centers, was proposed a classification in three scale categories: S- small community centers (100-1000mp), M- medium community centers (1001-3000mp) and L, XL- large and very large community centers (3001->15000mp). For each category were established subcategories.
Multifunctionality respectively multifunctional space was defined as an essential principle in designing contemporary community centers. From the same about 100 analyzed exemples were identified three types of multifunctionality: merging-concomitance, polyvalence-adaptability and hybrid solutions, resulting from combining the first two.
Merging-concomitance principle assumes the existence of several spaces with different, precise destination, functioning simultaneously under the same roof. The exact functional destination customizes spaces, makes them recognizable, confers a certain character, a special ambience, expresses the users’s wish at least at a certain time. These spaces may not be so easy to change, have some functional inertia.
Unlike the principle of merging-concomitance, the polyvalence-adaptability principle assumes interior or exterior spaces which by different organization (interventions on furniture or subdivision items) allow the deployment of several activities, concomitantly or delayed in time. The polyvalent space is easily adaptable and can meet the changing requests of today society. Polyvalent space supposes an initial neutral conception, customizing of this being made ephemeral for each event in part.
Contemporary community centers can use both contemporary principles separately or simultaneously, in which case occurring hybrid solution of multifunctionality. Most times it is necessarily to take place concomitant several types of activities that requires well-defined spaces and also are needed spaces that can morph, adapting according to the requirements.
Very few of contemporary community centers examples have a spatial functional structure fully functional determined. Although prevails quantitatively spaces with clear, customizable functions, polyvalent, multifunctional spaces are almost always present, even if subordinated. Community centers generally function after scenarios commonly agreed with the community, being available, at
least for a certain time, in the life of that community.
Multifunctionality strictly interpretated as merging-concomitance works especially for large centers that allow a wide range of spaces intended for various destinations (eg. Clayton Community Center, Australia-S=6650sqm). Are functions that are requiring specialized spaces (eg. sporting, cooking facilities) or meet better the community’s requires if are customized (we talk especially about elderly people, more conservative by definition).
The hybrid multifunctionality is the most widely used, almost always for the medium centers (eg. Community Center Herstedlund- S=875sqm) and most times for large centers (eg. The Gateway Center, Wetschester Community College, USA- S=70000sqm). From the functional scheme point of view, it correspond the best to the community as a whole, offering both specificity, stability as well as flexibility, adaptability.
Multifunctionality, however understood as polyvalence, always brings an extra to the community centers in adapting to the changing requirements of today. Multifunctional spaces represents the unexpected, the anticipation of future nonanticipation. These occur subordinated in the case of large or medium community centers or can be independent for small centers. Small community center constitutes an interesting exercise in terms of multifunctionality, shifting to the POLYVALENCE-FULL ADAPTATION. In this case, the functional scheme can be simplified even to use only polyvalent space (eg. Youth Centre Amsterdam-Osdorp, Holland, S=285sqm).
In conclusion, the multifunctional space in community centers expresses the refusal of predetermination and the awareness of the rapid changes of the present society, eliminating complex functional schemes, proposing instead adaptable, flexible ones, possibly to be used in various ways, that fold specifically over the scale of space and on the specifics of the community.
Keywords: multifunctional space, merging-concomitance, polyvalence-adaptability, community center, scale