Hedebygadekarréen - Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the actual solutions did not fully meet the expectations of the residents.An exception is the community house, which all respondents praise. According to the majority of answers, the level of information and co-operation with the urban renewal company sbs, was not optimal.Thus many comments stressed that it had been difficult to obtain a hear-ing. In a later series of interviews all respondents proclaimed satisfaction with the urban ecological solutions. Opinions were divided concerning heat recovery and how to arrange the courtyard. On the other hand there was broad belief in solar panels, low emission glazing, water saving installations and ecological solutions in the community house. Nobody had any confidence in photovoltaics. All respondents had an idea of urban ecology before moving in. Still, the interest in ecology and the environment increased during the project.Thus several residents expressed great interest in following the consumption of heating, electricity and water. At the end of the process more than half of the respondents stated that they were content with the co-operation between the residents and SBS and between the residents and the architects and engineering companies involved. Commercial perspective A main purpose of the experiment and demonstration project was the promotion and development of competitive urban ecological solutions. For the same reason the consultants in their reporting had committed themselves to review the perspectives of each project. Furthermore, focus group meetings were held to debate the subject. On this background the reports and the participants have concurrently pointed out the importance of the innovative atmosphere that has been created.The new alliances, the environmental focus and the visibility of the projects all contributed to the creation, improvement and maturation of new urban ecological solutions. Not least, this was a consequence of architectural consciousness and constant media attention. At the same time the media provided the architect and engineering companies with important references. To the participants the many projects that were gathered in one location revealed some basic principles for renovation of the older building stock. Furthermore it revealed how far it is possible to advance by using new aesthetic expressions. The renovation of he Hedebygade Block was followed with great interest both at home and abroad. Many delegations visited the area to see preliminary results and to get more knowledge of the project. Still the question remains, whether this great interest will lead to actual export orders. Seen in the light of the enormous need for environmentally sound and careful renovation of old buildings and city centres all over Europe, this might well be possible. 63
64 Bilag Bilag A:Aktører bag delprojekter Prisme (DP1) Bygherre Bygherreforretningsfører Totalrådgiver Projektleder Rådgivende ingeniør Heliostat Flora (DP2) Bygherre Bygherreforretningsfører: Totalrådgiver Rådgiver projekt Flora Rådgivende ingeniør Flora Moduler Det grønne køkken (DP4) Bygherre Bygherreforretningsfører Arkitekter Rådgivende ingeniør Køkkeninventar Mistbænke Solvæg (DP5) Bygherre Bygherreforretningsfører Totalrådgiver Forsøgsrådgiver Køkkeninventar Solvægge Fleksible facader (DP6) Bygherre Bygherreforretningsfører Totalrådgiver Forsøgsrådgiver Arkitekt Ingeniør Hovedentreprenør Integreret økologisk fornyelse (DP7) Bygherre Bygherreforretningsfører Totalrådgiver Arkitekt Københavns Kommune sbs BOX 25 Peter Holst Arkitekter Esbensen Rådgivende Iingeniører Bomin Solar GmBh Københavns Kommune sbs Arkitektfirmaet C.F. Møllers tegnestue Transform 1994 Aps Carl Bro Byg Dansk Rodzone Teknik / BACESS A/S Københavns Kommune sbs Byens Tegnestue ApS Wissenberg A/S Svanekøkkenet Alucon/GGf Københavns Kommune sbs Arkitektfirmaet C.F. Møllers tegnestue Cenergia Svanekøkkenet EcoVent Københavns Kommune sbs PLAN 1 A/S Cenergia PLAN 1 A/S Esbensen Rådgivende Iingeniører Skanska DK A/S Andelsboligforeningen Hedebygade 33A sbs Ingeniørfirmaet Erik K. Jørgensen Karsten Pålssons Tegnestue
Page 1 and 2:
Hedebygadekarréen Et byøkologisk
Page 3 and 4:
4 Forord Renoveringen af Hedebygadk
Page 5 and 6:
6 Indledning I sommeren 1995 bevilg
Page 7 and 8:
8 Da programmet var en realitet, st
Page 9 and 10:
Rækken af byøkologiske løsninger
Page 11 and 12: DP1 Prisme Byøkologisk løsning He
Page 13 and 14: DP9 Affaldssortering DP10a Fællesh
Page 15 and 16: DP5 Solvæg Forsøg og udvikling 1.
Page 17 and 18: 18 Økonomi Delprojekt 1: Prisme De
Page 19 and 20: Byøkologiske løsninger fordelt ef
Page 21 and 22: 22 I Delprojekt 1 (Prisme) er der s
Page 23 and 24: 24 Affaldsmængder I foråret 1996,
Page 25 and 26: 26 Arkitektur og æstetik For alle
Page 27 and 28: Af Seniorforsker Karen Attwell Refe
Page 29 and 30: 30 Materialer og anlægskvalitet Ma
Page 31 and 32: 32 at vegetationen, specielt de sto
Page 33 and 34: 34 gødskning af græsplænearealer
Page 35 and 36: Af Joy A.Andersen, Dansk Center for
Page 38 and 39: utilfredshed med kommunikationen me
Page 40 and 41: Beboerdeltagelse De fleste af respo
Page 42 and 43: Prisme Flora Det grønne køkken So
Page 44 and 45: Sol i byfornyelsen - Delprojekt 8 I
Page 46 and 47: "Alligevel ødelæggende, når et b
Page 48 and 49: CG (Claus Gregersen) har udført by
Page 50 and 51: ingen af Hedebygadekarréen, og der
Page 52: sbs Baseret på interview med udvik
Page 55 and 56: 56 en langt større CO2-emission en
Page 57 and 58: 58 Referencer Bygge- og Boligstyrel
Page 60 and 61: Summery The renovation of the Hedeb
Page 64: Sol i byfornyelsen (DP8) Bygherre B
Page 67 and 68: 68 Solvæg (DP5) Program Udviklings
Page 69 and 70: Varmeforbrug 70 Bilag C: Grønne re
Page 71 and 72: Elforbrug 72 Bilag C: Grønne regns
Page 73 and 74: Vandforbrug 74 Bilag C: Grønne reg
Page 75 and 76: CO 2-udslip 76 Bilag C: Grønne reg
Page 77 and 78: 78 Bilag D: Grønt Regnskab - samle
Page 79 and 80: 80 Bilag E: Spørgeskema Dansk Cent
Page 81 and 82: 82 2. Interessen for byøkologi Var
Page 83 and 84: 84 4. Gårdarealerne Hvilke forvent
Page 85 and 86: 86 6. Processen Hvordan vurderer du
Page 87 and 88: 88 Bilag F: Beboerkommentarer fra s
Page 89 and 90: 90 Spørgsmål 5.2. Har du været t
Page 91 and 92: 92 Spørgsmål 6.5. Har du anbefali
Page 94 and 95: Rapporten er udarbejdet for Erhverv
show all

Hedebygadekarréen - Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?