Guidelines for social care structures design

Transcription

1 Research project Diap Sapienza Università di Roma Laboratorio ArCo Responsabile scientifico: Lucina Caravaggi Coordinamento: Cristina Imbroglini Collaboratori: Mauro Brienza, Luca Tentori, Pietro Pedercini Simulazioni progettuali: Alessandra Capuano Orazio Carpenzano Simone Ferretti Alfonso Giancotti Anna Giovannelli Andrea Grimaldi Manuela Raitano Guendalina Salimei Fabrizio Toppetti Guidelines for social care structures design Regione Lazio, Direzione Regionale Politiche Sociali, Autonomie, Sicurezza e Sport Direttore : Guido Magrini Responsabile: Paola Maria Falconi Coordinamento: Massimiliano Barresi

2 What are the Guidelines? Spending policies directions Criteria for structures localization in urban areas and territory Criteria for designing care and assistance spaces (existing or to reuse and restore)

3 Who are the guidelines addressed at? To local administrations liable for fundings, projects approval, proposals evaluation and calls for projects To care structures managers and operators to guide the activation of services, activities, etc. To architects and designers

4 Background criteria Target users 0-18: (family, children,youth). ADULTS: (adults with disabilities, immigrants,exconvicts,drug addicts, the new poors, people with psychosocial issues). ELDERLY: (people suffering from debilitating diseases, new poors, people with psychosocial issues). Quality vs Quantitative standards Focus on the individuals needs and their possible evolution, adjust spaces (and policies) to the new demands and contemporary therapeutical and care tendecies Network vs Sectorialization Foster the integration of services with the idea of a care supply chain, strongly rooted and integrated in the social and territorial context. Encourage centers able to aid the individual and his family in a relational logic. Make the community to feel responsible Interaction vs Separation Design the structures as social condensers, able to interact with the context and to act as urban renewal engines through the reuse and the reclamation of neglected and misused structures

5 7 KEY FEATURES 1. ACCESSIBILITY 2. INTEGRATION 3. PERMEABILITY 4. FUNCTIONALITY 5. FLEXIBILITY 6. VISIBILITY 7. CUSTOMIZATION

6 ACCESSIBILITY Relations with the city and the territory Encourage locations that allow a high level of accessibility of services through local and regional public transport and pedestrian networks, encouraging a large number "sustainable exchanges. Strengthening the capillary connection with the context through protected and well marked systems of paths, parks and services essential

7 INTERACTION Relations exchange with the context, elimination or reduction of inside-out barriers Foster social interactions through the design of spaces that allow activities that invole both "internal" and "external" subjects: cultural initiatives, craftmanship functions, agricultural local sale, catering, etc. Aim for the maximum integration in relation to specific educational and care paths: bond with the family for young people, semi - autonomy ratio for teens in the early stages of social inclusion. Daily interactions with the neighborhood related to essential services.

8 PERMEABILITY Relations with the landscape, especially with the natural components. Encourage the permeability through architectural devices capable of establishing relations between "inside and outside". Carefully planning the spaces of "transition" and looking for a meaningful dialogue with the landscape. Enhance the environmental comfort, the therapeutic value of green spaces (especially if cultivable);the positive effects of proper exposure, with particular attention to the beneficial effects of sunlight and the perception of seasonal trends (resulting in energy optimization).

9 FUNCTIONALITY Strong ties with the spaces in relation to the specific needs of care and recovery Clearly articulate the interior and exterior spaces in relation to the specific needs of the users and their progress during the different phases of care; optimize the operation of the structure (recognizable accesses, pathways, common areas and private spaces) avoid waste of space, time and energy, promote the understanding of the different parts (for internal users and for guests); Optimize the meeting effect and avoid the "intrusion effect".

10 FLEXIBILITY facilities open to structural change and adaptability, to increase and contraction Pursue the maximum flexibility of interior and exterior spaces for a versatile and multi-purpose use (daily, weekly, seasonal), through dimensional modulations and common areas management.

11 IDENTITY Architectures landmark effect as a prerequisite of collective identification and sense of belonging Ensure the recognition of accesses, pathways and common areas -both closed and open- as recognized and collective references that stimulate interpersonal relations and encourage the dialogue between users, operators, family members and guests. Ensure "the heart effect" for some spaces (center of community functions according to daily weekly, seasonal and specific rhythms). Guarantee planimetric variations, appropriate architectural devices, specific grammars of colors, materials and signaling systems

12 CUSTOMIZATION Structures adaptable to individual needs and collective appropriation of spaces: Encourage processes of appropriation and customization of private spaces by users, encouraging rooting and the possibility of user-structure identification (effect of "home"), but also of public spaces where it is possible to carry out individual activities but "inter-related" (eg. reading rooms-cafès, gardens, etc).

13 FOOD FOR THOUGHT To compare different national experiences we will ask you to work in 3 wide geographical groups 1. Northern Europe (Finland, UK, Denmark, Sweden) 2. Central Europe (Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Germany) 3. Mediterranean Sea (Italy, Spain, Portugal) The following slides contain the key points that will also be delivered to participants on paper You have 30 min to talk and share your views about the following topics At the end of the discusion one person for each group will show the main findings (5 min per group)

14 FOOD FOR THOUGHT To compare different national experiences we will ask you to answer a few questions

15 FOOD FOR THOUGHT SPACES QUALITY AS CARE QUALITY Is there in your country a tool which connects spaces quality and care objectives as the guidelines for the Lazio Region are? If it does exist, is it prescriptive or addressing? If it does exist, is it used to evaluate projects and proposals, to distribute fundings, etc? Are there any other tools or authorities accountable for the evaluation of care structures quality or just dimensional standards?

16 FOOD FOR THOUGHT AGREEMENT ON THE 7 KEY FEATURES 7 KEY FEATURES 1. ACCESSIBILITY 2. INTEGRATION 3. PERMEABILITY 4. FUNCTIONALITY 5. FLEXIBILITY 6. VISIBILITY 7. CUSTOMIZATION How sharable do you think the shown Seven Features are? Which ones do you think are priority? Which ones do you believe are more useful for services design and efficiency evaluation, and why?

17 FOOD FOR THOUGHT THE ROLE OF SOCIAL SERVICES IN URBAN CONTEXTS In your Country/Region, are the social care services acting as social condensers? In other words: Are they integrated in the social and territorial context? Are they providing sustainment and orientation to their families and/or caregivers? Are they housing supplementary activities,opened to urban context? Are there any meaningful self-sustainance example?

18 FOOD FOR THOUGHT BEST PRACTICES In this last section we are asking you to point out meaningful experiences, best practices, referred to the seven keywords