FROM POST-OCCUPANCY TO DESIGN EVALUATION:

SITE-PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING

IN THE STATE OF SÃO PAULO, BRAZIL

Doris C.C.K. Kowaltowski (Arch. Ph.D.), Vanessa Gomes Silva (Arch. Ph. D.),
Lucila C. Labaki (Physicist, Ph.D.), Silvia A. Mikami G. Pina (Arch. Ph.D.),
Regina C. Ruschel (Civil Eng., Ph. D.) and Daniel de Carvalho Moreira (Ph. D.
student)

Department of Architecture and Building,

School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Design,
State University of Campinas, UNICAMP
CP 6021, 13083-852, Campinas, SP, Brazil
doris@fec.unicamp.br

ABSTRACT:
This paper presents a research project1 with the goal of establishing site planning
guidelines for low income housing projects built by CDHU, the São Paulo State
(Brazil) funded housing agency. A Post Occupancy Evaluation was conducted in five
housing estates, based on standardized building types. Typical housing developments
have a fairly low density, open space is however poorly used and does not contribute
to overall neighbourhood quality. The sample of the POE included five percent of
residential units in each housing estate. Selection was based on uniform distribution
over each site and inclusion of one family residences and apartments on different floor
levels. Topics of spatial, morphological, contextual, visual, perceptual, social and
functional qualities guided the post occupation evaluation. The study should result in
the inclusion of quality of life indicators and establish site-planning guidelines,
organized according to design levels or domains coming form the axiomatic design
method devised by SUH (1990).
KEYWORD: Low Income Housing, Site Planning Guidelines, Post Occupation
Evaluation

INTRODUCTION
This paper presents some results of a research project undertaken to evaluate typical
low-income housing projects in the State of São Paulo, Brazil, with a view to improve
future designs. The principal aim of this study is the development of a method for the
design of new housing projects and their evaluation. This method should enable
designers to foresee and initiate discussions on the quality of housing designs. Quality
in housing design is seen here as having two fronts: the physical-environmental impact
of large construction projects and the quality of life such housing developments can
provide their users. Thus sustainability and quality of life indicators should permeate
design evaluation methods. The hypothesis that underlies this research project is that,
already at the site planning stage, a large number of environmental factors are defined

1
This Project is supported by a grant from FINEP, the Brazilian funding agency for technology and
scientific development
which may interfere in the quality of the future users’ life and have sustainability
impacts.
A principal aim of this study is to create a systematic means of evaluating housing
projects in the State of São Paulo, Brazil and especially in the region of the City of
Campinas, a city of one million inhabitants at about a 80 km distance from the
metropolitan area of São Paulo, with today over 10 million inhabitants. Through
systematic evaluation, research based quality design concepts are hoped to find their
way into the design process and reflect in the quality of new housing production.

A POST OCCUPATION EVALUATION STUDY OF PUBLIC HOUSING

DEVELOPMENTS
The research project began with a POE (Post Occupancy Evaluation) study of projects
of the São Paulo State housing authority called CDHU (Companhia de
Desenvolvimento Habitacional e Urbano do Estado de São Paulo). This company has
been the largest producer of public housing in the State of São Paulo since 1986, when
Brazil stopped its national housing program.
The company’s projects are based on similar design principals for similar population
strata. Many projects are located in smaller cities and thus not especially influenced by
large urban conglomerations such as the city of São Paulo. 107 questionnaires were
applied in five housing areas during a period of 4 month at the end of 2003. All
projects were in the Campinas area with 27 families questioned in Campinas itself; 7 in
Atibaia; 14 in Valinhos; 9 in Itatiba and 48 in Santa Barbara. The Campinas project
dates from 2003 and the other four areas were occupied in 1996. Two projects
(Campinas and Itatiba) are based on four-story apartment buildings and two projects
(Valinhos and Stanta Barbara) are divided into two distinct typologies of apartment
buildings and of single family units on individual lots. Atibaia is a small project with
only single family dwellings on individual lots. The number of questionnaires
represents five percent of residential units in each project. Selection was based on a
uniform distribution over each site and variation of orientation and floor levels of
apartments. The research team also made technical site evaluations, through
observations of each neighbourhood.
Users were identified through age, profession, place of birth and schooling. The
monthly income of the family was asked and costs relating to housing were described
in the interviews. The questionnaire further asked for references of the urban area,
satisfaction rates in relation to the housing area and the larger neighbourhood, its parks
and local institutions (schools, transport systems, police station, hospitals or clinics and
the housing administration).
Families, living in apartments, were asked to identify problems with common areas
(parking, entrances, walkways, stairs cases, garbage disposal, gas cylinders, green
areas and fences). All families were asked to identify positive and negative points
regarding common areas, services and equipment. A list of missing items was created.
People were asked if a community spirit exists, what kinds of activities are organized
in the neighbourhood community centre and their participation in these activities.
All families described their former home and rated its housing and neighbourhood
qualities. The families stated how long they are living in the present home and
described the changes introduced (additions, finishing, adaptations and new
independent constructions for aggregate family members). The ‘dream’ house was
asked to be described in relation to type, size, place and special details. Habits were
described in relation to common domestic activities and their place of occurrence. The
concept of sustainability was related to habits of energy efficiency, water conservation
and reduction in the use of cars. The need for vegetation and its conservation were
evaluated by the users.
Quality of life was related to feelings of security, physical safety, rain infiltrations and
environmental comfort (thermal, acoustic, visual, and functional space). Further
problems with smells and smoke were identified, as were vermin and insect
infestations. Security and safety feelings were related not only to presence of police
and crime rates, but also to public illumination, visibility of movements on streets and
in public areas. People were asked to rate aesthetic values of their home and
neighbourhood and to describe details which contribute to urban beautification. In
relation to the housing authority, users were asked to identify problems with the local
administration, and local by-laws and regulations. Finally site-planning questions were
made, in relation to housing density, distances between buildings, street layout and
topography adjustments.
OBSERVATIONS AND QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
The design criteria, which prevail in the company’s model, are based on repetition and
symmetry. Few qualitative concepts associated to the humanization of architecture, as
found in the literature of the last forty years, are incorporated into most of Brazilian
housing developments (LYNCH, 1960; JACOBS, 1961; ALEXANDER et al., 1977;
KOWALTOWSKI, 1980). Descriptions of typical housing estates, found in Brazil and
especially in the larger metropolitan areas, include elements of a dehumanized
architecture. These elements are monumentality, high-density occupation, lack of
landscaping and aesthetics with an overuse of man-made objects and over-concern of
security as opposed to safety. Monotony in space, colour and detailing are further
common architectural elements. A lack of maintenance of buildings and grounds is
also prevalent.
Observations of the housing projects, analyzed in this study, are best exemplified by
views presented in Figures 1 and 2. These images illustrate projects with single family
houses on individual lots (Figure 1) and housing estates with apartment buildings
(Figure 2). The design concept has not changed in the last 10 years. The only
development that can be observed is that the latest project is inaugurated with a higher
degree of urban infra-structure.

Regarding the single family dwelling typology, the ownership condition starts a
process of rapid transformation of the residential unit. Functional area is increased,
garages are built and lots are walled, so that the resultant constructions have little
resemblance to the original houses. These transformations break the typical
monotonous repetition of standard units, but cause waste of public investment. The
transformation of houses in public projects has been extensively studied mainly
through Post Occupation Evaluations (POE), which have demonstrated that the main
reason is related to insufficient functional space, and designs based on flawed
architectural programs (KOWALTOWSKI & PINA, 1995; TIPPLE, 2000).
Usually, housing developments in the interior of the State of São Paulo have a fairly
low density but do not include a complete urban infrastructure such as sidewalks, and
urban landscaping. Users act on their own in providing for fences, garages and other
necessary elements which help to create a neighbourhood definition. Figure 2 shows
examples of such initiatives. However, even with these efforts, a general aspect of
abandon prevails and especially public land can be classified as leftover areas or no-
mans land.

A. Typical simple single family house. B. Varying typical types of houses.

C. Typical additions at the back of lots. D. Substantial typical additions.

G. Users appreciate shade of urban

E. Totally destroyed original house.
vegetation.
Fig. 1. Single family houses on individual lots in public housing projects of the
Government Authority of the State of São Paulo demonstrating transformations.
A. Foot path with vegetation obstruction. B. Makeshift collective garbage storage

C. Individualization of of public space with fencing and garages.

D. Maintenance problems of public areas. E. Car port introduction.

H. Excessive paving and lack of landscaping and leisure activity equipment

Fig. 2 Housing projects with apartment buildings, some site-planning problems.
Except for the latest projects, no landscaping is included in the site-plan and no play
areas are provided, expecting the residents to act on their own in the introduction of
such items. Maintenance of open and public areas is also difficult, since no garden taps
are provided. Residents attach hoses, sometimes from the fourth floor, to wash around
buildings and clean stairways. Vegetation (urban trees), when introduced, is often
located in the centre of minimal sidewalks, thus hampering pedestrian circulation.
Site-planning problems are also related to street layouts, which are arbitrary without
regard for sun orientation and predominant wind direction. On steep sites the
distribution of buildings causes a lack of integration. The horizontal plateaus are
minimally dimensioned for the contour of each building, without reservation of an
apron of open space. This siting condition causes steep and dangerous slopes between
constructions and fences are introduced by users without planning.
Fencing, car parking and garbage disposal areas have only recently been included into
the site-planning concept of projects. However, the solutions can be considered
primitive. No separation exists between car and pedestrian accesses and no
communication exists between individual residential units and gates at street level.
This situation implies that access by visitors to homes depends on the chance opening
of such locked entrances by residents.
Privacy is seen as another problem. Apartments on the ground floor are exposed to
movement around the buildings, children playing, vandalism and theft through open
windows. Living room windows of apartments are facing each other at a four metre
distance and a common stairway opens directly from the living room door. This open
stair case is in some cases used as a sort of balcony, especially on top floors, as
apartment buildings are not provides with terraces or private gardens or porches.
Questionnaire results show that the population has little or no experience with
participatory decision making. This situation reflects in the existing difficulties in the
provision of needed services and infrastructure of public areas. Most people are
satisfied with their housing conditions, since they no longer pay rent and are on the
way of achieving home ownership.
The type of “dream” home of the population is a single family home on an individual
lot, in the city they reside today. Apartments are rarely desired as a residential option.
Quality of life is not related to physical properties of the home, such as size of rooms
or their thermal comfort, but to monthly earnings and the job market in the region.
Sustainability issues are only related to costs, such as water and electricity bills.
Pollution is not considered a problem, with car ownership a desire. Feelings of security
in the neighbourhood are overshadowed by drug problems and crime rates, but most
families feel reasonably secure inside their home.
The population perceives few site-planning problems. The delimitation of territories
through fences and locked gates are mentioned by most families as important items.
Better schools and health services are also mentioned. Vegetation is considered a
positive item, but few of the families plant trees in front of their houses or on public
land. Few families intervene in anyway on public land. Thus no sidewalks exist in
most neighbourhoods and no parks.
Finally, when asked about the type of layout of streets and construction densities,
many families believe that the housing authority could have planned the area better to
include a larger number of homes, so that more families could benefit from
government housing projects. This attitude is in contrast to the lack of community
spirit observed in our POE study.
SITE-PLANNING GUIDELINES BASED ON KNOWN INDICATORS
Site-planning guidelines can be found in the literature (MARCUS and SARKISSIAN,
1986; MARCUS and FRANCIS, 1998; CROWE, 1991; WEKERLE and
WHITZMAN, 1995; ALTERMAN and CHURCHMAN, 1998). Many towns have
published their own recommendations and converted guidelines into by-laws (REED,
1997 and ADRAC, 2003)
The literature search to establish site-planning guidelines for the local low income
housing situation first looked for sustainability and quality of life indicators. A list of
sustainability indicators was established. This list was based primarily on the
definition, as quoted from the BRUNDTLAND COMMISSION (1987), that designers
must create environmental conditions that meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Issues as
development footprint, construction density, impermeability rates, materials and soil
conservation should be considered. Urban form, micro-climate and traffic systems are
further indicators of sustainability, as they affect energy efficiency, pollution levels
and infrastructure systems (THOMAS, 2003).
The definition of adequate indicators of quality of life as related to the built
environment has been the object of many discussions and studies (FELCE & PERRY,
1995; FINDLAY et al., 1988; GOODE, 1993). The variety of indicators is large and
must be placed within the scope of architectural and urban design decisions. User
satisfaction is related to environmental comfort indicators (thermal, visual, acoustic,
functional space aspects and quality of air). Satisfaction also depends on user’s
attitudes towards the environment, their psychological wellbeing, their feeling of
security and safety (NEWMAN, 1972). The indicators of environmental psychology
depend on the user’s perception of space as territory (GIFFORD, 1997). Feelings of
belonging, of privacy and crowding are important. Residents assess the scope for
individualization of dwellings CARMONA, 2001; PUNTER & CARMONA, 1997;
THOMAS, 2003).
A variety of topics guided a preliminary list of general indicators of quality of life and
sustainability related to public housing projects. Most accepted guidelines found in
recent literature can be enumerated and divided according to such topics as (LGC,
2003):
• Integrated communities: Determine size and include housing, shops,
workplaces, schools, parks and civic facilities within easy walking distance of
one another; Provide diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide
range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries; Provide
a centre focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural uses; The use of
squares, greens and parks should be frequent and encouraged through
placement and design at all hours of the day and night; Create clusters which
have a well-defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts, permanently
protected from development; Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should
contribute to a system of fully-connected and interesting routes to all
destinations; The natural terrain, drainage, and vegetation of the community
should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or
greenbelts; Conserve resources and minimize waste; Provide for the efficient
use of water through natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and
 recycling; Street orientation, placement of buildings and the use of shading
should contribute to energy efficiency; Land use planning should be
integrated within a larger transportation network based on transit systems;
Locate regional institutions and services (government, stadiums, museums,
etc.) in the urban core; Develop a local character and community identity
through the use of specific regional materials and methods of construction.
• Street and path system: Provide for a system where streets have low traffic
volume, slow speeds and minimal noise; anticipate the changing mobility of
the population at their older years with appropriate design of sidewalks;
Provide for trails and good access to open space. Evaluate
separation/integration of zoning to reduce use of car.
• Site-planning of multifamily housing: Relate buildings to the street, to
existing, adjacent areas and reinforce street frontages; Provide as many
private, ground level entries to individual units as possible; Ensure that
building entries are prominent and visible; Provide each unit with its own
visual identity and individual address whenever possible; Maintain existing
setback patterns; Provide pedestrian accessibility to adjacent uses with
paseos, gates, pedestrian walkways, crossings, etc.; Locate common facilities
centrally and link them to common outdoor space; Locate buildings and
landscaping to maximize solar access during cooler months and to control it
during warmer months; Maximize natural ventilation, sunlight and views for
each unit; Locate project near shops and schools and within 400-500m of bus
or light rail transit stops (within a kilometre range of heavy commuter rail)
whenever possible.
• Parking: Place parking lots at rear or side of the site to allow a majority of
dwelling units to front on the street; Build multiple small parking lots in lieu
of one large lot; Plant trees and shrubs to soften the overall impact of parking
areas and to provide shade and noise reduction; Avoid blank walls facing the
street on buildings with parking garages; If blank walls are unavoidable,
decorate with artwork, display cases, vines, and good quality durable
materials; Place parking lot in proximity to dwelling units to allow for casual
surveillance; Separate bicycle and pedestrian paths from vehicular traffic;
Designate "vehicle free areas" for bicycle and pedestrian safety and
enjoyment.
• Public Open Space: Design outdoor open space as "outdoor rooms" and
avoid undifferentiated, empty spaces; Provide public open space which can be
used for play, recreation, social or cultural activities; Locate public open
spaces so that they can be viewed from individual units, preferably from the
kitchen, living room or dining room; Locate play area(s) centrally and to
allow for adult supervision from dwelling units and/or from a central facility;
Provide energy-efficient lighting from a variety of sources at appropriate
intensities and qualities for safety.
• Private Open Space: Provide each household with some form of easily
accessible, useful private open space, such as a patio, porch, deck, balcony,
yard, or shared entry porches or balconies; Screen balconies for privacy and
define boundaries but avoid solid walls that particularly prevent small
children from looking out.
 • Landscaping: Design landscaping to enhance the architecture and define
useful public and private spaces; Use hardy, native plant species easy to water
and maintain; Shade paved areas; Provide a variety of seating in landscaped
areas; Include paths to accommodate children, adults, bicycles, skate boards,
shopping carts, walkers, pets, furniture moving, etc.; Provide appropriate
lighting.
• Architecture: Design buildings for the site; don’t use stock plans; Overall
height of structure(s) should be similar to that of other buildings in the
neighbourhood; Relate first floor to the street a but raise level slightly to
maintain privacy; Relate size and bulk of project, consistent with buildings in
the neighbourhood; Eliminate box-like forms with large; Make the building
visually and architecturally pleasing; Enhance views and make spaces feel
larger by maximizing the number of windows; Break up the façade of
horizontal buildings into smaller components by utilizing vertical adjacent
structures; Ensure that rhythm, size and proportion of openings are similar to
good quality buildings in the neighbourhood; Use porches, stairs, railings,
fascia boards, and trim to enhance buildings’ character; Select building
materials and colour that are complementary to the surrounding area and have
high levels of recycled content whenever possible.
CREATING LOCAL GUIDELINES
Where do we go from here? As shown above, many detailed design parameters exist to
guide the design of housing projects. Although many of these guidelines did not
originate from local Brazilian situations, they are nevertheless applicable. After all,
people have similar basic needs and desires all over the world. Climate, of course,
makes a difference and so do culture and available resources, but these should not be
factors to perpetuate inadequate ways of providing for “satisfactory” housing for a
specific population.
Satisfaction rates are a complicating factor in housing questions. The population of our
POE study can be shown to be satisfied, on the whole, with the housing provided
through the local government plans. This data is exploited by political parties, but
should be placed into its context. Satisfaction rates have little to do with qualitative
factors, when the population in question is comprised of families who previously lived
in risk areas, paid high rents for poor quality housing, were crammed into borrowed
spaces and have finally reached legal home ownership.
The systematic introduction of the diverse, complex and multidisciplinary aspects of
design factors is still a difficult question in housing design and should be studied on a
more methodological basis. Through extensive POE studies one should expect to
effectively provide feedback for new designs and avoid repetition of errors. A large
housing authority, with a good team of designers, should also be able to improve
environmental qualities in new designs. But this is not the case in the Campinas region.
Our POE study showed that the closing of the loop in design and implementation for
housing projects by large government housing agencies, like CDHU in Brazil, is not an
easy task. The descriptions and questionnaire results above and the large scale
transformations of houses indicate the need to rethink the design process of such
developments. Changes need to be made on three fronts, political, conceptual and
through follow-up programs.
First a clear change in policies is necessary. Here academic research results, such as
data from POE studies, must be used to stimulate housing policies to abandon outdated
solutions, which are based on quantities and not qualities in residential developments.
Today political propaganda emphasizes the number of residential units built under a
particular administration. This kind of change is seen as being the most difficult, since
in developing countries public pressure is small when quality changes are concerned.
Outcries occur only in moments of catastrophes, such as the collapse of a building. As
well, few data is available to demonstrate cost-benefits of better housing programs, so
that old ways of doing things are perpetuated.
Secondly, the design phase needs new input and systematic analysis to avoid the
repetition of previously proven inappropriate models. Housing evaluation methods
should be developed. Such methods should place emphasis on sustainability and life
quality indicators. Design analysis may be based on design parameter definitions and
the attribution of weights to such concepts. The selection of parameters is however not
fixed or regulated and thus dependent on personal (designer) choices. To give
importance to one or other design parameter through a system of weighting is not
always efficient, since variables are often equally important, or not comparable. Also,
mathematical methods must be applied which may be time consuming and not very
fruitful in areas of uncertainty (JONES, 1980).
To devise a design evaluation method for local housing projects our studies of design
methods have led us to the method called “Axiomatic Design”. SUH (1990) developed
the method as a design process for mechanical engineering design. The method is
based on the idea of what Suh calls: “to make designers more creative, reduce the
research process, minimize the iterative trial and error process and determine good
design among those proposed. The axiomatic method is seen as an important
contribution for the inclusion of qualitative information and the act of structuring a
large quantity of design information enriches the design process. The logical
procedure, where designers advance step by step in their solution evaluation, should
also add expedience to the design process. Although the mental process in design is
not purely sequential, the exercise in a structured way of thinking may induce a more
creative thought process (BROADBENT, 1973). The documentation of the decision-
making process gives transparency to the design process and information
dissemination can avoid conflict and post-occupancy dissatisfaction among users.
Although aware of the fact that subjectivity is inherent in design, a methodological
procedure is important to increase the scientific bases of design. The detailed inclusion
of people’s conception of quality into the design process may produce a more direct
link between design criteria and user desires, even if not based on clear cut, one to one,
recipes (GIFFORD, 1997).
To start the development of a design and evaluation method for the local housing
situation guidelines must be established. A preliminary list of specific guidelines
should be based on the following issues:
• Community and security: Size and densities of projects are not major
problems, but people living in a society with high crime rates need the feeling
of security and ask for the community/neighbourhood to be confined or
fenced to control access. Although much criticized, living in fenced
communities is a common desire among Brazilian middle class. Detailing of
territorial limits should avoid negative images of confinement, isolation from
city life and facilitate access of visitors.
• Street and path system: Special attention must be given to orientation. A
predominant south-easterly wind should be taken advantage of; Walkways
 must be finished at the construction stage; Place good shade trees without
inhibiting circulation of pedestrians, wheelchairs, baby carriages, etc.
Pedestrian path systems must be integrated with controlled entrances and
communication with units made possible from gates.
• Site-planning: Common facilities must be defined with the population
(laundries in Brazil do not function as common facilities and should be
minimally incorporated into each residential unit); Provide for clotheslines
in the sun, away from pedestrian movement and children playing. Common
space should include areas for families to organize a barbecue or typical
local festivities. Theses areas need a large, flat, open space and simple
kitchen and bathroom facilities for support.
• Parking: The provision for parking of the car (as a desired item) should be
made for every residential unit. Car parks must be fences for security and
access controlled and separated from pedestrian entrances. Avoid haphazard,
individual introduction of car ports, causing unsightly and inefficient
occupation of vacant land; Introduce vegetation for shade on parking lots
(people prefer to walk a small distance when a shaded parking spot is
available).
• Public open space: Avoid leftover spaces that are too small to
accommodate a flat football field or play yard with simple equipment
(slides, swings etc.). Introduce equipment and landscaping in the design of
the project; Shade is of extreme importance in hot climates. Make
maintenance easy.
• Private open space: Avoid space being viewed as opportunity for more
construction; Provide multifamily housing with specific small private open,
shaded spaces, for flowerbeds, supervised child play and escape from heat of
indoor spaces. Discourage incorporation into indoor space through design or
location.
• Landspacing: Chose adequate vegetation for shade and avoid construction
damage through sufficient planting area reservation. Provide good ground
cover to avoid erosion and mud problems. Provide gentle grading of open
areas; Provide good visibility in open areas and around buildings for
security. Planting should be easily maintainable; Foresee plant growth and
adult tree dimensions in original planting scheme. Provide nature strips in
street layout.
• Architecture: Use stock plans intelligently through sensitive design and
enhancement through siting, landscaping and use of colour; Elevate
ground/first floors to half floors or piloties for privacy and security; Provide
access of disabled people through the provision of elevators, ramps with
proper inclinations, adequate width of sidewalks and paving without
obstructions; Garbage disposal and the proper incentive to recycling must be
part of design criteria; Introduce user participation in the design process to
reduce transformations; Space requirements must be in accordance with
domestic activities (provide area for table and chairs in kitchen or living
room, for the family meals and to support the education of children and their
need to do home work).
As a third and final step, housing projects need an active involvement of the
population. Programs should be devised to have the population participate in the
decision making process of designs and in follow-up programs for adjustments in the
physical setting. The “workbook” method of user participation, developed by
HORELLI, (2002) and extensively used in Scandinavian countries, should be tested in
a local housing project to evaluate its local applicability and effectiveness in
introducing improvements in existing residential developments of the Campinas
region.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADRAC, (Architectural Design and Review Advisory Committee), (2003), Current
Trends Architectural Design Guidelines for the Housing Finance Authority of Miami
Dade Country, Key West, Florida, USA.
Alexander, C.; Ishikawa, S. and Silverstein, M. (1977), A Pattern language. Oxford
University Press, Nova York, USA.
Alterman, R., and Churchman, A. (1998) Housing density: A guide to increasing the
efficiency of urban land use. Haifa: The Center for Urban and Regional Studies,
Technion, Israel.
Broadbent, G. (1973), Design in architecture: architecture and the human sciences.
John Willey & Sons, London, UK.
Brundtland, G.H. (1987), Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment
and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Carmona, M. (2001), Housing Design Quality through Policy, Guidance and Review.
Spon Press, London, UK.
Crowe, T. (1991), Crime Prevention through Environmental Design: Application of
Architectural Design and Space Managements Concepts. Butterworth Heinemann,
Boston, USA.
Felce, D. and Perry, J. (1995), Quality of Life: Its Definition and Measurement. In:
Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 16, pp. 45-55.
Findlay, A.; Morris, A. and Rogerson, R. (1988), Where to live in Britain, in 1988:
Quality of Life in British Cities. In: Cities, vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 268-276.
Gifford, R. (1997), Environmental Psychology: principles and practice. 2 ed. Allyn and
Bacon, Boston, USA.
Goode, D. (Ed.). (1993), Quality of Life. Brookline, New York, USA.
Horelli, L. (2002), A Methodology of participatory planning. In: R. Bechtel and A.
Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology. John Wiley. USA.
Jackobs, J. (1961), The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, New
York, USA.
Jones, J.C. (1980), Design Methods: seeds of human futures. Great Britain: A Wiley-
Interscience Publication, UK.
Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K. and Pina, S.A.M.G. (1995), Transformações de Casas
Populares: Uma avaliação. In: III Encontro Nacional e I Encontro Latino Americano
de Conforto no Ambiente Construído. Anais. Gramado, Julho, 1995.
Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K. (1980), Humanization in Architecture: Analysis of themes
through high school building problems., University of California, PhD. Thesis,
Berkeley, USA.
LGC (Local Government Commission), (2003), Building More Livable Communities:
Design Guidelines for Multifamily Housing. Sacramento, USA.
Lynch, K. (1960), The Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA.
Marcus, C.C. and Francis, C., (Eds.), (1998), People Places: Design Guidelines for
Urban Open Spac., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, USA.
Marcus, C.C. and Sarkissian, W., (1986), Housing as if People Mattered: Site Design
Guidelienes for Medium Density Family Housing. University of California Press,
Berkeley, USA.
Newman, O. (1997), Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. Collier
Books, New York, USA.
Punter, J. and Carmona, M. (1997), The Design Dimension of Planning: Theory,
Content and Best Practice for Design Policies. E&FN Spon , London, UK.
Reed, D., (1997), Australia´s Guide to Good Residential Design. AGPS, Canberra,
National Office of Local Government, Canberra, Australia.
Suh, N.P. (1990), The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
Thomas, R., (Ed.) (2003), Sustainable Urban Design: an Environmental Approach.
Spon Press, London, UK.
Tipple, G. (2000), Extending Themselves: user-initiated transformations of
government built housing in developing countries. University of Liverpool Press, UK.
Wekerle, G. and Whitzman, C. (1995), Safe Cities: guidelines for planning, design,
and management. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, USA.