Generating applicable urban design knowledge

Figures & data

Figure 1. The REALCOOL pragmatist RTD. The question(s) that each iteration was mainly focused on are underlined.

Figure 2. The REALCOOL testbeds. Images credits: Lenné3D.

Figure 3. Example of a physical model used for exploring different design options in REALCOOL.

Figure 4. Example of a PET map produced with Envi-met.

Figure 5. An assessment matrix used in the REALCOOL design workshops.

Figure 6. A photorealistic image included in the REALCOOL online visual inquiry. Image credits: Lenné3D.

Figure 7. Impression of the REALCOOL design matrices used for evaluating design alternatives (A and B).

Figure 8. Testbed for prototype ‘singel 2 NS’.

Figure 9. Design measures (indicated as blue/thicker lines) for prototype ‘singel 2 NS’.

Table 1. Contents of the questionnaire on the REALCOOL Pragmatist RTD.

Topic	Contextualization	Main question	Answer	Second question
Testbeds	In the beginning of the project we looked for typical urban water bodies in Dutch cities and together with you, the users group, we defined the most relevant types. Eight types of water bodies were identified in four categories: gracht, singel, sloot and vijver (east-west and north-south orientations). We then translated them into 3D spatial reference situations and used them as our ‘testbeds’ in which we implemented all design options in the subsequent RTD process.	It made sense to work with the ‘testbeds’.	Likert scale: strongly disagree disagree slightly disagree neither disagree nor agree slightly agree agree strongly agree	If working with the ‘testbeds’ did not make sense, what other method would have been better?
Focuses in the RTD process	Each iteration in the RTD process had a different research focus that guided the designing and testing. Iteration 1 dealt with achieving maximal cooling effects; iteration 2 focused on increasing water storage capacity and cooling effects; iteration 3 was centred on practice criteria (function, costs, maintenance, aesthetics) and cooling effects; and in iteration 4 we made a last test of cooling effects and built the final prototypes/animations.	The different research focuses at each iteration were relevant. I missed this crucial focus in the RTD process (optional):	Open answer	If the different focuses were not relevant, why was that?
Sequence of focuses in the RTD process	The sequence of the focuses we dealt with in the iterations was based on the main priorities set in the project. During all iterations we considered the cooling effects of the designs. Cooling effects were supplemented with other topics (water storage in Iteration 2, practice criteria in Iteration 3).	The sequence of focuses in the different iterations was appropriate.	Likert scale	If the sequence of focuses was not appropriate, which sequence should have been used?
Quality of designing	Each iteration consisted of developing design alternatives and testing those designs according to different design criteria. We have discussed all the design criteria in the user meetings but you might think differently about these in hindsight.	The formal/aesthetic quality of the designs was satisfying. The functionality of the designs was satisfying.	Likert scale	In case aesthetic quality was not satisfying, what was the reason? In case functionality was not satisfying, what was the reason?
		The implementation costs of the designs would be acceptable.		In case costs would not be acceptable, what would the reason be?
		The maintenance effort of implemented designs would be acceptable.		In case maintenance requirements would not be acceptable, what would the reason be?
		The effects of the implemented designs on health would be acceptable.		In case health effects would not be acceptable, what would the reason be?
Quality of testing	We used different testing methods in the different iterations. Testing methods included expert judgments, micrometeorological simulations and the evaluations during the user committee meetings. We conducted an online visual inquiry about how attractive the general public would find environments resulting from the prototypes. We also did a ‘reality check’ in which we projected the prototypes into real projects to test their applicability.	The testing methods were appropriate. I missed this crucial method (optional):	Likert scale Open answer	If the testing methods were not appropriate, what should have been changed?
Applicability of the final prototypes to practice	A major purpose of our prototypes is their applicability in practice. In the ‘reality check’ we have already tested most prototypes in real projects. However, we do not know if the prototypes would still be considered useful for application in other projects.	The prototypes are easily applicable in practice. I would use the prototypes in practice.	Likert scale	If the prototypes are not easily applicable, what should be different? If you would not use the prototypes in practice, why is that?