|Rehabilitation of Buildings Project||905PRED|
|1||Master||Civil Engineering||6 ects|
|Learning Period:||Language of Instruction:||Total Hours:|
|Learning Outcomes of the Curricular Unit:|
|The student should be able to:|
-Distinguish between the concepts of rehabilitation, requalification and patrimonial destruction as well as between both architectonic conservation and recovery.
-Develop the sensibility towards the building rehabilitation as instrument for the city renewal.
-Have the indispensable critical and open minded arguments to fundament the project issued as well as to respond within sessions of collective debate.
-Synthesize the acquired knowledge and capabilities throughout the graphic, written and oral presentation of the project and its defense before the class.
|Project concerning the rehabilitation of a building located in a real urban context, oriented towards to the architectonic preservation or recovery of the existing structures, evaluating also the functional aspects of the building as well as the outcome of the exercise as an operation of urban renewal. The main subjects focused by the Course are: Rehabilitation as an operation for urban renewal; Urban rehabilitation and re-use of buildings; Limits to the transformation of the object; Context change vs. (radical) alteration of the context. Reading of the built environment as an instrument of Rehabilitation: The existent elements as the result of the historical stratification process and as project guide; Rehabilitation project as “intervention of opportunity”: From the “drawn project” to “intervention strategies”.|
|Demonstration of the Syllabus Coherence with the Curricular Unit's Objectives:|
|Chapter 1 familiarises the student with the basic concepts that, in articulation with chapter 5’s topics, will allow his response to the more conceptual matters of the project of building rehabilitation (case study). It is in these contents that the student finds the instruments to read and interpret the building and its transformation in time, identifying and defining the terms for the intervention he proposes. |
The rest of the chapters underpin the more technical issues also required by the project, whether oriented for problem diagnosis and their resolution, for constructive aspects, or even for intervention principles.
Throughout the semester, the presentations of the various phases of the proposal constitute moments of discussion that explore the theoretical grounding and foster public speaking ease, at the same time they test the ability to pass the message through, orally, visually and in writing.
|Teaching Methodologies (Including Evaluation):|
|The methodology of this CU consists in lectures, articulated with moments of collective class debate, but also includes tutorials, where students are guided in the making of a rehabilitation project for a real building to be developed throughout the semester. |
The assessment method is divided in two components: the theoretical-experimental component – that integrates the project’s final presentation, two thematic short-span exercises and the evaluation of the student’s performance throughout the semester – and the theoretical one, based on a written test.
The final grade will be the result from the achieved classification in each one of this assessment moments, which will be accounted in different percentages.
|Demonstration of the Coherence between the Teaching Methodologies and the Learning Outcomes:|
|Lectures and sessions of collective class debate constitute the moments where the overall information of the course is transmitted, organising the basic-notions that allow the students to place themselves within the subject's corpus and providing them with the proper knowledge to underpin and ground their project’s options, whether of a conceptual or technical nature. This project exercise, being developed in parallel with lectures and throughout the semester, supplies the contact with a real working scenario and, simultaneously, the context for the confrontation of the lectured contents of a more descriptive character with practice. Tutorial guidance, in complement to those more general contents, provides more specific information raised by each one of the projects and appropriate to the different rehabilitation options, allowing the response to the comprehension difficulties and gaps of each group of students, but also to explore the potentialities of each one of them. The two short-span exercises – one focused on the analysis of the intervention area and the other on the recognition and solution of building pathologies – are developed individually, in parallel with the project and oriented to help in some of its specific phases, encouraging the discussion within the group and the adjustments of the knowledge gathered by each one of its elements. These moments of internal debate, later extended to the class, constitute opportunities to synthesise learnt subjects and test the consistency of the supporting arguments of the proposal, also the oral and graphic explanatory skills. The written proficiency is individually assessed by the response to the written test, and the group ability by the text that accompanies and justifies the project.|
| ADDIS, B. – Building, 3000 years of design, engineering and construction, Barcelona, Phaidon, 2007|
 APPLETON, J. Augusto – Reabilitação de edifícios antigos: Patologias e Tecnologias de Intervenção, Amadora, Ed. ORION, 2003.
 CHOAY, Françoise – A alegoria do património, Lisboa, Edições 70, 2000
 CÓIAS, V. – Reabilitação Estrutural de Edifícios Antigos, Lisboa, Argumentum, 2007
 GRIFFITHS, N. – Eco-House Manual, Sparkford, Haynes Publishing, 2012
 DE GRACIA, Francisco – Construir en lo construido, Madrid, Editorial Nerea, 1992
 TEIXEIRA, Gabriela Barbosa/BELÉM, Margarida Cunha – Diálogos de edificação, Porto, CRAT, 1998
 PAIVA, J.V./AGUIAR, J./PINHO, A. – Guia Técnico de Reabilitação Habitacional, Lisboa, LNEC, 2006