ZEMCH 2015 - International Conference Proceedings | Page 317

Historical Evolution of the house and impact on greenery
A detailed examination of the current units’ footprint compared to the specified building area
to plot area ratios reveals non-conformity, indicating substantial modifications and violation of
standards. The research exposed that the ring open space originally intended for the detached
and U-shaped open space envisioned for the semi-attached units in particular, have been severely transformed. For instance, in the case of the ‘Marhaba Cooperative’, the detached units indicate
an average of 43% with a range of 35 to 52% lot coverage ratio, whereas the standards set it at
30% (Table 2). This was done in spite of an existing standard plan prepared by an architectural
firm using the prescribed standards. This phenomenon is most likely due to the dissolution of the
cooperative housing association, leaving each owner in charge of the construction of his house
and and the total absence of control by governing regulatory agencies. Comparatively, in the
semi-attached typology, the 50% building footprint standard was largely respected at construction because this development was owned by a government entity, thus explaining the initial full
respect of the building norms. The conformity however was not sustained over time as it reached
an average of building to lot ratio of 59%. A similar tendency was found in the attached units in
‘Bahi-Amar Cooperative’ with an average range of 67% (varying from 64 to 74%) of building area to
plot area while the prescribed sets it at maximum of 60%. The house extension observed in most
cases stress above all the manifest need of residents to optimize habitable areas on their lot and
the negative consequences of the absence of regulatory control.
In terms of evolution over time, examination of Figure 7, presenting the initial and current statu