Att forma sitt rum : fullskalemodellering i participatoriska designprocesser

Sammanfattning: Architects design work sometimes originates from a simplified view of human demands and needs, which may result in environments that do not fulfill the users requirements. This thesis refers to five different case studies where the affected users were involved in the creation of their dwellings or working environment. The issue of the thesis is that participatory design creates environments which aided by nume-rous formations and functions will finally, most likely, satisfy many different needs and lifestyles. The thesis is based upon many years of co-operation with users, testing different ways of using full-scale models in the design process. The aim of the thesis is to create an understanding for the complexity which characterizes participatory design processes, and also discuss the questions about roles, distribution of power, and competence. Another purpose is to discuss what demands to make on the tools that are available in the communication between the user and the architect. The thesis is divided into three parts. The first part is a presentation of the case studies, some perspectives on participatory design and a description of how full-scale models have been used in Sweden and in other countries. The second part includes the theoretical area of reference, i.e. different views of the design process and the design tool. The last part of the thesis contains reflections of the design processes in the cases, the roles of the professionals and the users, and the function of full-scale models. The users referred to had different ways of creating their environments. Some pointed out the material qualities, such as space, openness and transparency while others expressed usefulness and how the spaces should be utilised. During the de-sign, the users themselves became aware of their own priorities, and those values they had concerning living/working. Their increased understanding resulted in more demands on the professional actors. They expected the professionals to respect their point of view, which proved to be a problem in the housing projects. Here the architects wanted to work alongside the users, but wanted at the same time leave enough room for a personal touch. The most essential difference between full-scale models and other design tools is that of scale. The full-scale model gave the users an opportunity to express their tacit knowledge verbally, but they were also able to express it directly in the concrete design. By experiencing the environment visually and simultaneous moving around within the model, the users experienced both the material and the social environment. By using their bodies as a measure and using their senses in a more versatile way the model became a tool that extended their faculty of observation. This explains why the users could realize much more with the help from the full-scale model compared to other design tools. In all cases it was clear that the access to a tool that the users could control had an impact on their way of reflecting upon the design work. The full-scale model helped them to mobilize their imagination and creativity.