지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2010.11
- 수록면
- 71 - 79 (9page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The urban architecture of the city of Seoul has been regarded as means to support the economic growth by supplying fast and inexpensive products such as large scale land development, housing and commercial buildings in the process of radical urbanization. Due to the concept of the urban development, growth and construction as a product the resources of the unique history and culture of Seoul has been damaged and Seoul has been turned into a culturally unidentified city.
The architectural design review committee system of Seoul has been administered since 1974 by establishing the ordinances of the design review committee. And since then, the criticisms such as the redundant design review committee process, the lack of consideration of the regional situation, the lack of consistency and objectiveness of the outcome, and the regulative device that impedes the creativity have been pointed out. Recently in 2007, the city of Seoul proposed a Apartment Housing Design Review Guideline, test-ran it for one year and administered it as a design review committee guideline since 2008. The intent is to make the city of Seoul better environmentally by proposing a new guidline for the urban development. And therefore, it is meaningful to study the guideline in terms that how it resolved the existing problem and improved it. The purpose of the study is to investigate the reinforced design review committee guideline by analyzing the history, background and the current changes of the guideline and to judge the effectiveness based on the case study analysis.
The results of the study is as follows. It is acknowledged that the new reinforced design review guideline made the retrial rate raised, improved the perception of the citizen of Seoul in design Seoul, and made positive outcome in environment-friendly and energy saving design. And also it made positive outcome in building design, public space design and environmental design as well. However, it still needs improvement in that the design review guideline needs to be administered with more consistency and objectiveness, and as a tool to guide the creative design rather than being a regulative device. To achieve this, all the parties involved such as the client, architect, design committee, and administration officers need to acknowledge from the same stance and take their own responsibilities to improve it.
The architectural design review committee system of Seoul has been administered since 1974 by establishing the ordinances of the design review committee. And since then, the criticisms such as the redundant design review committee process, the lack of consideration of the regional situation, the lack of consistency and objectiveness of the outcome, and the regulative device that impedes the creativity have been pointed out. Recently in 2007, the city of Seoul proposed a Apartment Housing Design Review Guideline, test-ran it for one year and administered it as a design review committee guideline since 2008. The intent is to make the city of Seoul better environmentally by proposing a new guidline for the urban development. And therefore, it is meaningful to study the guideline in terms that how it resolved the existing problem and improved it. The purpose of the study is to investigate the reinforced design review committee guideline by analyzing the history, background and the current changes of the guideline and to judge the effectiveness based on the case study analysis.
The results of the study is as follows. It is acknowledged that the new reinforced design review guideline made the retrial rate raised, improved the perception of the citizen of Seoul in design Seoul, and made positive outcome in environment-friendly and energy saving design. And also it made positive outcome in building design, public space design and environmental design as well. However, it still needs improvement in that the design review guideline needs to be administered with more consistency and objectiveness, and as a tool to guide the creative design rather than being a regulative device. To achieve this, all the parties involved such as the client, architect, design committee, and administration officers need to acknowledge from the same stance and take their own responsibilities to improve it.
목차
Abstract
1. 서론
2. 서울시 공동주택과 심의제도의 변천사
3. 서울시 현행 공동주택 심의기준 현황
4. 사례분석을 통한 공동주택 심의기준의 분석
5. 결론
참고문헌
참고문헌 (3)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
친환경건축물 인증제 기반 통합설계 가이드라인 체계 연구
대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계
2012 .06
-
주택지 디자인가이드라인(Design Guidelines)의 경관계획 구성요소 및 특성에 관한 연구 : 일본ㆍ미국의 주택지를 사례로
대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계
2009 .07
-
Design General
대한전자공학회 단기강좌
1982 .01
-
Design Thinking
대한인간공학회 학술대회논문집
2016 .11
-
IS-Seoul 2014
지반(한국지반공학회지)
2014 .12
-
JS-Seoul 2012를 마치고
지반(한국지반공학회지)
2012 .12
-
지방건축위원회 심의제도 운영실태와 개선방안에 관한 연구 : 서울특별시 자치구 4개 구청을 중심으로
대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계
2014 .09
-
주택성능등급 표시제도에 대응한 설계 가이드라인
한국건설관리학회 학술대회
2006 .01
-
서울시 공공디자인가이드라인의 유니버설디자인 특성 분석 : 공공공간을 중심으로
대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계
2009 .08
-
공동주택단지 디자인가이드라인이 갖고 있는 계획적 함의(含意)에 대한 고찰 : 한국과 일본의 사례분석을 중심으로
대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계
2008 .06
-
Smart Television Interaction Design Guideline and Evaluation
대한인간공학회 학술대회논문집
2014 .05
-
都市設計 調整審議 事例의 特性 및 規制指針에 關한 硏究 : 서울시의 1985~1993년 사례를 대상으로
국토계획
1994 .11
-
건축물 패시브 디자인 가이드라인 개발 연구
대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계
2013 .06
-
서울시 지구단위계획 구역 지정 및 계획지침 요소의 운영특성 분석
국토계획
2006 .04
-
디자인 도시_서울
건축사
2007 .01
-
설계시공일괄 및 대안입찰공사의 설계심의제도 개선방안
대한건축학회 논문집 - 구조계
2010 .05
-
국내 노인주택 설계기준간 문제점 분석 연구
대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계
2008 .09
-
노후공동주택 단위평면확장 리모델링의 계획지침 연구
대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계
2011 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
전문가 설문조사를 통한 건축물 에너지효율등급 인증제도에 관한 연구
장철용
,
이나은
대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계
2011
.05
공동주택의 LED조명 적용에 따른 조도 및 에너지 효율 분석
이진숙
,
김소연
,
최종문
외 1명
대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계
2011
.04
초고층 건물의 풍력발전시스템 적용방안에 관한 연구
전현도
,
박진철
,
이언구
대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계
2010
.08
지자체 경관시책의 현황과 특성을 고려한 경관법 적용방안에 관한 연구
이정형
,
이여경
대한건축학회 논문집 - 계획계
2008
.05
BIM 정보프레임워크 기반의 토목구조물 정보모델링 표준화방안
남정용
,
조찬원
한국CDE학회 논문집
2014
.09
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2012-540-003951559