TY  - JOUR
T1  - OFFICE BUILDING LOCATION RELATED TO GREENERY TYPE        CASE STUDY OF THE MAIN BUSINESS DISTRICTS IN PARIS
AU  - Mohora, İrina
PY  - 2019
DA  - April
DO  - 10.18769/ijasos.531354
JF  - IJASOS- International E-journal of Advances in Social Sciences
JO  - IJASOS
PB  - OCERINT International Organization Center of Academic Research
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 2411-183X
SP  - 320
EP  - 329
VL  - 5
IS  - 13
LA  - en
AB  - Emerging builtlandscapes and urban densities, together with a distressing human-natureestrangement, represent the main challenges of today`s developers. Realconcerns such as pollution, climate change or nature-deficit-syndromes impactthe human world on every scale, raising attention towards seeking change inattitude and low impact methodologies in the built context. Beginning with theIndustrial Revolution when new technologies encouraged architecturalreinvention, continuing through the Digital Era that transformed building andthinking once again, the natural environment has undergone a constant decreasein surface and importance in cities worldwide.Corporatearchitecture has always adopted building innovation, aiming for higher prestigeand marketability through a polished, impressive, even intimidating image.Exterior aspect, energy performance, indoor quality andtechnology-proneness are some of the points pursued by both managers andinvestor when choosing a new business site. But the foremost aspects whenbuying or renting a new office building are location and price.Increasingdemands for office surface have led to vertical building, which rose new issuesin the European urban network, due to strict urban requirements. Thus, theselection of optimal office building location has been a challenge for thenarrow-street structure of European cities, leading to several typologies:historical districts, urban and suburban areas or independent workplacecenters. Each location has in turn determined different intervention types:refurbishment or renovation, functional conversion, new building, causingvarious dialogues with the urban nature.As everyEuropean city and country has its own regulations depending on geographical,climatic, cultural and political factors, the research was focused on one casestudy that allowed drawing relevant conclusions on the matter. With its richurban and architectural background, a diverse and ever developing businessenvironment, the French capital, Paris, is among the most interesting Europeanmetropolis for its urban development. A clear distinction can be made herebetween three different typologies of commercial districts: historical type(the Central Business District, in western Paris), the modernist La Défense (onthe Northern-Western outskirts), the newer Saint-Denis/Saint-Ouen andIssy-les-Moulineaux (in the Northern and Southern suburbs). Approximately 100buildings from these locations and the close vicinity have been analyzed aimingto classify their connection to outdoor and indoor plants and observe how thesereflect on real estate rent cost. Another argument for choosing Paris for thiscase study is the relative recent implementation of the “Biotope Area Factor”principle that demands a balanced use of vegetation in the built fabric forboth new constructions and refurbishment projects. Alike other several Europeancapitals (Berlin, Stockholm, London) the urban landscape is slowly transformingtowards a more sustainable one, while keeping a certain flexibility inselecting the green systems.The mainobjective of this research is to determine the office building-greeneryrelation from economical, urban and architectural points of view. It isessentially important to understand how energetic certificates and green spaceproximity rise the real estate value, making the building more attractive,updated and innovative regarding ecological visions. Furthermore, establishinglink typologies between location, building type and vegetation can highlightthe optimal greening potential of each site type. A construction located in thedense city center is expected to benefit from more introverted nature (interiorcourtyards, green walls, etc.) comparing to a less dense suburban site. Although the study was conducted on a small samplerelative to the complexity of the topic, the model might be further applied ona larger scale, comparing different cities worldwide, practically creatinglocal frameworks for architects, managers and investors, towards responsibleimplementation of vegetated material in the office building sector.
KW  - office building location
KW  - European green space regulation
KW  - biotope area factor
KW  - urban
KW  - rent
KW  - Paris
KW  - greenery type
CR  - Atelier Paris d`urbanisme (2004) Developper le vegetal a Paris: Les nouvelles regles du Plan local d`urbanisme de Paris.
Clermont, T. (2018) L’évaluation de l’entreprise individuelle – les locaux professionnels, L’évaluation de l’entreprise. Available at: https://www.compta-facile.com/evaluation-locaux-professionnels-entreprise-individuelle/ (Accessed: 2 September 2018).
Eichholtz, P., Kok, N. and Quigley, J. M. (2009) ‘Why Companies Rent Green: CSR and The Role of Real Estate’, The Academy of Management Proceedings, 2009(1), pp. 1–6. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2009.44248224.
IROVAL (2012) ‘Bazele evaluării’, Uniunea Nationala a Evaluatorilor Autorizati din Romania.
Kaplan, S. (1995) ‘The Restorative Benefits of Nature’, Journal of environmental psychology, pp. 169–182.
Kazmierczak, A. and Carter, J. (2010) Berlin: The Biotope Area Factor.
Kellert, S. R. and Wilson, E. O. (1993) The Biophilia hypothesis. Island Press. Available at: https://books.google.ro/books/about/The_Biophilia_Hypothesis.html?id=oMzqiX3IH-UC&redir_esc=y (Accessed: 7 June 2017).
Locaux, B. (2018) Prix affichés des bureaux Paris. Available at: https://www.bureauxlocaux.com/prix-marche/bureaux/paris (Accessed: 10 August 2018).
Miller, N., Spivey, J. and Florance, A. (2008) Does Green Pay Off? Available at: http://www.greenbiz.com/news/reviews_third.cfm?NewsID=35955.
Paris Municipality (2017) Végétalisons la ville – Paris.fr. Available at: https://www.paris.fr/vegetalisonslaville (Accessed: 30 October 2017).
Saval, N. (2014) Cubed: A Secret History of the Workplace. Available at: https://www.amazon.com/Cubed-History-Workplace-Nikil-Saval/dp/0385536577.
Szczepańska, A., Krzywnicka, I. and Lemański, G. (2016) ‘Urban greenery as a component of real estate value’, Real Estate Management and Valuation, 24(4), pp. 79–87. doi: 10.1515/remav-2016-0032.
Territoires, É. (2015) ‘Fiche n°11 Le coefficient de biotope par surface (CBS)’, Ecosystème dans les territoires - Cahiers techniques de l’AEU2 - Réussir la planification et l’aménagement durables, pp. 63–64. Available at: http://multimedia.ademe.fr/catalogues/CTecosystemes/index.html.
Thion, B. (1993) ‘Valeur, prix et methodes d`evaluation en immobilier’.
Urbaine, E. and Po, S. (2015) ‘Quartiers d ’ affaires : enjeux et prospective’.
Vischer, J. C. (2008) ‘Towards an Environmental Psychology of Workspace: How People are Affected by Environments for Work’, Architectural Science Review, 51(2), pp. 97–108. doi: 10.3763/asre.2008.5114.
Wilson, E. O. (1984) Biophilia. Harvard University Press. Available at: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674074422&content=reviews (Accessed: 7 June 2017).
UR  - https://doi.org/10.18769/ijasos.531354
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/704963
ER  -