Özer, S and Jacoby, S (2022) Dwelling size and usability in London: A study of floor plan data using machine learning. Building Research & Information, 50(6), pp. 694-708. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Based on a dataset of dwelling unit plans (n = 2283) with detailed dimensions derived from open-access plan data using machine learning, this paper analyses the size and usability of dwellings in London. Half of London’s housing stock was built before the Second World War but has been extensively modified. Due to greater pressure on the housing market and problems with dwelling size, London was the first local authority in England to reintroduce space standards for all housing sectors in 2011. Providing a first comprehensive analysis of space standards and dwelling size in London at room level and across all built periods, the data shows that 61% of London homes fail the recommended minimum dwelling sizes of the London Housing Design Guide (2010), 51% a bedroom standard and 88% at least one of the dimensional requirements. The paper quantifies the extent to which homes fail both recent and historical space standards and discusses their effectiveness in relation to dwelling usability and issues of design.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | dwelling size; floor plans; machine learning; space standards |
| Index terms: | usability, housing design, bedroom, housing stock, England, local authority, war, dimension, housing, effectiveness, dataset, machine learning, London |
| Subjects: | user-centered design, sociology, industry analysis, data management, artificial intelligence, design process, conflict and crisis studies, architectural elements, construction type, Geography, health monitoring assessment and metrics, performance management |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Digital Applications, Geographical Context, Quality Management, Construction Technology, Legal Issues, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here