Design philosophy and practice in speculative housebuilding: Part 1

The assumption of like with like - essential to any comparison - often obscures more profound differences between things to be compared. This was the outcome of this study. It set out to investigate two hypotheses: (a) that designs for private sector housing are significantly more buildable than are those in the public sector and (b), that the possibility exists for the effective transfer of design practice from one sector to the other. The study concluded that the differences between the sectors involved the whole processes of production rather than simply the skills and attitudes of the respective design teams. The paper, therefore, examines the factors that enter into each of the two sectors of housbuilding; the goals, the financial, operational and managerial criteria, the influence of user satisfaction, the role of the design team, of architects especially, the built form, and the extent to which either sector reaps the benefits of continuing product development. To a large extent design practice in each sector is shown to be part and parcel of the context in which it is embedded. Therefore the second hypothesis, the simple and effective conveyance of design practice from one sector to the other, fails. Similarly it was not found possible to isolate the apparently more overtly technical issue of buildability from the context of the whole building process. In the private sector, buildability, and it is not doubted that private sector housing is the more buildable, appeared to be the natural outcome of crucial operational requirements such as the need to be able to bid quickly for land ripe for development, to develop sites of whatever size in relatively small batches, to operate with local subcontractors, rather than the pursuit ofbuildability per se. In practice the latter is much helped by the short chains of command typical of the private sector. The circumstances of the public sector housing are very different. Many sites, in urban areas especially, pose difficult problems which can be resolved only in ways that involve complex building forms. Increasingly there is the requirement to tailor housing provision to the especial needs of specific and often disadvantaged groups. Moreover, design teams of the public sector work within functional hierarchies, each with their own criteria, and the designs resulting from this process have to run the gauntlet of lay committees. It is not surprising therefore that the gradual evolution of proven design solutions(which contributes so much to the buildability of the private sector) is absent from the public sector. The outcomes of these systems are compared. The authors' conclusion is that buildability, important as it is in ensuring that resources are not wasted, is less important than other changes that are taking place, in particular the adoption of space standards that fall far short of those that were recommended more than half a century ago. What then, might be done to achieve the objectives of the second hypothesis? The decisive issue is for designers serving the public sector to be made more aware of the cost and buildability consequences of their designs. Possibilities are identified each with attendant advantages and disadvantages. Whatever tactic is adopted quick results cannot be expected and no approach will be costless.