Leopold, E and Bishop, D (1983) Design philosophy and practice in speculative housebuilding: Part 2. Construction Management and Economics, 1(3), pp. 233-268. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Since this paper was written, the housing sector has witnessed considerable changes. In the second half of 1980 when our survey was carried out, housing production in the public sector still outstripped that in the private sector; local authorities were still able to determine, to a much greater extent, the composition of housing they supplied; public sector designs were still subject to Parker Morris standards. However, the alteration of the context in which our survey was undertaken serves only to underline the case argued in this paper for continuing the evaluation of housebuilding performance in terms of its response to the institutional motivations and constraints specific to each sector.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Design comparison; private housing; public housing |
| Index terms: | survey, philosophy, motivation, local authority, speculative housebuilding, housing, public sector, private sector, housebuilding, public housing |
| Subjects: | construction type, data collection methods, psychology, construction integration, economic development, sociology, industry analysis, philosophical studies, administrative law |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Design Practice, Legal Issues, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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