Design practice and volume production in speculative housebuilding

Hooper, A and Nicol, C (2000) Design practice and volume production in speculative housebuilding. Construction Management and Economics, 18(3), pp. 295-310. ISSN 01446193

Abstract

The design of new residential development in the UK is castigated routinely in both the technical and broadsheet press, and has in the past few years become the focus of governmental policy initiatives intended to improve the overall standard of design in new housebuilding. Remarkably, however, there has been very little empirical research into the process of housing design in the private sector, and hence even academic commentaries have had to extrapolate from a hitherto very limited number of research studies. Moreover, the private sector housebuilding industry has undergone significant change in the last two decades, with considerable concentration and hence domination of production by large firms. With the private housebuilding sector responsible for over 80% of new production in the 1990s, it is timely to revisit the design practices of large speculative housebuilding firms, in order to better understand current practices and the system of constraints and opportunities in which these practices are situated. Furthermore, it is necessary to place design practice in the context of construction technology, for design criticism all too often abstracts from the technology of building practice and innovation. Therefore, this study examines, by means of a nationally representative questionnaire survey of housebuilding firms, the dominant design practices currently utilized in the industry. The focus is the extent to which volume housebuilding firms (defined as those producing in excess of 1000 units per annum) utilize standard designs, and the interrelationship between such designs and the construction technology employed. In-depth interviews with a representative sample of senior personnel from leading housebuilding companies complement the national survey, and provide insights into the system of constraints and opportunities which the housebuilding industry faces. At the heart of current debates is the conflict between the alleged prominence of the criterion of buildability in private sector housebuilding, at the expense of individuality in design, regard for the overall design context and the requirements of the housing consumer. Each of these issues is investigated in the context of the prevailing practice in the private sector housebuilding industry in the UK in the 1990s.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: design; private sector; volume housebuilding
Index terms: national survey, design practice, private sector, housebuilding, construction technology, heart, residential development, buildability, speculative housebuilding, interview, personnel, survey, face, questionnaire, housing design, housing, building practice
Subjects: construction integration, economic development, management, medical science and clinical practice, design process, building construction, design efficiency, industry analysis, digital engineering, data collection methods, construction type, research products and data, psychology
Topics: Organizational Design, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Design Practice, Human Resources, Construction Technology, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Research Practice
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

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