Future Home : Trends Innovations and Disruptors in Housing Design [1 ed.] 9781032414683, 9781032414676, 9781003358244

Citation preview

FUTURE HOME

Global pandemics, smart technologies, demographics and climate change are just some of the external disruptors that may impact the home’s evolution over the next ten years. Future Home provides a comprehensive ‘horizon scan’ of what our homes may be like approximately ten years from now, by looking for early signs of potentially important developments through a systematic examination of trends, innovations and disruptors. The authors consider what aspects of the home are likely to remain constant and what aspects may change beyond all recognition and if changes are predicted, what form they may take and, most importantly, what this means for design professionals. Exploring areas of buildings and technology, people and delivery, each chapter addresses the catalysts, natures and responses to these changes. This book provides an overview of the future home that will be essential reading for designers, policy-makers and homeowners alike. Dr Alejandro Moreno-Rangel is a Lecturer in Building Performance Evaluation and Net-Zero Design at the University of Strathclyde. Alejandro’s research interests include natural material construction, building performance evaluation, building’s energy consumption, net-zero carbon buildings and their impact on health – particularly on asthma and other respiratory diseases –, the indoor environment – indoor air quality (IAQ) and thermal comfort. These research foci help him to understand the occupants’ health and behaviour to create healthy homes, particularly through the Passivhaus Standard. Alejandro is also interested in low-cost sensors and technologies for building performance evaluation and housing retrofit energy with a particular focus on deep energy retrofit.

Professor Ruth Conroy Dalton is a British architect, author and Professor of Architecture at Northumbria University. She has authored or contributed to more than 200 publications. She is a world-leading authority on the overlap between architecture and spatial cognition. As a licensed architect, she has worked for Foster and Partners and Sheppard Robson Architects and key projects upon which she has worked include the Carré d’Art de Nîmes, in France and the Palacio de Congresos de València, in Spain. She has taught at the Architectural Association School of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology, the Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL, and Northumbria University, where she was Head of Department for the Architecture and Built Environment Department, the first woman to hold the post. In 2019, she became the Inaugural/Founding Professor of Architecture and the first Head of the Lancaster School of Architecture at Lancaster University, before returning to Northumbria University in 2022.

FUTURE HOME Trends, Innovations and Disruptors in Housing Design

Edited by Alejandro Moreno-Rangel and Ruth Conroy Dalton

Designed cover image: Adobe Stock First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Alejandro Moreno-Rangel and Ruth Conroy Dalton; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Alejandro Moreno-Rangel and Ruth Conroy Dalton to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Moreno-Rangel, Alejandro, editor. | Dalton, Ruth Conroy, editor. Title: Future home : trends, innovations and disruptors in housing design / edited by Alejandro Moreno-Rangel and Ruth Conroy Dalton. Description: Abingdon, Oxon : Routledge, 2024. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2023032541 (print) | LCCN 2023032542 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032414683 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032414676 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003358244 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Architecture, Domestic--Forecasting. Classification: LCC NA7125 .F88 2024 (print) | LCC NA7125 (ebook) | DDC 728.01/12--dc23/eng/20230927 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023032541 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023032542 ISBN: 978-1-032-41468-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-41467-6 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-35824-4 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244 Typeset in Optima LT Std by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.

CONTENTS

List of contributors

vii

Introduction Alejandro Moreno-Rangel and Ruth Conroy Dalton

1

1 Meeting Future Challenges: Flexible and Prefab Housing Avi Friedman

9

2 Mass Production versus Individualisation Des Fagan

24

3 Net-zero Homes and Passivhaus Alejandro Moreno-Rangel, Juan Manuel Vázquez and Marcelo Huenchuñir

37

4 Comfort Redefined: The Future of Home Living Leonidas Bourikas and Alejandro Moreno-Rangel

49

5 A Technologically Sustainable, Responsible and Smarter Home Michael Stead

62

6 Working from Home: We Don’t Need More Space, We Need SPACE Ana Rute Costa and Katherine Ellsworth-Krebs

77

vi Contents

7 The Future of Communal Living: Exploring the Architectural and Technological Possibilities of the Shared, Multigenerational Urban Home in 2030 Emad Alyedreessy and Ivana Tosheva

87

8 Health and Well-being Demet Yesiltepe

101

9 Homes to Age in Place John Carr, Paul Jones and Peter Holgate

110

10 Towards a Participatory Architecture Mirian Calvo and Carmen Fabregat-Nodar

127

11 Off the Wall: Manufacturing Future Homes Based on a ‘Throughput’ Business Model Michael Crilly and Yann Bomken

141

12 Reshaping the Landscape: Retrofitting Homes for Sustainable Living Chris Morgan

157

Index

168

CONTRIBUTORS

Emad Alyedreessy is a UK registered architect (ARB) specialising in pre-

construction design management with experience administering multidisciplinary design teams for various award-winning architectural practices. Emad has helped facilitate the delivery of several high-profile projects including the UCL East Marshgate Campus, the College of Architecture at Kuwait University, the New Museum of London, NEOM Industrial City and Theatre Royal Drury Lane. He is currently undertaking a PhD in Architecture at Northumbria University investigating the relationships between spatial configuration, space typologies and the exchange of social capital within urban shared living environments. Yann Bomken is a highly accomplished international executive with an ex-

tensive career spanning over four decades in the manufacturing and offsite construction industries. With a wealth of experience gained from working with prestigious companies ranging from Mars to Petainer, Yann has consistently demonstrated his exceptional leadership abilities and comprehensive understanding of the industry. Throughout his professional journey, Yann has developed a strong track record in modular construction, where he has made significant contributions to the advancement of efficient housing construction methods. His insights into manufacturing processes have led to the implementation of innovative strategies, optimizing production efficiency and driving cost-effective outcomes. Yann’s keen understanding of efficient housing construction methods has allowed him to introduce cutting-edge techniques, leveraging modern technologies and sustainable practices to create homes that are both environmentally friendly and economically viable.

viii Contributors

Dr Leonidas (Leo) Bourikas is a Sustainability and Climate Change Consultant

at Arup in London, UK. Leo works at city/district or building scale in the areas of sustainability, energy, climate change, environmental design, comfort and resilience. In his career, Leo has worked with the public sector and private companies on carbon emissions modelling, retrofit delivery plans for dwellings, net-zero strategies, decarbonisation pathways and stakeholders’ engagement. Before joining Arup, he undertook interdisciplinary research related to energy, comfort and the built environment. He has coordinated and led work packages in social housing, residential, office and school building projects looking at the energy management and the efficiency improvement of buildings with a focus on thermal comfort and indoor environmental quality. Dr Marcelo Huenchuñir Bustos, an esteemed architect, currently holds the

position of President at the Latin American Passivhaus Institute (ILAPH). With a remarkable career spanning over three decades, Marcelo has made significant contributions to the field of architecture and sustainable design. Graduating from the University of Chile in 1990, he embarked on a journey that would establish him as a prominent figure in the industry. In 1997, Marcelo pursued a Doktor Ingenieur degree at the Universität Hannover in Germany. In 2011, Marcelo achieved a significant milestone by becoming an accredited Passive House Designer, certified by the Passivhaus Institute of Germany. This notable achievement made him the first architect from Latin America to obtain such a prestigious accreditation, marking a pivotal moment in his career and solidifying his position as a pioneer in sustainable architecture. Dr Mirian Calvo is an architect and urban planner, Lecturer in Participatory

Architecture at Lancaster School of Architecture and a member of Imagination, Lancaster University’s open and exploratory design research lab. Her research questions conventional architecture practices by centring people in the design process, demonstrating how communities can transform their environments and re-activate or/and fortify their agency by transforming their surroundings. She leads research and consultancy projects ranged from urban interventions to housing and planning policy co-creation, e.g., Placemakingwith-Young-Adults (British Academy 2021–2023); Mapping Values (British Academy 2021–2022) and MyMainway (2020–2021). She has presented her work at international conferences and published in international, peerreviewed journals. She is also a guest Lecturer at the Master’s Rebuilding the World (ENSAP-BX, 2020–2022). Previously she was a Lecturer in Design and Architecture at the University of the West of England (UWE). John Carr is a Chartered Architect who has recently been awarded with an

Industrial PhD. The practice based PhD involved Northumbria University in partnership with IDPartnership, an award winning multidisciplinary

Contributors  ix

architectural practice based in Newcastle upon Tyne. The research of the PhD involved a housing co-design process with older people, and the impact of the work focussed on how new, accessible, adaptable, and flexible technology-enabled homes can support older people to age-in-place. The research is already having an impact on live design projects, such as the South Seaham Garden Village, in County Durham. Following the PhD, John has successfully been appointed onto a Knowledge Transfer Partnership between Northumbria University and Kingfield Developments Ltd, where John will help develop a Housing Lifecycle Model and System to develop tech-enabled homes to age-in-place using modern methods of construction. Dr Ana Rute Costa is a Senior Lecturer in Architecture at Lancaster University’s

School of Architecture. She is a chartered architect and certified Passivhaus Designer/Consultant, fostering to create dynamic links and knowledge exchange between academia and architectural practice. She is currently leading the ‘Accelerating Material Re-use in Construction’ project funded by AHRC. Her research focus lies on enabling a circular economy in the construction sector through material passports. Her research focuses on analysing the impact of the built environment in teaching and learning through ethnographic and visual research methods. She is also specialised in policies and practices that affect the design of spaces and products that enable learning to take place. She sees the world as a big house that we all need to look after; together we can make a change and contribute to a better built environment. Dr Michael Crilly is a professional planner and the director of an urban de-

sign consultancy based in Newcastle upon Tyne. With a rich professional background encompassing roles in local authorities, national development agencies, civic charities and the private sector, he brings a wealth of diverse experience to his practice. Holding a PhD in Sustainable Urbanism, Dr Crilly possesses a deep understanding of sustainable design principles. In addition to his consultancy work, Dr Crilly actively contributes to academia. He serves as a part-time Assistant Professor in Architecture and Built Environment at Northumbria University, as well as an associate Lecturer at both Newcastle and Teesside Universities. Furthermore, he is a Built Environment Expert for the UK Design Council CABE, providing valuable insights and guidance on various projects to ensure high standards of design and sustainability. Professor Ruth Conroy Dalton is a British architect, author and Professor of

Architecture at Northumbria University. She has authored or contributed to more than 200 publications. She is a world-leading authority on the overlap between architecture and spatial cognition. As a licensed architect, she has worked for Foster and Partners and Sheppard Robson Architects, and key

x Contributors

projects upon which she has worked include the Carré d’Art de Nîmes, in France and the Palacio de Congresos de Valencia, in Spain. She has taught at the Architectural Association School of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology, the Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL and Northumbria University, where she was Head of Department for the Architecture and Built Environment Department, the first woman to hold the post. In 2019, she became the Inaugural/Founding Professor of Architecture and the first Head of the Lancaster School of Architecture at Lancaster University, before returning to Northumbria University in 2022. Dr Katherine Ellsworth-Krebs is a Strathclyde Chancellor’s Fellow at Strath-

clyde University in Glasgow. Prior to this role, she was a Senior Researcher contributing to Lancaster University’s BeyondImagination Project, and prior to that, she was a Lecturer in Sustainable Development for three years at the University of St Andrews. She is an interdisciplinary researcher at the intersection of environmental sustainability, energy demand, design and behaviour change. Currently she is focused on working with organisations to develop new ways to intervene in environmental sustainability issues (e.g., reduce waste, carbon footprint and energy demand) to create a ‘culture of sustainability’ that is mainstreamed into communities’ everyday life. Carmen Fabregat-Nodar is an architect and sociologist with experience in the

design and delivery of high-profile buildings, e.g., LEED Platinum Hijos de Rivera Corporation Headquarters with Gallego-Jorreto architects in A Coruña, Spain (2019–2023); urban interventions, e.g., an award-winning project for environmental recovery and enhancement of the surroundings of the Goián Fortress and Fluvial Beach in Goián, Spain (2009–2012) with Pablo Gallego; international competitions, e.g., First Prize in Neanderthal Museum in Piloña, Spain (2010) with Pablo Gallego and participatory design processes, e.g., IX UNICEF Good Practises awarded ‘O Noso Patio’ in A Coruña, Spain (2015–2018). She has also been a Workshop tutor at Ria de Arousa of David Chipperfield Architects (2016) and a professor at Compostela’s Summer Program (2016–2017). After 15 years of working in practice, she has recently commenced a full-time research fellowship at A Coruña University (Spain) working on heritage, landscape and participation in urban and rural places. Des Fagan is Head of Architecture at Lancaster University and Chair of the

National RIBA Practice and Policy Committee, Des’ field of research interest is in optimisation and Deep Learning (AI) for Decision Support Systems in design. He is particularly interested in the impact that machine learning will have on design processes and the regulatory and policy implications for the RIBA and ARB. In his current role as Chair at the RIBA, Des oversees the development of a programme of policy and public affairs activity

Contributors  xi

to affect change in Whitehall, Westminster and beyond. Prior to working in academia, he worked on several international award-winning projects such as Project Architect for the London Olympic Village for GHA and Glasgow Transport Museum for Zaha Hadid Architects, winner of European Museum of the Year. Professor Avi Friedman, PhD, is a professor of architecture at McGill Univer-

sity, Canada, where he directs the Affordable Homes Research Group. He is also an honorary professor at Lancaster University, UK, and president of Avi Friedman Consultants, Inc., a design firm with a focus on affordable and sustainable residential environments. He has written 25 books, and his design work and projects have been cited in books, newspapers and TV shows. He is the recipient of numerous awards including the Manning Innovation Award, the Lifetime Achievement Award from Sustainable Buildings Canada and the World Habitat Award. In 2000, Wallpaper Magazine included him in their list of ten people ‘most likely to change the way we live’. Dr Peter Holgate is an Associate Professor in the Department of Architec-

ture and Built Environment at Northumbria University. He studied architecture at the Universities of Liverpool and Oregon, and practised architecture in Newcastle, San Francisco, London and Frankfurt am Main, working on a variety of award-winning projects. He is a qualified CDM Co-ordinator; full-time teacher of architecture since 2005; accredited postgraduate supervisor; awarded a MA in Academic Practice in 2011; awarded Professional Doctorate in Education in 2016; roles have included Director of Learning and Teaching, Programme Leader (Master of Architecture), Director of Architectural Programmes and Interim Head of Department of Architecture and the Built Environment. Professor Paul Jones is a professor of architecture at Northumbria Univer-

sity. His research spans wellbeing, sustainability and placemaking. He has designed award-winning buildings and international competition entries, as well as authoring books and journal papers on his interest areas. He is the Director of the ‘Homes for the Future’ innovation centre established to improve the quality and perceived value of housing in the UK. Paul’s success in competition entries has led to important building commissions and exhibitions. He has exhibited his work at prestigious venues around the world, including the Design Museum London, the VA Scotland and the Lincoln Centre New York. He has directed his students to numerous awards and commendations. Dr Alejandro Moreno-Rangel is a Lecturer in Building Performance Evaluation

and Net-Zero Design at the University of Strathclyde. Alejandro’s research

xii Contributors

interests include natural material construction, building performance evaluation, building’s energy consumption, net-zero carbon buildings and their impact on health – particularly on asthma and other respiratory diseases –, the indoor environment – indoor air quality (IAQ) and thermal comfort. These research foci help him to understand the occupants’ health and behaviour to create healthy homes, particularly through the Passivhaus Standard. Alejandro is also interested in low-cost sensors and technologies for building performance evaluation and housing retrofit energy with a particular focus on deep energy retrofit. Chris Morgan is a director of John Gilbert Architects in Glasgow and a reg-

istered architect with over 30 years of experience in ecological design and sustainable development. He has maintained a range of experience from master planning and energy infrastructure, to award-winning and innovative architecture, research and teaching. Previously a Chair of the Scottish Ecological Design, Chris is one of only four architects with advanced sustainable architecture accreditation from the RIAS. He is a design review panellist for Architecture + Design Scotland and has certification in Passivhaus design, building biology and permaculture. Chris worked part-time for MEARU at the Mackintosh School of Architecture where he taught finalyear technology and undertook building performance evaluation on Passivhaus and other low-energy housing. Most of his current work in practice is retrofit-based. Dr Michael Stead is a Lecturer in Sustainable Design Futures at Imagination,

Lancaster University’s School of Design. He advances approaches including Research through Design and Speculative Design to prototype radical sustainable futures that interrogate the evolving relationship between emerging data-driven technologies like the Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence, and key socio-technical goals such as Net Zero 2050 and the Circular Economy. Michael leads Imagination’s work package on the EPSRC Fixing the Future project which is exploring the upscaling of electronic device circularity through better repair knowledge, skills and tools within local communities. He is Principal Investigator on the EPSRC InterNET ZERO project which is co-creating visions and pathways for more trustworthy and sustainable autonomous systems across society. Previous funded work includes the EPSRC/ESRC Repair Shop 2049 project and EPSRC PETRAS Edge of Reality and Edge of Tomorrow grants. Michael has published over 30 peer-reviewed sustainable digital technology outputs including the EPSRC PETRAS Little Book of Sustainability for the Internet of Things. He has disseminated his research at the Mozilla, CyberUK, British Science and V&A London Design festivals.

Contributors  xiii

Ivana Tosheva is a UK registered architect (ARB) with experience in the design

and delivery of projects across the commercial and residential sectors. During her time in industry, she also focused on the development, management and implementation of internal BIM modelling protocols and workflows for a multidisciplinary architectural firm. Ivana holds a BA (Hons) and MArch from the Manchester School of Architecture where she worked on developing computational tools for design and analysis at both urban and building scales. Throughout her academic and professional career, Ivana has participated in various interdisciplinary projects and competitions, a few of which have received awards. Currently undertaking a PhD in Urban Science at the University of Warwick, Ivana’s research focuses on exploring the notion of spatial atmospheres and the development of a method for their systematic quantification. Juan Manuel Vázquez is the Executive Director of the Latin American Pas-

sivhaus Institute (ILAPH). He graduated from the Faculty of Agronomy at the University of Buenos Aires and has been actively involved in sustainable housing construction since 2000. Initially focusing on raw earth, Juan Manuel later specialized in Compressed Agricultural Fibre as a renewable and eco-friendly building material. Leading the ILAPH, he drives the promotion and advancement of sustainable construction practices across Latin America. His commitment to creating healthier, energy-efficient and sustainable living spaces has positioned him as a respected advocate for environmentally conscious building practices. With extensive expertise in natural materials and a dedication to sustainability, Juan Manuel Vázquez continues to lead positive change in the industry, inspiring professionals and communities throughout Latin America. Dr Demet Yesiltepe is a Research Associate in the Architecture Department

at the University of Sheffield. With a keen interest in the interaction between the built environment and human behaviour, her research projects are dedicated to unravelling this intricate relationship. Dr Yesiltepe’s expertise lies in various domains, including Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Space Syntax, spatial analysis, spatial navigation, urban form modelling and exploring how environmental factors affect human well-being. Through her work, she strives to shed light on the ways in which our surroundings shape our actions and experiences. By employing advanced methodologies and cutting-edge technologies, Dr Yesiltepe actively contributes to the field’s understanding of the built environment’s impact on individuals and communities. As a Research Associate, she plays a vital role in expanding knowledge and informing sustainable design practices for more inclusive and peoplecentred urban environments.

INTRODUCTION Alejandro Moreno-Rangel and Ruth Conroy Dalton

The concept of home is deeply ingrained in our lives. It is the space where we experience joy, sorrow, and growth. From the moment we are born, our homes become the backdrop of our lives, shaping our personal history in profound ways. However, as we stand on the threshold of a new era, the notion of home is undergoing a radical transformation. Global pandemics, smart technologies, demographic, and climate changes are among the external disruptors that have the potential to redefine the very essence of the home in the years to come. In response to the pressing need to anticipate and adapt to these changes, this ground-breaking book sets out on a journey to undertake a comprehensive ‘horizon scan’ of future homes. By systematically examining potential trends, innovations, and disruptors, we aim to shed light on what our homes may look like in approximately ten years’ time. Why ten years? First, many of the changes we anticipate seeing in ten years already exist, to some degree, as current emerging trends, and hence our ability to follow their trajectories is undoubtedly more accurate. We can base our predictions on reality and not just unsubstantiated guesswork. Second, for design professionals reading this book, ten years is a more realistic timeframe in which to consider changes and adaptations to their own business models and future planning. Our exploration will explore the various aspects of the home that are likely to remain constant, as well as those that we predict are likely to undergo drastic transformations, and in doing so, we aim to reveal any implications that we may identify for design professionals. The COVID-19 pandemic brought to the forefront issues surrounding our living arrangements. Questions about how we live, who we live with, and the challenges of homeworking have become urgent concerns. It is no wonder DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244-1

2  Alejandro Moreno-Rangel and Ruth Conroy Dalton

that newspapers and magazines have been filled with articles discussing the changing nature of homes in response to that recent crisis. Moreover, initiatives such as the UK Government-backed ‘Home of 2030’ design competition have underscored the growing interest in the future of residential spaces. The world’s focus on achieving net-zero carbon and energy buildings within the next three decades is yet another clear trend within the residential sector. Surprisingly, amidst this heightened level of interest, there is a notable dearth of books exploring the impact of these evolving trends on home design in the next decade. It is with this void in mind that we embarked on this endeavour, seeking to provide a wealth of information and insights in an area of inquiry that has been long overlooked. Within this context, we pose the fundamental questions: What will our future homes be like? Who will design them? How will they be designed? Who will finance them? How energy-efficient must they be? How might they withstand changes in climate and weather? Can a single house sustain and accommodate us throughout our lives, or do we need to radically reimagine homes for the elderly? These questions serve as the foundation of our exploration in the book. Drawing upon the expertise of leading thinkers in architecture, engineering, design, and environmental science, this book offers a captivating and practical exploration of the future of the home. Through thought-provoking insights and perspectives, we aim to equip professionals and the wider public with the necessary tools and understanding to navigate the ever-changing landscape of home design. The chapters within this book cover a wide range of themes, in alphabetical order: Ageing, Co-housing, Comfort, Finance, Flexibility, Health, Homeworking, Individualisation, Net-Zero, Participatory Architecture, Retrofit and Smart Homes. Each chapter dives into the intricacies of its respective subject, offering a comprehensive examination of the challenges and opportunities presented by the future of homes. However, none of these themes can be explored in isolation, and what has become increasingly apparent, through the writing of this book, is how all these different themes are highly interconnected (see Figure 0.1) and how extraordinarily multifaceted is the question of how we should design our homes of the future. Therefore, throughout the chapters, wherever possible, we have signposted these significant, thematic links to the other chapters to improve the reader’s understanding and easy navigation between the different concepts. It is our intention that the journey through the pages of this book will provide valuable knowledge and inspiration, combining real-life projects from around the world, industry insights, and first-hand experiences. We hope that it will serve as a practical design manual for architects, professionals, clients, and aspiring individuals entering the profession. Chapter 1 examines the concept of flexibility, highlighting the need for innovative thinking due to the woeful inadequacy of past approaches. The

Introduction  3

FIGURE 0.1 

Thematic connections between the chapters

profound changes in environmental, economic, and social aspects, including climate change, resource depletion, housing affordability, and socio-demographic transformations, call for new paradigms in housing design and construction. This chapter lists, investigates, and discusses these challenges, whilst offering the concepts of flexibility and prefabrication as potential solutions. This chapter has strong links to the chapters on ageing (Chapter 9), homeworking (Chapter 6), individualisation (Chapter 2), and smart homes (Chapter 5). Chapter 2 considers mass production and the individualisation of homes, exploring how future technologies will be able to introduce hitherto undreamt-of levels of customisation into the mass production process of housing. Through case studies, the potential of parametric customer design configurators, machine learning, and modular fabrication methods is examined. It

4  Alejandro Moreno-Rangel and Ruth Conroy Dalton

discusses how such technological advancements offer opportunities to overcome the current state of low variation in volume house building while nevertheless still maintaining profitability through efficient production at scale. It argues that by leveraging these tools, future home designers will be able to combine individualisation with mass-produced housing, ensuring a wider range of options for prospective buyers. This chapter is closely interconnected with the chapters focusing on flexibility (Chapter 1), smart homes (Chapter 5), homeworking (Chapter 6) and, probably most of all, the chapter on finance (Chapter 11). Chapter 3 explores the concept of net-zero homes, which are homes designed to consume minimal energy that can be met by on-site, renewable energy generation. The Passivhaus Standard, a widely recognised and extensively tested approach, is explored as one of the prominent methods to achieve this goal. The chapter examines the definition and significance of net-zero, considering how the Passivhaus Standard can be employed to attain it. Moreover, the prospects of net-zero in various aspects of home design are explored, emphasising the importance of integrating multiple strategies rather than simply relying on isolated solutions. The chapter provides illustrative examples to showcase these concepts, ultimately urging architects to adopt an integrated approach to realise the net-zero vision. Net-zero homes are considered the future, and the Passivhaus Standard serves as a valuable tool to facilitate their achievement. There is a significant thematic correlation between this chapter and the chapters that explore the themes of smart homes (Chapter 5), comfort (Chapter 4), retrofit (Chapter 12), finance (Chapter 11), and health (Chapter 8). Chapter 4 examines the concept of comfort and home, two concepts that are strongly associated, yet seldom researched together. This chapter describes how, as society progresses, the home is poised for a remarkable transformation, driven by a combination of technological advancements, sustainability efforts, and a deeper understanding of human well-being, but all, nevertheless, strongly tied back to this central idea of comfort. This chapter embarks on an exploration of the future of home and its intricate relationship with comfort. It envisions a world where smart and connected systems, energy efficiency, personalised solutions, renewable energy integration, enhanced air quality, human-centric design, AI optimisation, and considerations for the ageing population come together to shape our living spaces. In this chapter, an exploration will be undertaken into each of these eight essential concepts to describe the promising future of the home and its significant association with comfort. By thoroughly examining the convergence of technology, sustainability, and human well-being, the transformative potential of the future home will be revealed—a home where comfort is effortlessly tailored to individual needs, energy is conserved, and well-being is ensured. Clearly, there are strong connections between this chapter and the chapters on net-zero

Introduction  5

(Chapter 3), health (Chapter 8) and, obviously, smart homes (Chapter 5), which we will discuss next. Chapter 5 focuses on the increasing influence of ‘smart’ devices and systems in shaping the daily practices and experiences of individuals in modern societies. Despite the persistent promotion of these technologies by platforms and manufacturers, the actual realities of the data-driven ‘smart home’ often fall short of the utopian visions currently presented, particularly regarding environmental sustainability. This chapter critically examines the challenges and potential benefits associated with the widespread adoption of data-driven ‘smart’ technologies, specifically the Internet of Things (IoT) and artificial intelligence (AI), in transitioning future societies towards more sustainable domestic living. The chapter concludes that by involving designers and stakeholders in critically reflective practices, the aim is to facilitate the design of a transition to technologically sustainable, responsible, and smarter homes of the future. The topics covered in this chapter are closely tied to the content discussed in the chapters concerning ageing (Chapter 9), flexibility (Chapter 1), individualisation (Chapter 2), comfort (Chapter 4), and net-zero (Chapter 3). Chapter 6 examines the profound impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global labour markets and how it has permanently altered our perception of domestic space. The widespread adoption of information and communication technology, exemplified by the rise of platforms like Zoom, enabled individuals worldwide to incorporate office work into their homes on an unprecedented scale. In this chapter, the focus is on the insights gained from this experience and how future homes can be designed to accommodate the increasing trend of working from home without exacerbating the environmental impact. To address this challenge, the chapter begins by exploring the key challenges identified in existing literature regarding working from home during and post the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequently, an architectural perspective is presented, emphasising that the solution does not necessarily require creating additional space to accommodate home offices. Instead, the chapter introduces alternative design approaches that consider Social, Physical, Affordances, Context, and Emotional (known as ‘SPACE’) factors. By incorporating these considerations, homes can be thoughtfully designed to support remote work while promoting sustainability. This chapter shares strong connections with the subsequent chapters dedicated to co-housing (Chapter 7), ageing (Chapter 9), flexibility (Chapter 1), and individualisation (Chapter 2). Chapter 7 explores the potential evolution of shared, co-housing and multigenerational homes as a novel mode of urban living in 2030. Rather than presenting either utopian or dystopian scenarios, the chapter offers a thoughtprovoking and plausible exploration of the future of domestic city living. The vision presented in this thought-provoking and provocative chapter is based

6  Alejandro Moreno-Rangel and Ruth Conroy Dalton

on a conservative extrapolation of existing architectural principles, socioeconomic events, and emerging technologies that are expected to play a significant role in our daily lives over the next decade. Overall, the chapter is intended to stimulate our imagination whilst also reflecting on the potential trajectory of co-housing and multigenerational homes, providing insights that can inform architectural practice and urban planning for the years to come. The themes explored in this chapter have direct links to the chapters addressing homeworking (Chapter 6), ageing (Chapter 9), and participatory architecture (Chapter 10). Chapter 8 addresses the crucial relationship between our environment and our health and well-being, emphasising the significance of this topic for architects as well as urban planners in their design processes. Whether we examine the macro-scale of countries and regions or the micro-scale of individual houses, the environment in which we are situated is known to have a profound impact on our overall well-being. This chapter begins by providing a general explanation of the relationship between the home and the environment, drawing upon existing literature to present key findings. It highlights the importance of considering this relationship when designing various environments, including buildings, urban spaces, and cities. Overall, the chapter emphasises the critical role of the home-environment relationship in promoting health and well-being. It encourages architects and urban planners to prioritise this aspect in their designs and advocates for continued exploration and adaptation to meet the evolving needs and aspirations of individuals and communities. There is a clear relationship between this chapter and the chapters that deal with ageing (Chapter 9), comfort (Chapter 4), and participatory architecture (Chapter 10). Chapter 9 focuses on the concept of ‘ageing in place’ and highlights the challenges faced by older adults in the United Kingdom when it comes to their domestic environment. The chapter begins by emphasising the significant number of individuals aged over 65 in the UK, which is expected to increase by a third in the next decade: a situation faced by many other countries worldwide. One of the primary concerns is that the existing housing stock in the UK, which amounts to approximately 25 million homes, is ill-equipped to cater to the changing needs of this ageing population. The chapter highlights that existing homes were constructed without considering the accessibility and abilities required by older individuals. However, there is now a better understanding and emerging evidence base regarding the specific needs of older people, which should be able to inform home design and accommodate the ageing process. Unfortunately, despite this knowledge, the majority of new housing developments in the UK continue to overlook the needs of older adults. The UK Government’s focus is primarily on delivering housing without adequately considering the ageing profile of the population whilst developer-led housing often fails to address the successful development of

Introduction  7

multi-generational communities. In summary, Chapter 9 highlights the pressing issue of housing inadequacy for older adults in the UK. It sheds light on the mismatch between the increasing ageing population and the lack of suitable housing options that cater to their specific needs. It ends by emphasising the need for a shift in policy and a greater focus on designing homes that facilitate ageing in place and foster multi-generational communities. Although this chapter is based on a UK case study, it should be stressed that it is highly pertinent for other countries as well. The content of this chapter is relevant to the chapters centred around co-housing (Chapter 7), homeworking (Chapter 6), flexibility (Chapter 1), smart homes (Chapter 5), comfort (Chapter 4), and health (Chapter 8). It is interesting to note that this chapter on ageing is probably the most central chapter in terms of the connections between themes shown in Figure 0.1. Chapter 10 explores the role of participatory architecture in shaping the future modes of homes and the ways we live. It argues that the field of architecture must undergo a profound transformation to address the challenges posed by the climate emergency, embracing more socially, ecologically, and economically sustainable approaches. The chapter begins by introducing the concept of participatory architecture as an alternative methodology capable of meeting the demands of the current crisis. It discusses the roots of participatory architecture, focusing specifically on its application to home design. The chapter asserts that future housing policies need to embrace participatory architecture processes. It acknowledges the increasing social demand for active participation in decision-making regarding cities, homes, essential services, ecological considerations, and natural resource management. It envisions a society where collective survival necessitates co-responsibility, coproduction, and co-governance as imperatives. It concludes by highlighting the potential of participatory architecture to transform the future of homes. By involving communities in the design and decision-making processes, participatory architecture offers a path towards more sustainable and resilient living environments, addressing the urgent challenges of climate change and fostering collective well-being. This chapter exhibits a strong correlation with the chapters specifically dedicated to co-housing (Chapter 7) and health (Chapter 8). Chapter 11 considers the intricate relationship between finance and housing, exploring the crucial interplay between these two domains. The chapter discusses various thought-provoking issues, starting with a ‘theory of constraints’, which emphasises the significance of focusing on volume rather than volumetric aspects in housing. It highlights the understanding that housing is fundamentally a numbers game, where key metrics and calculations play a pivotal role. Moreover, the chapter describes how capital investment in housing necessitates either a degree of risk-taking or a robust order book. It unravels the complexities involved in financing

8  Alejandro Moreno-Rangel and Ruth Conroy Dalton

housing projects, shedding light on the importance of striking a delicate balance between finance and manufacturing processes in house construction. Additionally, the chapter examines the challenges and opportunities that arise when aligning financial considerations with the manufacturing aspects of housing. By exploring these critical facets, Chapter  11 offers valuable insights into the intersection of finance and the manufacturing processes of houses, providing a comprehensive understanding of the complexities involved in this dynamic relationship. This chapter is strongly aligned with Chapter 2 on mass production and individualisation, but also connects to the chapters on net-zero (Chapter 3) and retrofit (Chapter 12). Chapter 12 explores the concept of retrofitting as a means to achieve a fully sustainable future. It acknowledges the need for comprehensive changes in financial, cultural, and social structures, as well as our relationship with the natural world. The chapter emphasises the importance of retrofitting existing buildings and infrastructure to improve sustainability in environmental, social, and economic terms. It highlights the interconnectedness of these dimensions and underscores the challenges associated with retrofitting, such as financial constraints and the need for behavioural change. The chapter highlights the need for collaboration and integration of retrofitting practices with broader sustainability initiatives, recognising that achieving a sustainable future requires collective efforts across sectors and stakeholders. The discussions in this chapter are closely related to the chapters that tackle the themes of net-zero (Chapter 3) and, to a lesser degree, finance (Chapter 11) and comfort (Chapter 4). In conclusion, this book examines the critical and multifaceted realm of designing future homes. It explores the challenges and opportunities presented by environmental, social, and economic factors, pushing the boundaries of conventional practices. These chapters outlined above collectively examine a wide range of topics, including sustainable housing, technological advancements, participatory architecture, and retrofitting. Throughout the book, there is a resounding call for innovative thinking, collaborative approaches, and a deep understanding of the interconnectedness between the built environment and human well-being. As we navigate the complexities of the 21st century, this book will serve as a guide for architects, urban planners, policymakers, and anyone invested in shaping the homes of tomorrow. By embracing new paradigms, harnessing emerging technologies, and fostering inclusive and sustainable practices, we can pave the way for a future where homes are not just places of shelter, but also catalysts for thriving communities and a harmonious coexistence with the natural world.

1 MEETING FUTURE CHALLENGES Flexible and Prefab Housing Avi Friedman

Homes for changing times The environmental challenge

In recent years, with climate emergency becoming central social preoccupation, governments are implementing new regulatory policies that will require designers to think about how will housing be designed to accommodate these legislative changes (United Nations Climate Change, 2021). Some countries are providing subsidies to builders and consumers for construction of energy-efficient homes. The proliferation of policies that are concerned with increasing the environmental sustainability of urban spaces and homes is bound to provide planners and architects with far-reaching innovative design opportunities. In addition to responding to the climate emergency, overconsumption of non-renewable resources has led to a call for preservation. Driven by rising ecological awareness, declining availability, and high costs, communities began to re-examine waste disposal methods and homebuilders to reconsider their current construction practices (Hoyt 2020). The need for resource efficiency can be understood through the concept of natural limits. Some of the resources that the construction industry relies on will eventually run out since they can only be replenished at a certain rate (EEA 2020). There is an urgent need to find ways to generate greater returns from the same number of resources by shifting to a circular production method where products are used as long as possible (EEA 2020). Therefore, using resources efficiently and economically is set to be a way to deliver more with less.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244-2

10  Avi Friedman

Demographic transformations

In recent decades, there has been a general recognition in developed countries, that the aging population is growing as birth rates decline. For example, Canadian homes house an average family size of 2.5 people (Statistica 2021). As these tendencies seem to continue, architects began to pay greater attention to socioeconomic inclusivity and active engagement of seniors. In addition, the homebuilding industry come to realize that due to greater demographic diversity, the existing housing stock is not adequately designed to accommodate certain demographic cohorts such as singles and single-parent households. By analyzing such trends, dwellings can be designed and adapted to fit the needs of families without oversizing living spaces that lead to overconsumption and eventually to urban sprawl. These market trends offer opportunity to design housing with a small footprint that is not only efficient and affordable but also sustainable. A shifting global economy

In a time of global economic uncertainty, a shift in housing consumption patterns has been observed. Notably, housing prices have been increasing to become unaffordable in many countries. As a result, the existing imbalance of the demand and supply of homes has been aggravated and resulted in a significant price increase (Khan et al. 2021). This economic reality places a disproportionate burden on first-time home buyers as they struggle to gain a foothold in the housing market in many cities. Data demonstrate an urgent need for affordable housing that can both adapt to the consumer market’s changing needs and be financially sustainable. Although much policy and planning are an essential part of the creation of affordable housing, architects play an integral role in providing solutions to the housing crisis through low-cost design strategies. These involve dwellings with small footprint, simplifying facades while creating variation through colors and materials, designing unit layouts, and dimensions for construction efficiency and adaptability as well as repurposing existing buildings to reduce costs (Hoyt & Schuetz 2020). Technological innovation

In recent decades, much effort was dedicated to developing and testing new state-of-the-art technologies and tools to assist architects and planners. Among the many innovative technologies being developed, some recent ones are becoming readily available for architects and builders. Tools like robotic prefabricated production and three-dimensional (3D) printers (see Chapter 2

Meeting future challenges  11

for more detail on housing customization) make it possible to create affordable and resistant building components which reduce dependency on natural or expensive resources. This technology allows for construction materials to be customized on demand without generating excess waste as a printer can accurately produce pieces according to a blueprint. The most common raw materials used to print 3D objects for building purposes include concrete, sand, fiber, and geopolymers. Other biodegradable materials that are being experimented with for large-scale use are straw and soil. Another available 3D modeling technology, building information modeling (BIM), is an affordance of big data to architects and urban planners. While the 3D models depict much of the physical infrastructure, BIM goes one step further to model the supporting infrastructure and function of buildings. The vast number of sensors implanted or tacked onto buildings enables the quantification and observation of water, energy, waste, noise, usage, and any other building activity to be synthesized into a single complex model. This information is valuable to all stakeholders involved in a project with BIM capabilities, architecture, construction, operation, and management. Small flexible spaces

The need for smaller flexible dwellings derives from contemporary motivating factors such as affordability, densification, as well as demographic and lifestyle changes. In North America, in past decades, the area of homes grew progressively despite a decrease in the average household sizes (Nelson 2018). This trend was changed in the mid-2000s due to increasing land prices and new tendency of people to reside in urban areas (Vachon 2018). Creating comfortable interiors requires designers to consider micro aspects that affect a small space’s function. Seemingly, trivial aspects can have a significant effect on one’s perception and comfort (see Chapter 4 for more detail on house and comfort). One of the goals in designing sustainable and affordable housing is to facilitate long-term occupancy including planning for an uncertain future by maximizing liveability. This section discusses micro aspects of small spaces design including flexibility and space-making devices. Accommodating flexibility

Planning for flexibility is essential to accommodating the evolving needs of modern households. This involves consulting with occupants on their space needs and facilitating post-occupancy modifications. The primary goal of flexible design is to plan for future uncertainty to prolong the lifespan and efficiency of buildings. There are a multitude of reasons that lead people to renovate their homes’ interior. The main factors often include change of household’s size and newly acquired habits such as working from home. Some

12  Avi Friedman

common types of adaptation involve subdivision of units into multi-family units, expanding dwellings, and modifying the layout to suit new needs. In this regard, there are certain strategies that can make dwellings more flexible to modifications. The easiest way to plan for flexibility is by creating an open plan. The use of an open plan allows for add-in growth, permitting residents to progressively alter their home according to evolving needs and budget. In areas where more privacy is desired, freeing the interior space of loadbearing walls and columns allows for easy modification of the internal plan later. Multi-purpose rooms with sufficient proportions should be created by considering a variety of functions, including sleeping, entertainment, socializing, or working. Rooms between 3.7 by 3.7 meters (12 by 12 feet) and 4.6 by 4.6 meters (15 by 15 feet) are typically large enough to accommodate future adaptations. Service spaces such as bathrooms and kitchens are difficult to relocate once placed; therefore, careful consideration should be given to their locations to allow for adaptability of the adjacent living spaces (Dhar et al. 2013). Utilities including mechanical systems, electrical systems, ductwork, and plumbing should be easily accessible to enable maintenance and modification when necessary. Additionally, placing utilities within partition walls should be avoided to simplify the future relocation of partitions (Dhar et al. 2013). By following these design recommendations, dwellings can become highly adaptable to future change. Prefabricated demountable partitions can be introduced to divide spaces and enclose rooms while maintaining adaptability (Figure 1.1). They can be assembled, disassembled, and relocated based on the needs of the household. There are three general types of demountable wall systems that can be considered for more interior adaptability. The first is a mobile or operable system. Its panels have a sliding mechanism attached to ceiling tracks which allows panels to slide in and out of place depending on their desired use. This type of system is recommended for occupants who want to modify a space frequently. For example, to gain more privacy, enclose a small workspace from a more public area to limit distraction without permanently partitioning the space. Portable partition system comprises prefabricated panels that are secured to channels in the ceiling and floor. These are a more semi-permanent solution to partitioning space. Finally, demountable systems are walls constructed of prefinished gypsum attached to metal studs at specific intervals. They are easier and faster to deconstruct and modify than traditional wall partitions. For example, they can be used to create two small children’s rooms, when one child moves out, the space may be expanded into one larger room. Each of these systems has varying degrees of permanence to suit the inhabitant’s needs.

Meeting future challenges  13

FIGURE 1.1 Prefabricated

demountable partitions can divide spaces and enclose rooms while maintaining adaptability

Space making strategies

There are a variety of strategies to make efficient use of small interiors. Open floor areas can be subdivided by occupants using furniture to facilitate easy modification and maximize space efficiency. Moveable closets and shelving units, as well as couches, benches, and tables, can effectively subdivide an open plan while maintaining a sense of openness by blurring the visual boundaries between areas, making the unit feel more spacious than with partitioned areas. Additionally, in small spaces, pocket doors should be considered as an alternative to hinged doors to maximize the available floor space. They require less clearance than swinging doors and remain hidden within the wall cavity when opened. The Next Home

The Next Home was first built on the campus of McGill University as a demonstration in 1996. The leading thought behind its design was that contemporary dwellings need to accommodate households with various spatial needs and budgets (Friedman 2002). The unit was designed to be built as detached structure, semi-detached, or be part of a row. With footprints of 6.1 by 12.2 meters (20 by 40 feet), the

14  Avi Friedman

structure can become a single, two- or three-family units where the interior of each dwelling can be made to accommodate different requirements. Open-web floor joists and a horizontal chaser for utilities’ conduits allow bathrooms and kitchens to be located anywhere on each floor. Structures are designed to facilitate ongoing change by facilitating the future addition of internal staircases for vertical connection, converting between single- and multi-level units. Using a menu, the buying process offers choice of internal components and their placement (Figure 1.2). Buyers would first select the number of floors they wished to buy. Designers will then work with them to create a preferred interior layout and desired finishings according to their

FIGURE 1.2 Menu

of external and internal components for builders’ and buyers’ choice

Meeting future challenges  15

budget. Buyers will pay as per their chosen menu items which include the length of interior partitions of their chosen layout. To display the flexibility and range of choices available, the Next Home demonstration unit presented scenarios for the arrangement of each floor based on three fictional households (Figure 1.3). In the ground floor unit, a widower in his late sixties has a small home office, from which he operates a consulting firm. The kitchen and washroom are centrally located, separating the public zone of his office from his living spaces. Storage units partition the bedroom from the living area, and walls are only used to separate the washroom and office entrance. Eventually, his office could be converted to a bedroom or living room and the unit is fully wheelchair accessible to facilitate aging in place. A young couple who resides on the second floor was primarily concerned with affordability. They chose an open plan, using furniture to partition space, with more public functions located toward the front of the unit. Having a small study space was also a priority, placed along the rear of the unit alongside laundry and clothing storage, in an area that could be later converted to an enclosed room (see Chapter 9 for more detail on aging homes). Computer, telephone, and electrical cables were installed in special floor moldings around the perimeter of the unit, providing flexibility to modify or add receptacles in the future. Finally, the third floor was designed for a single parent with two children. The roof at the rear of the structure is raised, allowing a mezzanine above the third floor, used to create a separate living area, bedroom, and bathroom for the parent. A larger kitchen with an area for bar seating was selected, and the public zone with the living and dining area is located at the front of the unit. The two children’s rooms are located at the rear of the unit. Demountable partitions were used, allowing the two bedrooms to be later converted into one living room when the children move out. The Next Home that was adopted and constructed by homebuilders demonstrated how high-density developments with small interiors can be designed for a diverse range of households and facilitate longevity through adaptable design. Prefabricated home for resource efficiency and affordability

Prefabrication is the practice of assembling building components in a factory and transporting complete assemblies or sub-assemblies to the building site for construction (Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica 2022). The rising interest in prefabrication can be attributed to its financial, environmental, quality, and  time-saving advantages. Economies of scale can be achieved through mass production of parts due to the specialization and standardization of pieces (see Chapter 2 for more detail on housing customization) which reduces costs (Bertram et al. 2019, Larsen et al. 2019). Furthermore,

16  Avi Friedman

FIGURE 1.3 

Floor plans of the Next Home

Meeting future challenges  17

industrialization enables manufacturing in controlled indoor settings. This promotes precision during production in comparison to outdoor building sites, especially in a challenging climate. Prefabrication enables production of high-quality elements while also considering workers’ health and safety. Since fabrication is not weather dependent, it allows sensitive tasks, such as waterproofing or spray processes to continue regardless of weather conditions (Derananian & Donlon 2019). As a result, the improved work environment increases productivity and product’s quality. Once the prefabricated parts are completed, they can be inspected and amended in the plant if needed (Derananian & Donlon 2019). Furthermore, a reduction of on-site construction time lowers labor costs and limits damage due to warping, rot, vandalism, and theft. The assembly of prefabricated parts usually requires a smaller team of workers and construction coordination is simplified as a result. Main types of prefabrication methods

The three main types of prefabrication are panelized, modular, kit of parts, and Plug and Play. Panelized prefabrication is the most widely used, and the end products are also referred to as 2D elements. Panels of different sizes, some only with framing and others with insulation and windows, are assembled according to plans to form the bearing structure of the building (Derananian & Donlon 2019). Panel systems applicable to wood-frame residential construction can be categorized as: (1) open-sheathed panels, (2) structural sandwich panels, and (3) unsheathed structural panels (Derananian & Donlon 2019). Unsheathed structural panels’ greatest advantage is overcoming the inadequate workmanship which may be found in conventional construction site without resorting to unfamiliar building techniques (Figure 1.4). Furthermore, alternative timber products such as cross laminated timber (CLT), dowel laminated timber (DLT), and glulam are panel systems not widely used for multifamily housing. However, the 2021 version of the International Building Code is projected that the use of mass timber will be permitted in taller buildings (Hoyt 2020). Modular construction refers to factory fabrication of sections that consist of an entire house or a part of one also referred to as 3D elements. Once manufactured and produced, the sections are sent to the site where they are hoisted into place by crane (Bertram et al. 2019). The maximum width of modules for road transport that does not require a special vehicle escort is typically around 4.8 meters (16 feet). This either increases the cost of transporting larger units if an escort is needed or limits the size of modules. Using modules can cut construction time by 20–50% and costs by 20% (Bertram et al. 2019). A 3D approach to building has potential for maximum efficiencies and time savings and is most suitable for affordable housing projects (Bertram et al. 2019).

18  Avi Friedman

FIGURE 1.4 Axonometric

showing exterior and interior components of an affordable prefab home

Kit of parts consists of well-marked pieces, such as studs or windows, that are shipped to the site for assembly. This method can be understood as pre-cut and labeled components that are sized for convenient handling that match the dimensions of shipping constraints. They are the tightest way to pack elements and therefore are recommended for shipping over long distances. The assemblies are conceived in a systematic way, based on a certain increment, size, or shape (Howe et al. 1999). After rules of connection and increments are established, the number of possible shapes and appearance is limitless. Regardless of the method, the use of prefabricated construction turns the building process into an “assembly line” style of work in a safe and controlled environment (Howe et al. 1999). Plug and Play homes are prefabricated, modular units that can be installed rapidly and made ready for immediate use by simply plugging in their utilities (People’s Architecture Office 2013). The term Plug and Play originated from the realm of electronics that refers to products installed by the user and can function immediately without professional help and can subsequently unplugged and removed or repositioned with equal ease. With modern shipping techniques, Plug and Play are dwellings that can be transported or relocated

Meeting future challenges  19

worldwide. Unlike other types of prefabricated methods, which call for some assembly, Plug and Play units require no site work and mostly need to be connected to utilities once placed (Stinson 2018). The Pod Home

The Pod Home is a design concept for the construction of affordable, adaptable, and sustainable housing using prefabrication strategies. The design goal is to plan for the evolution of neighborhoods, through the addition of new homes and easy modification of existing ones with minimal cost and environmental impact. The Pod Home design enables a variety of configurations to create diverse, higher density neighborhoods. Structures can be connected, and the number of floors increased to improve density. The strategy allows for the creation of single-family structures, duplexes, and triplexes. A selection of roof types, add-ons, and projections can be used to add diversity and variation to the built environment. The design is named for its use of prefabricated pods, containing the unit’s main utility functions to simplify construction. Pods are manufactured and shipped to the site, ready for installation. They are composed of a rigid outer structure with a flexible internal arrangement, depending on the unit’s specifications. Pods can contain any combination of six main functions: mechanical space, storage space, bathroom, kitchen, laundry, and stairs. They are available in three different sizes: 0.9 by 2.4 meters (3 by 8 feet) containing two to three functions, 1.5 by 2.4 meters (5 by 8 feet) containing four to five functions, and 1.5 by 3.6 meters (5 by 12 feet) containing four to six functions (Figure 1.5). For example, in a smaller one-story unit, a single medium pod could accommodate the kitchen, bathroom, laundry, and mechanical space for the household. For example, a larger, multi-story unit may have one large pod containing the kitchen, bathroom, laundry, mechanical space, and stairs on the main level, with an additional pod containing a second bathroom, storage, or mechanical space on the second floor. This system allows for a high degree of flexibility based on the needs of each household while enabling homes to be efficiently constructed. The internal layout of each unit is highly flexible. A variety of configurations can be created depending on the placement of pods within units, which can be located strategically to organize space within the home. The standard model has a footprint of 4.3 by 11 meters (14 by 32 feet) and the smaller economy model measures 3.6 by 9.7 meters (12 by 32 feet). Pods are designed to be easily placed anywhere within the structure. The grouping of wet functions and appliances reduces the amount of plumbing installation and mechanical space required, reducing construction time, costs, and materials needed. Once installed in the unit, the pods are connected to water and power systems through chasers in the structure below. Chasers run lengthwise

20  Avi Friedman

FIGURE 1.5 Pods

come in different sizes and can contain any combination of six main functions: mechanical space, storage space, bathroom, kitchen, laundry, and stairs

along a structural grid aligned with the floor joists and girders, allowing pods to be located anywhere on the grid. The Pod Home design demonstrates how prefabrication can be used in residential developments to streamline the construction process without sacrificing on the customization and flexibility offered by on-site construction (Figure 1.6). The solution comes from the prefabricated pods, grouping together the units’ main functions according to the demands of each household. Final thoughts

It is likely that demand for natural resources will increase and force innovative designs and construction methods to reduce consumption. The future of flexibility, prefabrication, and efficient construction will unfold

Meeting future challenges  21

FIGURE 1.6 

A community made up of pod homes

on par with BIM software (Zairul 2021). The major hurdles to overcome are increasing construction costs and as a result lack of affordable housing. In the future, the challenges of rising costs could be offset by new engineering and construction prototypes which will unlock productivity gains and save money. Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Lucy Anderson, Synthia Lagurre – Hemelear and Rosslyn Sinclair for their contribution to the background research of this chapter. To Charles Charles Grégoire for the collaboration on the Pod Home design and to Jasmin S. Fréchette, Cyrus M. Bilimoria, David Krawitz, and Doug Raphael for their contribution to the Next Home Design.

22  Avi Friedman

References Bertram, N, Blanco, JL, Mischke, J, Andersson, N (2019). Scaling Modular Construction. In Global Infrastructure Initiative by McKinsey & Company. https://www. mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/operations/our%20insights/ voices%20on%20infrastructure%20scaling%20modular%20construction/giivoices-sept-2019.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2022. Derananian, AR, Donlon, MK (2019). Panelized Wall Systems – Joint Detailing for Success – IIBEC. In IIBEC. https://iibec.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-ctsderananian-donlon.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2022. Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2022). Prefabrication. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/technology/prefabrication. Accessed October 1, 2022. EEA (2020). Why is Resource Efficiency Important? — European. In European Environment Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/waste/resource-efficiency/whyis-resource-efficiency-important. Accessed October 1, 2022. Friedman, A (2002). The Adaptable House: Designing for Choice and Change, McGraw-Hill, New York. Howe, AS, Ishii, I, Yoshida, T (1999). Kit-of-parts: A Review of Object-Oriented Construction Techniques. In ISARC Proceedings. https://www.iaarc.org/publications/ proceedings_of_the_16th_isarc/kitofpartsa_review_of_objectoriented_construction_ techniques.html. Accessed October 1, 2022. Hoyt, H (2020). Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. In Joint Center of Housing Studies. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/media/imp/harvard_jchs_ gramlich_design_and_construction_strategies_multifamily_hoyt_2020_3.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2022. Hoyt, H, Schuetz, J (2020). Thoughtful Design can Create High-Quality Affordable Multifamily Housing. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. https:// www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/affordable-housing-doesnt-have-to-look-cheapinside-or-out. Accessed October 1, 2022. Khan, M, Bilyk, O, Ackman, M (2021). Update on Housing Market Imbalances and Household Indebtedness. Bank of Canada. https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2021/04/ staff-analytical-note-2021-4/. Accessed October 1, 2022. Dhar, TK, Hossain, MSM, Rahaman, KR (2013). How Does Flexible Design Promotes Resource Efficiency for Housing? A Study of Khulna, Bangladesh. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 2(2), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/ SASBE-10-2012-0051. Accessed October 1, 2022. Larsen, MSS, Lindhard, SM, Brunoe, TD (2019). Mass Customization in the House Building Industry: Literature Review and Research Directions. In Frontiers. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2019.00115. Accessed October 1, 2022. Nelson, A (2018). Chapter 2: Once We Were Small: Traditional and Contemporary Homes. In Small Is Necessary: Shared Living on a Shared Planet (pp. 21–43). Pluto Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1zk0mpz.8. Accessed May 28, 2022. People’s Architecture Office (2013). Courtyard House Plugin/People’s Architecture Office. http://www.peoples-architecture.com/pao/en/project-detail/3. Accessed October 1, 2022. Statistica (2021). Affordability of Single-Family Detached Homes in Canada 2nd Quarter 2021, By Market. https://www.statista.com/statistics/720848/affordabilityof-single-family-detached-homes-by-market-canada/. Accessed October 1, 2022.

Meeting future challenges  23

Stinson, L (2018). Prefab ‘Plug-in Houses’ Help Revitalize Dilapidated Buildings. In: Curbed. https://archive.curbed.com/2018/12/18/18145769/prefab-plugin-houseshelp-revitalize-dilapidated-buildings. Accessed October 1, 2022. United Nations Climate Change (2021). COP26 Explained. Vachon, M. (2018). The Ever-Shrinking Condo. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 27(2), 37–50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26542035. Accessed October 1, 2022. Zairul, M. (2021).The Recent Trends on Prefabricated Buildings with Circular Economy (CE) Approach. Cleaner Engineering and Technology Journal, 4(2021), 1–12. https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666790821001993?via%3Dihub. Accessed September 3, 2023.

2 MASS PRODUCTION VERSUS INDIVIDUALISATION Des Fagan

The problem of limited house design variation

Concerns over the impact of low variation in housing have been overshadowed by the crises of affordability and sustainability as a consequence of the developing priorities of global governments and communities. Despite this, recent housing research is beginning to connect design quality and variation with the problem of affordability, due to two primary factors. Firstly, increasingly low site build-out rates for volume house building are compounding the issue of undersupply and, thus, housing affordability. In the UK, Sir Oliver Letwin, in his 2018 report to the government on build-out rates, found that completion rates were just 6.5% per year across large sites, with completion of 1,500 homes taking 15.5 years on average. Significantly, Letwin found that: … the size and style (and physical context) of the homes on offer will typically be fairly homogeneous… Even relatively slight variations are clearly sufficient to create additional demand – and hence additional absorption, leading to a higher rate of build out… (Letwin, 2018). Secondly, in the UK, increasing numbers of planning refusals are being registered as a direct consequence of low variation in new build housing estates, due to the paucity of contextual adaptation of identical houses to their vernacular tectonic, scale or form. A 2020 report into the impact of housing quality by the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence concluded that housing design was severely undervalued across the UK, which had seen planning authorities historically prioritise house building targets over quality. In a bid to address this, the 2021 UK National Design Guide reinforced the importance of ‘Identity’ as one of the ten principles of good design, stating that: Well-designed places, buildings and spaces have DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244-3

Mass production  25

a character that suits the context, its history, how we live today and how we are likely to live in the future. With this move likely to empower local authorities to refuse planning permission for low-variation housing design, it will contribute further pressure on supply and affordability, if planning policy on contextualisation and variation is not appropriately adhered to by the house builder. The problem of housing variation is not just restricted to the UK, but appears to impact countries with higher population density across Europe, notably Germany and the Netherlands (Housing Europe, 2021). In the US, reduced pressure on land values means that design variation has less impact on affordability, instead providing a route to increased profitability for the house builder. The profitability of custom, one-off housing design in the US is higher than that of mass produced ‘tract’ housing, due to the additional time and adaptation required for customisation and bespoke building techniques. The criterion for ensuring profitability for house builders in US custom housing appears to reside in the complexity versus time conundrum. Builders often choose mass-produced homes over custom builds due to the perception that standardised materials and labour make construction quicker and more cost-effective. Mass production in housing design

The concept of standardising and mass-producing the construction of buildings became increasingly popular at the beginning of the twentieth century (Gann, 1996) when architects were inspired by how the automotive industry implemented mechanised fabrication and technological advancements at scale. Following the housing crisis at the end of World War II (WWII), countries across Europe were well placed to mass produce buildings in response to depleted stock with a newfound efficiency (Kronenburg, 2013). Prefabrication as a tool for mass production developed into established localised systems for creating low-cost permanent housing; offsite modules including the Swedish aerated brick Ytong (1939) and the Swiss Stalhton beam and block system (1945) provided the material for European home builders to create highly customisable living spaces. In other instances, standardisation and prefabrication were used in a direct attempt to improve variation and architectural quality. Le Havre city centre, rebuilt after WWII with prefabricated concrete components patented by French engineer Raymond Camus, provided a high-quality replacement for the original urban texture, despite the inherent nature of the system as standardised and prefabricated (Figure 2.1). The Camus system was launched in 1948 and consisted of customisable, decorative and elaborate prefabricated components including walls, doors and windows with integrated water pipes, electrical wiring and gas pipes providing a significant reduction in onsite labour.

26  Des Fagan

FIGURE 2.1 

Housing by Le Perret in Le Havre, France (1955) using the Camus system

Impressed by the use of the system, General Secretary Khrushchev bought the Camus building system’s license for volume house building in the Soviet Union in the 1950s, developing it further in a bid to solve the extreme housing crisis resulting from WWII. However, Khrushchev rejected the elements that provided the Camus system with scope for variation and decoration as ‘bourgeois architecture’. The Soviet speed and the scale of the microdistrict construction required significant standardisation, and such details were omitted. To build a large amount of housing in the shortest time possible, ornamentation and unique design solutions were removed from the adopted Camus system, and density increased from five floors to nine (Panteleyeva, 2016). The Soviet housing programme was one of the most significant housing projects of the twentieth century, but through a combination of over-standardisation, constructional deficiencies and high maintenance costs, these houses, referred to as Khrushchyovka (Figure 2.2) by occupiers, are today deemed as substandard, repetitive and now typify the eastern European housing style, with many included in the 2017 state program for demolition (Engel, 2019). The prioritisation of standardisation over variation proliferates when cost and time are critical factors in house building (Larsen et al., 2019). Modern volume house builders increasingly adopt mass production techniques by replicating identical housing footprints across countries, often without regional variation, by dressing buildings differently through minimal variation

Mass production  27

FIGURE 2.2 

Khrushchyovka housing in Tomsk, Russia (1960) using the Camus system

of material tectonics applied to their facades (Adams & Payne, 2011). According to one UK Housebuilder …there are about 16 or 17 house types and there are different variations of each one and there are different styles of each house type. But the footprint, the layout and the accommodation contained within it and what comes with it in terms of a garage or whatever else remains the same… (White et al., 2020). Individualisation in housing design

In ‘Future Shock’ Toffler (1970) introduced the term prosumer to describe the dual producer and consumer role of the client; in this way, individualisation serves to democratise the task of design. In contrast to mass production, it involves active client participation in decision-making that may range from the choice of wall colour to the full customisation of size and shape of house. The faculty of choice for the client is important, as the perception of value for housing is continuously changing due to evolving family profiles, lifestyle and the subjectivity involved in the assessment of housing products (Hentschke et al., 2022). Customers are becoming more demanding and are actively purchasing houses according to their diverse and changing economic and social contexts, with the need for individualisation and future

28  Des Fagan

adaptation a high priority due to changing family circumstances (Jun et al., 2020). In response to this, modular systems of building have been proposed since the mid-nineteenth century as a solution to the problem of choice. Modularity aims to provide customisable, flexible use, preventing complexity through standardisation whilst providing variation through spatial combination. One of the world’s earliest successful volume modular housing builders was the Sears Modern Home Program, which packaged and shipped nearly 400 different types of homes, providing a substantial variety in the choice of style, size and material finish. Today, Japan is considered a global leader in modular housebuilding; typically, a firm will offer up to 300 variations from standard designs which can then be adapted by the customer. Japanese builder Sekisui House offers 22 house models, each with approximately 50 different floor plans. These can be built in steel or timber frames, finished externally in various prefabricated cladding systems, with interiors that can be adapted to three basic design concepts (Japanese, Western or hybrid). Some choices are restricted, however, as exterior cladding choices are controlled by building and planning regulations and by the size and shape of the plot. Nevertheless, the permutations of design, construction technology, interior design and specification are significant compared with those offered by housebuilders in most countries. House configurators for client choice

The contemporary application of configuration toolkits for housing is primarily attributed to the ‘customisation via stating solutions’ architecture (Herrmann et al., 2013) – electronic catalogues offer filtered information on housing options to allow homebuyers to navigate solutions prior to manufacture. An example is the NuLiving configurator for the Beechwood housing estate in Basildon, UK by Pollard Thomas Edwards/BPTW in 2018, which offers several stylistically varied house designs with customisation options relating to exterior/interior elements, including interior finishes, appliances and cladding. The configurator provides a fully zoom-, pan- and rotate-able solution space for the visualisation of iterative design choices for clients in the context of the street within which the house will be constructed (Figures 2.3 and 2.4). This gives the client increased design autonomy, within the parameters of the housebuilder’s options, to explore, populate and visualise their own iteration of family home. The design configurator was popularised by the practice of fashion and car customisation in the early 2010s, but with the recent advent of cloud computing and WebGL, a configurator is now able to provide increased complexity and instantaneous visual feedback integrated with the parameters of fabrication.

Mass production  29

FIGURE 2.3 

NuLiving design configurator for Beechwood Village, UK

FIGURE 2.4  Street

visualisation, Beechwood Village, UK, by Pollard Thomas Edwards (2016)

30  Des Fagan

Parametrically optimised housing design

Despite increased choice enabling flexibility within the solution space (see Chapter 1 for more detail on housing flexibility), the offering of numerous options may become labour and time-intensive, requiring costing and fabrication research for all design alternatives. The identification of standard components, dimensions or geometries within the solution space may reduce the total time and cost of a project if optimised, repeating elements can be identified within a house design dependent upon what the client or house builder is willing to accept within the complexity versus time conundrum. Parametric software such as Generative Design for Revit and Dynamo, Digital Project 3D and Grasshopper by Bentley all feature optimisation software to identify repeating patterns of shape or materiality, which can reduce excess bespoke unit sizes by defining an idealised standard unit or form to reduce costs and complexity of fabrication (Garip, 2021). Advances in cloud computing for software integration with these parametric applications now provide designers with the opportunity to embed their parametric house model definitions into a user-friendly front-end web configurator. For example, ShapeDiver (Canestrino, 2021) provides designers with an effective software ‘twin’ of their parametrically defined models by hosting their Rhino/Grasshopper definitions on remote servers. In real terms, this means that clients can directly explore all solution spaces on a simplified user interface, despite the ‘backend’ consisting of a potentially highly complex, standardised and parametrically constrained live house model. When the customer finalises their house design, Grasshopper can then auto-generate fabrication drawings that can be sent directly to contractors for manufacture. This has the significant time advantage of bypassing the need to programme any tertiary software for a configurator. It also provides a more direct route for production at scale and with complexity, by evoking the significant library of parametric and generative design tools within Grasshopper at the discretion of the designer.

Artificial Intelligence and individualised housing design

The increased processing power of personal computing in the last decade has led to a reinvigorated fascination with the application of machine learning (ML) to solve design and optimisation problems in the housing sector. With ML, a software model is trained on a dataset of existing images or data to classify, segment and then generate new outputs that might respond to a new context, problem or prompt. Spacemaker AI by Autodesk provides an online portal to automatically generate building forms based on data from its surroundings (Bognar, 2021), using existing datasets. This may relate to sunlight, noise, microclimate, planning constraints, building regulations and view

Mass production  31

analysis, amongst other parameters. In relation to variation for design, Spacemaker AI provides generative and AI-based tools to describe the optimised response of individual forms to micro-climates within a larger master plan. For the design of a new-build housing estate, the software can generate accurate recommendations on the suitability of individual house or apartment designs within the context of its own master plan. Thus, a speculative house design that is south-facing and near a road may be optimised by Spacemaker AI as two storeys (to preserve important views from other houses), require fewer windows (due to heat gain) and require increased acoustic treatment on specific facades (due to noise pollution). The importance of the software is in its ability to provide multiple options at scale instantaneously while retaining the detail of microclimate and contextual adaptation for individual buildings within large sites. This provides a solution to the problem of variation at scale for volume house builders: By viewing sites as custom design solutions responsive to their own micro-climate/-context, rather than a site populated by repeat, identical units at scale. Similarly, datasets of existing images of houses, featuring both internal design and external form and materiality, can train an ML model to generate new, uniquely generated images of house designs that are an amalgamation of existing designs. This form of ML, called deep learning (DL), leverages existing human design intelligence by learning from historically designed housing images, stylistically altering them to generate an entirely new version. Developed by entrepreneur Pieter Levels, This House Does Not Exist (THDNE) is an online web portal that allows users to generate images of homes that do not yet exist, trained on a dataset of images taken from the architecture site ArchDaily. The program uses latent text-to-image diffusion, with a written prompt to automatically generate images of houses via a model that is trained on images from the ArchDaily website. DL used in this way acts as a decision support system for clients and designers to re-imagine and option new houses in different contexts with stylistic prompts, without the need to understand the complexity of ML or DL coding. This provides a useful design tool for the individualisation of housing design based on textual client prompts, albeit in this instance, one that is stylistically limited to the dataset of ArchDaily images. Websites such as Picto3D use AI algorithms that can then turn this image into a 3D model by converting it into a 32-bit depth map, but this process is currently limited to superficial depth mapping with a high level of error. The major issues for designers and contractors with DL images of houses generated in this way are that they are inconsistent and do not generate reliable 3D data which can then be used for fabrication. For example, a DL image of a house may indicate a roof overhang that is structurally impossible, as the model is not trained to ‘understand’ the structural performance requirements of a new house amalgamated from existing images. As such, the process remains a useful design support tool but cannot yet provide

32  Des Fagan

construction drawings that may be generated through the alternative generative parametric approach. Like the DL-based housing form generator THDNE, Levels also authored the web portal Interiorai.com where a client can upload an interior photo of their existing home to generate a new, re-stylised version of it, using as many as 30 different stylistic prompts, including Biophilic, Cyberpunk and Baroque. This circumvents the problem of fabrication, as the process represents stylistic alteration to an existing scaled building, as opposed to an entirely ‘new’ geometric scale-less form as presented in THDNE. Software portals such as these form part of a larger process of democratising creativity, making more advanced tools accessible to a larger and wider audience. While some raise concerns about the impact that these technologies could have on building industry professionals (Mohamed, 2022), many view them as powerful tools that can enhance the design process and provide decision support for clients to maximise their capacity to creatively imagine their own homes, expanding their vocabulary of design to raise expectations on what their own individual housing design can be, as opposed to accepting low variation design options, offered as standard by some volume housing contractors. Individualisation at scale: Innovation in the fabrication of variation

Despite demonstrable technological innovation in democratising software tools for housing design, the challenge remains for the construction industry to realise highly individualised designs through fabrication and construction processes that are comparable in cost and time to those of standardised housing options. Few volume housing companies offer client input into building geometry at a dimensional level, i.e., for form and exact size. Dimensional customisation refers to the tailoring of house design to allow for any size, shape and dimension before fabrication and assembly (Khalili-Araghi and Kolarevic, 2020). In theory, this characterises the most complete type of customisation, i.e., one that represents an entirely bespoke form. However, the risk of non-standard components also corresponds to high cost for manufacture and high material waste if the supplied materials need to be resized to fit. The discovery of an idealised or standardised ‘unit’ within the mass production versus individualisation conundrum is subject to the discovery of the optimal trade-off between variability and cost, which can be achieved via parametrical optimisation, as described in an earlier section. Several systems have been developed in the last decade to try to solve the problem of dimensional customisation at scale. The most widely adopted of these is arguably the 2011 Open Source WikiHouse project, which provides smaller, online 3D components that may be downloaded, CNC-milled and erected in as little as a day. Although not delivering full dimensional

Mass production  33

FIGURE 2.5 

Architecture unknown/digital Woodoo/WikiHouse

customisation, the system provides freely available files describing approximately 140 components that can be milled from plywood and combined to create a wide variety of housing forms (Figure 2.5). Using this system, Architecture Unknown in collaboration with Digital Woodoo, a Community Interest Group and manufacturer/erector of WikiHouses in the UK, tested the design of unique homes in 2021 to respond to the individual requirements of a group of users and the constraints of both the UK Design Code and Design Guide, finding that the system provides flexible and responsive means for customisable, mass-produced social housing. Studio Bark Architects developed a similar system ‘U-Build’ in 2020 for their Box House scheme (Figure 2.6). The system represents a series of ‘boxes’ that are CNC-milled using a parametric computational workflow that can convert bespoke client designs into fabrication drawings, with associated costing and visualisations. Finalised drawings are sent to a CNC fabricator and arrive on-site as a kit of parts for assembly. Using basic tools, the panels are assembled into ‘boxes’ which are stacked and bolted to form the walls, floor and roof structure and filled with sheep’s wool. The finished frame is left exposed if it is an interior structure or fitted with a membrane and cladding if required to be weatherproof. At the end of the building’s life, the boxes can be taken apart and reconfigured, recycled or even sold to other U-Builders. Although these systems represent small ‘units’ of standardised building blocks, effectively combining customisation with mass production, difficulties

34  Des Fagan

FIGURE 2.6 

Box House, Bicester by Studio Bark – U Build.

Credit: Lenny Codd

still exist in the achievement of cost-effective full customisation of form and dimensionality for manufacture. 3D printing has been proposed as one solution, but it is currently limited by structural performance, the narrow range of compatible materials and the poor surface finish of the final product (Holt et al., 2019), limiting contemporary widespread adoption. Policy: Modern methods of construction and the platform approach

Modern methods of construction (MMC), the catch-all phrase for nontraditional means of building, is a term adopted by the construction sector to describe contemporary innovation in modular, prefabricated and offsite building methods. The UK Government has bought into the perceived cost saving that MMC promises, demonstrated in their 2020 announcement through Homes England that housing associations wishing to access the £11.5bn Affordable Housing Programme must commit to using MMC to deliver at least a quarter of their housing stock. However, to counter this technological optimism, the high-profile failure of modular and custom house companies in recent years must be acknowledged to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated. The closure of modular house builder Katerra in the US in 2021, accompanied by the failure of several modular firms in the UK, including ‘Home’ by Urban Splash in 2022, shows that profitability is a key to private investment in modular housing production at scale. According

Mass production  35

to Green (2022), the primary reason for this is that ‘capital productivity too often falls below the expectations of the investors’, and thus profit margins in the labour-intensive and materially extensive process of private modular house building are slight. Strategically leveraging the benefits of commonality, the adoption of a ‘platform systems’ approach to construction (a process of discovering standard components and their potential for reproduction) is currently being pursued by the UK cabinet office as a systems-based solution to deliver mass customised public buildings including hospitals and schools, affording a variety of choice, whilst maintaining an efficient method of production (Wood, 2022). It remains to be seen if this approach can be successfully adopted to navigate existing policy, regulation and the low-profit potential of masscustomised private and affordable house building. Conclusion

Despite recent high-profile failures of modular companies across the globe, optimism still remains for the successful operation of individualisation in volume housing production as evidenced in newly introduced government policy. Recent advances in the technologies of design and communication provided by parametric configurators and DL have expanded the design vocabulary of clients to provide excellent tools to democratise design, empowering homeowners to demand individualisation for their housing. The challenge of design has been met by fabrication innovators who have addressed the problem of dimensional customisation through unit-based systems including WikiHouse and U-Build. The key challenges in the successful resolution of mass production versus individualisation for housing appear to reside in the low-profit margins and high initial factory start-up costs for builders pursuing customisable, modular designs. Consequently, to accelerate the delivery of individualised mass-produced housing, a joined-up approach between modular housing firms and local councils, facilitated through up-front investment by central governments, may serve as the approach most likely to succeed in order to facilitate client choice and to address the problem of low housing variation in future. References Adams, D., & Payne, S. (2011). “Business as usual?” – Exploring the design response of UK speculative housebuilders to the brownfield development challenge. In Urban Design in the Real Estate Development Process (pp. 199–218), S. Tiesdell & D. Adams (eds.). Bognar, M. (2021). Prospects of AI in architecture: Symbolicism, connectionism, actionism. Journal of Architectural Informatics Society, 1–20. https://openreview.net/ pdf?id=gvHffM4DlpG

36  Des Fagan

Canestrino, G. (2021). Use of Parametric Approach for User-Oriented Development in Building Design: Preliminary Investigations, The Academic Research Community Publication. Engel, B. (2019). Mass Housing in the Socialist City Heritage, Values, and Perspectives: Case Studies in Germany, Russia, and Ukraine (p. 95). DOM Publishers. Gann, D. M. (1996). Construction as a manufacturing process? Similarities and differences between industrialised housing and car production in Japan. Construction Management and Economics, 14(5), 437–450. Garip, E. (2021). A model for mass customisation and flexibility in mass housing units. Open House International, 114, 636–650. Green, S. D. (2022). Modern methods of construction: Reflections on the current research agenda. Buildings and Cities, 3(1), 653–662. Hentschke, C. D. S., Echeveste, M. E. S., Formoso, C. T., & Ribeiro, J. L. D. (2022). Method for capturing demands for housing customisation: Balancing value for customers and operations costs. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 311–337. Herrmann, A., Ildebrand, C., & Häubl, G. (2013). Product customization via starting solutions. In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 41, S. Botti & A. Labroo. Association for Consumer Research. Available at: https://www.acrwebsite.org/ volumes/1015503/volumes/v41/NA-41 Holt, C., Edwards, L., Keyte, L., Farzad, M., & Belinda, T. (2019). 3D Concrete Printing Technology. Butterworth-Heinemann. Housing Europe. (2021). The State of Housing in Europe 2021. https://www. housingeurope.eu/resource-1540/the-state-of-housing-in-europe-in-2021 Jun, H. J., Kim, J. H., Rhee, D. Y., & Chang, S. W. (2020). “SeoulHouse2Vec”: An embedding-based collaborative filtering housing recommender system for analysing housing preference. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(17), 6964. Khalili-Araghi, S., & Kolarevic, B. (2020). Variability and validity: Flexibility of a dimensional customisation system. Automation in Construction, 109. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.102970 Kronenburg, R. (2013). Architecture in Motion The History and Development of Portable Building. Routledge. Larsen, M. S. S., Andersen, A. L., Nielsen, K., & Brunoe, T. D. (2019). Challenges in developing modular services in manufacturing companies: A multiple case study in Danish manufacturing industry. Procedia CIRP, 81, 399–404. Letwin, O. (2018). Independent Review of Build Out Final Report. HM Government. Mohamed, B. E. (2022). Mass customization of housing: A framework for harmonizing individual needs with factory produced housing. Buildings, 12(7), 955. Panteleyeva, M. (2016). Transfers of Modernism: Constructing Soviet Postwar Urbanity. 104th ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings, Shaping New Knowledges, 440–449. Toffler, A. (1970). Future Shock. Random House. White, J. T., Kenny, T., Samuel, F., Foye, C., James, G., & Serin, B. (2020). Delivering design value : The housing design quality conundrum. UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence, Glasgow. https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/226974/ Wood, B. (2022). Delivery Platforms for Government Assets. HM Government.

3 NET-ZERO HOMES AND PASSIVHAUS Alejandro Moreno-Rangel, Juan Manuel Vázquez and Marcelo Huenchuñir

Introduction

When we refer to net-zero homes, we often think of homes that use so little energy that we can meet the demand by on-site renewable energy generation. There are many ways to achieve this, but the Passivhaus is one of the most well-known and tested methods. This chapter will explore what net-zero means, how we can achieve it with the Passive House Standard (MorenoRangel, 2021) and what the future of net-zero looks like in different aspects of the home. Net-zero is the future of the home, and Passivhaus is a tool to achieve it. There are several benefits associated with net-zero in critical areas: the indoor environment, the building itself and the neighbourhood.

Net-zero homes without compromising the life standard

The recent interest in Climate Change has put pressure on society to change how we build our homes. According to the IPCC (2022) report, in 2019, the building sector accounted for 21% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, of which residential buildings accounted for 50%. However, this figure only considers the operational side of the carbon emissions. When adding those from the construction materials manufacturing, their transport and decommissioning of the building, this figure manufacturing goes beyond 50% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. These estimations have gradually increased over the last decades (IPCC, 2022). Although moved by the Climate Emergency and the ambitious national net-zero targets, some countries have adopted high energy-efficient building strategies into their building regulations. A clear example is Scotland, where the Scottish Parliament voted in DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244-4

38  Alejandro Moreno-Rangel et al.

2022 to impose a Scottish equivalent to the Passivhaus as minimum Building regulations by 2025. Designing and building homes to ultra-energy efficient standards or even incorporating on-site energy production is a way to minimise their carbon emissions. This is often referred to as net-zero homes, a concept that has become mainstream due to the Climate Emergency declared in several countries. The carbon emissions in net-zero homes have two principles: operational and constructional (Attia, 2018). Net-zero carbon construction homes are those where the amount of carbon emissions associated with the building materials and construction phases is zero or negative. So, a house made entirely of natural materials using a timber frame with biofibre insulation has the potential to capture more carbon than the total emitted during its construction making it carbon-positive. In net-zero carbon operational energy homes, the energy consumption (including heating, cooling, ventilation and appliances) is so tiny that renewable energy production on-site is enough to offset the home demands, like in Passivhaus homes. Hence, the annual carbon emissions from the energy used to operate the building are zero or negative as they come from renewable sources. In practice, this means that a home may produce more energy than they consume for part of the year, and the contrary may be true for the other part of the year. However, as long as the annual energy demands are close to the annual energy production, net-zero is achieved (Marszal et al., 2011). Hence to become truly net-zero, we need to focus on both operation and construction. While net-zero homes are technically different from “normal homes”, they don’t look different, nor are they different to live in. Like any other home, their functionality and aesthetics vary from country to country but are not intrinsically related to the net-zero design. Net-zero homes can adapt to local aesthetics or building regulations, but their design is linked to the skills of architects, building designers and local contractors. Achieving the net-zero with the Passivhaus Standard

Passive House or Passivhaus refers to ultra-low energy buildings that are incredibly comfortable and economical to operate (see Chapter 4 for more detail on house and comfort). However, the term Passive House could also refer to buildings that rely purely on passive architecture (i.e., passive solar) and do not necessarily adhere to the Passivhaus Standard. Hence, the Passivhaus term will be used in this chapter to refer to homes that comply with the Passivhaus certification. A Passivhaus is […] a building, for which thermal comfort (ISO 7730) can be achieved solely by post-heating or post-cooling of the fresh air mass, which is required to achieve sufficient indoor air quality conditions – without the need for additional recirculation of air (PHI, 2021).

Net-zero homes  39 TABLE 3.1  Main Criteria Requirements for Passivhaus Buildings

Passivhaus Certification Criteria (Residential)

Cool-Moderate Climate (Central European)

Specific heating demand OR specific heating load Specific cooling demand OR specific cooling load AND specific cooling demand

≤15 ≤10 ≤15 ≤10 ≤4

Global renewable primary energy demand Airtightness n50 Overheating frequency

≤60

kWh/(m2a) W/m2 kWh/(m2a) + 0.3 W/(m2aK). DDH W/m2 kWh/(m²a). σe + 2 • 0.3 W/(m²aK). DDH-75 kWh/(m²a) kWh/m2a

≤0.6 10%

h-1 (@50 Pa) Percentage of time with an operative temperature above 25°C σe: annual mean external air temperature (°C). DDH refers to dry-degree hours. Source: Adapted from: Moreno-Rangel (2021).

Passivhaus buildings must also demonstrate that they comply with specific requirements (Table 3.1) calculated in the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) software. In cold climates, such as those in Europe or North America, meeting the heating load and demand without conventional heating systems is a critical aspect of Passivhaus. On the contrary, the cooling load and demands could significantly impact warmer or temperate climates, such as those in Latin America or Australasia. Indoor temperatures in Passivhaus homes should not exceed 25°C and are usually delivered through the supply-air heating/cooling loads that should not exceed 10 W/m2. Hence, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) systems with an efficiency higher than 75% are often used to simultaneously meet this requirement and fresh air (30 m3/per person) (Moreno-Rangel, 2021). By prioritising energy demands and thermal comfort, the Passivhaus can achieve operational net-zero, unlike other net-zero carbon standards. The Passivhaus design has five essential principles1 (Figure 3.1): adequate thermal insulation, high-performance doors and windows, adequate ventilation strategy (usually through MVHR or HVAC), airtight building envelope and thermal bridge-reduced design (Moreno-Rangel, 2021). However, in warmer climates, it is also necessary to incorporate solar protection to reduce the heat gains through the windows. While Passivhaus homes may use around 90% less energy compared to traditional homes, they still need to go beyond to meet the net-zero. In 2016, a concept called Aktivhaus was presented in a book where the authors argue that a Passivhaus could easily become a positive energy home (Hegger et al., 2016).

40  Alejandro Moreno-Rangel et al.

FIGURE 3.1 

Passivhaus principles

Source: © Passive House Institute

Naturally, this concept made its way to the Passivhaus Standard and several certification levels for Passivhaus buildings were introduced:

• Passivhaus Classic are ultra-energy efficient buildings as described above –

their PER demand is ≤60 kWh/m2a with NO renewable energy generation, • Passivhaus Plus are buildings in which the annual renewable energy production is enough to meet their annual consumption – their PER demand is ≤45 kWh/m2a and have a renewable energy generation of ≥60 kWh/ m2a, and • Passivhaus Premium are buildings that produce more renewable energy than they consume – their primary energy renewable (PER) demand is ≤30 kWh/m2a and have a renewable energy generation of ≥120 kWh/m2a. Hence, the Passivhaus Plus would achieve the net-zero target, while Passivhaus Premium would exceed it. The Plus and Premium Passivhaus not only produce energy compared to the Passivhaus Classic. They also reduce the renewable primary energy demand needed to run the house making it more plausible to achieve net-zero and auto-sufficient with on-site renewable energy generation. Nonetheless, the rest of the principles and heating/cooling demands (≤15 kWh/m2a) stay the same as in the Passivhaus Classic (Feist et al., 2015).

Net-zero homes  41

In a world, where climate change is a genuine concern, net-zero is the future of the home and Passivhaus is just a tool to achieve it. Whether a home is net-zero or Passivhaus doesn’t only mean building with low carbon impact or ultra-energy efficiency. It also means high levels of comfort, improved health, a better household economy and a resilient future. It is the work of architects and home designers to use their skills and existing skills to shape the future of the net-zero home over the next decade. The future of net-zero and Passivhaus

When thinking of building a home, architects will think of construction details and contractors. But the construction process starts in the mind of the architects, the selection of materials and how the architect envisages the interaction between the occupants and the home. From these, two aspects are intrinsically connected to the future. As resources become less and less available, the material choices will become more limited and building with materials that sequester carbon2 will become the norm. The following sections reflect on how the authors see homes seeking to achieve net-zero through the Passivhaus Standard in the future and their relation to three main aspects: the indoor environment, the building itself and its relation with the neighbourhood. Living comfortably in a net-zero home

As world extreme weather events become more and more common, net-zero homes will need to start incorporating more aspects to protect against outdoor conditions. Currently, Passivhaus homes provide comfortable spaces where the occupants enjoy comfortable temperatures, good indoor air quality and adequate protection from outdoor conditions (Schnieders et al., 2020), promoting healthy homes (see Chapter 8 for more detail on homes and health). Nonetheless, as the climate becomes hotter, overheating in Passivhaus homes is becoming more frequent (Mitchell and Natarajan, 2019) and even indoor temperatures above 32°C in temperate climates (MorenoRangel et al., 2021b). The design of the future home will take into account future weather predictions to provide protection from such factors. Passivhaus homes will use more advanced building systems to provide heating, cooling and humidity control in a single efficient building system. Moreover, the use of artificial intelligence (see Chapter 5 for more detail on smart homes) will be used to control the building systems in a way that high levels of comfort are provided consistently in the home with minimum interaction from the occupants. For instance, smart widows could be introduced in Passivhaus homes. Smart windows produce and store renewable energy and change the colouration of the

42  Alejandro Moreno-Rangel et al.

glass accordingly to the sunlight blocking solar gains into the building while allowing for visibility and natural light while blocking radiation preventing overheating (Mustafa et al., 2023). One of the most important features of the future Passivhaus will be the selection of materials. Materials off-gassing3 will be more regulated, and we will start to see a comeback of natural materials that have the much-desired breathable, moisture control and thermal properties with the added benefit of carbon sequestration. Such is the case of homes built with these principles in mind in different parts of the world. The Canelones Home (Figure 3.2) designers, aRRe, took all their design decisions very seriously. They wanted to be disruptive in their design, but not on the aesthetics, rather on the home’s essence and construction. Thus, the house becomes a technical example for future construction in Latin America. The housing design considered seven pillars: aesthetics, price, function, health, embedded carbon emissions, operational carbon emissions and decommission. Hence, the carbon emissions were up most and holistically considered. As the home price increases, committing to buy a home becomes a lifelong commitment. Hence, homes will need to start incorporating ageing

FIGURE 3.2 Canelones Home designed to the Passivhaus Standard using strawbale

in Uruguay Architecture and Source: Martin Comas, aRRe

Net-zero homes  43

FIGURE 3.3 The

Cottesloe home, a Passivhaus incorporating ageing principles for life-long comfortable living

Architecture and Source: Roger Joyner, Passivhaus Perth

considerations (see Chapter 9 for more detail on ageing homes) allowing us to live longer and more comfortably in the home. A current example of this is a Passivhaus located in Perth (Australia) where ageing in place was ensured by installing a glass-enclosed platform lift adjacent to the central stair core, allowing the entire centre of the house to be naturally lit from the glazed northern roof terrace access doors above (Figure 3.3). The current predictions for outdoor air pollution are bleak. In the current scenario climate change context, air pollutants are expected to increase (Coelho et al., 2021). Hence, the protection that the ventilation systems will provide becomes more important to provide better indoor air quality, which has been found in Passivhaus homes in Latin America (Moreno-Rangel et al., 2021a). Asthma is becoming more frequent, particularly in children, a factor that has been related to poor indoor air quality (Moreno-Rangel et al., 2020a). The MVHR system’s main function might switch from providing only heated air to incorporating more complex filtration to air pollutants such as particulate matter 2.5 µm, ozone and nitrogen dioxide. This will make Passivhaus continue providing the high levels of indoor air quality that they are well known for (Moreno-Rangel et al., 2020b).

44  Alejandro Moreno-Rangel et al.

Building net-zero homes

In the future, the emphasis on the construction of new or retrofitted homes (see Chapter 12 for more detail on retrofit) will be set into the overall carbon emissions of the materials. Indeed, this will be a key point to advance the delivery of truly net-zero Passivhaus homes. Currently, the building’s materiality is not considered for the Passivhaus certification. Construction might not be as straightforward as in today’s scenario. Architects and Passivhaus designers will need to make decisions based not only on the physical performance of the materials but also on the carbon emissions of the materials, which will have a strong impact – as in the case of the Canelones Home. Moreover, local materials that have the potential to sequester carbon emissions rather than just having a small carbon footprint will have a higher priority. Perhaps one of the most straightforward ways is using biomaterials, such as timber or strawbale, as the main construction, giving the Passivhaus homes the potential to store more carbon than the carbon emissions from building materials production and transport. A system of carbon taxes and carbon trading will make these materials more attractive for housing developers and owners. The Canelones home building was built using straw bale, timber and cellulose locally sourced not to reduce the building envelope’s carbon emissions but also to sequester carbon emissions and lessen those from transporting building materials (Figure 3.4). Moreover, by designing to the Passivhaus Standard, this home will emit around 90% of carbon emissions less than traditional homes in Uruguay. The material choice will also have an impact on the decommissioning of the building. The circular economy model will make it more attractive to select building materials that are recyclable or reusable and avoid those that will require special handling. In a way, this will promote modular and prefabricated construction where many of these factors can be taken into

FIGURE 3.4 

Construction materials (strawbale) of the Canelones home

Architecture and Source: Martin Comas, aRRe

Net-zero homes  45

consideration. While building modular and prefabricated homes may not be new, the Passivhaus industry is looking at how the future will look like with it. Developing modular (see Chapter 1 for more detail on housing flexibility) Passivhaus homes with preassembled elements will make them easier to build and more affordable to make them viable for social housing. The Passivhoos is a taste of the potential of such an idea in Scotland, but it started to pop up in other countries such as Brazil. The idea of Passivhaus homes coming out from a factory and being delivered in lorries with assembly instructions like giant puzzles might be a common thing in the future. In addition, this also provides more control over the quality of the construction and reduces waste. The future home will also need to think about the topology of the site. Not only so that the building can adapt to the site, but also will also maximise the area of the roof available for renewable energy production, making more efficient use of the building footprint. In the Sheds home, one of the first Passivhaus Premium dwellings in the UK, the designing team achieved a well-planned balance of this, enabling the home to generate over four times its energy demand. The ridgelines are orientated north-south, resulting in three east-facing and three west-facing roofs, which are almost entirely covered with building-integrated photovoltaics. The system has a capacity of 55 kW, and the excess energy is either stored on-site in batteries or exported to the grid. Passivhaus and the neighbourhood

The movement of sharing the neighbourhood has become more and more common. In some instances, more radical solutions for neighbourhood living have been introduced, such as co-housing. While this section does not talk about co-housing, it will focus on the benefits of using Passivhaus at a neighbourhood level. However, when talking about Passivhaus and the neighbourhood, the concept of co-housing pops up easily as the residents are inspired to engage with the technology solutions of the Passivhaus and take part in experiments to implement innovative energy systems (Tummers, 2017), particularly those related to on-site renewable energy. When the idea of incorporating the Passivhaus at a neighbourhood level comes to the authors’ mind, the most impactful benefit is the on-site renewable energy generation potential that such neighbourhoods could have. As Passivhaus Plus or Premium homes reduce their energy consumption to a minimum and produce more renewable energy than needed in situ energy available can be used for several purposes. Local, readily available renewable energy can create neighbourhoods that are resilient to energy price fluctuations with no or minimal environmental impact. Once the homes have met their demand and stored enough energy on-site, the surplus can be deposited into the local grid. This energy surplus could be

46  Alejandro Moreno-Rangel et al.

FIGURE 3.5 The Cottesloe home incorporates photovoltaic panels that are planned

to contribute to the neighbourhood needs Architecture and Source: Roger Joyner, Passivhaus Perth

used to power electric cars, nearby homes, offices, public and retail buildings with minimal losses at the energy grid or even used for public spaces. The idea of “free” lighting and energy for parks and other public spaces within the neighbourhood can increase the sense of ownership and security. The Cottesloe home in Perth, Australia, is one of the first ten certified Passivhaus Premium homes in the world. It has incorporated additional photovoltaic panels (Figure 3.5) to the east and west-facing roof slopes to achieve the renewable energy generation required for the certification with batteries planned for the future. Moreover, the architects and owners envisaged the potential that the home has for contributing to local neighbours’ needs to reduce transmission losses from the fossil-fuelled grid supply. Conclusion

In a world, where climate change is a genuine concern, net-zero is the future of the home and Passivhaus is just a tool to achieve it. Although net-zero homes might become the “standard home”, those that go beyond will be common. The importance of incorporating natural, local, recycled or reused

Net-zero homes  47

materials in ultra-low energy buildings, such as the Passivhaus, in addition to the low-carbon emissions related to their operation is the path to truly achieving a holistic net-zero home. Passivhaus is a tool that addresses operational carbon emissions, perhaps like no other, but the integration of tools to measure, and potentially limit, carbon emissions from the construction process will become essential. The potential that the Passivhaus can have on the future home is remarkable, as other associated benefits such as comfort & healthy living and energy generation in different settings – the indoor environment, the building itself and its relationship with the neighbourhood. Net-zero or even positive energy homes have the intrinsic potential to act as drivers so that the home becomes an essential part of sustaining the city in a carbon and energyefficient way. Notes 1 These principles are explained in greater detail in Moreno-Rangel (2021). 2 Carbon sequestration is the mechanism of capturing, capturing and storing carbon dioxide. The idea is to keep carbon dioxide in dissolved or solid forms so that it is not released back to the atmosphere. 3 Off-gassing refers to the process where materials release airborne particulates (i.e., PM2.5) or other chemicals (i.e., total volatile organic compounds (tVOC), formaldehyde) from common household products or building materials.

References Attia, S., 2018. Chapter 2 – Evolution of Definitions and Approaches, in: Attia, S. (Ed.), Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB). Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 21–51. https:// doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812461-1.00002-2. Coelho, S., Rafael, S., Lopes, D., Miranda, A.I., Ferreira, J., 2021. How Changing Climate May Influence Air Pollution Control Strategies for 2030? Science of the Total Environment 758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143911 Feist, W., Bastian, Z., Ebel, W., Gollwitzer, E., Grove-Smith, J., Kah, O., Kaufmann, B., Krick, B., Pfluger, R., Schnieders, J., Steiger, J., 2015. Passive House Planning Package Version 9, The Energy Balance and Design Tool for Efficient Buildings and Retrofits, 1st ed. Passive House Institute. Hegger, M., Fafflok, C., Hegger, J., Passig, I., 2016. Aktivhaus – The Reference Work: From Passivhaus to Energy-Plus House, 1st ed. Birkhauser. IPCC, 2022. Chapter 9: Buildings, in: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. pp. 9–1 to 9–168. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ Marszal, A.J., Heiselberg, P., Bourrelle, J.S., Musall, E., Voss, K., Sartori, I., Napolitano, A., 2011. Zero energy building – a review of definitions and calculation methodologies. Energy Build 43, 971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.12.022 Mitchell, R., Natarajan, S., 2019. Overheating risk in Passivhaus dwellings. Build Serv Eng Res Technol 40, 446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143624419842006 Moreno-Rangel, A., 2021. Passivhaus. Encyclopedia 1, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ encyclopedia1010005

48  Alejandro Moreno-Rangel et al.

Moreno-Rangel, A., Baek, J., Roh, T., Xu, X., Carrillo, G., 2020a. Assessing impact of household intervention on indoor air quality and health of children with asthma in the US-Mexico border: A pilot study. J Environ Public Health 2020, 1. https://doi. org/10.1155/2020/6042146 Moreno-Rangel, A., Musau, F., Sharpe, T., Mcgill, G., 2021a. Indoor air quality assessment of Latin America’s first Passivhaus home. Atmosphere (Basel) 12, 18. https:// doi.org/10.3390/atmos12111477 Moreno-Rangel, A., Sharpe, T., McGill, G., Musau, F., 2020b. Indoor air quality in Passivhaus dwellings: A literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17, 1. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134749 Moreno-Rangel, A., Sharpe, T., McGill, G., Musau, F., 2021b. Thermal comfort assessment of the first residential Passivhaus in Latin America. J Build Eng 43, 103081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103081 Mustafa, M.N., Mohd Abdah, M.A.A., Numan, A., Moreno-Rangel, A., Radwan, A., Khalid, M., 2023. Smart window technology and its potential for net-zero buildings: A review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 181, 113355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2023.113355 PHI, 2021. Passipedia [WWW Document]. http://www.passipedia.org/ (accessed 8.18.22). Schnieders, J., Eian, T.D., Filippi, M., Florez, J., Kaufmann, B., Pallantzas, S., Paulsen, M., Reyes, E., Wassouf, M., Yeh, S.C., 2020. Design and realisation of the passive house concept in different climate zones. Energ Effic 13, 1561. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12053-019-09819-6 Tummers, L., 2017. Learning from Co-housing Initiatives Between Passivhaus Engineers and Active Inhabitants (PhD). TU delft, Delft. https://doi.org/10.7480/abe.2017. 14.1858

4 COMFORT REDEFINED The Future of Home Living Leonidas Bourikas and Alejandro Moreno-Rangel

Home and comfort

The concept of home has always been synonymous with comfort — a place where we seek solace and relaxation from the outside world. The phrase home comfort often refers to the warm sense of togetherness, the act of putting on pyjamas after a day’s work, or the freedom to be yourself and do as you please within the confines of your own space (Ellsworth-Krebs et al., 2019). However, the way these are explored often changes from culture to culture and even between social groups in the same city. One inequitable fact is that as we step into the future, the home is poised for a remarkable transformation, propelled by technological advancements, sustainability, and a deeper understanding of human well-being. How these changes will impact our idea of comfort in the home is a matter of exploration in this chapter. But before we travel to the future, we need to understand what comfort means, precisely comfort at home. While often not discussed together in academic texts (Ellsworth-Krebs et al., 2019), the terms comfort and home can describe different ways of interactions in people’s lives depending on their specific circumstances. Hence, it can be assumed that comfort at home refers to the state of physical and emotional well-being, relaxation, and contentment experienced within one’s living environment. It encompasses the feeling of ease, cosiness, and security that comes from being in a familiar and welcoming space where one can unwind, find solace, and engage in activities that bring joy and relaxation. Comfort at home is also often associated with the perception of the indoor environmental conditions, particularly thermal comfort. People will interact with building controls to adjust the conditions to meet their own individual thermal expectations and preferences. The DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244-5

50  Leonidas Bourikas and Alejandro Moreno-Rangel

adaptive opportunities that our homes provide through technology, systems, and design are important to comfort but equally to energy efficiency (Nicol & Humphreys, 2002). As we move into net-zero homes (see Chapter 3 for more detail on net-zero homes) (Madsen, 2018), the ways in which people exchange heat with the environment will remain the same, but the opportunities to adapt, as well as the building systems and controls available, will likely change. Together we need to change our expectations of the building and its services in order to learn how new technologies perform (e.g., how fast a heat pump can heat up the home, how mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) works, and how to prevent overheating in warm weather). In the ever-evolving landscape of technology, sustainability, and humancentred design, the concept of home and the pursuit of comfort are undergoing profound transformations. The future of the home holds the promise of a harmonious mix of hitherto unimaginable levels of personalised comfort, energy efficiency, and enhanced well-being. As advancements in smart and connected systems, renewable energy integration, artificial intelligence (AI), and adaptive solutions continue to shape our world, homes are poised to become intelligent, sustainable, and deeply attuned to the needs of their occupants (see Figure 4.1).

FIGURE 4.1 

Interconnections of the future comfort at home

Source: Authors

Comfort redefined  51

Smart and connected systems could shape the future of home comfort. For instance, MVHR systems, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, are becoming more intelligent and interconnected (Ye et al., 2008). Not far from the present, smart thermostats and sensors would gather data to optimise indoor temperatures based on individual preferences, weather conditions, and occupancy patterns. The big difference will be the personalised approach, perhaps of a system that knows more about us than we do ourselves (see Chapter 5 for more detail on smart homes). Such systems should ensure comfort and minimise energy waste, creating a more sustainable and cost-effective living environment. Improved insulation, state-of-the-art window glazing materials, and efficient MVHR systems could work together to maintain a comfortable indoor environment while significantly reducing energy consumption and utility costs. In the future, thermal comfort might be redefined through adaptive and personalised solutions. For instance, personal comfort systems provide occupants with the option to adjust their immediate thermal environment using local controls (Rawal et al., 2020). This individual-level control enhances the subjective acceptability of thermal and air quality, leading to the desired thermal sensation. Rawal suggests that the systems can be divided into heating, heating & ventilation, cooling, cooling & ventilation, and ventilation. Furthermore, the personal comfort systems can be interconnected with the energy systems for better efficiency. In addition, homes will use insulation, airtightness, and dedicated building systems to control the indoor environment while optimising the solar and internal heat gains and shading as needed. As per Passivhaus design, heat stratification should be avoided, and draughts will become a thing of the past. However, these changes will come in parallel with new technological advances that will need to be applied correctly to avoid overheating. In the anticipated future climate, heat waves and warmer temperatures are expected to become more severe and more likely to occur (IPCC, 2007). Overheating is, perhaps, the most critical concern in today’s net-zero homes, when considering people’s thermal comfort (Ridley et al., 2013). However, to some extent, this may also be related to occupant behaviour (Foster et al., 2016) (i.e., external blinds not deployed, windows not being opened at night). Building systems are often not used as designed and intended. Window and ventilation patterns not only have an impact on thermal sensation but also on indoor air quality (IAQ). Both factors influence occupant comfort and satisfaction (Schweiker et al., 2020). There is a perceived belief that clean outdoor air secures a healthy indoor air environment, but also that we need to control indoor pollution and human bio-effluents as indoor pollutants. But air quality is far more complex than this, as hundreds of airborne pollutants exist in a single home (Katsouyanni et al., 2004). As the future

52  Leonidas Bourikas and Alejandro Moreno-Rangel

home incorporates new technologies and algorithms, air pollution may become easier to control providing safer environments. Emerging technologies could enable occupants to automatically control temperature, airflow, and humidity based on individual preferences, biometrics, and activity levels. These innovative approaches will empower home occupants to create their ideal living environments tailored to their individual needs and expectations. As comfort is linked to energy use, renewable energy integration should be a hallmark of future homes. Solar panels, air and ground source heat pumps, and other clean energy solutions provide heat and cooling, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and contributing to carbon emissions reduction. Future homes may prioritise enhanced air quality. Advanced air filtration and purification systems could be seamlessly integrated into MVHR systems, promoting respiratory health and overall well-being (see Chapter 8 for more detail on homes and health) by removing pollutants and allergens such as those in already-existing Passivhaus houses (Moreno-Rangel et al., 2020). The IAQ will be a crucial consideration, creating spaces that support occupant health and comfort. The human-centric design may become a guiding principle in the future home, optimising natural light availability, utilising materials with desired thermal properties, and incorporating biophilic design principles to foster a deep connection with nature. The future home will serve as a sanctuary, promoting relaxation, productivity, and a sense of harmony with the surrounding environment. AI may increasingly play a pivotal role in optimising home comfort systems. AI-powered algorithms and machine learning could analyse and predict occupants’ thermal comfort requirements, learning from their preferences, historical data, and external factors. These systems automatically adjust the indoor environment by communicating directly with the building systems, ensuring optimal comfort and energy efficiency while seamlessly adapting to changing conditions. Finally, future homes could address the specific thermal comfort needs of older adults as the global population ages (see Chapter 9 for more detail on ageing homes). Designs may include adaptive heating and cooling systems, biometric monitoring, and universal design principles to support the well-being and health of the ageing population, catering to their diverse requirements. The following sections will explore each of these key considerations for comfort in the future home. While these are presented separately for clarity, we imagine that the home of the future will likely combine several of these features and have efficient, integrated systems based on AI systems. Smart and connected systems

The future of building controls is often related to intelligent and interconnected systems. For instance, smart thermostats and sensors around the home could gather data about individual preferences, weather conditions, and occupancy patterns. This wealth of information will be utilised to optimise

Comfort redefined  53

FIGURE 4.2 

Example of a smart thermostat

Source: Dan LeFebvre on Unsplash

indoor temperatures and manage IAQ automatically, ensuring personalised comfort while minimising energy waste. The integration of AI and the Internet of Things (IoT) is likely to play a pivotal role in the evolution of smart and connected home systems. AI algorithms will be able to learn from occupants’ behaviours and preferences, adapting to their unique comfort needs (see Figure 4.2). These systems would be able to communicate with various components of the home, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, to provide a seamless and comfortable living experience. Modern MVHR systems can go beyond airflow and temperature control, considering factors such as humidity, air quality, and energy usage. These systems will adjust settings in real time to create an optimal environment that meets individual comfort requirements while looking for optimal energy utilisation. For instance, if a person prefers cooler temperatures for sleeping, the system should automatically adjust the thermostat accordingly during the night. In addition to personalised comfort, smart and connected systems will incorporate the prioritising of energy efficiency. Energy efficiency

Sustainability will be a driving force in future home design, where net-zero homes might become the norm. As the world grapples with the challenges of climate change and diminishing energy resources, homes will incorporate

54  Leonidas Bourikas and Alejandro Moreno-Rangel

energy-efficient designs and technologies to minimise their environmental impact. Enhanced insulation may be a key aspect of energy-efficient or netzero homes (see Chapter 3 for more detail on net-zero homes). Advances in insulation materials could significantly reduce heat transfer (Al-Yasiri & Szabó, 2021; Jelle, 2011), keeping indoor spaces comfortable and reducing the load of heating and cooling systems. Additionally, insulation can also play a crucial role in soundproofing, ensuring a quieter and more peaceful living environment, also enhancing well-being. Windows, often a significant heat loss or gain source, will undergo substantial improvements. Advanced glazing materials with superior insulation properties could become standard, minimising heat transfer and reducing the need for excessive heating or cooling. Some glazing materials may even have adaptive properties, allowing them to tint or adjust transparency in response to external conditions, optimising natural light and privacy while maintaining comfort (Mustafa et al., 2023). Furthermore, future homes might incorporate efficient MVHR systems that use advanced technologies to regulate indoor temperature effectively. These systems will employ variable-speed compressors, advanced airflow control mechanisms, and smart ventilation systems to minimise energy consumption while providing optimal comfort. The integration of smart technology will enhance energy efficiency even further. By leveraging data on occupancy, weather conditions, and energy demand, smart systems will be able to make real-time adjustments to heating and cooling, ensuring optimal comfort while reducing energy usage and associated costs. Adaptive and personalised solutions

One of the most exciting prospects for the future of home comfort is the emergence of adaptive and personalised solutions. The personal comfort system of the future would be able to provide occupants with the opportunity to regulate their thermal environment almost instantaneously using local controls (Rawal et al., 2020) taking into consideration subjective acceptability of thermal and air quality. Additionally, technologies could help to cater to individual preferences, biometrics, and activity levels, allowing occupants to experience comfort, tailored more closely to their individual needs. The IoT may enable seamless integration between personal devices, wearables, home sensors, and the home environment. For example, wearable devices or smart clothing could regulate body temperature, ensuring comfort regardless of indoor environmental conditions. These devices could communicate with a home’s MVHR system, enabling precise adjustments to maintain everyone’s desired level of comfort at home. Sensors could be placed throughout the home to continuously monitor and analyse data related to occupants’ preferences, habits, and comfort levels. By

Comfort redefined  55

incorporating machine learning algorithms, these systems learn from patterns and make anticipatory adjustments to the environment to meet occupants’ needs before they are even aware of them. For example, based on historical data, the system may adjust the temperature in the bedroom half an hour before an occupant usually goes to sleep, ensuring optimal comfort upon entering the room at bedtime. Biometrics may also play a significant role in personalised comfort solutions. Advanced sensors may measure parameters such as heart rate, skin temperature, and perspiration levels to gauge an individual’s thermal comfort. By analysing this data in real time, the system could adjust temperature, airflow, and humidity to maintain a comfortable environment tailored to each occupant. The advent of voice-activated assistants and natural language processing may further enhance the personalised experience. Occupants would be able to control and adjust their home’s comfort settings through voice commands, allowing for effortless customisation of the environment to their liking. Renewable energy integration

With the growing emphasis on renewable energy sources (Østergaard et al., 2020), homes of the future will adopt sustainable practices and technologies to provide low-carbon heating and cooling. Solar panels will undoubtedly become more efficient and increasingly affordable, enabling homeowners to harness the sun’s energy to power their MVHR systems. This shift towards solar energy will significantly reduce carbon emissions and contribute to the home’s overall sustainability. Geothermal systems such as ground source heat pumps could tap into the earth’s natural heat to regulate indoor temperatures. By circulating fluid through underground pipes, these systems would harness the stable temperatures below the earth’s surface to warm or cool the home. Geothermal systems are highly efficient and have a minimal environmental impact, making them an ideal choice for sustainable home comfort. To maximise the benefits of renewable energy integration, smart home systems could optimise energy usage based on real-time availability. For example, if solar energy production is low due to cloudy weather, the system may adjust energy consumption by prioritising energy-efficient operation or utilising stored energy from batteries, ensuring continuous comfort whilst, at the same time, minimising any undue reliance on the grid. Enhanced air quality

In the pursuit of optimal comfort, future homes should strongly emphasise IAQ. Advanced air filtration and purification systems could be integrated into MVHR systems, ensuring a healthier living environment. These systems

56  Leonidas Bourikas and Alejandro Moreno-Rangel

should employ highly efficient filters capable of capturing a wide range of airborne pollutants, including allergens, fine particulate matter (PM2.5, PM5, PM10), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). By removing these pollutants from the air, these filtration systems will contribute to better respiratory health and overall well-being. Furthermore, air purification technologies, such as activated carbon filters or photocatalytic oxidation, may neutralise harmful gases and odours, ensuring a fresh and clean indoor environment. UV-C lights may also be utilised to eliminate airborne bacteria and viruses, providing additional protection against infections. Additionally, advanced filtration may reduce the impact of pollen and other airborne allergens. Real-time monitoring of air quality might become standard in future homes. Sensors placed strategically throughout the living spaces and bedrooms could continuously measure and analyse air quality parameters. Occupants would have access to this data through smart home interfaces, allowing them to make informed decisions about ventilation, filter replacement or, alternatively, simply let the AI automate these. To further enhance air quality, homes could integrate natural ventilation strategies controlled by an AI. Design features electronically operated such as operable windows, skylights, and blinds may facilitate the influx of fresh air, reducing the reliance on mechanical ventilation systems. These design considerations may not only contribute to improved air quality but also create a more pleasant and refreshing living environment. Human-centric design

Home designs will increasingly focus on creating spaces that promote wellbeing and comfort. Architects and designers will adopt human-centric design principles, aiming to optimise occupants’ physical, mental, and emotional well-being. One crucial aspect of human-centric design is the optimisation of natural light. Studies have shown that exposure to natural light positively affects mood, productivity, and overall well-being (Al horr et al., 2016; Shishegar & Boubekri, 2016), particularly in homes (Morales-Bravo & Navarrete-Hernandez, 2022). It could be argued that natural light is fundamental to people’s sense of comfort. Future homes may therefore incorporate large windows, skylights, and light wells to maximise the penetration of natural light into living spaces. Automated shading systems could dynamically adjust to control glare and prevent overheating, ensuring optimal daylight conditions throughout the day. Moreover, materials with thermal properties that regulate temperature will become prevalent in future home construction. Phase-change materials, for instance, can absorb and release heat to maintain a comfortable temperature

Comfort redefined  57

within a space. These materials can be used in walls, floors, and ceilings to reduce temperature fluctuations and create a more stable and comfortable indoor environment. Biophilic design principles might also take centre stage in future home architecture. Biophilia, the innate human connection to nature, could be harnessed to create environments that evoke feelings of tranquillity and wellbeing. Living walls, green roofs, and indoor gardens bring nature indoors, providing visual and tactile connections with the natural world (Figure 4.3). The integration of natural elements will contribute to stress reduction, improved cognitive function (Lee & Park, 2020), and enhanced comfort (Shrestha & Bahadur Bajracharya, 2020).

FIGURE 4.3 Example

of natural materials (finishes), use of natural light, and incorporation of plants in living spaces

Source: Timothy Buck on Unsplash

58  Leonidas Bourikas and Alejandro Moreno-Rangel

Furthermore, ergonomic furniture and modular, adaptive spatial layouts should be carefully considered to support occupant comfort and well-being. Furniture might be designed with ergonomic principles in mind, promoting proper posture and reducing strain on the body. Flexible and adaptable furniture configurations could allow occupants to customise their living spaces according to their activities and preferences (see Chapter 1 for more detail on housing flexibility). Artificial intelligence optimisation

Machine learning algorithms might continually adapt and improve their understanding of occupants’ comfort needs over time. For example, menopausal women and the elderly are likely to have quite different comfort needs than they would previously have had. AI-powered algorithms and machine learning could analyse and predict thermal comfort requirements based on occupant preferences, historical data, and external factors. The system may refine its predictions as it gathers more data, resulting in increasingly personalised and precise adjustments to the home’s comfort settings. Moreover, AI optimisation would extend beyond temperature control. AI algorithms will consider factors such as occupant schedules, energy demand patterns, and even external events, such as local energy grid conditions or time-of-use pricing, to optimise energy consumption and cost-effectiveness. For instance, the system may adjust the MVHR settings to reduce energy usage during peak demand hours or leverage stored energy during periods of high electricity costs. The integration of AI with other smart home devices could enable a seamless and interconnected living experience. Hence, occupants are likely to have the ability to control and interact with their home systems through voice commands or smartphone apps, providing effortless customisation and control over their comfort settings. Indeed, it could be argued that this ability is already available through a growing market of mass-produced components and so will undoubtedly mature to a level of greater sophistication and market saturation in the years to come. Aging population and thermal comfort

As the global population ages, there will be an increased focus on providing thermal comfort solutions that cater to the specific needs of older adults. Elderly individuals may have different temperature preferences and be more susceptible to temperature extremes (Hughes et al., 2019). Future home designs and technologies should aim to address these considerations, ensuring that the thermal environment supports the well-being, comfort, and health

Comfort redefined  59

of older adults, ultimately contributing to their quality of life and potentially extending their lifespan. Thermal comfort solutions for older adults may encompass a range of strategies (see Chapter 9 for more detail on ageing homes). For instance, adaptive heating and cooling systems could monitor the ambient conditions and adjust temperatures accordingly to prevent discomfort or health risks associated with extreme temperatures. In addition, technologies that track and analyse biometrics, such as heart rate and body temperature, may be integrated into wearable devices or home sensors. Considerations should also be made to address mobility issues and accessibility. Smart home systems could incorporate voice-activated controls and automation features, allowing older adults to easily adjust comfort settings. Additionally, features such as adjustable-height furniture, grab bars, and nonslip flooring could promote safety and independence. Furthermore, future home designs should emphasise universal design principles, which prioritise inclusivity and accessibility for people of all ages and abilities. These design principles will ensure that thermal comfort solutions are not only tailored to the specific needs of older adults but also accommodate the diverse range of occupants within the home. Conclusion

The future of home and its relationship with comfort is an exciting frontier, driven by technological advancements, sustainability, and an overarching need for human well-being. Smart and connected systems, energy efficiency, adaptive and personalised solutions, renewable energy integration, enhanced air quality, human-centric design, AI optimisation, and considerations for the ageing population will shape the systems, functionality and technologies for the homes of tomorrow. With the convergence of these key ideas, homes will become more than just physical structures – they will be smart, adaptive, modular, and nurturing environments that change with their occupants’ needs and enable their comfort, health, and well-being. The future home can become a home for life, seamlessly integrating into its occupants’ lifestyles while promoting a deeper connection with nature and a transition to a sustainable future world. References Al horr, Y., Arif, M., Katafygiotou, M., Mazroei, A., Kaushik, A., & Elsarrag, E. (2016). Impact of indoor environmental quality on occupant well-being and comfort: A review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 5(1), 1–11. Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.03.006

60  Leonidas Bourikas and Alejandro Moreno-Rangel

Al-Yasiri, Q., & Szabó, M. (2021). Incorporation of phase change materials into building envelope for thermal comfort and energy saving: A comprehensive analysis. Journal of Building Engineering, 36, 102122. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. JOBE.2020.102122 Ellsworth-Krebs, K., Reid, L., & Hunter, C. J. (2019). Integrated framework of home comfort: Relaxation, companionship and control. Building Research and Information, 47(2), 202–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2017.1410375 Foster, J., Sharpe, T., Poston, A., Morgan, C., & Musau, F. (2016). Scottish passive house: Insights into environmental conditions in monitored passive houses. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(5), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050412 Hughes, C., Natarajan, S., Liu, C., Chung, W. J., & Herrera, M. (2019). Winter thermal comfort and health in the elderly. Energy Policy, 134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol. 2019.110954 IPCC. (2007). Mitigation of climate change: Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/ wg3/ Jelle, B. P. (2011). Traditional, state-of-the-art and future thermal building insulation materials and solutions - properties, requirements and possibilities. In Energy and Buildings (Vol. 43, Issue 10, pp. 2549–2563). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enbuild.2011.05.015 Katsouyanni, K., Part, P., Andersson, I., Autrup, H., Baños de Guisasola, E., Bjerregaard, P., Mette, B., Bert, B., Calheiros, J., Casse, F. F., Castaño, A., Cochet, C., & Eisenreich, S. (2004). Baseline Report on Needs in the framework of the European Environment and Health Strategy ([COM 2003] 338 final) (Issue February). Lee, E. J., & Park, S. J. (2020). A framework of smart-home service for elderly’s biophilic experience. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(20), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12208572 Madsen, L. V. (2018). The comfortable home and energy consumption. Housing, Theory and Society, 35(3), 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2017.1348390 Morales-Bravo, J., & Navarrete-Hernandez, P. (2022). Enlightening wellbeing in the home: The impact of natural light design on perceived happiness and sadness in residential spaces. Building and Environment, 223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. buildenv.2022.109317 Moreno-Rangel, A., Sharpe, T., McGill, G., & Musau, F. (2020). Indoor air quality in Passivhaus dwellings: A literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(13), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph17134749 Mustafa, M. N., Mohd Abdah, M. A. A., Numan, A., Moreno-Rangel, A., Radwan, A., & Khalid, M. (2023). Smart window technology and its potential for net-zero buildings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 181, 113355. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113355 Nicol, J. F., & Humphreys, M. (2002). Adaptive thermal comfort and sustainable thermal standards for buildings. Energy and Buildings, 34(6), 563–572. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0378-7788(02)00006-3 Østergaard, P. A., Duic, N., Noorollahi, Y., Mikulcic, H., & Kalogirou, S. (2020). Sustainable development using renewable energy technology. In Renewable Energy (Vol. 146, pp. 2430–2437). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.08.094

Comfort redefined  61

Rawal, R., Schweiker, M., Kazanci, O. B., Vardhan, V., Jin, Q., & Duanmu, L. (2020). Personal comfort systems: A review on comfort, energy, and economics. In Energy and Buildings (Vol. 214). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enbuild.2020.109858 Ridley, I., Clarke, A., Bere, J., Altamirano, H., Lewis, S., Durdev, M., & Farr, A. (2013). The monitored performance of the first new London dwelling certified to the passive house standard. Energy and Buildings, 63, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enbuild.2013.03.052 Schweiker, M., Ampatzi, E., Andargie, M. S., Andersen, R. K., Azar, E., Barthelmes, V. M., Berger, C., Bourikas, L., Carlucci, S., Chinazzo, G., Edappilly, L. P., Favero, M., Gauthier, S., Jamrozik, A., Kane, M., Mahdavi, A., Piselli, C., Pisello, A. L., Roetzel, A., & Zhang, S. (2020). Review of multi-domain approaches to indoor environmental perception and behaviour. Building and Environment, 176. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106804 Shishegar, N., & Boubekri, M. (2016). Natural light and productivity: Analyzing the impacts of daylighting on Students’ and Workers’ health and alertness. International Journal of Advances in Chemical Engineering and Biological Sciences, 3(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.15242/ijacebs.ae0416104 Shrestha, R., & Bahadur Bajracharya, S. (2020). Saving Strategies with Biophilic Design Concepts to Increase Thermal Comfort. In Proceedings of 12th IOE Graduate Conference Integrating Energy, 1262–1272. Ye, J., Hassan, T. M., Carter, C. D., & Zarli, A. (2008). ICT for Energy Efficiency: The Case for Smart Buildings. Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University.

5 A TECHNOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE, RESPONSIBLE AND SMARTER HOME Michael Stead

Introduction

As we progress further into the 21st century, the everyday domestic practices and experiences of many citizens in modern societies are increasingly being mediated by so-called ‘smart’ Internet of Things devices and systems. The term Internet of Things (IoT) was first coined by Kevin Ashton (2009) in 1999 and is used to denote the idea that any, and potentially every, physical artefact could be connected to the data-driven infrastructures of the Internet in order for it to be able to collect and share digital information. From energy monitors and voice-activated speakers, to vacuum cleaner robots and connected security systems, the IoT, in conjunction with Artificial Intelligence (AI), provides the technological substrate for the continuing ‘smartification’ and ‘networkification’ (Pierce & DiSalvo, 2017) of homes across the globe. This paradigm shift currently shows no signs of abating. Crucially, however, the realities of the contemporary data-driven ‘smart home’ are yet to meet the utopian visions persistently promoted by technology platforms and manufacturers, particularly the purported advantages such interventions offer for environmental sustainability. Considering this disparity, this chapter critically and creatively explores the growing burdens and potential benefits that increased adoption of data-driven ‘smart’ technologies pose in transitioning future societies towards more sustainable ways of domestic living. Myths of the near future home

The pervasiveness of the IoT and AI across contemporary living spaces is providing many people with significant levels of convenience and personalisation, as well as access to global networks and entertainment resources. DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244-6

Sustainable, responsible and smarter home  63

Technology platforms and manufacturers actively promote these prosaic benefits and regularly go further, couching the adoption of ‘smart’ home technologies in hyperbole which promises a near future where ordinary peoples’ lives are positively transformed and made discernibly better. Echoing the marketing rhetoric that drove post-war conspicuous consumption of mass-produced domestic products like refrigerators and televisions in the 1950s and 1960s (Forty, 1986), technology purveyors preach how their devices and systems will afford people with more family and leisure time whilst these products help manage mundane domestic tasks like cleaning, cooking, purchasing and scheduling. Frequently absent from these narratives, however, are open and responsible discussions regarding what environmental repercussions will arise from this surge in the adoption of ‘smart’ technologies within the home. Presently, there are approximately 15 billion active IoT connections worldwide and estimates suggest this number will increase twofold to around 30 billion by 2030 (Vailshery, 2022). Collectively, our seemingly innocuous domestic interactions with billions of virtual voice assistants like Amazon’s Alexa, streaming services like Netflix and mobile devices like phones and tablets are creating zettabytes of data every year – one zettabyte is equivalent to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes (see Figure 5.1). Mediated through

FIGURE 5.1 The immense scale of the zettabytes of data being produced by internet-

connected devices and systems Source: Diagram by the author, after XO Communications (2016)

64  Michael Stead

Cloud Computing via AI and Machine Learning, the distribution and storage of datafication – a term used to describe the combination of user and automated generated dataflows – between our homes and Cloud server farms is consuming fossil fuel-derived energy and releasing carbon emissions at environmentally detrimental levels (Stead et al., 2022). In addition, the short lifespans of most IoT hardware only serve to magnify these adverse planetary impacts. By negating effective means for repair, recycling and software updates, our domestic IoT-AI devices and systems can quickly become obsolete contributing to global electronic waste streams and material scarcity issues (Stead, 2016). Peoples’ lack of awareness and understanding regarding the insidious environmental impacts of domestic IoT-AI devices and systems is reinforced by the ‘closed’ proprietary nature of these technologies and the illegibility of their underlying datafied operations. Purposeful obfuscation by manufacturers and service providers is maintained in order to ‘lock’ people into restrictive technological ecosystems that are continually updated with new iterations of hardware and software. This compliance by users also enables firms to carry out surreptitious data processing and collection activities with little ‘end-user’ oversight. This includes practices described as surveillance capitalism – where companies harvest users’ personal data to sell to other third parties like advertisers (Zuboff, 2014). As Astor (2017) stresses, these furtive intrusions into peoples’ private, domestic spaces via the networked IoT-AI devices and systems that they own, such as vacuum cleaner robots and fitness wearables, offer a windfall for marketers… no armchair in your living room? You might see ads for armchairs next time you open [Meta]. Did your Roomba detect signs of a baby? Advertisers might target you accordingly. The 19th century designer, novelist and social activist, William Morris famously advocated that people should have nothing in their homes that they do not ‘know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful’ (Morris, 1882). As the technologies embedded into future homes will play an increasingly significant role in helping or hindering citizens and their communities to transition towards national and international sustainability milestones such as Net-Zero (IPCC, 2022) and a Circular Economy (European Commission, 2023), a modern addendum can be added to Morris’ credo. There is a fundamental urgency for the data-driven devices and systems that embody the ‘smart home’ paradigm to be (re)designed so that people can explicitly also know them to be environmentally sustainable and responsible. Envisioning smarter futures for technologies in the home

To explore the outlined issues in more depth, two examples of design-led research projects will be presented that apply novel methods to critique the unsustainability of today’s proprietary ‘smart home’, while also envisioning how emerging technologies and practices could potentially also play a part

Sustainable, responsible and smarter home  65

in contributing to the design of more sustainable, responsible and therefore smarter homes of tomorrow. The two projects – Edge of Reality and The Three Rights of AI Things – draw upon Speculative Design (Auger, 2013) practice, specifically Design Fiction as World Building (Coulton et al., 2017) techniques, to create future visions for domestic ‘smart’ technologies which can be evaluated with different stakeholders. Dunne and Raby (2013) have used the term affirmative design to describe normative, commercial design practice that actively seeks to solve real-world problems through improvements to, and/or, the profit-driven production of products, services and infrastructures. Design Fiction as World Building is different because rather than a method for generating specific short-term ‘product solutions’, designers and technologists can harness it to conduct exploratory praxis which creates fictional forward-looking prototypes that highlight and critique ongoing technological, cultural, economic, political and environmental concerns. The application of Design Fiction as World Building should therefore not be seen as an attempt to predict the future but as a strategy for enabling more inclusive debate about how and why particular futures are being designed and what they might mean (Bleecker, 2009; Hales, 2013). This Speculative Design approach is also distinctive from the types of design futures that have long been developed through the auspices of technology corporations. From Norman Bel Geddes’ Futurama – the 1939 futuristic car dominated urbanscape whose design and development was sponsored by General Motors (Marchand, 1992) – to the rebranding of Facebook as Meta and the company’s high-profile promotion of the so-called ‘metaverse’ which promises to bring extended reality technologies to everyone’s home in the near future (Meta, 2023) the visions used by these companies often positions them as the gatekeepers to a desirable and efficient technological future. Consequently, these corporate speculations often embody a single reality, in other words, a myopic trajectory towards the future – principally the privileged vantages of Global North societies (Mitrović, 2018; Prado & Oliveira, 2014). The Edge of Reality and The Three Rights of AI Things projects aim to facilitate more pluralistic discourse regards the possible sustainable implications of emerging ‘smart’ technologies within the present before said implications can potentially come to pass. As such, these visions strive to make the environmental impacts of the IoT and AI more visible, engaging and potentially actionable to a wide variety of stakeholders – notably the public, policymakers and indeed the tech industry. Edge of reality

Amazon Alexa enquiries, Spotify listens, Netflix binges – peoples’ everyday domestic interactions and practices are creating enormous volumes of data. We have now entered a period known as the Zettabyte Era where worldwide

66  Michael Stead

dataflows constantly exceed a trillion gigabytes. The generation and transmission of IoT-AI data from devices and systems situated in our homes – ‘the Edge of network’ – to the centralised Cloud and back again, significantly contributes to ICT’s total carbon footprint which is now said to account for around 3.9% of global CO2 emissions (Freitag et al., 2021) – nearly the same as the aviation industry. These emissions are increasingly affecting the planet’s natural environment as they increase the Earth’s temperature and contribute to climate change. Consequently, there is an urgent need to highlight and improve the sustainability of the datafication generated in and around our homes. Figure 5.2 illustrates today’s dominant network ontology for IoT-AI data management and how it relates to the ‘smart home’ context. Cloud Computing currently serves as the primary locus for said data-driven activities but works in conjunction with millions of Fog servers and billions of devices located at the Edge. Crucially, the latter is being considered as the basis for a new data management paradigm – Edge Computing. It is posited that limiting transmission and processing and storing data locally at the Edge, that is, on, or in close proximity to, the physical IoT devices themselves (Chakraborty & Datta, 2017), has the potential to be a more environmentally responsible alternative to the growing unsustainability of the Cloud.

FIGURE 5.2 The

relationship between today’s Cloud-dominated data-driven network ontology and the growing carbon footprint of ‘smart home’ technologies

Source: Diagram by the author

Sustainable, responsible and smarter home  67

A collaboration with BBC Research & Development, the Edge of Reality project (Stead et al., 2022) explores the sustainability of domestic IoT-AI data through the lens of Edge Computing. DFasWB and game design techniques were applied to design an ‘experiential future’ (Candy & Dunagan, 2017), an immersive, interactive game experience that invokes visual, kinaesthetic and auditory modalities in order to emphasise data-driven environmental impacts to participants. Edge of Reality players are tasked to better consider these said impacts within a fictional three-dimensional future ‘smart home’ setting constructed inside a mobile caravan. This speculative domestic context is an extrapolation of the typical living room environment (including a sofa, TV, lighting, etc.) and incorporates multiple integrated ‘smart’ devices to tangibly evoke a variety of data-driven interactions at the Edge of the IoT-AI network (Figure 5.3). As part of the experience, players engage with the EdgeBlock, a fictional micro-data centre. Building upon the pioneering Databox project (BBC, 2019), during gameplay, the EdgeBlock (Figure 5.4) grants players greater control of how their data is processed in the home, as opposed to automatically transmitting domestic IoT-AI data to Cloud servers. As such, the device

FIGURE 5.3 

An excerpt from the Edge of Reality game

Source: Photograph by the author. Design by Michael Stead, Franziska Pilling, Matthew Pilling, Paul Coulton and Adrian Gradinar

68  Michael Stead

FIGURE 5.4 

The fictive EdgeBlock home micro-data centre

Source: Photograph by the author. Design by Michael Stead, Franziska Pilling, Matthew Pilling, Paul Coulton and Adrian Gradinar

helps to infuse the game experience with the key principles that constitute Human-Data Interaction (HDI) theory:

• Legibility ensures that IoT data processes are made clearly understandable to users;

• Agency ensures that users can easily use and store their data as well as manage third-party access to it;

• Negotiability ensures that users are able to manage the social interactions that result from data processing and derive value for themselves (Mortier et al., 2016). The game mechanics of the experience were developed by combining HDI principles with insights directly gathered via workshops attended by sustainability and cybersecurity experts, as well as members of the public. Theorist Ian Bogost (2012) argues that designers can use game-like procedural rhetoric to produce powerful explorations of wicked socio-technical problems like anthropogenic climate change. Termed persuasive games, they can be designed to help reveal to players the underlying processes or concepts that drive a

Sustainable, responsible and smarter home  69

particular system or activity as they work through the resulting ‘choose your own adventure’ style game. During the game experience, an AI voice assistant called gAIa guides players through procedural rhetoric while offering sustainability advice regards the differences between Cloud and Edge data management processes. Mid-game, a villainous AI called Prometheus attempts to wrest control of the various ‘smart’ systems from gAIa, leading players to try and counter this incursion by setting up their own localised and secure Edge-based processing/ storage package for their data. In this way, Edge of Reality seeks to illustrate how negotiating the environmental implications of growing datafication must be carefully considered alongside other emergent ‘smart home’ design drivers, particularly cybersecurity issues. The immersive nature of Edge of Reality also means that participants are, to a degree, diegetically (through narrative and storytelling) situated within mimesis – as if they are directly experiencing or ‘living’ within the fictional ‘smartified’ world. Yet, unlike when in their present-day living spaces, through interactions with more sustainable and responsible interventions like the speculative EdgeBlock, players are empowered with greater agency to negotiate the legibility of the CO2 emissions being created through their domestic data-driven practices. The three rights of AI

The ongoing ‘smartification’ of domestic devices and systems is also shortening their lifecycles. While their software can for a period be upgraded via remote installation, their hardware is increasingly being rendered obsolete due to manufacturers’ and service providers’ constant drive to iterate digital functionality with new services and data capture capabilities. This systemised obsolescence is actively contributing to the production of domestic electronic waste (e-waste). The fastest growing waste stream in the world, less than 40% of the EU’s e-waste is currently subject to any form of sustainable recovery, that is, ‘post-lifecycle’ processes such as material recycling and the harvesting of reusable componentry (European Parliament, 2021). Recent environmental legislation like the Right-to-Repair (R2R) (Conway, 2021) has limited focus on washing machines, dishwashers and refrigerators (Which?, 2021) and does not account for the growing environmental and social impacts of billions of obsolete IoT products. Although electronic product repair is a more regular occurrence in a number of Global South countries (Beniwal, 2020), the complex, physical-digital nature of the IoT is making it harder to maintain and repurpose these types of devices and systems. In light of these issues, The Three Rights of AI Things project (Stead & Coulton, 2022) employed DFasWB methods to consider an alternative future whereby the R2R is granted to IoT-AI devices themselves.

70  Michael Stead

Machine Learning is already granting AI-assisted IoT a degree of autonomy and agency when it comes to making certain decisions that affect their users’ lives – ‘it is not the programmers anymore but the data itself that defines what to do next’ (Alpaydin, 2016). Inspired both by the notion of AI Rights – which denotes how advanced Ais could one day be granted inalienable rights like those presently afforded to humans (Gunkel, 2018) – and Isaac Asimov’s (1950) Three Laws of Robotics, in this fictive future, domestic products like the Toofy Peg toothbrush (Figure 5.5 – left) possess the autonomy to help societies to achieve Net-Zero decarbonisation targets and United Nations Sustainability Development Goals (UN, 2023) through adherence to the following three rights: 1 The First Right… An AI assisted Thing has the right to sustain its own existence as long as this action does not negatively impact upon Earth’s sustainability. 2 The Second Right… An AI assisted Thing has the right to sustain the existence of fellow AI assisted Things as long as this action does not conflict with its First Right. 3 The Third Right… An AI assisted Thing has the right to end its existence as long as this action does not negatively impact upon Earth’s sustainability and/or the existence of fellow AI assisted Things.

FIGURE 5.5  Toofy

Peg – an AI-assisted internet-connected toothbrush that can sustainably manage its own lifecycle

Source: Design by the author

Sustainable, responsible and smarter home  71

Toofy Peg’s packaging (Figure 5.5) highlights The First Right of AI Things through its inherent environmental credentials, particularly how its ability to carry out networked self-repair contributes to said global sustainability agendas. This is reinforced by the inclusion of the 3 Rights mark which affirms the product’s compliance with the relevant EU R2R legislation. The device’s packaging also states that the toothbrush uses PRECOG maintenance technology and that its hardware and software are also interoperable with other major providers including Amazon, Meta and Google. Today’s predictive maintenance diagnostic tools use AI, sensor arrays and real-time telemetry data to identify problems and are mostly deployed in high-cost industrial settings (Stark, 2015) such as on factory floors and power stations and increasingly in transportation systems like airlines, train networks and across fleet vehicles. Like predictive maintenance, Digital Twins are currently being employed for high-cost applications such as in architectural Building Information Modelling practices (Gerrish et al., 2017). The Three Rights of AI Things project seeks to illustrate The Second Right through the integration of predictive maintenance and Digital Twin competencies into the design of lower cost-high volume domestic devices and systems like the Toofy Peg toothbrush. An interactive Digital Twin of the toothbrush is visualised in Figure 5.6. The Toofy Peg twin is able to diagnose the material

FIGURE 5.6  Toofy

Peg can diagnose its own faults allowing its owners to more easily repair the device and avoid creating more domestic e-waste

Source: Design by the author

72  Michael Stead

device’s fault and provides users with real-time guidance regards how to carry out repairs. Returning to Figure 5.5, it also conveys the final Third Right. In the fictive world, Toofy Peg’s manufacturer is planning to release a significant software update. This will leave the toothbrush unsupported and therefore make it obsolete. Given that there is no hardware repair nor software upgrade available that can resolve this issue, the device makes the decision to provide its owners with a Last Right script. This details all its material and digital elements, as well as a Self-obsolescence Date. Knowing many of its materials and parts can be reused in the production of new devices, the toothbrush hopes that the script will help its owners to disassemble and upcycle most of its hardware in a sustainable manner, rather than allowing it to reach landfill. Transitioning towards technologically sustainable, responsible and smarter homes

Domestic ‘smart’ technologies like those explored in the two case studies are not, in and of themselves, malevolent. These emerging technologies can help us to make better sense of the world and their adoption in many other sectors like healthcare, transport and manufacturing have provided numerous important breakthroughs. Fundamentally, it is not our devices nor systems that have led us into an era of unsustainability, but how we have continued to design them to deplete precious natural resources, generate copious amounts of carbon emissions and create mountains of obsolete technology. Schulte (2019) contends that the development of technologies takes time, deploying them is complicated and it might take years until their impacts can be observed. The increasing impacts of domestic IoT-AI hardware and software are in fact a clear and present danger for climate change, but, as noted, the dominant, problematic design patterns and rhetoric put forward by technology manufacturers and service providers frequently obscure this reality. Given the speed with which we must respond to the climate crisis and kickstart the transition to more sustainable, responsible and smarter homes of the future, a new framework for governing the environmental threats that new domestic ‘smart’ technologies may pose is urgently required. Figure 5.7 depicts the Sustainable Technological Transitions design process model which would help practitioners to use Design Fiction prototyping to envision fictional iterations of domestic devices and systems in tandem with the development of their real-world counterparts (Stead et al., 2021). The adoption of new technologies will always give rise to trade-offs and unforeseen consequences. As Bratton (2019) notes, due to humankind’s deplorable track record, a sustainable future predicated on technological intervention is a venture that is full of risk [and, as such,] the future becomes something to be prevented as much as achieved. To mitigate this

Sustainable, responsible and smarter home  73

FIGURE 5.7 

Sustainable Technological Transitions design process model

Source: Author

risk and curtail the ‘tunnel vision’ technological determinism and utopian rhetoric which can often accompany socio-technical change (Friedman & Nathan, 2010; Nardi, 2016), the Sustainable Technological Transitions design process model is marked by a series of Mediation Points. The intersections between fictional and real-world prototyping offer regular forums for different stakeholders to work with designers and manufacturers to consider the environmental impacts resulting from the development of next-generation data-driven technologies. In doing so, this design process could help shape more sustainable and responsible pathways for future ‘smart home’ technologies before they become widely adopted across society. Contrasting with today’s devices and systems which often have innate bias towards the wants of more privileged Western users, the model provides opportunities to design for more inclusive domestic technologies that embody the values and needs of broader sets of citizens and communities and thus bring benefits to more diverse ways of living across the globe. Conclusion

The primary goal of Edge of Reality and The Three Rights of AI Things case studies is to raise awareness, provoke debate and perhaps even begin to shift audiences’ perceptions regards the adoption of so-called ‘smart’ data-driven

74  Michael Stead

technologies in and around the home. If more practitioners were to engage in critically reflective practice like Design Fiction as Worldbuilding alongside their development of real domestic ‘smart’ technologies, they will be better placed to consider the present and possible future impacts of IoT-AI devices and systems on different home contexts and the natural environment. We could perhaps then transition forward from the technologically sustainable, responsible, and smarter home being a vision of the future into a real-world reality.

References Alpaydin, E. (2016). Machine Learning. MIT Press. Ashton, K. (2009). That ‘Internet of Things’ Thing. The RFID Journal. https://tinyurl. com/twwrm62 Asimov, I. (1950). I, Robot. Gnome Press. Astor, M. (2017). Your Roomba May Be Mapping Your Home, Collecting Data That Could Be Shared. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/technology/roomba-irobotdata-privacy.html Auger, J. (2013). Speculative design: Crafting the speculation. Digital Creativity, 24(1), 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.767276 BBC. (2019). Research & Development: Databox. https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/ databox Beniwal, S. (2020). New worlds with some tinkering. In R.M. Leitao, L.A. Noel, & L. Murphy (Eds.), Proceedings of PIVOT 2020: Designing a World of Many Centers (pp. 246–251), 4 June. Bleecker, J. (2009). Design Fiction: A Short Essay on Design, Science, Fact and Fiction. Bogost, I. (2012). Alien Phenomenology, or, What It’s Like To Be a Thing. University of Minnesota Press. Bratton, B. H. (2019). The Terraforming. Strelka Press. Candy, S., & Dunagan, J. (2017). Designing an experiential scenario: The people who vanished. Futures, 86, 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.006 Chakraborty, T., & Datta, S. K. (2017). Home Automation Using Edge Computing and Internet of Things. In 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Consumer Electronics (ISCE), 47–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCE.2017.8355544 Conway, L. (2021). The Right to Repair Regulations, Research Briefing Number 9302, House of Commons Library. Coulton, P., Lindley, J., Sturdee, M., & Stead, M. (2017). Design Fiction as World Building. In Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Research Through Design Conference. Edinburgh, UK, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4746964 Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything. MIT Press. European Parliament. (2022). E-waste in the EU: Facts and Figures. https://www. europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20201208STO93325/e-waste-inthe-eu-facts-and-figures-infographic European Commission. (2023). Circular Economy Action Plan. https://environment. ec.europa.eu/strategy/circular-economy-action-plan_en Forty, A. (1986). Objects of Desire. Thames & Hudson.

Sustainable, responsible and smarter home  75

Freitag, C., Berners-Lee, M., Widdicks, K., Knowles, B., Blair, G., & Friday, A. (2021). The real climate & transformative impact of ICT. Patterns, 2(9). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100340. Friedman, B. A., & Nathan, L. (2010). Multi-lifespan information system design: A research initiative for the HCI community. Proceedings of CHI, 10, 2243–2246. Gerrish, T., Ruikar, K., Cook, M., Johnson, M., Phillip, M., & Lowry, C. (2017). BIM application to building energy performance visualisation & management. Challenges & Potential. Energy and Buildings, 144(2017), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enbuild.2017.03.032 Gunkel, D. J. (2018). Robot Rights. MIT Press. Hales, D. (2013). Design fictions: An introduction and provisional taxonomy. Digital Creativity, 21(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.769453 IPCC. (2022). The Evidence Is Clear: The Time For Action Is Now. We Can Halve Emissions By 2030. https://www.ipcc.ch/2022/04/04/ipcc-ar6-wgiii-pressrelease/ Marchand, R. (1992). The designers go to the fair II: Norman Bel Geddes, the general motors “Futurama,” and the visit to the factory transformed. Design Issues, 8(2), 22–40 (19 pages), (Spring, 1992). Meta. (2023). What Is the Metaverse? https://about.meta.com/what-is-the-metaverse/ Mitrović, I. (2018). ‘“Western Melancholy”/How to Imagine Different Futures in the “Real World”?’ Morris, W. (1882). Hopes and Fears for Art: Five Lectures Delivered in Birmingham, London, and Nottingham, 1878–1881. Ellis & White. Mortier, R., Haddadi, H., Henderson, T., McAuley, D., Crowcroft, J., & Crabtree, A. (2016). Human-Data Interaction: The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd edition). Interaction Design Foundation. Nardi, B. (2016). Designing for the future – but which one? Interactions, 23(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/2843592 Pierce, J., & DiSalvo, C. (2017). Dark Clouds, Io&#!+, and [Crystal Ball Emoji] Projecting Network Anxieties with Alternative Design Metaphors. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 1383–1393). Prado, L., & Oliveira, P. (2014). ‘Questioning the “Critical” in Speculative & Critical Design.’ https://medium.com/a-parede/questioning-the-critical-in-speculativecritical-design-5a355cac2ca4 Schulte, B. (2019). Design Fiction Probes — Interrogating Technologies of the Future. https://tinyurl.com/sza2ux6 Stark, J. (2015). Product Lifecycle Management. Product Lifecycle Management, Vol. 1, 1–29. Springer Cham. Stead, M. (2016). A Toaster for Life: Using Design Fiction To Facilitate Discussion On The Creation Of A Sustainable Internet Of Things. In Proceedings of DRS 2016, Design Research Society 50th Anniversary Conference. Brighton, UK. http://www. drs2016.org/455 Stead, M., Blaney, A., Gradinar, A., Richards, D., & Bayar, S. (2021). Design for TerraReforming: Prototyping Environmentally Responsible Socio-technical Futures. In 14th International Conference of the European Academy of Design: Safe Harbours for Design Research. Stead, M., & Coulton, P. (2022). A More-than-Human Right-to-Repair. In DRS2022 Bilbao: Design Research Society Conference 2022 [29] Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.718

76  Michael Stead

Stead, M., Coulton, P., Pilling, F., Gradinar, A., Pilling, M., & Forrester, I. (2022). Morethan-Human-Data Interaction: Bridging Novel Design Research Approaches to Materialise and Foreground Data Sustainability. In 25th International Academic Mindtrek conference (Academic Mindtrek 2022) (pp. 62–74). ACM. https://doi. org/10.1145/3569219.3569344 UN. (2023). United Nations Sustainability Development Goals. https://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/ Vailshery, L. S. (2022). Number of Internet of Things (IoT) Connected Devices Worldwide from 2019 to 2021, with Forecasts from 2022 to 2030. https://www. statista.com/statistics/1183457/iot-connected-devices-worldwide/, last accessed 10/10/2022. Which?. (2021). New ‘Right to Repair’ Laws Introduced: What Do They Actually Mean For You? XO Communications. (2016). The Year of the Zettabyte. https://www.slideshare.net/ infographicbox/xo-communications-2016-the-year-of-the-zettabyte Zuboff, S. (2014). A Digital Declaration. https://www.faz.net/1.3152525

6 WORKING FROM HOME We Don’t Need More Space, We Need SPACE Ana Rute Costa and Katherine Ellsworth-Krebs

Introduction

Before the COVID-19 pandemic about 4% of the working population in the UK reported working from home (WFH), and the Spring 2020 lockdown was the tipping point for an unprecedented change, spiking to roughly 46% (Wethal et al., 2022). The legacy of lockdowns has arguably changed our spatial perception forever. Information and communication technology, such as the rise of Zoom, allowed people around the world to fit office work into their homes at an unprecedented scale. In this chapter, we explore new insights this experience offers and how can we design future homes appropriately for increasing norms of WFH without increasing the environmental impact of our homes. To do so, the chapter begins with key challenges identified in literature on WFH during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Then we offer an architectural perspective to explain why the solution doesn’t necessarily demand the creation of more space to accommodate office work at home and we articulate these alternative designs in relation to Social, Physical, Affordances, Context and Emotional considerations (SPACE).

Work from home during and after COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic period, WFH generated many challenges: stress-related symptoms that negatively influence job satisfaction (Bick et al., 2021; Niebuhr et al., 2022), such as lost comradery and isolation (Chafi et al., 2022) and the blurring of boundaries between home, work and leisure (Holmes et al., 2022; Pass & Ridgway, 2022). The collision of a range of everyday practices normally separated in time and space when working outside the DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244-7

78  Ana Rute Costa and Katherine Ellsworth-Krebs

home and a lack of social presence (Antonacopoulo & Georgiadou, 2020), limited informal chats leading to communication difficulties and lack of mutual trust (Tautz et al., 2022). Furthermore, there are inequalities in participation and a lack of space to accommodate WFH requirements (Wethal et al., 2022). On the other hand, WFH during the COVID-19 pandemic also generated opportunities such as increased flexibility, autonomy and work-life balance (Chafi et al., 2022; Gifford, 2022; Wethal et al., 2022). As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, organisations worldwide created new working norms in part to acknowledge that hybrid work patterns are no longer a temporary pandemic response, but a continuing feature of the working world (Delany, 2021). However, the potential of adopting hybrid working practices depends on whether a job has tasks and activities that do not require workers to be physically present to deliver their work (Lund et al., 2020). Indeed, McKinsey & Company’s (2022) American Opportunity Survey shows that only 58% of respondents were able to WFH at least one day a week in spring 2022; and 35% reported having the option to work from home five days a week. This survey also revealed that when people have the chance to hybrid work, 87% would accept the offer. In the UK, the 2021 census (ONS, 2022) also shows that hybrid working has risen during spring 2022 after national COVID-19 restrictions were lifted. The rise of WFH raises new questions about ensuring job satisfaction and health of employees. Shirmohammadi et al. (2022) offer one of the most holistic metanalysis to compare the ‘desirable expectations and the undesirable realities of remote work’ which includes (1) ‘flextime’ vs. work intensity, (2) flexplace vs. space limitation, (3) technologically feasible work arrangement vs. technostress and isolation and (4) family friendly work arrangement vs. housework and care intensity.’ (Shirmohammadi et al., 2022, p. 163). Balancing work and personal life seems to be a major challenge for employers and employees, the continuous presence of technology and digital devices turns the work into being ‘omnipresent’ and deprives people from their personal space and weekly time off (Vyas, 2022). Yet none of these studies refers to the design of the home/work environment and does not consider how we can design homes to accommodate the home-as-office. Do we need more space in our homes?

The straightforward answer to address physical WFH requirements is to increase the square meters and extend our homes when possible (EllsworthKrebs et al., 2021). One of the impacts of WFH during the COVID-19 pandemic was the increased demand for ‘garden offices’ across the world (Partridge, 2021). For example, in France, suppliers reported an increase in requests of almost 80% compared to the previous years and an increase in sales of 70% (Hornyak, 2021). These small garden cabins are appealing because

Working from home  79

they are easy to set up, provide a connection to nature, create a private space detached from household interruption. Moreover, some of these light structures can be well-insulated and acoustically effective, so they allow users to keep warm and cosy and use the space all year around. However, not everyone has space to build a garden office in their backyard; and these constructions will increase the building footprint, the use of material resources, infrastructures (electricity and internet connection), and as a result can increase the household’s carbon footprint (Ellsworth-Krebs, 2020). A growing population means an increase of global building floor area and energy demand in buildings (Dean et al., 2016), and in order to reduce energy use in buildings and for building construction, we need to deliver net-zero energy buildings and deep energy retrofit of existing buildings. Therefore, it is essential that instead of increasing the square meterage of our home, we find solutions to optimise the spaces that we already have. By building smaller and more flexible homes (see Chapter 1 for more detail on housing flexibility) and by retrofitting existing ones, we can save money and use this to optimise building performance and energy efficiency. We don’t need more space, we need SPACE

Acknowledging that WFH emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic has deeply changed the meaning and content of homes, we turn to offering five key aspects that future home designs and retrofits should focus on: SPACE. Our bodies and mind are in constant interaction with the spaces we inhabit, and our balance can be achieved by tuning and adjusting the environment according to our needs. We argue, that this proposed SPACE framework is able to enhance the quality of WFH spaces without affecting the principal functions of a home. 1 Social: Ensuring that a home is designed to promote in-person social interactions and expand our social boundaries beyond it. One of the key challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic experience was the lack of social interactions and isolation; this was especially acute when people were requested to continue to socially distance. However, depending on house typology, the relationship between interior and exterior, the thresholds and private/public spaces can be explored in different ways and allow us to connect and interact with our neighbours at different levels (Figure 6.1). Simple routines allow us to be connected with others, e.g. the possibility of looking through the window and seeing our neighbour leaving to walk their dog, doing some gardening on a common ground, listening the noise of children playing outside, observing people passing by our home and having a chat. These social interactions are well-understood in architecture. Herman Hertzberger (2005), for example, in Lessons for

80  Ana Rute Costa and Katherine Ellsworth-Krebs

FIGURE 6.1 

Social interactions, illustration by Ana Rute Costa

Students in Architecture (2005), shows us how we can design pedestrian roads to be safe for children to play and interact with elderly people (see Chapter 9 for more detail on ageing homes), balconies that communicate and generate informal conversations, shared facilities that allow people to meet each other, community courtyards and small gardens that bring people together. Our homes cannot be designed as isolated elements disconnected from their surroundings and neighbourhoods. Isabella Marboe’s book (2021), Building for the Community in Vienna, presents us with contemporary examples of homes with precious social spaces that allow their users to be connected, relate to each other, respect social boundaries and promote fruitful social interactions. An example of that is a new model of housing that combines commercial areas with housing and has a collective patio at the heart of the building. The building is the ‘Hauswirtschaft’ at Nordbahnhof designed by einszueins architektur. 2 Physical: A home that allows us to be physically active, moving around the house, making regular breaks and exploring different working positions and workplaces throughout the day. For most jobs, WFH involves sitting at a desk, working on a computer/ laptop and spending long periods of time in front of a screen. There is plenty of guidance on how to set up an ideal and ergonomic workplace, taking into consideration different aspects related with the setup of devices and working tools, e.g. adjusting chair, position of the screen, table design, keyboard/mouse. Beyond these, there are aspects related to human behaviour (e.g. standing up and moving around, changing focus) and others related to the environmental setting (e.g. natural/artificial light, temperature, humidity). While working in an office, getting up and moving around throughout the day is understood to be important for health and well-being (see Chapter 8 for more detail on homes and health). To facilitate this at home, future homes should consider different workplaces across the house and associate them with different activities, seating positions, time of the day and number of householders at home (Figure 6.2). Some work activities like reading and speaking on the phone, even meeting online, do not need to be performed in front of the computer. A home where we work should be able to accommodate these changes. While having an online

Working from home  81

FIGURE 6.2 

Different working positions and places, illustration by Ana Rute Costa

meeting, we can sit on the sofa. Writing reports and proofreading documents could similarly take place away from the desk on a tablet and/or printout. The type of light and solar orientation is key, a worker should be able to adjust their work location throughout the day accordingly. While reading or working on a computer, having a constant zenithal light helps us to keep focus and avoid reflection on digital screens. However, while having a meeting it is often more desirable to let the sun come in and warm the space. 3 Architectural Affordances: Homes that explore the connection between design intentions and uses, maintenance and adaptability – flexible spaces that change the mind set and change psychological boundaries. One of the problems with WFH is the ‘omnipresence’ of work (Vyas, 2022). Our different digital devices do not allow us to close a door and have a clear boundary between the private and the professional. By acting upon our previous suggestion to diversify physical working spaces and encourage the worker to move around the home, we may compound the problem by creating associations with every room in the home. In order to avoid this, we suggest that future homes be designed with architectural affordances that enable their users to change settings according to the time of the day and their private/professional activity. Bedrooms occupy a substantial area of our homes and are normally dedicated to one or two householders. The primary function of a bedroom is to provide a quiet and safe space to sleep/rest. However, bedrooms are used for extended activities, e.g. work, exercise, meditation, read, watch TV, network, socialise. Despite these extended functions, the physical space of a bedroom does not normally change, therefore emotional boundaries can get blurred and affect people’s motivation to work (Holmes et al., 2022). Future homes can be designed with adaptable bedrooms to accommodate different activities. Curtains are a good example of an architectural affordance: they can easily be folded and extended, revealing and hiding different sections of the home (Figure 6.3). For example, the main working desk can be located in the main bedroom along a wall full of books/storage shelves. At the end of the day, this wall can be covered with a curtain, at the same time revealing a mirror that was previously hidden

82  Ana Rute Costa and Katherine Ellsworth-Krebs

FIGURE 6.3 

Architectural affordances: curtains, illustration by Ana Rute Costa

in its folds. Moreover, a retractable bed can be folded during the day, when the space is used for other activities, and be open during sleep/rest periods. A bed in a niche can provide a place to rest/read/relax without interrupting the room circulation and leave space for exercising. These architectural affordances provide a flexible use of space, maximise the number of different activities, promote a mindset change and accommodate different needs throughout the day/week/year. The Drömlägenheten: Dream Home designed by White Arkitekter in 2017 showcases the potential of a flexible universal dwelling concept that can be used as a three-bed apartment one week and a studio the next (White Arkitekter & Stångastaden, 2017). Architectural affordances enable the optimisation of space usage, and help the worker to change their spatial settings without leaving the room. 4 Context: A home that embraces climate emergency challenges and reflects the unique context where it sits. A place where technical advances are aligned with human needs and provide a safe and comfortable environment to live in. Considering context is valuable in two perspectives. The first one is related to the physical context of the house; the second is in the context of WFH. Firstly, designing a home implies a full understanding of the past and present. We must understand the past because we can’t ignore the context where the home is placed, the tectonics, cultural traditions and practices that affect the way we live. We must understand the present because we are in a climate emergency and live on a planet with finite resources. Our future homes should be designed and built with robust materials and construction methods that minimise maintenance requirements and reduce energy consumption. Our homes will need to thrive and survive in order to keep us healthy, safe and protected. We must be creative to address current challenges. The future home sits alongside other homes: they can share resources and facilities; they can create spaces for people to network and socialise. For example, instead of planning a refurbishment of a single house we can refurbish the whole street and install a common ground source heat pump to produce renewable energy or we do not need a single trampoline in every home that has children, we can have a big trampoline for all the children in the neighbourhood.

Working from home  83

FIGURE 6.4 The

world as a home, the world in a home, illustration by Ana Rute Costa

Secondly, the physical context of WFH is different for all. In one home, a person may live alone. While this may simplify design requirements, the trend toward decreasing household sizes is another factor increasing domestic space per capita and increasing related consumption (EllsworthKrebs, 2020; Ivanova & Büchs, 2022). In another, multiple household members may interrupt the home-as-office. Other features and devices within a home can also be seen as disruptors or facilitators. For instance, one of the positive experiences of lockdown was the possibility of completing housework during work breaks (Wethal et al., 2022), therefore facilitating housekeeping. If these non-work tasks are not managed wisely, they can seriously affect our productivity and expectations. Future homes can be designed with these issues in consideration, establishing clear borders between private and public home spaces, or creating different connections and multifunctional breakout spaces according to the number of users at various times of the day/week/year/life. Household sizes are declining (Ellsworth-Krebs, 2020) and change along life. With flexible spaces, a section of a house can be rented temporarily and maximise the occupation of existing spaces. The context of future homes should be considered at different scales and with different design principles. At the global scale: the world is our unique home, and our home sits in a broader context that affects and interacts with its design (Figure 6.4). At the local scale: the different contexts can be adjusted and improved according to our needs. 5 Emotion: A home that is personalised, that is owned and appropriated to fit household needs. A home of emotions, feelings, memories that support and enhance the balance between private and professional life. Often, home is the place where we feel safe and protected. However, not every home stimulates appropriation and ownership: e.g. rented homes where there are strict rules of use, white and clean homes where everything has a place and where even people need to move/sit in a specific position. Homes should be there to make us feel comfortable (see Chapter 4 for more detail on house and comfort), to be used, to be loved, to enhance our physical connection with the space and create the perfect atmosphere.

84  Ana Rute Costa and Katherine Ellsworth-Krebs

FIGURE 6.5 

Different room atmospheres, illustration by Ana Rute Costa

Future homes should contemplate more room for adaptation: spaces that allow us to create different atmospheres according to the weather, mood or occasion (Figure 6.5). For example, a window can have different devices that allow us to relate to the external space in different ways: a light curtain that blocks the bright sun; a thick curtain that improves acoustics, blocks light and provides privacy; an external blind that darkens the room or while slightly open allows cross ventilation without decreasing safety. Beyond providing light and ventilation, a window can create special connections between the interior and exterior. It can promote specific activities, e.g. reading, playing and working. Beyond architectural affordances provided and different spatial features, in order to stimulate emotions, we need mindful users who analyse their homes and know what type of spaces they need at different times of the day/week/year. Being aware of these helps us to connect with the space and adjust it according to our preferences. Sometimes it can be a simple flower pot that sits at our desk while we are working and connects us to positive memories from nature. Or it can be a more significant change, where the room layout is adjusted according to the season. For instance, during the winter we need to leave the radiator uncovered to facilitate space heating, but during the summer we can block the radiator and place our favourite seat next to the window, to stimulate a stronger connection with the exterior and the extended light days. The emotional connection with the spaces we inhabit (EllsworthKrebs et al., 2019) and with household objects enables a longer use of materials, and this can reduce waste. For example, if there are embedded memories of family and friends, there is less desire to change finishing materials or replace furniture to follow the latest trends. A house is concluded, whereas a home is never finished. Home is an iterative setting that supports our mind and body connection, and generates memories for life. Working from home: we don’t need more space, we need SPACE

WFH policies and hybrid working practices are here to stay. The era of a one-size-fits-all office-based work structure is over, giving rise to more customised and hybrid work models in the future’ (Chafi et al., 2022). In this

Working from home  85

context, the reflections and suggestions provided in this chapter are useful to shape the design of future homes and adopt a reflective approach to the different dimensions of a home. We do not need bigger homes to accommodate our WFH spatial requirements – this would increase energy and material resources demand. Instead, we need to work creatively, reflect on all the dimensions of a home, and design spaces that promote social (S) interactions and physical (P) activity, spaces made flexible by architectural affordances (A), contextualised (C) approaches, and emotional (E) relationships. By focusing on the SPACE aspects of a home, we will create engaging WFH environments that can improve life and work balance, and fulfil people’s needs. References Antonacopoulou, E. & Georgiadou, A., 2020. Leading through social distancing: The future of work, corporations and leadership from home. Feminist Frontiers, 28, 749–767. Bick, A., Blandin, A. & Mertens, K., 2021. Work from Home Before and After the COVID-19 Outbreak. SSRN. Chafi, M. B., Hultberg, A. & Yams, N. B., 2022. Post-pandemic office work: Perceived challenges and opportunities for a sustainable work environment. Sustainability, 14(1), 294. Dean, B., Dulac, J., Petrichenko, K & Graham, P., 2016. Towards Zero-Emission Efficient and Resilient Buildings: Global Status Report, s.l.: Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction. Delany, K., 2021. What challenges will organisations face transitioning for the first time to the new normal of remote working? Human Resource Development International, 25(5), 642–650. Ellsworth-Krebs, K., 2020. Implications of declining household sizes and expectations of home comfort for domestic energy demand. Nature Energy, 5(1), 20–25. Ellsworth-Krebs, K., Lord, C. & Holmes, T., 2021. Hybrid Working is Fuelling Demand for More Tech and Bigger Homes – Both are Bad News for the Planet. The Conversation. Ellsworth-Krebs, K., Reid, L. & Hunter, C. J., (2019). Integrated framework of home comfort: Relaxation, companionship and control. Building Research & Information, 47(2), 202–218. Gifford, J., 2022. Remote working: Unprecedented increase and a developing research agenda. Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 105–113. Hertzberger, H., 2005. Lessons for Students in Architecture. 5th ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. Holmes, T., Lord, C. & Ellsworth-Krebs, K., 2022. Locking-down instituted practices: Understanding sustainability in the context of ‘domestic’ consumption in the remaking. Journal of Consumer Culture, 22(4), 1049–1067. Hornyak, T., 2021. A New Meaning to ‘Working in the Garden’. [Online] Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/business/home-office-garden.html [Accessed 05 12 2022]. Ivanova, D. & Büchs, M., 2022. Implications of shrinking household sizes for meeting the 1.5°C climate targets. Ecological Economics, 202, 107590.

86  Ana Rute Costa and Katherine Ellsworth-Krebs

Lund, S., Madgavkar, A., Manyika, J. & Smit, S., 2020. What’s Next for Remote Work: Ana Analysis of 2,00 Tasks, 800 Jobs, and Nine Countries. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/whats-next-forremote-work-an-analysis-of-2000-tasks-800-jobs-and-nine-countries#/ Marboe, I., 2021. Building for the Community in Vienna: Solidary, Participatory, Pioneering. 5th ed. Munich: Detail. McKinsey & Company, 2022. McKinsey. [Online] Available at: https://www.mckinsey. com/industries/real-estate/our-insights/americans-are-embracing-flexible-workand-they-want-more-of-it [Accessed 05 01 2023]. Niebuhr, F., Borle, P., Börner-Zobel, F. & Voelter-Mahlknecht, S., 2022. Healthy and happy working from home? Effects of working from home on employee health and job satisfaction. Environment Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1122. ONS, 2022. Office for National Statistics. [Online] Available at: https://www.ons.gov. uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/ articles/ishybridworkingheretostay/2022-05-23 [Accessed 05 01 2023]. Partridge, J., 2021. Home Working Drives Demand for ‘Shoffice’ Space in UK Gardens. [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/30/homeworking-drives-demand-shoffice-space-uk-gardens-shed-office [Accessed 12 01 2023]. Pass, S. & Ridgway, M., 2022. An informed discussion on the impact of COVID-19 and ‘enforced’ remote working on employee engagement. Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 254–270. Shirmohammadi, M., Au, W. C. & Beigi, M., 2022. Remote work and work-life balance: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and suggestions for HRD practitioners. Human Resource Development International, 25(2), 163–181. Tautz, D. C., Schübbe, K. & Felfe, J., 2022. Working from home and its challenges for transformational and health-oriented leadership. Frontiers in Psychology, 13:1017316. Vyas, L., 2022. ‘‘New normal’’ at work in a post-COVID world: Work-life balance and labor markets. Policy and Society, 41(1), 155–167. Wethal, U. et al., 2022. Reworking boundaries in the home-as-office: Boundary traffic during COVID-19 lockdown and the future of working from home. Sustainability: Science, Practice And Policy, 18(1), 325–342. White Arkitekter & Stångastaden, 2017. Drömlägenheten – By White Arkitekter & Stångastaden, Linköping: s.n. https://whitearkitekter.com/project/dromlagenhetendream-home/

7 THE FUTURE OF COMMUNAL LIVING Exploring the Architectural and Technological Possibilities of the Shared, Multigenerational Urban Home in 2030 Emad Alyedreessy and Ivana Tosheva

Introduction

According to data from the United Nations (2020), the world population living in urban areas has been steadily increasing over the past few decades and is expected to reach 60% in 2030. Cities are attractive for a variety of reasons, including access to employment, education, healthcare, and other opportunities. The world’s largest cities are also home to the wealthiest corporations, which help these metropolitan areas generate revenues that rival the GDP of some sovereign nations. As a result, it is likely that existing cities will continue to grow, and new cities will continue to emerge. An entrenched housing crisis, however, is the blighted reality for the most densely populated urban areas (Florida, 2018) as global housing sectors have struggled to tackle the macroeconomic changes affecting their populations (Dorling, 2015). Two major factors contributing to this quandary are the increasing demands for housing and the limited availability of land for new housing developments. As a mitigative response, cities have witnessed a rise of contemporary shared living practices. In recent years, numerous shared urban housing schemes have been built with the aim of addressing both housing shortages and rising costs of living, whilst also focusing on the promotion of community values. Social isolation and loneliness, further exacerbated during the pandemic lockdowns, have also become primary concerns in some parts of the world, such as the UK, where older people (aged 65 and over) are projected to make up 22% of its population in the next ten years (ONS, 2017). Currently, 3.6 million senior citizens live alone in the UK, with estimations that 20% of this DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244-8

88  Emad Alyedreessy and Ivana Tosheva

demographic will struggle to find affordable housing by 2030. Consequently, shared urban housing that encourages collective care and supports a strong sense of community should be of utmost priority for creating and maintaining sustainable and resilient societies. In this chapter, we will discuss how the shared, multigenerational home of the future could evolve as a new mode of living for urban communities in 2030. The ideas presented are not set out as a disparity of utopian and dystopian speculations but, rather, as a provocative, yet plausible, discourse on the future of domestic city living. Our vision is shaped by a conservative extrapolation of existing architectural principles, socio-economic events, and nascent technologies that are likely to form a notable presence in everyday life over the next decade. References to architectural theories, alongside examples of existing projects, will also be provided. The chapter will conclude with a review of the discussed interventions and practices, and their potential impact on residents and communities. The shared, multigenerational residential building in 2030 Rediscovering the local

In many parts of the world, there has been a shift away from the traditional anthropological ‘nuclear family’ structure – where a married couple lives in a single household, either alone or with their children – driven by a combination of economic, social, and demographic factors. Economic instabilities and affordability issues have led to an increasing number of people either living alone or forming alternative community structures. Such a trend can be observed in the US, where the emergence of multigenerational households has been on the rise over the past few decades (Lautz, 2021). In existing developer-led urban shared housing models, communities are typically homogenous, with spaces, events, and functions tailored towards young professionals. However, with the growing trend of multigenerational living, future models may extend to accommodate for small families and elderly residents (see Chapter 9 for more detail on ageing homes). The advent and evolution of such living typologies would likely lead to the facilitation of intergenerational exchange, which can prove to be invaluable to social and human interests. In such settings, senior members could pass on life skills and offer practical assistance with tasks such as childcare, whilst younger residents could help the elderly manage new technologies and provide emotional support to alleviate feelings of depression, loneliness and isolation (Murayama et al., 2015; Zheng et al., 2022). Such social structures could begin to blur the lines between nuclear and extended families by contributing to new, dynamic, and

The future of communal living  89

evolving forms of familial relationships based on long-term shared values or interests rather than consanguinity. This shift towards what sociologist Emile Durkheim (1933) described as ‘organic’ solidarities could begin to challenge and disrupt traditional notions of the family unit. As developers seek to streamline expenditure and capitalise on a growing desire to live with relatives and friends, it is possible that dense, multigenerational, multi-purpose large-scale residential structures containing several hundred private units could be the predominant shared housing typology in cities of the future. These buildings could leverage the functions of amenity spaces and infrastructures to enhance the standard of living for their residents. Existing projects of a similar scale such as the ‘The Interlace’ in Singapore designed by Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA), Gensler’s ‘The Hub on Causeway’ in Boston, ‘Aquarela’ by Ateliers Jean Nouvel and ‘EPIQ’ by Bjarke Ingels Group have already been built upon Moreno’s (2016) ‘15-minute city’ concept and New Urbanism principles which, when applied at a building scale, bring density and daily activities indoors. By integrating a wide range of facilities and services into the home, such multi-use typologies could become an established practice in making residential developments more convenient and accessible in the future. Buildings could be populated by well-distributed, diverse amenities such as retailers, restaurants and cafes, gardens, private and public service office spaces, theatres, nurseries, sports, and other desirable facilities Furthermore, these shared environments could become key nodes in broader public transportation routes with EV buses and tram stops connected to lower-level superstructures making daily commutes easier for residents. With developers typically fulfilling only the minimum statutory requirements for individual room sizes, we would expect residents to spend increasing amounts of time outside of their private quarters. Alongside amenities and services being closer to home, occupants could be more likely to acquaint themselves with their community, engaging and participating in local events and activities. This highlights the importance of tailoring the architectural design and spatial programme of communal spaces in a manner that makes them more appropriate and attractive to various user needs and expectations. For example, along with bustling and energetic spaces, muted areas for reading, contemplation and quiet conversation should be included and carefully curated to cater for more introverted personality types. Flexibility and adaptability

To achieve spatial diversity and inclusive design, flexibility and adaptability are two long-standing architectural concepts that require acknowledgement. As a pioneer of modernist architecture, Walter Gropius recognised that architects should no longer design buildings as monuments, but rather as

90  Emad Alyedreessy and Ivana Tosheva

‘receptacles for the flow of life they serve’ that are ‘flexible enough to create a background fit to absorb the dynamic features of our modern life’ (Gropius, 1962, p. 84). In the late 1990s, architect Richard Rogers also argued that we should anticipate buildings outliving their designated purposes; since life cannot be defined in the long term, nor contained in fixed spaces, ‘[buildings] have become flexible containers for use by a dynamic society’ (Rogers, 1998, p. 163). It is likely that building refurbishments will continue to be popular in the future as a cost-effective and environmentally friendly alternative to the process of demolition and new construction (see Chapter 1 for more detail on housing flexibility). However, it could be expected that newly built large-scale urban homes in 2030 would be developed with flexibility and futureproofing in mind. Similar to contemporary computer manufacturing practices, structural frameworks could be used as modifiable motherboards where all elements are modular and prefabricated off-site. Furthermore, these could be equipped with built-in Internet of Things (IoT) technology that monitors the state of all materials and joints whilst providing additional features such as building element soundproofing solutions for densely populated spaces. Such design practices would allow for a great deal of flexibility and adaptability in construction, as prefabricated elements could be easily repaired and replaced to meet the changing needs and requirements of occupants. This vision follows architect Yona Friedman’s (1958) vaticination of users as directors of their own living environment, with space adapting to their needs. Subsequent ideas of the 1960s Japanese Metabolist movement also focused on the creation of resilient spatial and organisational patterns and structures adaptable to change, and able to transform for multiple purposes in accordance with the needs of inhabitants (Lin, 2010). Looking ahead to 2030, it is likely that the principles of metabolic architecture, along with the help of nascent assistive smart technologies, will continue to not only influence construction methods but also the interior arrangements of the shared living unit. At present, prototypes of construction-enabled robotic arms and flying drones that can be programmed to assemble and integrate prefabricated elements into building structural frameworks have been developed and tested by researchers at ETH Zurich (Figure 7.1). Future large-scale residential structures could be built using advanced 3D printing technologies, whilst robots and drones could precisely manufacture all structural elements off-site and assemble prefabricated pieces on-site. Internally, rooms with movable walls and partitions (or even simple sliding doors) could be used to create separate living areas or expand spaces into larger communal zones. One historical portrayal of internal flexibility and adaptability within shared spaces was the so-called ‘Hall’, typical within the home of London

The future of communal living  91

FIGURE 7.1 

Flight-assisted construction using flying drones

Source: Gramazio Kohler Research (2022)

merchants in the 1630s. It featured ‘flexible furniture in a semi-public space, where business meetings took place, children were home-schooled, servants may have slept, and parties would have happened. The hall needed to adapt quickly from bedroom to family hub and from day to evening’ (Solicari, 2021). It is easy to see how this space typology could form the centrepiece within the multigenerational home of the future, especially when considering that the average footprint of private living quarters in urban areas has been steadily decreasing in places such as the UK (Thomas, 2019). Such flexibility could be achieved through the development of spatial configurations able to evolve and adapt in accordance with changes in the building programme and function and in response to fluctuations in demographics and occupancy.

92  Emad Alyedreessy and Ivana Tosheva

Furthermore, discrete electrical and mechanical systems could also be programmed to physically move walls, partitions and furniture on command, making the process of customisation easier and more efficient for inhabitants. By enabling residents to monitor and orchestrate room changes and layouts within private and common spaces, smart technology would help provide adaptive spatial experiences that best suit an inhabitant’s evolving needs and preferences. Contemporary designers (such as ‘Bumblebee spaces1’) already specialise in the creation of motorised, retractable modular furniture that allows for the dynamic adaptation of room functions using timed schedules and voice commands. Greater levels of immersion with the building interiors could be facilitated by wearable augmented reality (AR) headsets. Bypassing the handheld smartphone interface, residents could project AR designs directly onto preconfigurated IoT partition walls that feature integrated receptor nodes. AR in conjunction with IoT technologies could be used to accurately map a library of downloadable, realistic, and scalable virtual interiors that can be overlayed onto the physical space by users. Moreover, one could imagine sections of communal corridors and atriums featuring full-height, soft-touch polymer screens that provide a variety of immersive experiences for inhabitants (similar to Teamlab’s digital exhibition at Paris’ Grande Halle de la Villette in 2018). Walls could be used for interactive gaming, digital artwork, or advertising (either as a source of revenue for the building or to provide information and promote events to users). With the rapid development of technologies, the various ‘reality’ types already in existence and the ever-increasing awareness of physical activity’s importance for well-being, recreational spaces of the future could potentially evolve beyond the conventional activities of pool, darts, and table tennis and gradually shift towards more interactive, simulated gaming experiences. Indoor and open-air exhibitions in recent years have showcased virtual golf, surfing and squash, augmented climbing, small-sided digital football contests, and multifarious reflex-based and puzzle-solving games. Concepts such as the digital basketball court by ‘StudioNowhere’ and ‘Nike’ (Figure 7.2), which features an interactive LED floor providing real-time visualised performance tracking and optimised training programmes, could become commonplace in 2030. The development of similar type spaces is likely to enhance the shared living user experience, encouraging frequency of use and occupation, whilst reducing the reliance on physical equipment. Since such digital typologies could allow for fluid, adaptive and rapid functional reconfigurations (in line with updates and innovations by software developers), the nature of these spaces could offer compelling and efficient spatial solutions in buildings where a large, heterogenous population of residents typically has a broad spectrum of interests and hobbies.

The future of communal living  93

FIGURE 7.2 

Digitalised sports court featuring LED flooring

Source: Midjourney (2022b)

Interconnectivity

Drawing on Mark Weiser’s (1991) concept of ‘ubiquitous computing’, by being able to connect, and interact with, everyday objects via the internet, beyond the well-known interface of computers and smartphones, the interconnectivity of IoT could reach every part of domestic life by 2030. Omnipresent but undetectable (Norman, 1998; Coulton et al., 2018), IoT could become a key technological advancement within the multigenerational shared home of the future with everyday objects and materials connected to one another and sophisticated systems that serve, assist, and improve residents’ experiences within their building. A universal artificial intelligence (AI) system, coupled with an IoT infrastructure (see Chapter 5 for more detail on smart homes), could be developed

94  Emad Alyedreessy and Ivana Tosheva

to ensure high energy efficiency, optimal thermal comfort, and air quality within the building. By perpetually adjusting and optimising lighting and ventilation levels in accordance with various factors such as the time of day, weather, and the presence of occupants, the AI system could help reduce energy consumption whilst creating a more comfortable living environment for residents (see Chapter 4 for more detail on house and comfort). This technology could be further used to monitor the security systems to detect and alert occupants of potential threats and anonymously track their movements within the building to ensure their safety. By continuously adapting to meet the evolving conditions of the environment and ever-changing user requirements, the universal AI system could assist building operators in the creation of harmonised communal living experiences for residents. Existing mainstream virtual personal assistants (such as Amazon’s Alexa and Apple’s Siri) will very likely be incorporated into the social practices of shared living in the future. These could evolve alongside robotics to provide a variety of services to residents, including online shopping, cooking, cleaning, running errands, and companionship, thus greatly improving the comfort, convenience, and efficiency of daily life within the building. In the future, personal AI assistants (similar to ‘Alfred’ by One Technologies) could handle all types of administrative tasks whilst helping monitor children and elderly relatives. It is easy to imagine the prospective shared living building inhabited by numerous small service and cleaning bots that are responsible for the maintenance and hygiene of spaces, as well as the repair of minor damages in communal and private spaces. These automated devices could also be used to perform manual tasks such as parcel delivery, cleaning, plumbing, and painting. Contemporary kitchens are already equipped with smart appliances, and people are more able than ever to manage and maintain processes with less human intervention. In the future, AI technology could continue to assist residents in the preparation and cooking of meals; however, it could further be used to organise the overall operation of the communal kitchens, including scheduling, inventory management, and cleaning, thus leading to greater spatial efficiency. For instance, AI could programme cooking times and ensure that all residents are able to use the shared kitchens whenever required. By using smart technologies, less space would be dedicated to sinks and countertops, resulting in a surplus of space to be utilised elsewhere. Occupancy, relative to spatial use patterns, could play a vital role in the success of the shared urban home with regard to developer expenditure and layout efficiency. As the economy becomes increasingly digital and the physical location of work becomes less important, it is expected that there will be a continued shift towards distributed work driven by employee expectations of improved flexibility and work-life balance (see Chapter 6 for more detail on

The future of communal living  95

homeworking). To address this trend, shared living operators are likely to continue delivering coworking environments that are increasingly experimental, innovative, and playful in design (such as ‘The Pixelated Pop-Up Architecture Office2’ by WE Architecture). Coworking areas, coupled with more traditional desk spaces, artistic studios, and crafting workshops may feature Virtual Reality (VR) workspaces that allow inhabitants to attend their remote jobs from home. The widespread adoption of Extended Reality (XR) technologies, such as Microsoft’s HoloLens, could give rise to the digital artisan by enabling real-time immersive practices between team members who can see, interact, and collaborate with each other in real time around shared virtual tables from various locations (Figure 7.3). The use of such technologies could significantly expand the range of remote work possibilities – from operating factory machines to surgical procedures performed using tactile gloves.

FIGURE 7.3 

Remote working assisted by extended reality (XR) technologies

Source: Midjourney (2022c)

96  Emad Alyedreessy and Ivana Tosheva

Biophilia and agricultural sustainability

The restrictions implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic brought into focus the vital role of outdoor spaces in our lives. From terraces and balconies to gardens and parks, we have come to realise that these areas, once perhaps taken for granted, are essential to our well-being and happiness (see Chapter 8 for more detail on homes and health). Biophilic design could become an ever more crucial element in residential architecture in 2030, where bringing nature and environmental principles inside could successfully blur the threshold between indoors and outdoors. Like the historical ‘Hanging Gardens of Babylon’, large communal gardens maximising the use of balconies, terraces, and rooftops would offer residents the chance to stay active and healthy in natural environments incorporating water features whilst enjoying sweeping views of the city. Incorporating technological enhancements such as smart irrigation systems, interactive exhibits, and AR into a labyrinth of botanical gardens could make green space even more captivating, educational, and sustainable; an existing precedent is the Ministry of Design’s (MOD) ‘banking conservatory’ designed for Citibank Singapore where corporate offices, meeting and advisory rooms are intertwined within a complex, rich indoor conservatory (featuring tropical vegetation). In the future, younger residents could learn about different flora and fauna whilst older inhabitants enjoy gardening and yoga, or receive real-time information about outdoor events and activities (Figure 7.4). As building occupants become increasingly dependent on these green spaces, architects may need to focus their efforts on designing a miscellany of gardens aimed at creating atmospheres that encourage greater spiritual depth and positive emotions. As the demand for food continues to rise globally, however, alongside recreational gardens, it may become necessary for buildings to accommodate self-sustaining agricultural systems. Future shared living housing environments might need to provide areas that could be converted into controlled habitats for farming, where lighting, watering, temperature, humidity, and other environmental factors can be carefully regulated. AI technology, robotic arms, and smart devices could be used to programme and optimise vegetation growth through planting, pruning, harvesting, and pest control (Figure 7.5). In this way, the agricultural process could become more efficient and accurate whilst leading to maximised yields and minimum waste. The development of such large-scale, internal food farming solutions would also enable residents to access a sustainable source of fresh, locally grown produce within an urban setting without having to rely on traditional agricultural methods that may be more resource-intensive, environmentally detrimental, and scarce in the future. Furthermore, by incorporating a self-sustainable sewage treatment

The future of communal living  97

FIGURE 7.4 

Communal botanical gardens

Source: Midjourney (2022a)

plant featuring aerobic waste treatment techniques, foul water could be sanitised and recycled to provide hydration and nourishment to all green and agricultural zones. Conclusion

Throughout this chapter, we have put forward a vision for the multigenerational shared living building of the future. Even though the proposed scenarios have been derived exclusively as minor and gradual progressions based on existing socio-economic trends and emerging technologies, it has become apparent that bringing together a diverse assemblage of slight changes could lead to a fairly dramatic metamorphosis of urban shared living in 2030.

98  Emad Alyedreessy and Ivana Tosheva

FIGURE 7.5 

Robotic arms maintaining the agricultural process

Source: Midjourney (2022d)

The opportunities and advantages of intergenerational exchanges in the envisioned shared future home could contribute to stronger, more supportive, and harmonious living environments. However, as more families and their elderly relatives join such schemes, developers must focus their efforts on fostering a sense of social solidarity amongst an increasingly heterogenous groups of people. Moreover, promoting community values must be pursued in tandem with crucial spatial and digital design considerations. If the trend of domestic spaces getting increasingly smaller persists in densely populated urban areas, and if developers do not carefully consider the ratio of private to common areas, a likely deterioration in well-being and living standards for residents could occur, especially as shared housing becomes more crowded. It also appears that private life could become limited to a single bedroom or a small apartment, and privacy itself may become an ever increasingly scarce commodity. Therefore, it would be of utmost

The future of communal living  99

importance for developers, governments, regulatory bodies, and the community itself, to ensure that the merits of flexibility within shared living environments do not diminish or infringe on the individual’s personal boundaries, need for privacy and solitude. It should be noted that the development of IoT and AI poses serious concerns regarding ethics and user privacy (Coulton et al., 2018). The significant possibility of hacking the numerous interconnected objects and obtaining sensitive personal information is a risk that could turn into a future ‘security nightmare’ (Banafa, 2017). Further, concerns around the ownership of the collected data are also present along with the possibility of misuse, exploitation, and abuse of personal information. Building operators must anticipate and address the unexpected, with the ethical considerations and robust security measures always remaining of utmost priority. Overall, the success of the shared multigenerational urban home in 2030 would hinge on its capacity to accommodate both physical and social change (Groák, 1992) whilst understanding both the opportunities and challenges introduced by continuously evolving technologies, diverse resident groups and their individual needs, requirements, and aspirations. Notes 1 www.bumblebeespaces.com 2 www.we-a.dk/news/2018/10/24/experience-we-architectures-playful-officelandscape

References Banafa, A. (2017) Three Major Challenges Facing IoT. Available at: https://iot.ieee. org/newsletter/march-2017/three-major-challenges-facing-iot.html [Accessed: 21 December 2022]. Coulton, P., Lindley, J. G., & Cooper, R. (2018) The Little Book of Design Fiction for the Internet of Things. Lancaster: Lancaster University. Dorling, D. (2015) All That Is Solid: How the Great Housing Disaster Defines Our Times, and What We Can Do About It. London, UK: Penguin. Durkheim, É (1933) The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press. Florida, R. (2018) The New Urban Crisis: Gentrification, Housing Bubbles, Growing Inequality and What We can Do About It. London, UK: Oneworld Publications. Friedman, Y. (1958) Manifesto De l’Architecture. Barcelona: Actar. Gramazio Kohler Research (2022) Flight Assembled Architecture. Available at: https:// gramaziokohler.arch.ethz.ch/web/e/projekte/209.html [Accessed: 21 December 2022]. Groák, S. (1992) The Idea of Building: Thought and Action in the Design and Production of Buildings. 1st ed. [Online]. London: Taylor & Francis. 10.4324/9780203133781 Gropius, W. (1962) Scope of Total Architecture. New York, NY: Collins Books. Lautz, J. (2021) Full House: The Rise of Multi-generational Homes During COVID-19. Economists’ Outlook. Available at: https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/economistsoutlook/full-house-the-rise-of-multi-generational-homes-during-covid-19 [Accessed: 21 December 2022].

100  Emad Alyedreessy and Ivana Tosheva

Lin, Z. (2010) Kenzo Tange and the Metabolist Movement: Urban Utopias of Modern Japan. [Online]. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203860304 Midjourney (2022a) Communal Botanical Gardens. Available at: https://cdn.discord app.com/attachments/1017570539914666074/1055985947583447150/Astro Maddy_waterfeatures_elderly_people_gardening_children_play_01f1a028-35fb4a84-9222-92ff522f8a1d.png Midjourney (2022b) Digitalised Sports Court Featuring LED Flooring. Available at: https:// cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1017570539914666074/1055995886284578866/ AstroMaddy_people_playing_basketball_on_neon_court_highly_detai_42bd6dd17450-478c-b661-3a9408d66019.png Midjourney (2022c) Remote Working Assisted by Extended Reality (XR) Technologies. Available at: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1017570539914666074/ 1055530396948906085/AstroMaddy_seven_people_wearing_VR_headsets_sitting_at_VR_works_a4736e2c-de36-4407-8dac-d5667669cb8a.png Midjourney (2022d) Robotic Arms Maintaining the Agricultural Process. Available at: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1017570539914666074/ 1055527776440041615/AstroMaddy_multiple_robotic_arms_in_a_massive_ indoor_green_plan_9da16d61-25ee-4bbf-9102-fe54f65c03a4.png Moreno, C. (2016) La ville du quart d’heure : pour un nouveau chrono-urbanisme. La Tribune. Available at: https://www.latribune.fr/regions/smart-cities/la-tribune-decarlos-moreno/la-ville-du-quart-d-heure-pour-un-nouveau-chrono-urbanisme604358.html [Accessed: 9 January 2023]. Murayama, Y., Ohba, H., Yasunaga, M., Nonaka, K., Takeuchi, R., Nishi, M., Sakuma, N., Uchida, H., Shinkai, S., & Fujiwara, Y. (2015) The effect of intergenerational programs on the mental health of elderly adults. Aging & Mental Health, 19(4), 306–314. Norman, D.A. (1998) The Invisible Computer: Why Good Products can Fail, the Personal Computer Is so Complex, and Information Appliances Are the Solution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ONS (2017) National Population Projections: 2016-based. Available at: https://www. ons.gov.uk/releases/nationalpopulationprojections2016basedstatisticalbulletin [Accessed: 21 December 2022]. Rogers, R.G. (1998) Cities for a Small Planet. Boulder, CO: Westview. Solicari, S. (2021) The Home of the Future is Looking a Lot Like the Home of the Past. Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2021/05/10/future-home-opinionsonia-solicari/ [Accessed: 21 December 2022]. Thomas, P. (2019) Are Britain’s Houses Getting Smaller? LABC News. Available at: https://www.labcwarranty.co.uk/news-blog/are-britain-s-houses-getting-smallernew-data United Nations (2020) Policies on Spatial Distribution and Urbanization have Broad Impacts on Sustainable Development. New York, NY. Available at: https://www. un.org/development/desa/pd/ Weiser, M. (1991) The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3), 66–75. Zheng, R., Yu, M., Huang, L., Wang, F., Gao, B., Fu, D., Zhu, J., & Liu, G. (2022) Effect of intergenerational exchange patterns and intergenerational relationship quality on depressive symptoms in the elderly: An empirical study on CHARLS data. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 1009781 [Accessed: 6 January 2023].

8 HEALTH AND WELL-BEING Demet Yesiltepe

The relationship between home and health: what we know now?

Our cities, neighbourhoods, and homes shape our behaviour and have a significant impact on our physical and psychological well-being. Designing homes that consider residents’ activities, desires, and health is fundamental. Research has shown that feeling good is linked to living longer (see Chapter 9 for more detail on ageing homes), and homes designed to promote positivity can significantly impact public health (Hobday 2010). Therefore, focusing solely on objective features when designing homes is insufficient, and symbolic or experiential dimensions should also be considered (Kylén et al. 2019). In addition to the physical form of homes, nearby resources and social networks are linked to people’s physical and mental health (Leith 2006). Housing must support active and healthy living, and accessibility issues for different users, including those with disabilities, are vital considerations (World Health Organization 2018). Unfortunately, there are many examples worldwide where homes fail to support healthy lifestyles or healthy ageing. A dramatic example was seen in England in 2020 when two-year-old Awaab Ishak’s death was linked to black mould in the flat he lived in (Brown and Booth 2022). The Guardian (Booth 2022) featured an interview with a woman suffering from a terminal lung condition who asserted that her illness was caused by exposure to mould in her rented accommodation. Given that approximately 450,000 residences in England have condensation and mould issues (Brown and Booth 2022), these instances emphasise the effect of homes on our health. According to Velux (2019), 26 million out of a total of 79 million European children live in unhealthy homes with at least one building deficiency, DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244-9

102  Demet Yesiltepe

such as damp, inadequate lighting, poor heating, or excessive noise. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the significance of healthy homes, as people spent most of their time indoors and their activities and routines were adapted to one space: their home. Therefore, health must be a key consideration when designing buildings. But how much do we take health into account when creating spaces or defining what makes a house a home? Different researchers have defined the term ‘home’ differently. For instance, Fox O’Mahony (2013) viewed it as a financial investment, a physical structure, a territory, a symbol of identity and self-identity, and as a social and cultural signifier. Similarly, Sixsmith (1986) identified 20 categories related to the meaning of a home, including emotional environment, belonging, self-expression, permanence, privacy, and physical structure. Deprés (1991) also identified commonly used concepts associated with home, such as a reflection of one’s ideas and values, a place for relationships with family and friends, and a refuge from the outside world. While all these categories and definitions somehow relate to physical or mental health, I am concerned that these definitions are too broad, and designers may overlook certain requirements for a healthy home, even if they address all the listed criteria. Therefore, it is essential to provide a specific definition of a healthy home and discuss what designers and academics should consider when designing one. What factors contribute to a healthy home and its surroundings today, and how will they evolve in the future? What do we know about the neighbourhood environment?

When discussing healthy homes, we should also consider the impact of the home’s surroundings on health. Physical activity can lead to improvements in both physical and mental health (World Health Organization 2020), and mitigate the risk of various conditions, including heart disease, cancer, depression, and dementia. Therefore, it is imperative that we create environments that promote physical activity. But how can we accomplish this? Various environmental solutions can facilitate active travel and promote healthy lifestyles. For instance, mixed land use and the availability of public open spaces have been shown to encourage active travel (Baker, and Steemers 2019), and access to recreational areas helps to increase levels of physical activity. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of green spaces, with studies demonstrating that proximity to such spaces, or even having a view of them, can enhance well-being (Stimpson 2021). Additionally, accessibility and connectivity of streets (Ozbil, Yesiltepe, and Argin 2015), and street safety measures (Yesiltepe and Dalton 2022), such as well-maintained and separate pedestrian and cycle lanes, and adequate lighting are key factors that influence active travel. These considerations can also have significant

Health and well-being  103

economic and environmental impacts, particularly in reducing road traffic and air pollution (Lindsay, Macmillan, and Woodward 2011). Similarly, homes should provide areas, such as a garden, balcony, terrace, or play/exercise room, to facilitate physical and social activities to foster physical and mental health. For instance, studies have shown that children who grow up in homes without a garden are 40% more likely to be obese (Davies 2015). Circulation spaces within the home can create opportunities for social interaction and spatial variety (UK Green Building Council 2016). What do we know about homes in particular?

The home environment can have a significant impact on the likelihood of injury and prevalence of conditions such as asthma, allergies, cardiovascular disease, and cancer (Zarrabi, Yazdanfar, and Hosseini 2021). Hazardous construction materials, fungal growth, tobacco smoke, carbon dioxide levels, and inadequate ventilation affect indoor air quality and subsequently impact people’s health (Zarrabi, Yazdanfar, and Hosseini 2021). Insulation, air conditioning, and wall thickness also play important roles in the design of healthy homes (see Chapter 3 for more detail on net-zero homes). Moreover, conditions in and around the home can affect residents’ stress levels and sleep patterns, and have a direct impact on mental health. The healthy home environment has been categorised by various researchers and organisations using different but overlapping groupings. Nightingale (1992) identified that pure air, pure water, efficient drainage, cleanliness, and sufficient light contribute to healthy environments. Hasselaar (2006) proposed five categories: air quality, acoustics, comfort, safety, and social environment (see Chapter 4 for more detail on house and comfort). The World Health Organization (2018) published recommendations about the home related to five topics: crowding, low indoor temperature and insulation, high indoor temperature, home safety and injuries, and accessibility. Overcrowding in homes can lead to the spread of disease, such as gastroenteritis, and stress. Low indoor temperatures can trigger health issues like asthma attacks, coronary heart disease, and stroke. Household income can affect the temperatures of homes (World Health Organization 2018), with low-income households at higher risk of experiencing low indoor temperatures due to a lack of insulation and the inability to pay for heating. According to an article published in Time magazine, a staggering 55.3 million Americans faced difficulties in paying their energy bills in 2021 and this predicament is expected to persist in the foreseeable future, with heating bills anticipated to surge by 17% (Popli 2022), a phenomenon also witnessed in many other nations including the UK and Germany. High indoor temperatures can also cause discomfort and health issues, leading to higher rates of emergency hospitalisation.

104  Demet Yesiltepe

Home design should also consider ways of preventing injuries from smoke inhalation, falls, or fire, for example, by including smoke detectors, window locks, and fire guards. In addition, accessibility should be considered in home design, especially for people with functional impairments, to prevent injuries and to promote social interaction. In the United States, approximately 156,300 preventable deaths occurred in homes and communities in 2020 due to injuries (National Safety Council 2020). It is, therefore, crucial to develop interventions to prevent injuries and create healthy home environments. Lighting is an important criterion for homes that contributes to safety, as well as people’s mental health and the identity of their homes. Having access to sunlight is critical; it is a source of heat, but too much light can also cause discomfort and glare. Therefore, when designing homes, ensuring that spaces make best use of the available daylight should be a priority. Personal control over the amount of daylight is essential, and residents should be able to adjust lighting conditions based on their needs and uses. Window design is crucial for both lighting and ventilation. Cross ventilation may be most effective in homes, and window openings should be optimized for different situations. Electric lighting should be based on the residents’ needs, and the colour of artificial lighting should also be considered when designing homes (UK Green Building Council 2016), as it can cause visual discomfort, affect sleep patterns, and damage eyes and skin (Boyce 2010). ‘Pure air’ (Nightingale 1992) is another factor that should be taken into account in healthy home design. Internal and external pollutants can affect air quality in homes. Indoor air quality can be affected by various factors, such as building materials, cleaning products, drying laundry indoors, and cooking. External pollutants may come from busy roads or construction sites nearby. Designers should think about mitigations. Neighbourhood-level solutions discussed earlier, such as gardens and green spaces, and promoting walking and cycling can be effective, but architects can also consider locating windows and doors away from pollution sources, providing good levels of ventilation, and offering outdoor areas and airing cupboards for drying laundry. It is important to account for noise when designing a healthy home. Unwanted noise can be highly disruptive, so designers should consider locating bedrooms away from noise sources (UK Green Building Council 2016). Flexible design is also crucial in enabling users to organise their homes according to their needs and engage in a variety of activities (see Chapter 1 for more detail on housing flexibility). For instance, a room can be utilised as a hobby room, workspace, or a guest room. Additionally, rooms or corridors suitable for social interaction can be incorporated into the design. It is worth noting that the term ‘healthy home’ can have different interpretations, and design solutions will vary by user. For example, a home designed for elderly people or those with reduced mobility may be set on a single level to increase accessibility, or ramps can be provided for wheelchair users

Health and well-being  105

(Baker and Steemers 2019). In contrast, a home for people with good mobility may be spread across multiple floors. By linking key spaces with stairs, people can stay active while moving between different levels. For example, the kitchen, living rooms, and bathrooms can be located on different floors to encourage frequent activity. Designers should also provide sufficient storage and ample space for easy movement. While there are other factors to consider, such as the impact of climate, water quality, moisture, or drainage, this discussion provides an overview of what should be included while designing a healthy home. Changes to the health and home relationship

It has been said that ‘home is more than bricks and mortar – it is where the heart is’ (Saunders and Williams 1988). This sentiment undoubtedly rings true when we consider the social interactions and spaces we create in our homes. However, recent events have underscored the importance of health in the home environment, prompting us to consider the factors that contribute to healthy homes. The COVID-19 pandemic and other global health emergencies, as well as growing concerns about the climate crisis, have all served to highlight the significance of healthy homes and environments. During the pandemic, residents employed different strategies to adapt to changing conditions and remain physically active. Each city and home environment presented its own unique set of challenges. For instance, high-density settlements were seen as particularly vulnerable, as infectious diseases can spread quickly in urban areas (Chandran 2020). Cycling saw a surge in popularity in most cities across Australia, North America, and Europe (Buehler and Pucher 2021), while wider pavements were appreciated, and streets were closed to cars to allow pedestrians, cyclists, and scooters to spread out (Poon 2020). People with gardens appreciated their outdoor space more, while those without them interacted more with their neighbours (Zetterberg et al. 2021) and valued their balconies if they had them (Poon 2020). Practitioners and researchers also highlighted various factors that contribute to healthy home design, including natural ventilation and light, availability of a private garden, en suite bathrooms, and increased built-in storage (Alhadedy and Gabr 2022; Alonso and Jacoby 2022). The European Union has set a target of becoming climate neutral by 2050, and many countries are taking steps towards achieving net-zero emissions, for example, by decarbonising existing building stock (George 2019) and developing 15-minute cities and neighbourhoods, where residents can meet their daily needs within a 15-minute walk, bike ride, or public transport journey (C40 Knowledge 2021). As a result, people’s interactions with their homes and cities have been shaped by various catalysts, each with their own

106  Demet Yesiltepe

health-related concerns. However, what is the nature of these changes, and what is the current situation? The changes include social and policy-related adjustments, as well as technological advancements. Social changes mainly relate to people’s awareness of healthy living and the modifications they make in their everyday lives. Individuals may try to be more physically active at home, utilising open spaces or additional rooms for various activities, such as exercising, meditating or homeschooling. Recent findings have highlighted changes in people’s hobbies and the activities undertaken at home. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, food-growing YouTubers experienced a significant increase in popularity, gardening apps became more popular, and seed sales were 20 times higher than before (Perrone 2020). While homes today have halved in size compared to those built at the beginning of the 20th century, and the size of gardens has reduced (Granite History n.d.), recent events have prompted people to rediscover the significance of gardens and open spaces. In 2020, a social media post highlighted this point: ‘I will never live in an apartment without a balcony again. Ever,’ and many similar comments can be found online (Poon 2020). Will this trend of people appreciating outside space and being active continue in the future? During the COVID-19 pandemic, councils and governments made policy changes, such as closing some roads to cars and prioritising cyclists and pedestrians. However, many of these changes were reversed after the lockdowns in England, and many cities have gone back to their old ways. However, some countries, such as the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium, were already prioritising walking and cycling, and other countries aim to follow suit by implementing individual or community-level changes (Yesiltepe et al. 2021). In addition to social and policy-related changes, there are also those related to technology. For instance, net-zero buildings have become a goal in many countries, and different solutions are being introduced, such as solar panels, smart thermostats, air filtration and ventilation systems, and roof insulation. Artificial intelligence is also essential for the healthy homes of today: timers can control lights, white goods, and heating, and gardening can be assisted by gadgets such as smart sprinklers or lawnmowers (see Chapter 5 for more detail on smart homes). So, there are existing solutions and approaches to creating healthy homes and environments, but where will they lead us, and what should we consider while designing healthy homes? The future of healthy homes

One of the key takeaways from this chapter is that a home isn’t just a place to which we feel emotionally attached, but it also impacts our health. That’s why it’s crucial to consider health in our definition of a home. As discussed, creating healthy homes involves elements, such as thermal comfort, lighting (both natural and artificial), air quality, acoustics, accessibility, and safety.

Health and well-being  107

Moreover, it’s important to factor in the expectations of the occupants. People should have the ability to engage in different activities at home, such as sports, work, meditation, or playing games. Homes should feature solutions that promote healthy living, such as food-growing options, eco-friendly materials, and easy-to-maintain spaces. By taking these aspects into consideration, planners and designers can develop environments that support physical and mental well-being of residents. Homes should be designed to accommodate various groups of people, offering flexible design solutions, open-plan spaces, and additional areas that can be used as work or study spaces, or for storage. It is also crucial to understand the needs of different groups, including those who come from diverse communities with different cultures and lifestyles, as well as neighbours and those passing through, such as cyclists and pedestrians. Like healthy cities and neighbourhoods, healthy homes promote both physical and mental wellness, and this will continue to be the case in the future. Designing healthy homes will always be essential. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of having open spaces around homes: gardens or a view that provides a connection with nature. Whether we have outdoor spaces or indoor, smart gardens, proximity to nature will always be vital for our mental health and to reduce sedentary behaviour. This consideration is crucial when designing future homes and environments to ensure they are future-proof and can withstand possible pandemics, allowing us to stay safe and sane. References Alhadedy, Nancy H, and Hisham S Gabr. 2022. “Home Design Features PostCOVID-19.” Journal of Engineering and Applied Science 69(1):87. doi: 10.1186/ s44147-022-00142-z. Alonso, Lucia, and Sam Jacoby. 2022. “The Impact of Housing Design and Quality on Wellbeing: Lived Experiences of the Home During COVID-19 in London.” Cities & Health 1–13. doi: 10.1080/23748834.2022.2103391. Baker, Nick, and Koen Steemers. 2019. Healthy Homes: Designing with Light and Air for Sustainability and Wellbeing. RIBA Publishing, London. Booth, Robert. 2022. “Woman Dying of Lung Disease ‘Caused by Mould’ Urges Action on Rogue Landlords.” The Guardian. Retrieved January 7, 2023 (https://www. theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/28/woman-dying-of-lung-disease-causedby-mould-urges-action-on-rogue-landlords). Boyce, Peter R. 2010. “Review: The Impact of Light in Buildings on Human Health.” Indoor and Built Environment 19(1):8–20. doi: 10.1177/1420326X09358028. Brown, Mark, and Robert Booth. 2022. “Death of Two-Year-Old from Mould in Flat a ‘Defining Moment’, Says Coroner.” The Guardian. Retrieved November 7, 2023 (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/15/death-of-two-year-oldawaab-ishak-chronic-mould-in-flat-a-defining-moment-says-coroner#:~:text=A coroner has said the,the flat he lived in.).

108  Demet Yesiltepe

Buehler, Ralph, and John Pucher. 2021. “COVID-19 Impacts on Cycling, 2019–2020.” Transport Reviews 41(4):393–400. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2021.1914900. C40 Knowledge. 2021. “Green and Thriving Neighbourhoods: A Pathway to Net Zero, Featuring the ‘15-Minute City.’” Retrieved January 7, 2023 (https://www. c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Green-and-Thriving-Neighbourhoods-A-pathwayto-net-zero-featuring-the-15-minute-city?language=en_US). Chandran, Rina. 2020. “In Slums and Windowless Apartments, Asia’s Poor Bear Brunt of Coronavirus.” Reuters. Retrieved January 7, 2023 (https://www.reuters.com/ article/us-health-coronavirus-housing-idUSKBN2141E1). Davies, Madlen. 2015. “Children Who Grow up in Houses or Flats with no Garden Are ‘40% More Likely to Be Obese by the Age of Seven.’” Daily Mail. Retrieved January 7, 2023 (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3235465/Childrengrow-houses-flats-no-garden-40-likely-obese-age-seven.html). Després, Carole. 1991. “The Meaning of Home: Literature Review and Directions for Future Research and Theoretical Development.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 8(2):96–115. Fox O’Mahony, Lorna. 2013. “The Meaning of Home: From Theory to Practice” edited by P. Kenna. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment 5(2):156–71. doi: 10.1108/IJLBE-11-2012-0024. George, Sarah. 2019. “European Cities Target Net-Zero Carbon Buildings by 2050.” Retrieved January 7, 2023 (https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/ news/european-cities-target-net-zero-carbon-buildings-by-2050/). Granite History. n.d. “The Changing Face of the Garden: How Have They Changed over Time?” Retrieved January 7, 2023 (https://granitehistory.org/history-ofgardening/#:~:text=Homes today have halved in,squared between 1983 and 2013). Hasselaar, Evert. 2006. Health Performance of Housing: Indicators and Tools. Haveka, Alblasserdam, Netherlands. Hobday, Richard. 2010. Designing Houses for Health – A Review. Commissioned by the VELUX Company Ltd. Kylén, Maya, Charlotte Löfqvist, Maria Haak, and Susanne Iwarsson. 2019. “Meaning of Home and Health Dynamics Among Younger Older People in Sweden.” European Journal of Ageing 16(3):305–15. doi: 10.1007/s10433-019-00501-5. Leith, Katherine H. 2006. “‘Home Is Where the Heart Is…or Is It?’: A Phenomenological Exploration of the Meaning of Home for Older Women in Congregate Housing.” Journal of Aging Studies 20(4):317–33. doi: 10.1016/j.jaging. 2005.12.002. Lindsay, Graeme, Alexandra Macmillan, and Alistair Woodward. 2011. “Moving Urban Trips from Cars to Bicycles: Impact on Health and Emissions.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 35(1):54–60. doi: 10.1111/j.17536405.2010.00621.x. National Safety Council. 2020. “Home and Community Overview.” Retrieved January  7, 2023 (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/home-andcommunity-overview/introduction/). Nightingale, Florence. 1992. Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia. Ozbil, Ayse, Demet Yesiltepe, and Gorsev Argin. 2015. “Modeling Walkability: The Effects of Street Design, Street-Network Configuration and Land-Use on Pedestrian Movement.” A| Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture 12(3):189–207.

Health and well-being  109

Perrone, Jane. 2020. “How Coronavirus Changed Gardening Forever.” Financial Times. Retrieved January 7, 2023 (https://www.ft.com/content/c3abc0bb-7ade-4ae1-8d2bd3fa6be53416). Poon, Linda. 2020. “A Lesson from Social Distancing: Build Better Balconies.” Bloomberg. Retrieved January 7, 2023 (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ 2020-04-20/lesson-from-coronavirus-build-better-balconies). Popli, Nik. 2022. “It’s Going to Be a Lot More Expensive to Heat Your Home This Winter. Here’s What to Expect.” Time. Retrieved January 7, 2023 (https://time. com/6218281/heating-costs-rising-2022/). Saunders, Peter, and Peter Williams. 1988. “The Constitution of the Home: Towards a Research Agenda.” Housing Studies 3(2):81–93. doi: 10.1080/ 02673038808720618. Sixsmith, Judith. 1986. “The Meaning of Home: An Exploratory Study of Environmental Experience.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 6(4):281–98. doi: 10.1016/ S0272-4944(86)80002-0. Stimpson, Ashley. 2021. “Green Health: A Tree-Filled Street Can Positively Influence Depression, Study Finds.” The Guardian. Retrieved January 7, 2023 (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/12/baltimore-study-treesmental-health-study). UK Green Building Council. 2016. Health and Wellbeing in Homes. UKGBC. Retrieved (https://www.ukgbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Healthy-Homes-FullReport.pdf). Velux. 2019. “Victims of Unhealthy Homes.” Healthy Homes Barometer 2019. Retrieved (https://www.velux.com/what-we-do/healthy-buildings-focus/healthy-homesbarometer/healthy-homes-barometer-2019/victims-of-unhealthy-homes). World Health Organization. 2018. WHO Housing and Health Guidelines. Geneva. World Health Organization. 2020. “Physical Activity.” Retrieved October 14, 2021 (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity). Yesiltepe, Demet, and Ruth Conroy Dalton. 2022. “What Makes a Route Safer for Cyclists? A Study on Cycling Collisions in Lancaster, UK.” in 13th Space Syntax Symposium. Bergen, Norway. Yesiltepe, Demet, Rian Pepping, Gavin Ling, Fiona Chun Man Tempest, Steven Mauw, Mirka Janssen, and Florentina Hettinga. 2021. “A Tale of Two Cities: Understanding Children’s Cycling Behavior from the Socio-Ecological Perspective.” Frontiers. Zarrabi, Mahsa, Seyed-Abbas Yazdanfar, and Seyed-Bagher Hosseini. 2021. “COVID-19 and Healthy Home Preferences: The Case of Apartment Residents in Tehran.” Journal of Building Engineering 35:102021. doi: 10.1016/j. jobe.2020.102021. Zetterberg, Liv, Ailiana Santosa, Nawi Ng, Matilda Karlsson, and Malin Eriksson. 2021. “Impact of COVID-19 on Neighborhood Social Support and Social Interactions in Umeå Municipality, Sweden.” Frontiers in Sustainable Cities 3. doi: 10.3389/ frsc.2021.685737.

9 HOMES TO AGE IN PLACE John Carr, Paul Jones and Peter Holgate

Around 11 million people now living in the United Kingdom are aged over 65, a statistic expected to rise by a third in the next decade (Office for National Statistics 2022). A principal concern is their domestic environment, with this demographic living in dwellings that cannot service their increasing needs. The UK has approximately 25 million homes already built which are unsuitable to cope with age-related abilities and accessibility that were unforeseen when they were built. In 2023, there is a better understanding and evidence base of older people’s specific needs that can improve home design in acknowledging ageing processes. Regrettably, most new housing stock being developed and built in the UK continues to ignore the ageing profile of the population, with the Government focus being chiefly on delivery. Predictions estimate that around 3 million new dwellings will be required over the next decade to address future demands, (Barton et al. 2019). Current policy also relies upon private sector volume housebuilders to deliver these homes. Such companies are chiefly motivated by profitability; hence, there is a focus on building starter and family homes, thereby failing to address needs of older people. New-build single storey accessible homes are relatively rare; UK housebuilders often monopolise available land through land banking and seek the higher profits that come with starter and family focused developments. Land for single-storey, single-person dwellings is thus rarely available due to these profitability drivers. Additionally, new apartments and high-rise developments can have implications of accessibility, security, and mental well-being for older residents. The successful development of multigenerational communities is rarely addressed in developer-led housing. While theories of place attachment acknowledge inward and outward attributes of homes (Seamon 2014), UK planning defers primarily to instrumental DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244-10

Homes to age in place  111

adequacy, particularly prioritising the private car over the public realm. Physical, phenomenological, and qualitative concepts of ‘home’ are largely ignored within recent housing, leading to loss of community and increasing social isolation for older people. As wider economic and emotional impacts on society and support systems are rarely considered in current procurement strategies, increasingly urgent domestic interventions are needed to deal with the ageing population’s needs. As houses have an average lifespan of over 100 years BRE (Piddington et al. 2020), society will therefore be dealing with inadequately designed dwellings in the long-term future. Current options for older people are limited, such as expensive built interventions to make old homes accessible. Lawton (1990) highlighted the interaction between personal competence and the physical home environment towards promoting well-being of older people. Appropriate physical adaptations can enhance independence, including wet rooms, stairlifts, ramps, grabrails, and adapted kitchens and bathrooms. As masonry construction is traditional in the UK, renovation can be time-consuming, expensive, and structurally problematic. This is compounded by approximately 20% of the older population living in poverty, with insufficient capital to afford such work (Twigg & Martin 2015). Research also shows that residents dislike domestic interventions associated with ageing that ‘medicalise’ the home environment. Alternatively, residents may downsize to more suitable accommodation, subject to limited supply of suitable stock; however, moving house is often cited as one of the most stressful activities in modern life. Downsizing in later life may force this action, with family homes becoming too large and costly to run. Leaving the home that has been the backdrop of an older person’s life can be emotionally devastating. Home is a fundamental part of human identity, such that people with dementia, irrespective of other lost memories, will continually refer to ‘home’ and a wish to ‘go home’, even when receiving excellent care (Dekkers 2011). Additionally, moving to new environments often means leaving existing communities of support and friendship. The National Institute of Ageing identifies loneliness and social isolation as catalysts for depression, dementia, sleep deprivation, strokes, and premature death. Another option for many older people is to enter residential care as their current home becomes unsuitable, or potentially dangerous due to agerelated infirmities. This is similarly contingent upon the economic availability of suitable physical and care-package support. The cost of residential care in the UK is now around £50K per person per year, and successive UK governments have struggled with the political, economic, and social impacts of care home provision. Care homes may also contribute to loss of independence and ability; for example, reports indicate that incontinence can result from pressures placed on staff to deal with individual cases, coupled with residents’ unfamiliarity of alien surroundings. Assisted living

112  John Carr et al.

developments attempt to bridge the gap between autonomous living and an increasing reliance upon care help; this model can also be expensive, with increasing care needs and costs being unpredictable. Older people can end up in hospital because of unsuitable homes, when they become ill or injured. A lack of alternative options means they can ‘reside’ in hospitals for long periods, with conditions that do not require long-term hospital care (Crawford et al. 2020). The consequent loss of hospital beds results in depleted availability for the wider population, with the COVID-19 pandemic highlighting critical issues of ‘bed-blocking’ in the NHS. Local Authorities and Housing Associations continue to build a small number of developments specifically for older people. However, this may not be a scalable option for the size of the demand, with developer-led housing continuing to dominate the supply. With increasing financial and capacity pressures upon the National Health Service, moral and economic arguments for developing true lifetime homes continue to strengthen. Health economists have underpinned this argument by demonstrating that good quality, appropriately designed housing can be economically prudent for wider society (Grabowski 2006). Therefore, welldesigned flexible housing that serves people through the course of their lives, capable of easy and inexpensively adaptation, should be the foundation for community-building and self-care to ease pressures upon health and care services (Wiles et al. 2012). With appropriate support, people are happier to remain at home, an option that significantly improves well-being and health outcomes (Johnston et al. 2015). An Age UK (2014) report determined that better designed houses, capable of adaptation to the needs of older people, could postpone or avoid residential care, resulting in a potential saving of £26,000 per person per annum. The challenge for Government and the housing industry is therefore identified as procuring dwellings that serve residents over their life course. This strategy could significantly reduce the physical, emotional, and financial pressures of changing homes in later life. Effective design is central to tackling this challenge. Only 20% of new homes being built in the UK involve architectural practice (Beagle et al. 2014), with design input often limited to maximising the profitability and density of a site. The average new house in the UK has reduced in footprint by 20% over the last 100 years (RIBA 2011), with space standards falling behind European benchmarks (ibid). Volume housebuilders’ priority of maximising profits supersedes increased space, in spite of evidence that more generous rooms lead to better health outcomes across all age groups (ibid). Intelligent layouts can serve the needs of older people, who often require more space to manoeuvre around their homes. However, UK space standards need not be a major barrier to age-responsive housing; if architects are commissioned to engage with these constraints, their design

Homes to age in place  113

expertise can critically challenge accepted models of house design to successfully address ageing in place. Case studies

A multi-disciplinary team from Northumbria University led by the authors with Professor Glenda Cook (gerontology) and Dr Kay Rogage (computer science, digital living) have collaborated on how to embed ageing-in-place and ageing-better within the housing proposals for South Seaham Garden Village. This development is one of the first of its type to receive planning permission in England and aims to build 1500 new homes and community facilities. Drawing from personal and professional expertise, reliable evidence bases, autoethnographies, and state-of-the-art research, the team have designed several prototype houses centred upon the promotion of ageing in place as an integral element of the village. This research project was funded by UK Research and Innovation, the European Social Catalyst Fund, and the Design Age Institute. The Northumbria Team established co-design workshops (see Chapter 10 for more detail on participatory architecture) that incorporated older people groups (e.g., the National Innovation Centre for Ageing and the Elders Council) to capture and critique lived experience. The Royal College of Occupational Therapists also provided professional insights, drawing upon everyday experiences of working with older people in their homes. Four rounds of workshops were conducted, working with 24 key participants. Visual and verbal methods were employed to analyse existing models of housing, leading to the development of prototypes for new housing. 3D physical and virtual models communicated intentions, responding to participants’ unfamiliarity with the conventions of architectural plans (McIntyre & Harrison 2017). This iterative, multi-media approach aided dialogue between all participants, leading to richer insights and improved outcomes. This team analysed and critiqued the standard layout for a three-bedroomed volume housebuilder design to identify potential issues for older people. This existing design complied with the U.K.’s National Described Space Standards (NDSS). Given that mass-housebuilder developments account for 60% of the new housing market, this inquiry deliberately worked within the constraints of NDSS to demonstrate that significant improvements for ageing-in-place strategies could be made within a limited footprint. This assumed that current procurement methods and policy remain unchanged. The research team and participants considered immediate external spaces (front and back), individual rooms and their assumed functions, circulation spaces and thresholds. The participants provided substantive insightful observations, with over 50 design issues compromising successful ageing in place. These

114  John Carr et al.

included mobility, well-being, environmental comfort, and social isolation. The research team then sought to design out these issues through development of the prototypes. In agreement with the literature, the idea of ‘home’ was expressed very strongly as part of participants’ identities, security, and well-being. Therefore, one workshop focused on phenomenological and qualitative aspects of ‘home’, working specifically with the older participants regarding their personal domestic experiences. Opinions were canvassed regarding the qualities of an ideal home; desired improvements to existing homes; anxieties regarding their homes and futures. Loneliness and social isolation were identified by all, with many participants citing disconnection from the wider community and arguing that the standard house design and its placement exacerbated these issues. Concurrently, participants disliked communities that were exclusively designed for older people, expressing a preference to be a part of intergenerational neighbourhoods. Discussions followed regarding multigenerational living and possible co-habitation with family and friends (see Chapter 7 for more detail on co-housing). This informed one of the prototype designs to accommodate this potential. Many participants worried about having to leave their home and/or downsizing to other dwellings in the future; they expressed sadness at losing physical possessions and embedded memories when moving to new dwellings. Therefore, the potential to downsize within their existing home was received favourably. Participants accepted the need for residential care as a last resort but sought to delay such eventualities for as long as possible. Consequently, core themes of the reduction of loneliness, the potential for multi-generational living, and the possibility of downsizing at home were identified as drivers for the prototype designs. The research demonstrated that existing NDSS-compliant houses do not always successfully address ageingin-place. The prototypes were designed to satisfy Lifetime Homes and Happi standards, to comply with M4(2) of the Building Regulations. Critically, the prototypes also worked within constraints set by NDSS, recognising that volume housebuilders are increasingly obligated by planning authorities to meet these standards. This approach demonstrated: a the value of a multi-disciplinary co-design approaches to ageing in place, and b the achievability of house designs for ageing in place that works within commercial constraints set by the housing industry and policymakers. The connected home

The prototype we wish to focus upon in this chapter became known as the Connected Home, intending to improve engagement between the resident,

Homes to age in place  115

the dwelling, and the wider community. Data collection established that connectivity was a physical, experiential, and digital concept; a third workshop critiqued the proposed physical and experiential proposals for each prototype. For the Connected Home, the front of the dwelling was identified as a critical element of community building. The loss of a front garden in many modern housing developments results from prioritisation of car parking and road layouts. Participants argued that the front garden was a social environment, providing invaluable opportunities to meet neighbours and engage with the community. Secondary therapeutic benefits of gardening were also noted. Where infirmity prevented substantive garden maintenance a lowmaintenance external terrace, incorporating planters, seating and shelter, was designed as an alternative. As well as the absence of front gardens, the location of uninhabited rooms and small windows at the front of volume housebuilders’ designs further prevented community engagement for occupants. Similarly, green spaces were confined to back gardens, often a small lawn enclosed by a timber palisade fence, offering no visual interest or community engagement. Hence, a driver for the prototype was effective external spaces, prioritising the front garden or terrace over the backyard, enabling residents to engage with the community. A small canopy provided by the speculativehouse model was deepened and extended, providing year-round shelter to the terrace (see Figure 9.1). Optimising the front elevation drove other design ideas. The standardised kitchen, as installed in current houses, engaged neither with the living room nor with the garden. Existing plans

FIGURE 9.1 

Terrace to promote a sense of community

116  John Carr et al.

separated these spaces, necessitating a circuitous walk for an older person from the kitchen to the living/dining space. In the co-designed prototype, the kitchen window was substituted by a door, enabling residents to walk directly and safely from the kitchen onto the terrace. Opening the kitchen space into the lounge provided excellent connectivity from front to back, ensuring valuable daylighting and affording views out to nature and community, as well as providing excellent natural surveillance onto the public realm. The participants’ workshops also informed the design of an enlarged entrance lobby space, an element missing from current housing offers. Despite an assumed logic of accessibility benefits, current lobby-free layouts resulted in tight corridors, meaning that mobility aids (scooters, wheelchairs, frames, etc.) could not be successfully navigated into or out of the house. Residents needing to use mobility aids could be physically trapped unless helped by family or carers, a situation resolved by combining the lobby with the hallway. This arrangement also accommodated new methods of interactions and transactions, enabling home deliveries of shopping and medicines to take place in this designated space. Participants recounted episodes of deliveries arriving whilst they were elsewhere in the home, resulting in goods not being delivered. A secured lobby, accessed by fob or similar, was proposed to enable residents to retrieve shopping, medicines, etc., at a suitable time. WiFi connectivity would enable such deliveries to be monitored remotely by family members and carers. Additionally, the combination lobby-hall provided an environmental buffer zone, preventing heat loss and thereby reducing energy bills (see Figure 9.2).

FIGURE 9.2 

Showing secure lobby for deliveries

Homes to age in place  117

FIGURE 9.3 

Showing a secure lobby and wet room for caregiving

In the existing housebuilder model, layout and size of the downstairs toilet were universally criticised by the participants. Occupational Therapists identified that convenience was only afforded to the able-bodied, and this facility could not be effectively used or navigated by the wider population. A fully integrated, appropriately sized wet room was proposed for the prototype, accessed from the lobby hall. The design of the wet room was future-proofed to enable access from the living/dining area, if and when required. The wet room location would also enable caregivers to access this space without encroaching further into private areas of the home; this would benefit both the occupant in terms of personal privacy, as well as the caregiver whose personal safety could potentially be compromised by fully entering the home. This design feature was particularly welcomed by the Occupational Therapists (see Figure 9.3). Digital connectivity

A fourth workshop considered challenges and opportunities to improve digital connectivity within the home, identifying how integrated systems (e.g., cameras, sensors, the internet, domestic appliances, etc.) could successfully link occupants with care providers, health services, and community and statutory amenities (see Chapter 5 for more detail on smart homes). During the COVID-19 pandemic, many participants had successfully engaged with digital technology to communicate with friends and family. This engagement with digital connectivity led to their advocacy of IT and smart systems within their home. Participants agreed that IT developers should thoroughly

118  John Carr et al.

consider older people’s needs and anxieties around the use of smart and digital technologies to promote widespread and successful adoption. Participants believed that digital connectivity held the potential to postpone a move to residential care. However, complicated installation and operational processes, the maintenance of multiple devices and systems, and fears around security and privacy of data were all raised as issues. Participants wanted a simplified digital interface to access support services needed for independent living, e.g., medical appointments, prescriptions, payment of utility bills, electronic banking, etc. While these functions could be conducted through apps, participants argued that current digital systems were too complicated for many older people’s capacities. The concept of a digital home hub as an interface with a simple dashboard was proposed, linking core information about occupants and the home to external services. The codesign team named this platform MyHome Hub. Participants reiterated that this hub should be simple to set-up and operate, needing to be remotely operable by friends and family, especially for those with older relatives who may struggle with IT. Although the research team acknowledged that many of the proposed digital systems already existed, they were seldom fully integrated and rarely considered at the inception of home design. Similarly, older occupants were rarely consulted with regard to systems design and their IT needs. Three sections were proposed for the MyHome Hub: Home Maintenance and Equipment, Health and Wellbeing and Lifestyle and Community:

• Home Maintenance and Equipment would incorporate monitoring systems within the home, facilitating troubleshooting, ordering parts when necessary, and linking to approved contractors for services and repairs. Energy use, environmental comfort (see Chapter 4 for more detail on house and comfort) and security systems could also be monitored. Sensors could track if lights are left on, if doors or windows are left open, and similar issues (see Figure 9.4). Future homes should be an integrated kit of components with service runs clearly located within a digital model. Sensors could record the deterioration of building fabric and systems, enabling rapid response and repair. This digital model (a digital ‘twin’ of the physical structure) could be enabled through Building Information Modelling, providing residents and their families with real-time information about the condition and security of their home. MyHome Hub’s functionality could also be effectively utilised by Registered Social Landlords and Housing Associations, bodies that are often responsible for the remote management and maintenance of thousands of properties, potentially leading to more responsive services for tenants (see Figure 9.5).

Homes to age in place  119

FIGURE 9.4 Showing

how occupants’ safety could be monitored by family member or caregiver

• The Health and Wellbeing section sought to integrate sensor technology towards the remote monitoring of residents’ health and vital signs. Noninvasive room sensors can now measure breathing patterns, heartbeat, temperature, posture, motion, sleeping patterns, etc. Pressure mats and similar devices can detect residents’ movements, providing alerts in case

120  John Carr et al.

FIGURE 9.5 

MyHome hub maintenance manual and digital twin

of falls. This information can be shared instantaneously with healthcare practitioners, care providers, and family, assisting in the timely intervention of medical services (see Figure 9.6). • Lifestyle and Community promoted inclusivity, enabling access to TV, radio, social media, community events, clubs, groups, online classes, etc. Participants argued that this type of connectivity is often overlooked,

Homes to age in place  121

FIGURE 9.6 Occupant’s

health could be monitored by health professionals with remote and body sensors

despite the clear health and well-being benefits of intellectual stimulation and engagement with a wider community. Work-live environment

CoDesign workshops with the National Innovation Centre for Ageing and the Elders Council also resulted in proposals for appropriate live/work environments for older people. This project was developed in collaboration

122  John Carr et al.

with the Design Age Institute and the design consultancy Pentagram. Professional input was also provided by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH). Responding to the ‘Government Grand Challenge of Ageing’, this project acknowledges the social capital and economic potential of an ageing population who are entering retirement, responding to multiple societal trends. The growth of service industries and the decline of manual labour have enabled increased longevity for working lives. Policymakers have begun to acknowledge the consequential loss of expertise when people retire, and the accompanying financial impact of losing this human resource (Léime et al. 2020). Business advantages of retaining older workers can be complemented by the health and well-being benefits enjoyed by these employees, derived from securing continued purpose for life and a meaningful existence post-retirement (Baxter et al. 2021). Lesonsky (2020) writing for Forbes magazine identified that the employment market for people over 60 enjoys the quickest growth of any age group (see Chapter 5 for more detail on smart homes), with many seniors initiating start-up enterprises after decades of full-time work. Similarly, older workers operating from home are the fastest growing demographic in the workforce, with the COVID-19 pandemic accelerating this change (Office for National Statistics 2021). Workers over 55 are less likely to be hired conventionally if they lose their jobs, so entrepreneurialism is often the effective route to employment (Centre for Ageing Better 2021). Continuing engagement with community, including contact with workplace colleagues and business partners, and volunteering have been recognised as preventing loneliness, particularly for those over 65, (Windle et al 2011). The learning of new skills and knowledge required by IT-driven business models can also ensure that cognitive functions remain active, challenged, and agile, similarly contributing to a better quality of later life (Czaja et al. 2021). The requirements for an ageing population engaging with homeworking need to be addressed when developing solutions to promote continued and effective employability (see Chapter 6 for more detail on homeworking). The CoDesign workshops revealed that older people tended to spend much longer hours at the computer than anticipated; several reported working 12 hours per day in front of a monitor. People working at home are not subject to the same ‘prompts’ encountered in office settings, for example, tea and lunch breaks, starting and finishing of working hours, structured and informal meetings, etc. As older people focus on their work, they often take very few breaks. Additionally, elderly home-workers reported utilising domestic chairs and tables of poor ergonomic design; consequently, several participants had developed chronic muscular/skeletal problems. Similarly, home workstations suffered from poor lighting levels, a problem compounded by failing eyesight. Homeworkers also sought clear distinctions between employment and domesticity at the end of the working day.

Homes to age in place  123

Participants caring for grandchildren needed to tidy away their work safely and securely, often at short notice. They also stressed that a bespoke work/ live environment had to be inexpensive to buy or construct. Flexibility of this workspace was also requested, enabling alternative use of this facility (e.g., increased kitchen space, additional storage, etc.) in the event that they could no longer work. This feedback led to the design of an ergonomically appropriate workplace to aid productivity and well-being. The layout of the prototype houses for South Seaham Garden Village embedded capacity to construct such workstations between the kitchen and the living room. This key location enabled the facility to act as either a larder/cupboard or workplace/storage in response to participants’ needs. The workspace was designed with appreciation of an ageing population that would suffer potential depreciation of vision, hearing, balance, strength, memory, dexterity, and cognitive skills. The occupational health professionals and physiotherapists recommended prompts to promote regular movement, standing, stretching, and regular breaks for workers, as a good working posture in the workplace can still lead to muscular/skeletal issues if a person sits for too long in one position. A retractable, height-adjustable desk was thus included to ensure the correct sitting height. The physiotherapists also recommended desks that would enable standing and working, as bearing weight on the hips and knees can strengthen the core. The IT technologists suggested using visual ambient prompts, programmed to remind people to take breaks. Programming a web camera could establish correct working positions for individuals, recognising when someone was slumping in the seat. Daily or weekly guidance, through a report generated by their computer, could monitor posture to instigate any necessary adjustments. A combination of ambient and task lighting was integrated into the unit, employing the natural light spectrum which is known to improve well-being. Participants were keen that cables and plugs were integrated and hidden, and that drawers were available to access and hide printers, shredders, files, etc., out of sight (see Figure 9.7). Pentagram consequently designed a range of mobile working solutions so that older people could move around their home and work in different locations. These solutions included a ‘caddy’ with an integrated lighting unit, storage, as well as a rechargeable battery pack for laptops and tablets. This could be docked into the workstation to recharge at the end of the working day (caddy seen in Figure 9.6). Both the Connected House and the WorkLive Environment are scheduled to be built in South Seaham Garden Village in 2023/2024. These designs have been disseminated and promoted by key organisations in the cross-disciplinary field of age-friendly design, with the prototype houses and the workstation being exhibited at the Design Museum and the National Innovation Centre for Ageing.

124  John Carr et al.

FIGURE 9.7 Showing

work/live unit in different configurations to aid home working for older people

References Barton, C., Wilson, D., & Booth, J. (2019). Tackling the Under Supply of Housing in England. House of Commons Library. Retrieved from https://commonslibrary. parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7671/ Baxter, J. et al. (2021). Is working in later life good for your health? A systematic review of health outcomes resulting from extended working lives. Journal of Population Ageing, 12(3), 295–320. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-11423-2 Beagle, D., Fox, W., Parkinson, J., & Plotka, E. (2014). Building a Better Britain: A Vision for the Next Government, London: RIBA. Centre for Ageing Better. (2021, February 23). Ageism in Recruitment Could Be Final Straw for over 50s Made Redundant. Retrieved from https://ageing-better.org.uk/ news/ageism-recruitment-could-be-final-straw-over-50s-made-redundant

Homes to age in place  125

Crawford, R., Stoye, G., & Zaranko, B. (2020). Long-term care spending and hospital use among the older population in England. Fiscal Studies, 41(4), 859–884. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2021.102477 Czaja, S.J., Moxley, J.H., & Rogers, W.A. (2021). Social support, isolation, loneliness, and health among older adults in the PRISM randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychology. Dekkers, W. (2011). Dwelling, house and home: towards a home-led perspective on dementia care. Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy, 14(3), 291–300. Grabowski, D.C. (2006). The cost-effectiveness of noninstitutional long-term care services: Review and synthesis of the most recent evidence. Medical Care Research and Review, 63(1), 3–28. DOI: 10.1177/1077558705283120 Green, M., & Rossall, P. (2013). Age UK Digital Inclusion Evidence Report. Age UK. Housing Learning & Improvement Network. (2014). Safe at Home: A Housing Report for Later Life. Age UK. Retrieved from https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/ age-uk/documents/reports-and-publications/reports-and-briefings/safe-at-home/ rb_july14_housing_later_life_report.pdf Johnston, B., Lawton, S., McCaw, C., Law, E., Murray, J., Gibb, J., Pringle, J., Munro, G., & Rodriguez, C. (2015). Living well with dementia: Enhancing dignity and quality of life, using a novel intervention, dignity therapy. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 10(4), 284–296. DOI: 10.1111/opn.12103 Lawton, M.P. (1990). Aging and performance of home tasks. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 32(5), 527–536. DOI: 10.1111/ opn.12103 Léime, Á, Ogg, J., Rašticová, M., Street, D., Krekula, C., Bédiová, M., & MaderoCabib, I. (Eds.). (2020). Extended Working Life Policies: International Gender and Health Perspectives. Cham, Switzerland: Policy Press. Lesonsky, R. (2020, September 14). Forget Retirement – Many Baby Boomers Are Starting Small Businesses Instead, Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes. com/sites/allbusiness/2018/07/19/baby-boomers-starting-small-businesses/?sh= 8be813f5679a McIntyre, L.J., & Harrison, I. (2017). The effects of built environment design on opportunities for wellbeing in care homes. ArchNet-IJAR, 11(1), 138–156. Office for National Statistics. (2021, January 27). Homeworking in the UK. Office for National Statistics. (2022). Voices of Our Ageing Population: Living Longer Lives. Piddington, A., Nichol, D., & Garrett, B. (2020). The housing stock of the United Kingdom. Building Research & Information, 48(1), 1–6. Royal Institute of British Architects (2011). The Case for Space: The Size of England’s New Homes, RIBA Publishing, London. Royal Institute of British Architects (2019). Severe Lack of Age-Friendly Homes – ‘England’s Hidden Housing Crisis. Retrieved from https://www.architecture.com/ knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/severe-lack-of-age-friendlyhomes Seamon, D. (2014). Place attachment and phenomenology: The synergistic dynamism of place. In I. Altman, S. Low, & S. G. Peters (Eds.), Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods, and Applications (pp. 11–22). London: Routledge. Twigg, J., & Martin, W. (Eds.). (2015). Routledge Handbook of Cultural Gerontology, Routledge.

126  John Carr et al.

Wiles, J.L., Leibing, A., Guberman, N., Reeve, J., & Allen, R.E.S. (2012). The meaning of “aging in place” to older people. The Gerontologist, 52(3), 357–366. https://doi. org/10.1093/geront/gnr098 Windle, K., Francis, J., & Coomber, C. (2011). Preventing loneliness and social isolation: Interventions and outcomes. SCIE Research Briefing 39.

10 TOWARDS A PARTICIPATORY ARCHITECTURE Mirian Calvo and Carmen Fabregat-Nodar

Introduction

Participatory architecture must become a prominent field of inquiry. The urgency for this arises from the crisis of conventional practices and forces in architecture, unable to respond adequately to a growing climate crisis. We need an architecture that can rapidly adopt more social, ecological and economic models as well as respond to issues such as energy poverty, pressing shortages of natural resources and increasing climate disasters and/or extreme weather events. In addition, the unbearable rise in house prices in cities is leading to a lasting housing crisis (Coupe, 2021), where low- and middle-income people experience difficulties accessing housing (Hagbert et al., 2020). Who should be responsible for developing a collective vision of an alternative future? Consider one example of a speculative design vision for future homes from the National House Building Council (NHBC) Foundation’s Futurology report (2018). It says that the future home will be strongly driven by technological advances. Some of these advances are illustrated in Figure 10.1: flexible and intergenerational layouts; the standardisation of district energy systems; electric cars; smaller footprint homes and smart delivery boxes. However, in contrast to such a ‘top-down’ vision, in this chapter we will examine how participatory architecture is influencing the co-construction of alternative visions of the future homes. Within our current sociocultural context, new ways of understanding architecture emerge together with new priorities, where participatory architecture has been praised as an alternative model with the potential to: overcome some climate challenges; envision social and cultural interactions and co-produce ecosystems for future home metabolisms. DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244-11

128  Mirian Calvo and Carmen Fabregat-Nodar

FIGURE 10.1  The

vision of the future home pictured in the NHBC Foundation’s Futurology report (2018). Top image: section with a smart delivery box, electric cars and energy system. Bottom image: elderly apartment layout proposal

Source: ©️ Studio Partington

Collaborative and speculative design methods can help overcome real-life obstacles in an imaginative way, but they can still be tied to futures that continue the status quo. Bear in mind that the future does not exist and therefore uncertainty is inherent in it. When envisioning possible futures and projecting

Participatory architecture  129

the values and challenges that the community will face, we can shape what we want our habitats to be if only we can picture our future homes collectively. This process is about embracing uncertainty to envision the ‘everydayness’ of our future, trying not to repeat the mistakes of the past nor trying to hold on to the past. It is rather a radical rethink in the face of climate collapse. In this chapter, we will discuss participatory architecture roots and three housing models where participatory architecture is already integrated: social housing, cohousing and earthships. Through these examples, we examine the influence that participation will have on the shape of our homes in the future. Architecture and participation

For a long time, everyday architecture, which included mostly housing and communal facilities, was underpinned by the principles of co-production and caring (Federici, 2019). These principles were used to socially organise the coexistence of humans and structure the onset of cities. Yet the Industrial Revolution brought to the fore new social, cultural and economic values, and it boosted a transformative process that led to changes in aesthetics and in the principles of architecture, – leaving behind caring and co-production. The practice of architecture started to separate the designing and the making processes whilst also disconnecting hands-on architecture from the community. As a result, the practice of architecture focused less on the participatory component, currently absent in conventional architecture (Calvo et al., 2022). Aligned with this, the essential role of the dwelling as the primary response to the human right to housing and the provision of shelter and well-being has been transgressed. The Industrial Revolution gave rise to slums around cities and a chronic proletarian housing crisis, an ideal testbed for experiments in collective and social housing applying social theories. After WWII, the number of modernist architecture collective/social housing projects increased but, arguably, the quality of their experimentation decreased. The prevailing housing model became quite rigid as it was geared towards achieving: (i) high efficiency, inspired by a machine/technology metaphor; (ii) optimal space use, motivated by the industrial design of ships and aeroplanes and (iii) spatial specialisation. Some pitfalls and failures of modernist principles in social and collective housing are well known. For example, in Le Corbusier’s intervention in Pessac, Bordeaux (1924–1926), residents resorted to appropriating the domestic spaces and altering them to their needs (Boudon, 1969). In the Smithson’s Brutalist, Robin Hood Gardens, London (1969–1975), a council estate aiming to create social interactions between its residents via communal spaces such as the ‘streets of the sky’ (Montaner, 2015), the architects were unable to reconcile their designs with laypeople’s needs. Finally, in Yamasaki’s PruittIgoe, Saint Louis (1951–1955), the focus on architectural design as the sole cause of the project’s decline hid serious flaws in the public housing system

130  Mirian Calvo and Carmen Fabregat-Nodar

(Bristol, 1991). According to Montaner and Muxí (2020), such failures of social housing were related to, among other factors, little or no understanding of the idiosyncrasies, individual needs and cultural values of local dwellers. The term participation became prominent around the 1950s–1960s, emphasising the need to accommodate those most disadvantaged in the design of their homes. Also, new analyses of occupants’ needs and a greater understanding of their behaviour informed a new architectural design process capable of accommodating dwellers’ needs. These insights helped to establish participatory methods in the designing of collective and social homes. In the 1960s, pioneers of participatory architecture (see Figure 10.2) began to

FIGURE 10.2 

Participatory architecture historic diagram

Source: Authors

Participatory architecture  131

introduce more human touches and social qualities into housing design, in collaboration with the users and/or future occupants. Figure 10.2 illustrates two major waves of participatory architecture. The first wave occurred in 1968, a year of global protests demanding a more egalitarian, inclusive and democratic future. Participatory architecture revealed the disconnect between laypeople and architects, and the shortcomings of modern architecture in solving the daily problems of housing occupants. Since then, activists, sociologists, architects, urban planners and anthropologists have encouraged citizen participation in diverse architecture and planning processes. The 1968 protests also embraced ecological concerns as ordinary people demanded change in the ways of living on this planet. In turn, alternative forms of cohabitation and collective construction, such as cohousing and earthships communities, were born and have been gradually expanding and gaining resonance over the last century as alternative housing models to conventional housing. During this first wave, participatory architecture found its place in social housing experiments, cohousing and in earthships. For example, Fathy’s New Gourna village (Luxor, Egypt, 1946–1952), affordable and social housing inspired by vernacular Egyptian architecture and designed with displaced people; Vandkunsten Architects’ Tinggården cohousing (Herfølge, Denmark, 1972–1978), a living community self-governed and based on close social relationships; and Reynolds’ experimentation on the design and construction of earthships passive solar houses which gave rise to The Greater World Earthship Community (New Mexico, USA, 1972–onwards). After the increasing resonance that participatory architecture gained in the agenda of local authorities and architectural practices in the 1970s and 1980s in Europe, it remained a minority practice until the second wave, from postmillennium, when the global economic and mortgage crisis that led to the homelessness of many families boosted a renewed interest (Calvo et al., 2022). New generations of architects, bred in the midst of a crisis that strangled conventional architectural practice, turned their attention to social issues and to the housing problem. Borrowing methods from social-science-based research, they are building transdisciplinary practices, defined by the fluidity of their different expertise and based on principles of common and co-creation. Based on these historical reviews, the following sections present an analysis of how participatory architecture has evolved and settled into these three types of collective housing: social housing, cohousing and earthships. Social housing

The term social housing refers to collective housing models developed and delivered by voluntary housing associations (non-profit organisations) that provide affordable housing to those underserved/neglected by the market.

132  Mirian Calvo and Carmen Fabregat-Nodar

Social housing is an evolution of the public or municipal housing model (Thompson, 2020), which arises as a consequence of inhabitation precariousness derived from the idea of understanding housing as products, commodified by private interests (Montaner, 2015). Social housing models are rooted in the principles of civil rights, mutual aid and solidarity, and can be seen as a solid alternative system for future homes structured around social and human values,–‘neither state-socialism or market-capitalism – for organising the development, allocation and management of shelter’ (Thompson, 2020, p. 14). In this regard, participatory processes have been proven to be inescapable in the development of successful social housing policies (Montaner, 2015). This can be appreciated in the 2016-Pritzker Prize winner Aravena’s Elemental project in Chile (Aravena & Iacobelli, 2010), which was based on a participatory architecture process, involving the future dwellers (low-income communities). This well-documented project is being used to adjust and give rise to policy frames for self-building, particularly in Latin America with a long tradition of self-building policies to support the rapid growth of their megapolis (Montaner, 2015) and overcome the insalubrity of slums. Aravena’s design team provides the future inhabitants with a structural framework, based on Habraken’s (1998) support theory, that allows them to become designer-builders and create the housing that best suits their abilities and needs. The process of development and continuous improvement of the dwellings is carried out over the changing conditions of the inhabitants, similar to the rehabilitation strategies developed in social housing by 2021-Pritzker Prize winners Lacaton and Vassal. At Ensemble à Claveau, by Construire in Bordeaux, France (2014–2019), residents were also encouraged to engage in self-rehabilitation of their social housing. Construire’s approach to urban rehabilitation in this 1950s garden city focused on encouraging the exchange of knowledge and experience among residents. The participatory architecture process was structured on the premise of the dwellers’ needs, well-documented by using ethnographic methods. The findings of the residents’ needs were placed at the centre of the next stages of the design engagement programme to strengthen relations between neighbours in such a way that encouraged the exchange of knowledge between them. Construire also embedded its design studio at the heart of the neighbourhood to enhance visibility and to establish close-knit relationships with the residents and hence gradually building trust. They also built a temporary community centre where tools and materials were made available, and educational workshops were organised where everyone could learn how and start thinking about their homes according to their needs. From there, residents began to come together to build and repair their homes and began to rehabilitate the urban environment as well (see Figure 10.3). This architectural practice also drew on vernacular practices from informal settlements in Latin America, such as Turner’s illegal self-build settlements in Lima and

Participatory architecture  133

FIGURE 10.3 Left

bottom image: residents self-building a greenhouse and community garden. Right bottom image: Self-building workshop and tool library, part of the educational programme. Top image: cultural activities alongside co-design workshops. Ensemble à Claveau, Construire, Bordeaux, France (2014–2019)

Source: Construire

Arequipa, and Guevara’s Solanda neighbourhood, all of which were inspired by the Brazilian vernacular mutirão (mutual aid between families). Here we can see how these examples of participatory architecture have built on good community practices from the past to adapt to the environment and personal circumstances and have also brought innovation. My Mainway project, led by the authors, in Lancaster, UK (2020–2021), enabled a community of vulnerable housing estate residents to contribute to decisions about the regeneration process of their council homes. The social estate will be uninhabitable in 5 years’ time, due to problems of crime

134  Mirian Calvo and Carmen Fabregat-Nodar

FIGURE 10.4  Co-design

workshops and consultation sessions during the pandemic with residents of all ages. My Mainway project, ImaginationLancaster (2020–2021)

Source: Authors

and physical building decay, which prompted the council to initiate discussions with residents about its regeneration. The participatory process (see Figure 10.4) revealed the stress and emotional exhaustion of many residents from the growing disorder of the estate, fuel poverty and associated mental illness, a cocktail made all the more potent by the pandemic. The project created safe spaces to articulate these problems and identify possible solutions, encouraging advocacy for those in need. It built a relationship of trust and mutual exchange between the administration and the inhabitants that did not previously exist and opened a pathway in the joint search for solutions. As seen in these cases, participatory architecture in social housing engenders the agency of residents, empowers them and galvanises co-responsibility and cooperation. Yet it is difficult to maintain this relationship over time, as it requires dedication and energy, but social policies and spaces must be continued so that empowered citizens continue to take control of their way of life. Cohousing

Cohousing is a type of intentional community in which private homes are codesigned and clustered around communal spaces, usually featuring shared amenities. See Chapter 7 for a more detailed discussion of this, here we focus on the participatory aspects of this housing model.

Participatory architecture  135

FIGURE 10.5 Left

bottom image: co-design event over the Lune River. Right bottom image: Co-design process: cohousing layout design of landscape and buildings. Top image: co-governance management meeting. Lancaster Cohousing Community (2001–2012)

Source: Lancaster Cohousing Community (LCH), https://www.lancastercohousing.org.uk/

At Lancaster Cohousing Community (UK; 2012–onwards), members of this community embarked on a co-design process, led by a design team (including five members of the cohousing community and Ecoarc Architects), motivated by an ambition to embrace a radical lifestyle change (see Figure 10.5). Originally, this cohousing was intended to be situated in an urban setting, but acquiring affordable, developable land was the first hurdle they had to overcome. After four attempts, they obtained a plot, in a peri-urban and growing area where they delivered cosy, Passivhaus standard homes (see Chapter 3 for more detail on net-zero homes), designed for ageing in place (see Chapter 9 for more detail on ageing homes). The co-design process engendered agency in its members, who left behind life understood in individualistic terms to conceive it in participatory and collective terms. During the participatory architecture process, they deliberately decided to locate key parts of everyday life such as the laundry and post boxes away from their individual homes, and instead place them at the heart of the community, right in front of the common house. Placing everyday functions, which individuals access daily, facilitates social interaction, in contrast to the hyper individual visions presented in the NHBC Foundation’s Futurology report. The future of cohousing and its proliferation involves overcoming the challenge of institutionalising participation and cooperation at different levels:

136  Mirian Calvo and Carmen Fabregat-Nodar

at legislative, bureaucratic levels, between public and private actors and residents. For example, in La Borda, Barcelona (Spain), cooperation and understanding between the city council, residents and developers were key to providing affordable housing, breaking the stifling dynamics of the real estate market. However, the innovative cooperative Entrepatios in Madrid (Spain), a building with high bioclimatic and net-zero standards, ended up being cohousing for upper-middle class, since the lack of cooperation with public actors made it difficult to create an affordable housing model. At a human level, the participatory architecture process requires the co-development of membership policies that facilitate and ensure a more democratic and inclusive participation process, aligned with participatory architecture methods and tactics to implement them. Cohousing can draw a great deal of insight into the future home models, galvanising participatory architecture processes and understanding the meaning of home in terms of a collaborative and ‘living’ process. It ingrains participation permanently, embracing the most social aspects of our nature and remoulding our individualistic behaviour, forgotten by post-industrial values of lifestyle. A critical part of cohousing is co-responsibility and cogovernance, managing the estate, the residents assume responsibility for their space and care for it over time. Here we can determine that, as in past times, the future home is more likely to be underpinned by the collective values of caring and co-production. Earthships

Co-design and self-building have often taken place in communities on the margins, or on marginal land, where ownership structures are less restrictive, and on the margins of rigid regulatory and institutional frameworks. As it is highlighted in the review of participatory architecture roots, this type of initiative has been often underestimated by the political and market spheres, as it is the case of earthship communities. The term earthship describes an environmentally sustainable, self-sufficient dwelling that meets basic human needs for shelter, water and food. Using natural and recycled materials, this type of home is capable of renewable energy harvesting, water collection and treatment and organic food production (Reynolds, 1990). Earthships are seen as radical housing schemes, not only by their material choices and energy efficiency levels but also by their self-building process. The design of the earthship arises from the need to reverse the high environmental cost of contemporary construction. In opposition to the idea of conventional housing models which see value in presenting homes as finished end-products to sell and buy, earthships (as well as cohousing and some social housing schemes) value and understand homes as co-design processes: socially charged processes of collective action and execution.

Participatory architecture  137

FIGURE 10.6 Cuevas de Sol Earthship, Almeria, Spain (2007–2014), self-construction

process of the back thermal wall made of tires and compacted soil, view of the geodesic dome bedroom and main area with planter Source: ©️LauraDaviesArt – https://earthship.es/

Earthships are perhaps one of the most radical cases of participatory architecture in housing development (Figure 10.6). The design of these selfsufficient homes has been refined over the years in a co-design process of technical experimentation and hands-on, mutual learning, ignited by Reynolds and collaborators in the Taos desert of New Mexico (USA), where The Greater World Earthship Community first emerged. Today earthships communities begin to proliferate globally in many habitats on the basis of ecological and social principles. Supported by an international network, they orient and empower those who want to embrace a more sustainable lifestyle and enact ecological regeneration. The knowing-how developed by the international earthship community has been translated into plans, methodologies and manuals, shared and disseminated in various formats and means (Hewitt & Telfer, 2007). However, it is necessary to further research social and cultural aspects that underpin earthship communities. Also, the original designs developed in New Mexico need to be adjusted to the context of each site. Earthships are adapted to the needs of the residents and to the environmental and climatic demands of the place. They range from a typhoon-proof building in the Philippines to a hurricane-resistant earthship in Puerto Rico, and a papercrete clustered geodesic dome onto an earthship, in Cuevas de Sol, Almeria, Spain, building upon the local Moorish architecture tradition. There are also challenges that need to be tackled for the future of this radical housing model regarding bureaucratic obstacles. Think of, for instance, the Brighton Earthship Community which needed to work closely with the planning authority unused to non-standard building materials to obtain planning permissions. This increased layers of complexity to an already difficult self-building process. The difficulties with the planning authority contributed to delaying project delivery and consequently increased the costs (Smith and Seyfang, 2013). Here

138  Mirian Calvo and Carmen Fabregat-Nodar

the tacit knowledge of the hands-on process, and the sharing of technical and bureaucratic learnings, became a great support to actually build the homes. The motivations for people to live in earthships communities are primarily related to the environmental benefits and construction cost savings. Yet, as in cohousing, joining the community also means getting deeply involved in the dynamics of it, based on ecology and self-building, embracing a lifestyle of collective caring and co-production (Smith and Seyfang, 2013), in opposition to conventional housing models, which produce isolated and dependent inhabitants; who have no control over the technology used in their homes, on which their well-being depends. Living in a community that knows how their own housing works, how it is made and how it is constructed in the current capitalist context is an act of resistance (Schelly, 2017) and resilience. Self-sufficient communities with strong communal values capable of promoting social, economic and environmental complexity are resilient and able to adapt to different situations. It is, therefore, important to collect and pass on the collective wisdom gathered in earthship communities. Towards a participatory future home

As architects, we have the opportunity to rethink how we redesign future homes and open this debate and design process to its dwellers, the real protagonists of architecture. The house is the container of a home, the expression of our fears, desires, experiences and memories (Pallasmaa, 2016). Yet it is difficult to justify the design of the home from an aseptic and technical point of view, without considering the person who is inhabiting it. The concept of home brings together knowledge about architecture, urban planning, construction, technology, anthropology, sociology, psychology, economics, law, health, environment and others (Montaner & Muxí, 2020); hence, its design should be transdisciplinary, participatory and inclusive. As Le Corbusier notes (Boudon, 1969, p. 131): … it is life that is right and the architect who is wrong. This statement emphasises the tacit knowledge of each individual, expert by experience in everyday life and in spatial well-being. In this chapter, we have looked at the roots of participatory architecture and reviewed current participatory architecture practices in three different housing models: social housing, cohousing and earthships. From this, we have identified that participatory architecture can promote the following benefits to enable the coconstruction of collective visions of the future home: i equity and mutual learning amongst dwellers. This raises awareness of wellbeing and its relationship with spatial design of homes and surroundings;

Participatory architecture  139

ii it provides spaces for individual and collective reflection on living and on social spaces. This generates the collective allocation of symbolic meaning and value, underpinned by pre-agreed design criteria, which creates a sense of belonging, ownership and co-responsibility for taking care of them; iii personal involvement in the design and/or construction process implies an understanding of the materiality and technology of the dwellings that results in taking control over them. The house is not an oblivious artefact, rather the user/dweller has the power to appropriate it and adapt it to future changes. Hence, participatory architecture creates resilient homes, able to adapt to upcoming changes, as well as resilient communities; iv it makes users/dwellers aware of the positiveness of sociability, thus placing caring and co-production at the centre of the design. The aim is to create more human-based homes where technology supports comfort and social interactions are prioritised. Participatory architecture practices will have an impact on future housing models because they are living processes of doing architecture. All the cases reviewed here of social housing, cohousing and earthships reconfigure the vision of the future from the present, crafting alternatives. Participatory architecture practices are here to stay because they open up a space of disruption, a third space, where users/dwellers can, on the one hand, question the ways of living in the world, and on the other hand, question how they feel about it, about living in such ways. When we move towards introducing participatory processes in housing design, we are moving towards more flexible, democratic, sustainable and equitable models that are better adapted to the passage of time and evolving needs, and more resilient to emergent changes. Along the way, we will have to find solutions to some of the challenges that are presented to us, such as speculation and difficulties in accessing land ownership; bureaucratic rigidity and difficult adaptation of legislation to new proposals and rapid changes in society and its demands; the difficulty of equally including all voices in the co-design process; maintain participation over time without losing interest and involve institutions without them wanting to get political gain. Looking ahead, society will demand housing participation policies that allow access to land ownership for different income communities, and the implementation of social budgeting. In the context of a climate emergency, the most resilient communities will have a better chance of surviving and, therefore, society will evolve towards models in which ostentation is rejected and participation is the only socially accepted form of housing development. Nothing stands in our way, but ourselves. We see participatory architecture as a necessary and unavoidable alternative if we want to move away from repeating authoritarian (technocratic) models of the past and embrace

140  Mirian Calvo and Carmen Fabregat-Nodar

architectural models based on co-responsibility, urban resilience, and social spaces capable adapting to the uncertainty of the future. References Alejandro Aravena, M., & Iacobelli, A. (2010) Elemental Chile A Handbook on Progressive Housing. Actar. Boudon, P. (1969) Pessac de Le Corbusier [Pessac by Le Corbusier]. Paris: Dunod. Bristol, K.G. (1991) The Pruitt-Igoe myth. Journal of Architectural Education, 44(3), 163–171. Calvo, M., Galabo, R., Owen, V., Cruickshank, L., & Sara, R. (2022) Strategies and tactics of participatory architecture. In: Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J. & Lloyd, P. (eds.), Proceedings of DRS 2022, Bilbao. Design Research Society. Coupe, T. (2021) How global is the affordable housing crisis? International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis, 14(3), 429–445. Federici, S. (2019) Re-Enchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Commons. Oakland, CA: PM Press. Habraken, N.J. (1998) The Structure of the Ordinary, Form and Control in the Built Environment. London: MIT Press. Hagbert, P., Larsen, H.G., Thörn, H., & Wasshede, C. (2020) Contemporary Co-Housing in Europe: Towards Sustainable Cities? Milton Park: Routledge. Hewitt, M., & Telfer, K. (2007) Earthships in Europe. Watford: BRE Press. Montaner, J.M. (2015) la arquitectura de la vivienda colectiva: políticas y proyectos en la ciudad contemporánea [The Architecture of Collective Housing: Policies and Projects in the Contemporary City]. Editorial Reverté. Montaner, J.M., & Muxí, Z. (2020) Política y arquitectura: por un urbanismo de lo común y ecofeminista [Politics and Architecture. For an urbanism of the common and ecofeminist]. Barcelona, Spain: Gustavo Gili Editorial S.A. NHBC Foundation (2018) Futurology: The New Home in 2050. Barcelona, Spain: NHBC Foundation. Pallasmaa, J. (2016) Habitar. Barcelona, Spain: Gustavo Gili. Reynolds, M. (1990) Earthship (Volume I). Taos, New Mexico: Paperback. Schelly, C. (2017) Dwelling in Resistance: Living With Alternative Technologies in America. London: Rutgers University Press. Smith, A., & Seyfang, G. (2013) Constructing grassroots innovations for sustainability. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 827–829. Thompson, M. (2020) Reconstructing Public Housing. Liverpool’s Hidden History of Collective Alternatives. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

11 OFF THE WALL Manufacturing Future Homes Based on a ‘Throughput’ Business Model Michael Crilly and Yann Bomken

Historical futurists

At an international urban regeneration conference dealing with housing of the future, we were amazed to hear, and then meet to discuss, the work of a ‘professional futurist’; that is, unquestionably, quite an impressive job title. The most amazing thing about their presentation and associated views had nothing to do with the content of the talk and the predictions being made, but rather was the fact that it was being made by an employee of a local authority of a major, northern Yorkshire city. So, this was even more impressive a job title for someone who was working for Bradford City Council and employed to ask questions, and not plan for, but rather to think about, possible futures. It brought so many things into focus when they were encouraged to think long-term beyond the statutory requirements of the local authority (albeit under the remit of the Local Government Act 2000 which is quite hard to place limits upon) and to consider the impact of externalities outside of the direct, or indirect, control of the local authority. We cannot remember whether they predicted Brexit, COVID and a new central European War or, if they did, what sort of policy response Bradford City would put in place as mitigation. The lessons from Bradford, at that time, were a little more straightforward: they were about the creation of an adaptive and learning society to place greater attention on what can or might be rather than what is or what has been … (to) … localised responses to modernisation (Saunders, 2002, p. 19). If futurism, to futurists, is all about learning and adapting to a changing local context, then it seems that this is at odds with futurism as understood by non-futurists, or more accurately the traditional house-building professions and their lack of awareness of the changing context of their industry and DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244-12

142  Michael Crilly and Yann Bomken

inability to adapt to economic realities. Specifically, throughout the history of future homes, there has been an obsession with new technologies (Weinersmith & Weinersmith, 2017) relative to a more cost-effective, efficient, or just simpler solution to dealing with a contextual issue in housing. Rather than learning and adapting our processes in construction, as a profession, we have tended to revert to invention and technological innovation. This is demonstrated by a little-known non-fiction work by H.G. Wells (1902) which was an attempt to answer the same sort of questions about housing. At that time the science fiction writer found it … incredible that there will not be a sweeping revolution in the method of building in the next century. The erection of a house-wall, come to think of it, is an astonishingly tedious and complex business … (b)etter walls … and better less life-wasting ways of making them are surely possible (Wells, 1902, pp. 50–51), going as far as to suggest several technological changes needed in the prefabrication of building components combined with cultural change within the building industry. We suggest that H.G. Wells was wrong about the construction of future housing as well as a potential Martian invasion, albeit hindsight is a great thing. In this chapter, we are therefore suggesting that the future home will be based on different (or more modern) production methods derived from learning from the manufacturing and business context. We are suggesting that the future home will be less about technology, less about architecture or design and more about adapting specifically to the changing economic and policy context. We find that the history of modern methods of construction (MMC) for the residential sector is surprisingly unmodern. While innovations that have been collectively described as ‘modern’ have, in effect, been a series of interconnected and incremental technological, process and business model drivers, they have also been accompanied by a range of barriers relating to a lack of understanding of MMC benefits, the associated risk aversion of institutional stakeholders, limited financial options and the political influence of the traditional house-building sector. To do this we are travelling back in time to examine a specific business model associated with an early example of MMC that demonstrates process innovation. Back to the future

Gary1, Indiana is an industrial company town located in East Chicago and is the home of two companies of note, the first being the United States Steel Company which founded the town in 1906 (Mohl & Betten, 1972). This company was also the workplace of crane operator, talent manager and ex-boxer Joe Jackson. The second company is Steeltown Records, where Joe first signed his Five Jackson Boys for their first record (Figure 11.1). If we ignore the cultural significance of Michael Jackson and the Jackson Five, and dig a little deeper, we find that Gary was the largest new town

Off the wall  143

FIGURE 11.1 Records

of manufactured pop music originating from Gary Indiana. ‘Big Boy’ by the Jackson Five was the first single produced by Steeltown Records

ever planned (Fuller, 1907) and constructed by American private finance. In the early 20th century, it was a place of optimism, innovation, and a testing bed of future utopian technologies driven by the vision, entrepreneurial spirit, and disruptive experiments of private enterprise. It quickly became the world’s largest steelworks, characterised by the most modern technologies and methods (Brook, 1975). In short, it was meant to be the city of the future, full of new ideas. It was innovative to the point where the city attracted global visitors seeking a glimpse of (this) future (Cohen, 1990). So, it is unsurprising that in the world’s largest ‘instant city’, families were expected to work, study, and live differently. They were expected to follow different procedures, keep to different timetables, and even have different, more modern, tastes in homes, albeit in a non-paternalistic way that was the trend of company towns at the turn of the 20th century. As a city, Gary itself was a disruptive experiment, described in turn as a national metaphor, the city of the century, a mapping of modernity, a place of new model industrial spaces, a new industrial order, and a crucible of American cultural responses to industrialization (O’Hara, 2011, pp. 5, 38, 53). The city was planned as a product line, a spatial representation of the business and process of making steel, blurring the boundaries between ‘factory’ and ‘town’, and it is the place to look for early 20th-century innovative production processes. It is within this urban planning context that an interesting and slightly apocryphal lesson in innovative housing of the future emerges. In 1908, Thomas Edison applied for a real (but mostly forgotten) patent (Acciavatti, 2022) that included some slight technical newness in the

144  Michael Crilly and Yann Bomken

FIGURE 11.2 Extracts

from Edison, T.A. (1908). Process of constructing concrete buildings. United States Patent US1219272A

application of concrete (Goodbun, 2016) but specifically concerned a metal moulding system required as formwork for housing (Figure 11.2). The singlepour house, or more accurately in the phraseology of the patent itself, the process of constructing concrete buildings (Edison, 1908) is underpinned by the concept of quality, affordable housing provision. To achieve this, it required a bespoke concrete mix that achieved a uniform hardness combined with a mix of aggregates (Dyer & Martin, 1910), that were conveniently provided by the Edison-owned Portland Cement Company2, and a set of moulds made from a series of cast iron sections intended to be joined together as a kit of parts. Edison actually constructed a scale model of an art-deco-detailed, single-pour, concrete house, in concrete, and a stereograph image exists of the inventor posing next to it (Figure 11.3). Ironically, this stereograph image requires us to use another of his inventions to fully appreciate the detail in it3. As was often the case, these patents preceded any actual construction project. Edison’s patent was followed by the pouring of several prototype buildings at the Thomas Edison’s Glenmont Estate that included the Garage and Gardener’s Cottage (1910). There was, however, always an intention of ultimately moving to mass production. This happened in two locations explicitly using Edison’s patented system. Initially several were built by the developer Frank Lambie and investor Charles Ingersoll in Union, New Jersey (1919) where they are still inhabited (Baas, 2012). However, of interest to our case study in business planning for manufactured housing are the remaining examples in Gary, Indiana. The development of poured concrete housing in Gary Indiana was, in part, a larger prototype based on this patented technique, albeit with a clearer underlying business strategy that utilized experimental methods and

Off the wall  145

FIGURE 11.3 

Thomas A. Edison and the model of his concrete house. Ca. 1911

housing construction … (and) … the first large-scale attempt at employing Thomas Edison’s concept of providing affordable and sanitary housing for the working classes. (Baas, 2008). It was the United States Steel Company which had the need for quickly constructed and affordable housing for its growing number of factory workers in the new city and they had the ability to produce their own cast iron moulds for this purpose (a somewhat overly complicated set of 2,300 pieces (Dunnell, 2018)). Starting with an architectural model and accompanying plans to inform the design of a set of moulds, once produced as double-wall cast iron sections, these are locked into place using standard equipment above a pre-prepared foundation and then the concrete mix is added with a regulated slow pouring rate to ensure the concrete on the lower storey was hard enough to support the additional loading of upper floors (Figure 11.4). These properties were constructed as two urban blocks, close to the US Steel Foundry at Monroe Terrace and Jackson Street, Gary and are currently being considered for inclusion on the US National Register of Historic Places. To fully understand how this was intended as an innovative process for affordable housing, we have produced a worked example of the business plan using assumed figures and costs (Table 11.1) based on rates contemporary to Edison when (i)t (was) contemplated that these houses shall be built in industrial communities, where they can be put up in groups of several hundred. If erected in this manner, and by an operator buying his materials in large quantities, Edison (believed) that these houses can be erected complete, including heating apparatus and plumbing, for $1200 each … comparing favourably

146  Michael Crilly and Yann Bomken

FIGURE 11.4 Model

axonometric of single pour concrete housing (Crilly & Bomken), Gary Indiana, based on survey plans contained within (Baas, 2008) and constructed ca. 1910, superimposed on [photograph] Monroe Terrace and Jackson Street, Gary Indiana

TABLE 11.1 Cost assumptions for the Edison patented construction system extracted or

calculated from Dyer & Martin (1910) unless otherwise stated $190,000 Equipment investment of $175,000. Given the Initial equipment investment. curing/drying time or concrete mix, the assumption is that an investment of a set of six cast iron moulds of reusable moulds of ‘illimitable life’ ($25,000 × 6 = $150,000) with some additions and variations in the range of moulds to product different external details. $15,000 accompanying necessary ‘plant’. $51,850 $11,400 interest based on rates assumed at 6% for Fixed costs/operating the costs of the moulds and plant. expenses per annum. $7,000 based on assumption of 4% due to Comprising overheads breakages. associated with capital $26,250 based on 15% depreciation in equipment machinery and equipment. and machinery. $7,200 construction worker wages, ($1,200 per worker per annum for a team of 6 workers, based on average rate per hour for cement workers in Chicago (37.5–62.5 cents per hour depending on skills level), multiplied by average hours per week (48) times an average of 50 weeks working per annum (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1913). Direct costs. Comprising the costs of the raw materials per unit.

Materials ($280) per house. Plant charge ($140) per house.

Off the wall  147 TABLE 11.2 Simple ‘throughout accounting’ model for the Edison patented construction

system, with operating expenses (OE) consisting of all expenses excluding raw materials $51,850 with the net sales assumed as Edison’s own target sales costs. Here the term ‘throughout’ in manufacturing, or in assemblyline processes, is the gross margin before the fixed overheads are deducted Throughput Net sales (T) (S) (T = S − TVC) 1 prototype unit, Thomas Edison’s Glenmont Estate 24 units/terraces constructed at Gary, Indiana 67 units is ‘break even’ capacity 144 units is the assumed capacity linked to OE

Total variable Net Profit cost (TVC) for (NP) raw materials (T − OE)

$780

$1,200

$420

($51,020)

$18,720

$28,800

$10,080

($33,130)

$52,260

$80,400

$28,140

$410

$112,320

$172,800

$60,480

$107,140

with a type of house that would cost not far from $30,000 if built of cut stone (Dyer & Martin, 1910, pp. 801–804) and with a potential maximum capacity on this investment in equipment and plant of up to 144 housing units per annum. In this manufacturing business model, the cost of producing a single prototype house is relatively extortionate as the full overhead operating costs ($51,850) are being borne by the single unit. However, as the production level increases, the proportion of the overheads borne by each of the housing units decreases (for example, $2,580, $1,194, and $780 for 24, 67 and 144 units, respectively, in Table 11.2) to the point of the housing becoming not only viable but affordable to the initial aspirations of Edison. The importance of the relationship between the costs, be it more concerned with profit or affordability, and the number of units manufactured is evident (Figure 11.5). While some of the assumptions are rather speculative, given the details available and the gaps to be filled in the unrecorded operational expenses, the key principles about increasing ‘throughput’ remain germane. The principle is that we should not become too distracted by new technology in house construction. In this example, it is the manufacturing process and the associated business justification that are the innovations rather than the new concrete technology. Given the current lack of single-pour concrete housing, we can assume that this business model was not ultimately successful. However, at the moment, we are currently witnessing similar efforts around printed concrete homes in some demonstration projects in the United States (Figure 11.6). In reality, during the early 20th century, concerns over costs (with the experimental processes going over budget); timescales missed as the scale of the experiment extended beyond the scale of constructing a single prototype;

148  Michael Crilly and Yann Bomken

FIGURE 11.5 Relationship

between number of sales (housing units) and the relative share of the fixed overhead costs attributed to the individual property being sold

FIGURE 11.6  Large-scale

3D additive concrete printing on site in 2023 at Wolf Range, Georgetown Texas

and significant externalities arising from the first world war (Indiana Magazine of History, 2012) led to a default return to more traditional construction methods and traditional business models for house building (Doctorow, 2009). As an interesting aside, this Edison Patent expired in 1934 and seems to have been cited and ‘slightly’ adapted by another famous one-time resident of Gary, Indiana. John DeLorean, at the same time as he left his role as the vice president of Ford Motors to set up the time-travelling DeLorean Motor Company in 1973 (Harris, 2012), had an innovative idea to provide each of the mold members … with wheels (as indicated at 17 and 18 in the patent figures)… for portability and maneuverability (SIC) about the building site, and with a suitable

Off the wall  149

FIGURE 11.7  Extracts

from DeLorean, J. (1973) building construction. United States Patent US3778953A, where part of the patent claim involved the addition of retractable wheels to the reusable mould, and Gale & Walser (2021)

wheel retraction means for enabling the side and end surfaces of the mold members to extend to the floor of the building during casting of the shell (DeLorean, 1973). Adding wheels and retractable elements to his inventions became something of a signature for the car industry innovator (Figure 11.7). This represents yet another example of transformational business planning, technological innovation, and factory production processes converging in the provision of affordable housing and allowing us a long view perspective on learning lessons from failed enterprises. Theory of constraints: think volume, not volumetric

To bring the housing experiences of Edison up to date, these same lessons from a 100-year-old manufacturing business model persist and continue to be the most important aspects in determining the fabrication processes of our future housing. We have looked at Edison’s business plan, in part to ensure commercial confidentiality from our own more recent experiences of manufacturing housing4, but also because the key innovations regarding the importance of ‘throughput’ in the business plan are still not fully appreciated. The lessons here for the future of manufactured housing are less about the significance of the technology than understanding the process innovation that has taken place. In considering the ‘manufacturing’ (or more accurately the ‘assembly’) of housing, the critical concern remains the ‘throughput’ (Goldratt & Cox, 1984) or ways to increase the volume of production rather than ways to reduce any single unit cost. The lesson being that in any assembly-line-based business model, there are fixed costs for company operations that will have to be shared or added onto the individual unit sales cost. As the volume of units increases, the proportion of the fixed cost ascribed to each unit is reduced. In our practice-based experiences, there are three main misconceptions around the application of effective ‘throughput accounting’ as a business

150  Michael Crilly and Yann Bomken

model that are still limiting the transformation of our housing market through the uptake of modern methods of construction. 1 Housing is always all about numbers The initial issue is about having confidence in the housing numbers as a requirement for an initial business investment. Initially this concerns housing completion numbers within the statutory planning system at the national scale. There is a dominance of housing policies within the UK planning systems (as in many other countries), or to be more precise, there is a political interest in housing completion numbers (Barker, 2004). When you look at the supporting evidence and at the number of representations being made by commercial interests and third parties contained within any local development plan public inquiry process it is possible to see how most of the time given over to public debate is about allocating sites for housing. Quality, sustainability, and even design variety and choices are hard to measure at the national scale and mostly go unnoticed in any planning monitoring and evaluation process. And it is worth, at this stage, mentioning the unimportance of architecture as a profession to the house-building industry, where figures, such as they exist, hint at a limited involvement with qualified design professionals in any housing development. In short, the political context is interested in housing numbers over everything else housing-related, but for some reason, this priority is not being supported with orders to ensure ‘throughput’. 2 Capital investment requires risk or a full order book The second issue is that for any manufacturing company seeking to move into housing, the limitation on making the necessary ‘throughput’ achievable is always going to be about having a secure and full order book for housing units. Without control or certainty over the number of housing units sold5, there will be no economies of scale. Significant capital investment is required upfront for factory space, plant, and production line machinery. This is all the more important if stages in the assembly line processes are automated or semi-automated. The Edison patented example required a significant initial capital investment of $190,000 for the necessary equipment; that equates to over $6,000,000 in 2023 (Figure 11.8a and b). Our experiences suggest that a similar level of capital investment of £4,150,000 (2002 figures adjusted for inflation to 2023 based on the Consumer Price Index inflation data from the UK Office of National Statistics) would be the minimum sum needed for equipment and machinery for a factory or production line with a ‘throughput’ capacity of around 2,000 units per annum. This figure would need to be matched by similar figures for factory space and, again, for working capital. It should be noted, however, that risks in the initial investment can be managed by renting factory space and equipment rather than purchasing assets.

Off the wall  151

FIGURE 11.8  (a)

Inflation rates from 1910 to 2023 from US Bureau of Labor Statistics for Consumer Price Index (CPI) with the corresponding $190,000 initial capital investment adjusted to this CPI tracking based on an average inflation rate for the US dollar of 3.11% per year between 1910 and 2023, producing a cumulative price increase of 3,093.29%. (b) Inflation rates from 1910 to 2023 from US Bureau of Labor Statistics for Consumer Price Index (CPI) with the corresponding $190,000 initial capital investment adjusted to this CPI tracking based on an average inflation rate for the US dollar of 3.11% per year between 1910 and 2023, producing a cumulative price increase of 3,093.29%

Yet quite often decisions about investments for larger orders have tended to have been informed by undertaking the production of ‘prototypes’ or ‘proof of concept’ housing based on modern methods of manufacturing. This sort of misunderstanding of the underlying business model based on

152  Michael Crilly and Yann Bomken

‘throughput accounting’ methods continues to lead housing orders to assume a simple unit cost. And worse, a simple unit cost based on figures that have been derived from prototype units. This seemed to be the case for one of the most significant recent policy experiments in housing provision. When the pilot programme ‘Design for Manufacture’ failed to roll out what (had) been achieved into development opportunities in the market (DCLG, 2006, p. 52) as the expectations, concerns and costs assumptions were associated with the ‘proof of concept’ or pilot stages. Considerable progress was achieved through this, and similar programmes, but seemingly the construction and manufacturing industries again failed to move from small-scale ‘proof of concept’ to large-scale alternatives in order to challenge the dominance of the UK volume housing companies. To challenge the volume builders, you need volume orders or ‘throughput’, and interestingly, the specific volume of orders required has not really changed since the time of Edison. Our own financial modelling for several different firms consistently shows a viable business when the manufacturing order books contain around, or above, 50 housing units per annum (compared to the 67 units in Table 11.2) when initial investments are used for leasing production space and equipment, or up to 250 housing units per annum when purchasing equipment and factory space. Although it is always better if you can exceed this level: one of the most successful examples of manufactured housing from the 20th century was the work of the British Iron and Steel Federation House6 which was successful because of a guaranteed order of 35,000 units (Ross, 2002) or 5,800 ‘throughput’ units per annum. There are also implications for any initial capital investment in a modern production process which is based on having confidence in the quantity of ‘throughput’ units when making decisions regarding the maximum capacity of the production line. This capacity can be varied through a strategy of ‘sweating the assets’ which, in practice, is to achieve maximum capacity out of the initial fixed investment. Our experiences range from planning for 4 or 4.5 to 5 days working within the production or assembly line for factory-produced housing (typically 4 days at 10-hour shifts or 5 days at 8-hour shifts for a standard 40-hour working week) with the potential to extend hours and to include a second, or even a third, shift per day (in which situation there would be an associated 20% uplift in staffing costs for nightshift working) moving towards continuous production. In this way, a factory or production line with ‘throughput’ capacity of around 2,000 units per annum for a 40-hour working week could potentially exceed 8,000 units if required. 3 Balancing standardisation of processes with manageable personalisation A third key lesson is also derived from the experiences of Edison’s housing and remains critical. For our future housing, it is the production or assembly processes that should be repeatable, but not necessarily resulting

Off the wall  153

in manufacturing a repeatable or mass-produced product in the same way that Edison’s set of moulds allowed for variations. It is the process that requires efficiency changes, not the value engineering of supply chain materials used in the assembly of the product. It is the process that requires continuous improvement, not the product. Even at late as the 1980s (t)he public tend(ed) to think of manufacture in terms of long runs … precisely the products of the more backwards industries rather than the most advanced (which) concentrate on the export of one-off and short-run manufactured goods (Toffler, 1980. Pp. 191–192, 196), but with futurists beginning to understand the ‘presto effect’ or the value inherent in the immediacy of achieving some form of personalisation and customisation that was revolutionising the deep structure of production. In practice, this is more than just standardisation and production line processes evolving into flexible specialisation, but rather about standard components being combined in variable sequences to create a form of personalisation, or at least the pretence of individualism (see also Chapter 2 on individualisation). To understand this, it is possible to consider other examples of manufacturing business models where it is evident that individualist lifestyle expressions are having an increasing impact on the market. This is particularly true when we examine microtrends … small trends that reflect changing habits and behaviours (evidenced in) the original Ford economy literally replaced by the Starbucks economy - the multiplication of choice as the driver of personal expression and satisfaction (Penn & Kinney Zalesne, 2007, pp. 3459 and 361). Microtrends are leading to greater fragmentation in the markets for manufactured products, with more need and tolerance for more diverse and individual responses, albeit there are also voices arguing against the explosion of choices. To draw on an analogy for manufacturing, let us select ‘jam’ as an example (selected from a range of similarly over provided variations in grocery products) and consider how these are sold in any supermarket/grocery store. A choice of 24 ‘jams’ is initially attractive to the ‘customer’ but higher sales are generated by a smaller range of say six different flavours (Schwartz, 2016). This pattern repeats in other forms of manufacturing, and there are complex choices around standard components, ranging from electronic stereo equipment to food products, with the various combinations (factorial calculation processes) simply creating too many options for consumers (Figure 11.9). There are multiple, successful examples of variety achieved through repeatable manufacturing processes based on a ‘throughput’ business model ranging from food processing to the significance of the automotive industry. Repeatable processes are just an extension of the predominant idea of a prefabricated kit of parts and variety provided for housing through a pattern book. From the late 19th century onwards, the use of mostly standardised

154  Michael Crilly and Yann Bomken

FIGURE 11.9  BMW

is an example of offering variety within a standardised and repeatable production process. A choice of 73 different BMW models, six exterior colours, three different wheel trims, six interior options, with additional packages to enhance visibility (2) and comfort (3) equates to 47,304 different configurations or 648 different configurations for any single model of a BMW car

plans that were widely circulated, adapted, and used throughout to the point of becoming a style of its own (Smeins, 1999). This standardisation of houses then continued through off-the-shelf kits of prefabricated industrial parts including reusable parts for cost-effective designs that were affordable because of their characteristics of being reproducible. Perhaps the best example of this was the Case Study House No. 8 by Charles and Ray Eames (Steele, 1994). The issue for the future of housing is how we manage these choices to balance the need for individualism and personal satisfaction while also avoiding stress and overload created by too many options and FOMO7. Flexible specialisation, de-massification, and non-standard production of your future housing must provide this variety and the perception of personalisation through individual adaptation at key stages within a repeatable production process. We repeat, the lessons from Edison are the need for a repeatable process and not the creation of a repeatable product. Overview: from manufactured pop to manufacturing homes

The future of housing, like so many other man-made artefacts, is going to be about process innovation as much as technological change. With a focus on manufacturing and assembly processes for housing, there are a lot of similarities with and lessons from the automotive industry (Roos et al., 1990) that still must be learned. There are many nuances around lean production concerning how the automotive industry works collaboratively with alignment of processes with its first- and second-tier supply chain organisations and then how this collaboration is reflected in partnership contracts compared with fragmentation in the construction industry. But paramount will be the need to understand the underlying business model based on ‘throughput’ numbers and standardised processes.

Off the wall  155

Notes 1 The city is modestly named after Elbert Henry Gary (1846–1927), the first chairman of the board of US Steel. 2 There is significant self-promotion of the work of the Edison Portland Cement Company (1926) and the bespoke manufacturing process included a company publication entitled ‘The Romance of Cement’. 3 If you fact-check this, you’ll actually find the stereoscope was first invented by Charles Wheatstone in 1832, while Edison progressed this in the collaborative creation of the “Kinetograph” in 1888, albeit it was too good a line to leave out. 4 This is largely reflective practice from work with Corus, Barrett’s Advanced Housing, Durham Modular and 190 Manufacturing. 5 Noting that the ’throughput’ requires the housing units or products to be sold and not just produced in sufficient quantities. 6 BISF was a company in operation for 6 years immediately following the Second World War from 1946 to 1952. 7 The fear of missing out.

References Acciavatti, A. (2022) “Concrete Poetry: Thomas Edison and the Almost-Built World”. The Public Domain Review, 1st December. Available at: https://publicdomainreview. org/essay/concrete-poetry-thomas-edison (Accessed 31st March 2023). Baas, C. (2008) “Monroe Terrace Historic District/The Edison Concept Houses, Lake County Indiana”. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, United States Department of the Interior, National Parks Service, March. Baas, C. (2012) “Concrete in the Steel City: Constructing Thomas Edison’s House for the Working Man”. Indiana Magazine of History 108(3) 245–273. Barker, S. (2004) Review of Housing Supply: Delivering Stability: Securing Our Future Housing Needs. (HMSO, Norwich). Available Online. Brook, A. (1975) “Gary, Indiana: Steeltown Extraordinary”. Journal of American Studies 9(1) 35. Cohen, R.D. (1990) Children of the Mill: Schooling and Society in Gary, Indiana, 1906–1960. (Indiana University Press, Bloomington IN). Available Online. DCLG. (2006) House of Commons (2007). DCLG Annual Report 2006. Third Report of Session 2006–07. London: The Stationery Office Limited. Available at: https:// publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmcomloc/106/106.pdf DeLorean, J. (1973) Building construction. United States Patent US3778953A. Department for Communities and Local Government & English Partnerships (2006) Designed for Manufacture: The Challenge to Build a Quality Home for £60K – Lessons Learnt. (Department or Communities and Local Government & English Partnerships, London). Available Online. Doctorow, C. (2009) “Edison’s Prefab, Permutable Fireproof Concrete Houses”. Available at: https://boingboing.net/2009/04/30/edisons-prefab-permu.html (Accessed 3rd April 2023). Dunnell, T. (2018) “Thomas Edison’s Concrete Houses: Montclair, New Jersey”, 20th August. Available at: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/thomas-edisons-concretehouses (Accessed 31st March 2023). Dyer, F.L., Martin, T.C. (1910) Edison, His Life and Inventions (Harper & Bros, New York). Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/820/820-h/820-h.htm#link2H_ 4_0052 (Accessed 6th April 2023).

156  Michael Crilly and Yann Bomken

Edison, T.A. (1908) Process of constructing concrete buildings. United States Patent US1219272A. Edison Portland Cement Company (1926) The Romance of Cement (Livermore & Knight, Providence RI). Available Online. Fuller, H.B. (1907) “An Industrial Utopia: Building Gary, Indiana to Order”. Harper’s Weekly, 51(12th October) 1482–1483, 1495. Gale, B., Walser, J. (2021) Back to the Future: DeLorean Time Machine Owners’ Workshop Manual (Haynes, Sparkford). Available Online. Goldratt, E.M., Cox, J. (1984) The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement(North River Press, Great Barrington MA). Available Online. Goodbun, J. (2016) “Mud and Modernity”. Arena Journal of Architectural Research 1(1) 1–15. Harris, J. (2012) Transformative Entrepreneurs: How Walt Disney, Steve Jobs, Muhammad Yunus, and Other Innovators Succeeded (Palgrave Macmillan, New York). Available Online. Indiana Magazine of History (2012) “Concrete Utopia”. Available at: https:// indianapublicmedia.org/momentofindianahistory/concrete-utopia/ (Accessed 23rd April 2023). Mohl, R.A., Betten, N. (1972) “The Failure of Industrial City Planning: Gary, Indiana, 1906–1910”. Journal of the American Planning Association 38(4) 203–214. O’Hara, S.P. (2011) Gary: The Most American of All American Cities(Indiana University Press, Bloomington IN). Available Online. Penn, M.J., Kinney Zalesne, E. (2007) Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Today’s Big Changes(Allen Lane, London). Available Online. Roos, D., Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. (1990) The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production (Harper Perennial, New York). Available Online. Ross, K. (2002) Non-Traditional Housing in the UK – A Brief Review (BRE & Council of Mortgage Lenders, London). Available Online. Saunders, J. (2002) “A Quiet Revolution: Opportunities for Local Futures in the UK”. Foresight 4(2) 10–20. Schwartz, B. (2016) The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less (HarperCollins, New York). Available Online. Smeins, L.E. (1999) Building an American Identity: Pattern Book Homes & Communities 1870–1900 (SAGE, Walnut Creek CA). Available Online. Steele, J. (1994) Eames House: Charles & Ray Eames (Phaidon, London). Available Online. Toffler, A. (1980) The Third Wave. (William Collins, Glasgow). Available Online. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (1913) “Union Scale of Wages and Hours of Labor, 1907 to 1912”. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics 131 15th August. Weinersmith, K., Weinersmith, Z. (2017) Soonish: Ten Emerging Technologies That’ll Improve and/or Ruin Everything (Particular Books, London). Available Online. Wells, H.G. (1902) Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought (Dover Publications, Mineola NY). Available Online.

12 RESHAPING THE LANDSCAPE Retrofitting Homes for Sustainable Living Chris Morgan

Why do we need to retrofit?

Even if every new building is created with zero embodied carbon and zero future operational energy requirements (see Chapter 3 for more detail on net-zero homes), we are left with an enormous, residual burden of a largely inefficient and often poorly maintained built stock. In short, no comprehensive attempt to meet our climate change obligations can be successful without addressing these existing buildings and the wider built environment and infrastructure. Thus we have no choice but to meet this challenge head-on, but the potential to combat climate change is equally enormous. Retrofitting buildings and places can significantly reduce carbon emissions, and through a wider range of measures, minimise associated climate change risks such as overheating and flooding, etc. The potential to transform our lives is equally significant. Most people in the developed world spend over 90% of their time in buildings, so retrofit has the potential to improve peoples’ lives through a range of benefits including greater comfort, lower fuel bills, healthier air, and if we extend works to the broader neighbourhood to a wider range of social and cultural benefits. Beyond these direct benefits, retrofit has the potential to generate a huge amount of economic activity and meaningful job creation, along with a range of other indirect co-benefits such as those through greater biodiversity, reduced health service costs, improved mental health, property values and protected heritage.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003358244-13

158  Chris Morgan

What will future retrofit look like

Regardless of the details, there are three aspects of the process of future retrofit that will be required. The first and most important is that any realistic effort must be undertaken at scale. This is for two main reasons. The first is that the numbers demand it – the scale of operation simply cannot be achieved on a piecemeal, house-byhouse basis. The other reason is that this is the only way to make the operation cost-effective. Because of the numbers involved, an archetype approach will be needed, where properties with identifiably similar characteristics can be upgraded in a similar manner. The effort is costly, but an archetype approach and the economies of scale will make a significant difference. The second is that a suitable funding mechanism must be found. Many options exist across the world, and these can be either privately or publicly funded, or a mix of both. Payback may be envisaged directly through reduced fuel bills, or in a more diffuse way, through reduced future maintenance costs, lower national health burden (as noted below), greater tax recovery, etc. The key, particularly for public sector financing, is that the costs should be met by more than one sector, with the acknowledgement that the benefits accrue across many sectors. The third is that the works themselves will need to be accompanied by a concomitant effort in training and awareness. Commonly the focus is on discussing the need to train the large number of builders and other operatives who will be needed. However, this training and awareness will also need to extend to commissioning clients and policymakers, designers, those responsible for planning and technical standards, as well as a broad drive to educate and engage the general population. Implicit in this training and awareness is the need to work across sectors to be able to address issues holistically. In considering the place-based regenerative work discussed in the next section, for example, it is clear that the efforts will need to extend beyond just building designers to include, at least, traffic and civil engineers and planners, landscaping and biodiversity specialists, utilities and digital engineers as well as the engagement with government and local authority support and financial support that this all implies, as noted above.

Places and social/cultural aspects

An important aspect of future retrofit, as discussed elsewhere in this book, will be the recognition of the myriad of different life/work scenarios, especially post-pandemic, to which designers need to respond. Allowing for home working (see Chapter 6 for more detail on homeworking), considering multi-generational homes and increasing flexibility in layouts and designs

Reshaping the landscape  159

(see Chapter 1 for more detail on housing flexibility), which provide for multiple patterns of occupation, especially in relation to old age, infirmity and accessibility. Technology will play an important part in all of this, and many versions of ‘smart’ homes are now marketed with a variety of potential benefits to support this greater level of flexibility (see Chapter 5 for more detail on smart homes). Beyond buildings, this approach may spill out into neighbourhoods, through provision of localised workspaces that reduce the need for long-distance commuting, allow parents to work near schools or older family members. With the possibility of people not being able to afford to keep their homes warm, ‘warm spaces’ are being discussed in the UK at a neighbourhood level, and the same may well happen where homes are too hot without expensive air conditioning in hotter countries. British writer George Monbiot has spoken about the principle of ‘Private Sufficiency and Public Luxury’ in which individual ownership is more modest, but provision of services could be luxurious when offered at a neighbourhood scale. A legacy of this approach remains in the UK in the form of the wonderful Victorian libraries, schools and swimming baths provided when individual or private capacity was far more limited. Toy banks and community tool share schemes provide a modern UK equivalent, reflecting levels of poverty and lack of storage space in many homes and a myriad of similar schemes exist internationally. Strategically, it makes sense to reduce resource use and cost by providing some services at a neighbourhood scale rather than individually, and as the cost of living and climate change puts pressure on societies everywhere, this approach may prove useful. This approach pre-supposes a more localised or community-based approach to ownership and running of buildings. Future retrofit will undoubtedly feature different patterns of ownerships with urban and rural community groups alike owning and controlling the retrofit of their public buildings to better serve the needs of their communities. The design processes themselves will become more ‘participatory’ so that even when local control is not possible, local interests are taken into account. Increased local control will inevitably extend to increasing the level of local employment and training opportunities when construction and retrofit take place. Currently, control of places tends to be distant and compartmentalised. Those who fund, design and build roads are different from those who run the railways, bus routes and cycle routes. Those responsible for parks, woodlands and green spaces have little or no role in increasing or connecting such spaces at a strategic level. Those responsible for flood alleviation have no links to farming or land owners that could provide huge opportunities to reduce flood risk upstream of vulnerable areas. The challenges that face us are profoundly interconnected and require to be addressed in a coordinated manner if they are to have any hope of success. The restrictions of ‘silo’ thinking are often

160  Chris Morgan

cursed, but there is little evidence of this approach changing quickly enough. The good news however is that a holistic approach is a far more resourceefficient and cost-effective way to move forward. Energy

Energy is critical because it is so closely tied to carbon emissions which are the main driver of climate change. Future retrofits must ensure that as little energy as possible is needed, and that the energy that is needed is largely, if not entirely renewable. Energy is also important because it is costly, and so we need to find ways of minimising costs as far as possible in the overall effort to improve equity. Recent global events have increased energy costs and volatility, while stubbornly high levels of poverty mean many can no longer keep their homes comfortable. The physiological and mental strain this puts on the population is immeasurable. De-carbonising energy helps in the fight against climate change, but making buildings energy efficient achieves this while simultaneously addressing fuel poverty and comfort, and as such should always be the priority. One of the biggest issues in energy is the relationship between reducing energy demand, and the potential for supplying renewable or low-carbon energy. It is generally accepted that reducing demand is the most cost-effective route forward but by how much? In the UK, modelling has been undertaken by the AECB and LETI, and these suggest that the built stock of the UK – currently requiring around 150 kWh/m2/yr typically to keep warm – needs to be brought down to at least a third of that demand, around 50 kWh/m2/yr or less. This is around the level of the AECB Retrofit Standard but double the level of the slightly more rigorous EnerPHit standard from the Passivhaus Institut. The above figures are for the UK but the scale of the challenge is similar in most cool, temperate developed countries, while a similar but inverted test faces hotter countries where air conditioning will only hasten climate change. In most countries, the energy needed to heat water for washing also needs to be reduced, and reducing energy demand for space and water conditioning makes the task of supplying renewable energy much simpler. The well-known limitation of renewable energy is that the patterns of generation don’t meet the patterns of demand, and this leads to the need for a complex and responsive system of interconnection and storage that captures all generated energy but enables us to use it whenever we need it. For this, we will need a broad range of renewable technologies and an equally broad range of storage, of electricity, heat and ‘coolth’, and control systems able to manage it all while keeping it simple for users. Along with many countries, as the UK phases out gas boilers, the immediate heir appears to be the heat pump, extracting heat from either the ground,

Reshaping the landscape  161

water or the air. But there are a number of issues with heat pumps, including the capital and maintenance costs, and concerns around the availability of resources globally. Once considered an obvious solution, biomass burning is now generally considered a bad idea because, in short, we should not be burning anything, even if it is renewable. Local heat and electricity networks will reduce the pressure on the main grids, generally use less resources and will make future energy more cost-effective. Radically reduced energy demand, heat networks and simpler direct electrical heating may in fact be the long-term future beyond heat pumps. The issues of resources raises its head again when discussing battery storage. There are widespread concerns that we cannot rely on extraction of the resources needed, and so a range of alternative solutions will be needed. Expanding the focus beyond buildings momentarily, one important perspective is that as petrol and diesel cars are replaced inevitably with electric vehicles, the unavoidable car battery may have an important role to play in powering the household through two-way charging. Another aspect of energy reduction is that of embodied energy. This is the energy (and carbon) ‘embedded’ in materials due to their extraction, manufacture and transportation to building sites, as well as energy associated with maintenance and eventual repair, removal and disposal (see Chapter 3 for more detail on net-zero homes). Locally sourced and natural materials have low embodied energy, whereas materials mined in far-off lands and manufactured using high levels of energy, before being transported large distances, represent a huge energy and carbon burden that we need to avoid. Previously, embodied carbon was thought to represent only a fraction of the overall energy or carbon footprint of a building, but as modelling has improved and as operational energy has been reduced, it is now accepted that the embodied carbon can represent at least half and sometimes more of all carbon emitted during the lifetime of many buildings. Shifting our designs to use low embodied carbon materials and components is easy to do and usually has the co-benefit of supporting more local and rural economies. Most studies into energy use highlight that a major component of inefficient consumption is the fact that occupants of buildings don’t understand, have higher comfort expectations and don’t use energy in buildings effectively. Part of this is down to a simple lack of engagement by occupants, but it is significantly impacted by the complexity and opaqueness of most building services controls. Surprisingly large numbers of people really don’t understand how to control their heating and ventilation systems at all, let alone with a view to optimising performance. Thermostats are kept high, while windows are opened if it gets too warm, crucial ventilation grilles are blocked because of perceived cold ingress, or disconnected because of the noise and in warmer countries air conditioning is relied upon in preference to traditional and passive ways to keep buildings cool. Although engagement with occupants is not

162  Chris Morgan

traditionally part of the lexicon of building design, it will have to become part of the skillset of building designers. A useful way to support this is to make the invisible visible. Real-time feedback, through sensors and interfaces that show how much energy is being used, how much has been used this week compared to last week, how warm and humid the room is and what good practice is, can help guide people to improve comfort and use their systems efficiently. Mundane as it may seem, simplifying controls and improving interfaces generally must form a significant part of the drive towards a sustainable future. Health, comfort and well-being

This is the area of retrofit that is least understood or appreciated by most people. Few people realise how damaging many homes and workplaces are for those within, nor how much better they could be. A UK study estimated that the annual cost to the UK’s National Health Service from poor housing was in the region of £2.5 billion, comparable to the costs of obesity and lack of exercise across the whole population, so although few people are aware of the issue, it is not a small problem (see Figure 12.1). The largest problem, despite the amount of insulation work carried out to date, remains the excessive cold in homes across cold countries during the winter months. Cold homes exacerbate many other health issues and beyond widespread discomfort and suffering, excess winter deaths occur every year

FIGURE 12.1 

Total cost burden estimates to the NHS

Source: Author with data from ‘The Housing Stock of the United Kingdom’ by Bretrust

Reshaping the landscape  163

(see Chapter 8 for more detail on homes and health). With the energy crisis in 2022, this problem is likely to increase significantly. The insulation and operational energy reductions discussed in the section above – carried out effectively – should resolve this issue entirely. In many areas of the world, the issue to be solved is not cold but heat, and this will increasingly become an issue in the UK and even Scotland. Beyond the health and comfort problems of overheating, the immediate risk is that people revert to air conditioning which in addition to cost will only exacerbate climate change. We urgently need to passively ‘summer-proof’ our homes as well as ‘winter-proof’ them. The good news is that this is not particularly difficult to do, especially in the UK where the issue is not nearly as difficult as in Europe and beyond – external shading and good ventilation will cover most situations – but poor design ‘locks in’ poor performance, and there is little evidence of designers or regulation responding positively to this issue yet. While extended extremes of heat and cold are bad for health, it might be tempting to assume that a stable temperature is what is needed. Certainly, this is the way that low-energy design is going, but a word of caution is needed. Study of ‘thermal monotony’ is in its infancy and not much is known about the long-term effects of living and working in a stable temperature, but enough is now known to suggest that it should not be the goal. Human bodies have evolved over millennia to adapt to changing temperatures, and that responsiveness is important. Most people are familiar with the pleasurable sensation of entering a warm space after being outside in the cold and entering a cool, shaded area after being in the heat. Suffice to say that while extremes of heat and cold should be avoided, a degree of fluctuation in temperatures, be this seasonal, diurnal or between different spaces of a building, is probably a good thing and needs to be built into future models. The above idea is similar to the relatively recent concept of ‘adaptive comfort’ which posits that instead of aiming for a ‘perfect’ indoor environment that suits everyone, it is better to recognise that people have considerably different ideas of comfort (see Chapter 4 for more detail on house and comfort). Those from warmer countries, women, those with poorer circulation and older people tend to prefer warmer temperatures, while those from colder countries, children and men, in general, tend to be happier in cooler temperatures. The principle of adaptive comfort suggests that the key issue is to design systems to be adaptable and adjustable by individuals or groups as locally as possible. Beyond creating a suitable base temperature, the design implication becomes one of supporting the potential to create these different zones using a variety of passive and active temperature, humidity and ventilation controls. Most people are familiar with the concept of (external) air pollution, the term conjures up images of traffic pollution or industrial revolution-era smog and smoke, giving us an immediate visual to illustrate the problem. ‘Indoor

164  Chris Morgan

Air Quality’ (IAQ) is a term to describe a range of aspects of the internal air, and it is clear that in most areas of the UK at least, this is a much more serious problem. Knowledge of IAQ offers a fascinating glimpse both of how much we inadvertently place building occupants at risk, but also the potential to positively support the health of those who are the ultimate clients of all building designers. In addition to temperature and humidity, IAQ looks at the ‘pollutants’ that are always present in the air. Some are ‘natural’ like pollen, bacteria and viruses which have been with us since we first walked the earth. Those with allergies to these will be familiar with the issues, and all of us have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic which was of course a particularly widespread virus. Many of the most lethal pollutants are linked to combustion of stoves, boilers, hobs, etc. In the UK, the regulations recognise of the risks of carbon monoxide, for example, but there are several other gases and particulates produced which represent a less immediate but significant risk to health. Lastly, there are now many thousands of chemicals in modern building materials, adhesives, finishes and furnishings, as well as cleaning fluids, all of which have considerable potential to damage human health. Regulation has been woefully slow in acknowledging these risks, and as a result, almost everyone who inhabits buildings is exposed to a low-level experiment in chemicals, many of which are known to be carcinogenic or with some other health effect. A relatively simple solution is to focus wherever possible on the use of unprocessed and natural materials, and although this is not a guarantee of reduced toxicity, it is a useful guide. The subject is complex but represents perhaps the most pressing area to be addressed because of the potential to relatively simply avoid risks and turn things around to support human health on a huge scale. Heritage and resources

It is widely acknowledged that we consume more resources than we can sustainably produce on a finite planet. There is a pressing need to use existing resources more effectively, to consume fewer virgin resources and to reduce the emissions and pollution associated with the resources we do use. Our greatest resource is our existing built heritage. Despite financial structures that tend to lead towards demolition and new-build, we need to move quickly towards a regime of presumption against demolition unless it is clearly needed, and towards wider and more effective processes of retrofit and conservation. The heritage sector contains a great deal of wisdom on how to conserve our buildings and monuments, but its reach is frustratingly limited, and it tends to favour visual conservation over a more holistic appraisal of the building fabric and needs. The heritage sector has also been traditionally resistant to the kind of extensive alterations that are needed, and although

Reshaping the landscape  165

this attitude is changing, there is a good deal of residual hesitation to embrace necessary change. Conversely, the energy retrofit sector, in the UK at least, is blithely ignorant of the value of heritage and uniqueness of place and circumstance. Being unable to value those aspects that society itself has valued for generations makes the existing retrofit sector unsustainable in a profound way that has to change. A robust and sensitive future retrofit sector will be responsive to heritage significance, concern itself with a deeper understanding of building fabric and meaning, while effectively managing energy efficiency, health and the other aspects noted. Current practice for the majority of surveying is overly superficial, whereas part of this deeper understanding will need to come from considerably more detailed and nuanced surveying of existing buildings. In the UK, the recently introduced PAS 2035 and 2038 are guides to forming a broader and deeper understanding of buildings as part of their retrofit process and provide a good route towards addressing this issue. An important aspect of this change is the shift from a ‘measures-led’ approach to retrofit, towards one driven by a more robust ‘retrofit plan’ derived from a more holistic understanding of the building. An important part of understanding better older buildings is understanding how moisture moved within traditional construction. In short, moisture was free to move within both the fabric and the air of older buildings driven by a mix of natural air movement and both the capillary and vapour permeable nature of the materials used. While it is important to restrict the level of air leakage from buildings in colder countries, it is not well understood that this is quite distinct from the restriction of movement of vapour. Imposing modern concepts of vapour control and using impermeable materials can disrupt this natural flow. This can cause considerable problems as moisture builds up in places it shouldn’t, leading to condensation, mould, decay, rust and spalling. Most maintenance problems are caused by moisture, but a robust retrofit strategy will anticipate and ‘design out’ these issues while still ensuring good levels of airtightness, through a combination of good maintenance, good design of fabric and ventilation, along with improved quality of construction. Another feature of future retrofit will be a markedly different approach to maintenance. Maintenance is currently considered something to be avoided at all costs. This leads to a lack of maintenance, which ironically causes a much larger amount of cost and disruption over time, and the use of ‘maintenance-free’ components which only delay the inevitable and often employ unsustainable features to achieve their goals. When living costs are high for most people, it makes initial sense to seek to reduce maintenance, but in the long term, a ‘little and often’ approach to maintenance has the effect of reducing costs and reducing resource consumption which is why it is an important part of a sustainable future retrofit scenario.

166  Chris Morgan

This approach to maintenance will become even more important because the climate is changing, and much of the work of future retrofit will be dedicated to simply adapting to – as opposed to mitigating against – climate change. The future climate in the UK will almost certainly be warmer, wetter and wilder. The combination of increased temperatures, increased precipitation and increased fluctuation (meaning that at times it will occasionally be colder and drier) has important implications for buildings. Flooding and summer overheating will become much more common, increasing numbers and ferocity of storms will do untold damage and there are a number of less dramatic but significant changes, such as the increase overall in biological growth (like mould) that we need to integrate into our understanding of buildings moving forward. The costs of this adaptation will be high, but the costs of not adapting will be far higher. Embodied energy has been mentioned above and is one of those areas which overlap as it is also a valuable way of assessing appropriate resource use. Using local and natural materials reduces embodied energy, carbon and toxicity in general, but it also draws us closer to vernacular, locally meaningful traditions and as such helps reinforce local identity while also reducing resource consumption. Using reused and recycled materials also helps reduce resource consumption and embodied carbon whilst tending to support increased employment and reducing costs and pollution associated with waste disposal. In the ‘developed’ countries, the excessive consumption of resources is one of our more evident characteristics, so any attempt to develop a more sparing or responsible relationship with consumption will be both practically and culturally valuable. Beyond the use of reused and recycled materials, it is possible to design buildings that minimise the creation of future waste. This is a relatively new and small area of study, sometimes known as ‘design for disassembly’ or ‘design for deconstruction’. The idea is to anticipate the likely changes in a building so that when the changes occur, there is little or no associated disruption, waste and therefore cost. Simple examples include the use of screws or bolts in preference to nails or welding, and provision of easy access to all services so that when these need maintenance or replacement, this can be achieved without the removal of any finishes. There are four areas of interest: altering the layout of buildings to anticipate change, creating a layered approach to construction and an approach to both components and fixings that allows for future repair and reuse. In some parts of the world, the lack of water will become a matter of life and death. In the UK, there is likely to be far more water most of the time, leading to flooding and more diffuse problems like destabilised ground conditions, but also an increase of prolonged dry periods. Beyond buildings alone, we need to build up the buffering capacity or ‘sponginess’ of the ground, possibly with synthetic storage to support this. These buffers

Reshaping the landscape  167

will soak up water in times of high precipitation and reduce flood risk while providing more reliable stores of moisture during periods of drought. This is not an area the UK had had to worry much about in the past, but it now needs to become an important part of retrofit and wider regeneration efforts. Buildings themselves can do their bit to support this, particularly in reducing water use which will help in times of drought. Water treatment is costly, and so there is an overall saving to the UK if buildings can reduce the water they use to perform their necessary functions. A wide range of available water conservation fittings can reduce water consumption while ensuring showers and taps remain effective. Saving hot water in this way also produces valuable carbon savings, and there is no doubt that water efficiency, like energy efficiency, will become a part of future design and retrofit practice. Making a building more energy efficient will be of little value if in doing so the occupants develop asthma, the floor joists rot and the building itself is washed away in a flood. De-carbonising our communities will mean little if as a society we become sicker, more lonely and unable to afford the uninsurable costs of basic building repairs. A holistic approach is not a ‘nice to have’ addition to the main issue of carbon emission reductions, it is the only viable framework within which to consider energy and carbon emission reduction. The issue of sustainability has always struck at the core of what it means to be human, to live in society and how to manage on a finite planet. As the response to COVID-19 has evidenced, we are capable of pulling together globally to tackle vast challenges and unfortunately we need to do so again.

INDEX

Italicized and bold pages refer to figures and tables, respectively, and page numbers followed by “n” refer to notes. adaptive comfort 50, 51, 52, 54, 58, 59, 92, 163 affirmative design 65 affordable housing 10, 11, 24 ageing in place 6, 113, 114 agricultural sustainability 96–97 AI assisted Thing 70 AI Rights 70 air purification technologies 56 Aktivhaus 39 Amazon Alexa 65 Aquarela (Ateliers Jean Nouvel) 89 Aravena 132 ArchDaily 31 architectural affordances 81–82 architecture 7, 11, 28, 79, 81–82, 96, 127, 129, 130, 131, 137, 138, 139, 150 Architecture Unknown 33 Arkitekter, White 82 artificial intelligence (AI) 5, 52, 53, 58, 62, 64, 66, 70, 93, 94, 106; individualised house design 30– 32; see also Internet of Things Ashton, Kevin 62 Asimov, Issac 70 assisted living 111–112 augmented reality (AR) 92 automated shading system 56

BBC Research & Development 67 big data 11 biomaterials 44 biometrics 55, 59 biophilia 57, 96–97 biophilic design 57 Bogost, Ian 68 British Iron and Steel Federation House 152 Building for the Community in Vienna 80 building information modeling (BIM) 11, 71 Camus, Raymond 25; the Camus system 25, 26 The Camus system 25, 26 Canada 10 The Canelones Home 42, 42, 44; building, 44 carbon emission 37, 38, 64, 66, 72, 157, 160, 167 carbon footprint 44, 66, 79, 161 carbon sequestration 47n2 care home 111 climate change 37, 41, 43, 66, 72, 157, 160, 163, 166 cloud computing 64, 66 cloud see cloud computing

Index  169

co-construction 127 co-designing/CoDesign workshop 118, 121, 122, 134, 135, 137 co-habitation 114 cohousing 131; advantages of 136; Lancaster Cohousing Community 135, 135; meaning 134; see also communal living collective housing 131 communal living: biophilia and agricultural sustainability 96–97, 97; concept of ‘hall’ 90–91; coworking area and technology 95; flexibility and adaptability 89–92; housing crisis and population increase 87; interconnectivity 93–95; IoT and AI in 93–94, 99; kitchen and AI 94; multigenerational living 88–89; smart technologies 92, 94; see also cohousing; social housing Connected Home (ageing-in place prototype): connectivity in 115; digital connectivity 117–121; dwelling front, importance of 115; external spaces 115, 115–116; lobby space 116, 116, 117; MyHome Hub 118–121; wet room 117; see also home and ageing conspicuous consumption 63 The Cottesloe home 46 COVID-19 1, 5, 77, 102, 105, 107, 112, 117, 122, 164 cross laminated timber (CLT) 17 Cuevas de Sol Earthship (Almeria, Spain) 137 Databox project 67 datafication 64 deep learning (DL) 31 DeLorean, John 148, 149 demountable partitions 12, 13; demountable system 12; mobile/ operable system 12; portable partition system 12 demountable system 12 Design Age Institute 113, 122 Design Fiction as World building 65, 74 Design for Manufacture 152 Digital Project 3D 30 Digital Twins 71 Digital Woodoo 33

dimensional customisation 32 dowel laminated timber (DLT) 17 Durkheim, Emile 89 earthships 131; challenges 137–138, 139; Cuevas de Sol Earthship 137; The Greater World Earthship Community 137; meaning 136; motivations for 138; site context in 137; social and cultural aspects 137; vs. conventional housing 136 Edge/EdgeBlock/Edge Computing 66, 67 Edge of Reality 65; advantages of 69; AI role in 69; datafication sustainability 66; EdgeBlock 67–68; game design techniques in 67; game experience 68–69; goal of 73–74; Human-Data Interaction theory principles 68; IoT-AI data management and smart home 66, 66 Edison, Thomas 143; Garage and Gardener’s Cottage 144; Portland Cement Company 144; single-pour house patent 143–144, 144 Edwards, Pollard Thomas 28 Elemental project in Chile 132; see also Aravena embodied energy 161, 166 energy de-carbonisation 160 England 101 enhanced insulation 54 Ensemble à Claveau (Construire in Bordeaux, France) 132–133, 133 EPIQ (Bjarke Ingels Group) 89 ergonomic 58, 80 ETH Zurich 90, 91 European Social Catalyst Fund 113 Extended Reality (XR) 95 e-waste 69 15-minute city concept 89, 105 flexible housing 112 Fog servers 66 Friedman, Yona 90 Futurama 65 Future Shock 27 future waste 166 Futurology report 127 garden office 78, 79 Gary town 142–143, 155n1

170 Index

Geddes, Norman Bel 65 General Motors 65 Generative Design for Revit and Dynamo 30 geothermal systems 55 Germany 103 Global North 65 Global South 69 glulam 17 Government Grand Challenge of Ageing 122 Grasshopper software 30 The Greater World Earthship Community 137 Gropius, Walter 89 healthy home 101, 102, 103, 104 heat pump 160–161 heritage sector 164–167 HoloLens 95 home and ageing: ageing population needs 110; assisted living 111–112; care home 111; Connected Home prototype 114–117; cost and domestic interventions for aged 111; digital connectivity 117–121; flexible housing, need for 112; loneliness and social isolation issues 111, 114; medicalisation of home environment 111; multigenerational living and co-habitation 114; MyHome Hub 118–121; Work-Live Environment prototype 121–123; see also Connected Home (ageing-in place prototype) home and comfort: adaptive and personalised solutions 54–55; ageing population and thermal comfort 58–59; AI optimisation 58; comfort systems, AI role in 52; energy efficiency 53–54; enhanced air quality 55–56; home comfort 49; human-centric design 56–58; indoor air quality 51–52; integrating renewable energy 55; overheating issues 51; personal comfort systems 51; smart and connected systems 52–53; thermal comfort 51; see also home retrofitting home and health: future of 106–107; healthy home environment,

categorisation of 103; home environment 103–105; neighbourhood environment 102–103; see also home retrofitting home comfort 49 home: concept of 1; themes for 2; trends in 1, 2 home context 82–83 home emotion 83–84 Home of 2030 2 home retrofitting: adaptive comfort 50, 51, 52, 54, 58, 59, 92, 163; energy considerations 160–162; future waste 166; health, comfort and well-being 162, 162–164; heritage and resource conservation 164–167; need for 157; process, aspects of 158; socio-cultural considerations 158–160 Homes England 34 Home (Urban Splash) 34 house design: individualisation in 27– 35; limited variation, problem with 24–25; mass production in 25–27 housing configuration toolkits 28 housing design individualisation: artificial intelligence in 30–32; configuration toolkit 28, 29; customer choice 27; design democratisation 27; dimensional customisation 32; modern methods of construction and platform approach 34–35; modular systems in 28; parametrically optimised design 30; vs. mass production 27; see also home retrofitting housing design mass production: Camus system 25, 26; Khryshchyovka 26, 27; prefabrication as a tool 25; role of cost and time 26; Soviet housing programme 26; Stalhton beam and block system 25; Ytong 25; see also cohousing; communal living housing, flexible and prefab: flexibility planning 11–12; flexible design goal 11; interior renovation, reasons for 11–12; need for 11; open plan 12; prefabricated

Index  171

demountable partitions 12, 13; prefabricated homes 15, 17–21; space making strategies 13; sustainable/affordable housing goals 11; the Next Home 13–15; see also home retrofitting housing, future challenges to: demographic 10; environmental 9; innovative technologies 10– 11; shifting global economy 10 The Hub (Boston) 89 Human-Data Interaction (HDI) theory principles 68 hybrid working 78 indoor air quality (IAQ) 38, 41, 43, 51, 55–56, 104, 163–164 Ingersoll, Charles 144 The Interlace (Singapore) 89 International Building Code 17 Internet of Things (IoT) 5, 53, 54, 62, 63, 66, 70, 90, 93; see also artificial intelligence Jackson, Joe 142 Japan 28 Japanese Metabolist movement 90 Katerra 34 Khrushchyovka 26, 27 Lambie, Frank 144 Letwin, Sir Oliver 24 Levels, Pieter 31 lifetime home 112 Machine learning (ML) 30, 52, 55, 58, 64, 70 Marboe, Isabella 80 material off-gasing 42, 47n3 mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) systems 39, 43, 50, 51, 53, 55 medicalisation of home environment 111 Meta 65 metabolic architecture 90 Metaverse 65 microtrends 153 mobile/operable system 12 modern methods of construction (MMC) 34–35, 142 modular construction 17

Monbiot, George 159; private sufficiency and public luxury 159 Morris, William 64 multigenerational living/home 88–89, 99, 114 My Mainway project 133–134, 134 MyHome Hub (ageing-in place prototype) 118; health and wellbeing 119–120, 121; home maintenance and equipment 118, 119, 120; lifestyle and community 120–121 National House Building Council (NHBC) Foundation 127 National Innovation Centre for Ageing and the Elders Council 121 natural light 42, 52, 54, 56, 57, 123 Netflix 65 net-zero building/homes 4, 37, 38, 50, 51, 53, 105, 106; at neighbourhood level and benefits 45–46; building 44–45; building sector and climate change 37; carbon emission principles 38; comfortability 41–43; definition 38; life standard 37–38; overheating issues 51; Passivhaus and Passivhaus Standard 38–41, 41–46; vs. normal homes 38; see also Passivhaus New Urbanism 89 The Next Home: floor plans 15, 16; idea behind 13; internal and external components menu 13–15, 14 North America 11, 39 Nouvel, Jean 89 NuLiving configurator 28 Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) 89 open plan 12 Open Source WikiHouse project 32 open-sheathed panels 17 organic solidarity 89 overheating 41, 42, 50, 51, 56, 157, 163, 166 panelized prefabrication 17; panel system categories 17 participatory architecture 7, 127, 159; benefits of 138–139; cohousing

172 Index

134–136; collaborative and speculative design 128–129; concept of collective housing 131; earthships 136–138; future home 127, 128, 138–140; history 130, 130–131; and Industrial Revolution 129; modernist housing model 129; social housing and issues 129–130, 131–134 Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) software 39 Passive House see Passivhaus Passivhaus 135; Aktivhaus 39; at neighbourhood level and benefits 45–46; building 44–45; certification 40; design principles 39, 40; indoor temperature requirements 39; definition 38; and net-zero homes, future of 41–46; overheating issues 51; Passive House Planning Package software 39; Passivhaus Standard 38; requirements for 39; see also net-zero building/homes Passivhaus Classic 40 Passivhaus Plus 40 Passivhaus Premium 40 Passivhaus Standard 4, 38, 40, 135 Passivhoos 45 persuasive games 68 phase-change material 56 physical space 80–81 Picto3D 31 The Pixelated Pop-Up Architecture Office 95 platform system construction 35 Plug and Play homes 18–19 The Pod Home 19–20, 20, 21 positive energy home 39, 47 portable partition system 12 Portland Cement Company 144 predictive maintenance 71 prefabricated demountable partitions 12, 13; demountable system 12; mobile/operable system 12; portable partition system 12 prefabricated homes: benefits 15, 17; kit of parts 18; modular construction 17; panelized prefabrication 17; Plug and Play homes 18–19; prefabrication and types 15, 17– 19; the Pod Home 19–20, 20, 21

prefabrication 15, 17–19 primary energy renewable (PER) demand 40 process innovation 149, 152–153 renewable energy 55, 82, 136, 160 resilient home 139 retrofitting 8, 79, 157; see also home retrofitting Right-to-Repair (R2R) legislation 69 robotic prefabricated production 10 Rogers, Richard 90 Scotland 37, 163 Sears Modern Home Program 28 Sekisui House 28 self-building 132 ShapeDiver 30 smart home 5, 159; Edge of Reality 65–69; future homes myths 62–64; IoT devices and systems 62; smarter technologies for 64–72; sustainable technological transitions design process model 72, 73; technologically sustainable and responsible, transition to 72–73; The Three Rights of AI Things 69–72 social housing: Elemental project in Chile (Aravena) 132; Ensemble à Claveau (Construire in Bordeaux, France) 132–133, 133; definition 131; My Mainway project 133– 134, 134; principles 132; see also cohousing; communal living social, physical, affordances, context, and emotional (SPACE) factors 5, 77, 79; architectural affordances 81–82; context 82–83; emotion 83–84; physical 80–81; social 79–80 social spaces 79–80 software 21, 30, 31, 32, 39, 64, 69, 71, 72, 92 solar energy 55; see also renewable energy South Seaham Garden Village 113 Soviet housing programme 26 Soviet Union 26 Spacemaker AI (Autodesk) 30 Speculative Design 65 Spotify 65 Stalhton beam and block system 25

Index  173

Steeltown Records 142 structural sandwich panels 17 Studio Bark Architects 33 surveillance capitalism 64 sustainability 55, 59, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 96, 150, 167 sustainable homes/housing 8, 10, 11, 53 sustainable technological transitions design process model 72, 73 systemised obsolescence 69 theory of constraints 7 thermal comfort 51, 94; and ageing population 58–59 This House Does Not Exist (THDNE) 31 3D elements 17 three-dimensional (3D) printers/printing 10, 34, 90 Three Laws of Robotics 70 The Three Rights of AI Things 65; and domestic product rights 70; e-waste and systemised obsolescence 69; goal of 73–74; and Right-to-Repair 69 throughput business model and home manufacturing: adaptability in construction 142; capital investment and economies of scale 150–152; concrete mix and cast iron mould 144–145; DeLorean, John 148, 149; Edison construction system and cost effectiveness 144–147, 146–147; Edison, Thomas and house building patent 143–144, 144; futurism concept 141–142; Gary town 142–143, 155n1; home personalisation and process innovation 152–153; housing number 150; microtrends 153; modern methods of construction 142; Portland Cement Company 144; process innovation 149, 152–153; repeatable process and variety 153–154, 154; Steeltown Records 142; and theory of

constraints 149–154; throughput application, misconceptions 150–153; throughput concept 147, 149; United States Steel Company 142 ubiquitous computing 93 U-Build 33 UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence 24 UK National Described Space Standards (NDSS) 113 UK National Design Guide 24 UK Research and Innovation 113 United Kingdom 6, 24, 25, 34, 87, 103, 110, 112, 150, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167 United States 25, 103, 104 United States Steel Company 142 Universal design principles 59 unsheathed structural panels 17 US National Register of Historic Places 145 Virtual reality (VR) 95 warm spaces 159 Weiser, Mark 93 Wells, H.G. 142 working from home (WFH): and COVID-19 77, 78; desirable expectations vs. undesirable realities 78; hybrid working 78; importance of SPACE 84–85; and SPACE 79–84; space requirements 78–79 Work-Live Environment (ageing-in place prototype): employment benefits 122; employment market for 122; homeworking needs 122, 123, 124 Ytong 25 Zettabyte Era 63, 65 Zoom 5, 77