Till Flex1

IntroductionFlexible housing can be defined as housing that isdesigned for choice at the design stage, both in termsof social use and construction, or designed forchange over its lifetime. This paper argues thatflexibility is an important consideration in thedesign of housing if it is to be socially, economicallyand environmentally viable. The degree of flexibilityis determined in two ways. First the in-builtopportunity for adaptability, defined as ‘capable ofdifferent social uses’, and second the opportunity forflexibility, defined as ‘capable of different physicalarrangements’.1 This principle of enabling social andphysical change in housing might appear self-evidently sensible. However, despite numerousattempts from a policy as well as a user side toembrace the principles, flexibility in housing designhas never been fully accepted. The tendency to designbuildings that only correspond to a specific type ofhousehold at a specific point in time reflects a way ofthinking that is predicated on short termeconomics. This paper argues that one should

instead accept the need for longer term thinking,which reflects the uncertainty of future occupationand housing demand. While it has been argued thatflexibility costs money, Henz states that if anyupfront additional investment is needed (which wewould argue is not always the case) it can be set offagainst long-term economic calculations such as ahigher appreciation of the dwelling on the part ofthe user, less occupant fluctuation, and the ability toreact quickly to changing needs or wants of theexisting or potential inhabitants and the market [1].2

This ability is of particular importance for thesocial housing sector, where the opportunity tochange the use or configuration provides a level ofchoice, for both tenants and their public sectorlandlords, which is otherwise non-existent in thissector.

Against flexibilityThe idea of housing capable of accommodatingchange has been the subject of numerous initiatives,architectural competitions, research projects, and

theory arq . vol 9 . no 2 . 2005 157

theoryFlexibility in housing design has social, economic and

environmental advantages and yet is currently often ignored.

The first of two papers sets out the history of this issue.

Flexible housing: opportunities and limitsTatjana Schneider and Jeremy Till

1 SiedlungBrombeeriweg,Zürich, Switzerland(architect: EM2NArchitekten, 2003).Twenty-fivescenarios show thevariability in plancan be achievedthrough the internalrearrangement ofwalls. This potentialmakes it possible forthe owner, acooperative society,to react to changingdemand and needsof new and existingtenants.1

government reports throughout the twentiethcentury.3 Typically the debates about the notion offlexibility generate as many proponents asopponents. Flexibility has been attacked aspropagating a ‘false neutrality’;4 it is oftenconsidered an ideological myth or questioned asbeing merely an architectural toy, such as in theessay ‘Adaptable Housing or Adaptable People?’ by JiaBeisi.5 In addition, it is seen as having no realrelevance outside the realm of one-off experimentalprojects or indeed as having the potential for goingagainst the needs of users and playing into the handsof ‘exploiters’.6 In the early 1980s, James Stirlingdeclared that he was ‘sick and tired of the boring,meaningless, non-committed, faceless flexibility andopen-endedness of the present architecture’.7

Although he uses this stance to justify the specificityof his design for the Stuttgart Staatsgalerie, it wassymptomatic of a widespread concern that thepromise of the concept had outgrown its ability todeliver.

If flexibility in housing is to achieve its fullpotential, it has to mean more than endless changewithout fixed determinants. This wider intent isexamined by considering flexibility under issues ofModernism, finance, participation, sustainabilityand technology.

Modernist ideologyFlexibility accords to some of the key tenets ofModernist ideology. First, it elides with a technicallydetermined agenda of industrial prefabrication [2].Second, Modernism’s interest in new models ofhabitation, together with at least lip-service to theempowerment of the user, was well served by thenotion of flexibility. Architects, particularly in the1920s, were questioning existing patterns of livingand approached the building as something thatcould change over time and something that couldadapt to the wishes of its inhabitants. So Ludwig Miesvan der Rohe went to great lengths in developing, inconjunction with other architects and interiorarchitects, a large number of possible layouts for hisapartment block at the Weissenhofsiedlung [3].

arq . vol 9 . no 2 . 2005 theory158

Tatjana Schneider and Jeremy Till Flexible housing: opportunities and limits

2 Prefabrication, USA(architect: Walter F.Bogner, 1942).Bogner’s proposalfor a completelyprefabricated housewas part of theArchitecturalForum’s quest for the‘The New House194X’, which asked43 architects todesign a house thatshould be adaptableto different needsresulting fromchanges in familycomposition as thefamily grows older.Bogner designed ahouse withdimensions based ona cubic grid of 8 x 8feet (horizontallyand vertically),which is further

sectioned into three parts. Oneinstallation unit,consisting ofbathroom andkitchen, subdividesthe floor space towhich accessoriescan be added thatprovide livingfacilities for a couple,couple with childand, by enlarging theshell, for an evenbigger family.

3 Apartment Block,Weissenhofsiedlung,Germany (architects:Mies van der Roheand SchweizerWerkbundkollektiv,1927). Mies van der Rohe,acknowledging thatbuildings generally

last longer than thefunctions for whichthey were initiallydesigned, proposedthat flexibility wasone of the mostimportant conceptsof architecture. Here,the structural frameof the building, withonly one or two load-bearing columnswithin the space of aunit, allows for avariety of possiblesubdivisions. Thispotential was furtherdemonstrated bycalling in a further 29architects andinterior architectswho worked on theinterior arrangementand furnishing of hisflats (Kirsch, 1987).

2

3

Allying flexibility with progressive technologies, vander Rohe states that the frame construction was themost appropriate form of construction to deal withthe differing needs of the occupants, allowing him totest the greatest variety of floor plans. ‘For thepresent, I only build the perimeter walls and twocolumns within, which support the ceiling.Everything else ought to be as free as possible. Were Ito succeed in producing cheaper plywood walls, Iwould only design the kitchen and bathroom asfixed rooms, and the remaining space as variabledwelling space [Wohnung], so that I would be able tosubdivide these spaces according to the needs of theoccupant. This would also have advantages insofar asit would provide the possibility to change the layoutof a unit according to changes within a family,without large modification costs. Any joiner or anydown-to-earth laymen would be in the position toshift walls’.8

However, as Adrian Forty notes, one should nottake this Modernist rhetoric entirely at its apparentlybenign face value.9 He argues that flexibility extendsthe apparent reach of the architect when confrontedwith the dilemma that their involvement in abuilding ‘ceased at the very moment that occupationbegan. The incorporation of “flexibility” into thedesign allowed architects the illusion of projectingtheir control over the building into the future,beyond the period of their actual responsibility forit’.10 Flexibility as an ideology thus becomes part ofthe wider regime of control with which modernity isassociated.

Indeed, some of the most inflexible of all recenthousing is designed by architects who have used theword flexibility for its rhetorical value as a signal ofprogressive modernity. This results in housingschemes that are representations of flexibility, but inuse are often less flexible than normal housing. Oneexample of this is the 1988 housing scheme designedby Günther Domenig at Neufeldweg, Graz in Austria.The early design stages of this project were informedby participation and user choice and the resultantdesign boldly expresses the potential for flexibilityin its frame and infill system.11 However, because of

the technical complexity, largely inflicted by thecomplex geometries, the scheme has remainedunchanged since its construction. Visiting it, one isstruck by a sense of a frozen moment in time and ofearly obsolescence, when flexible housing at its bestshould provoke a feeling of temporal looseness.What this scheme and others like it suggest is theneed for a certain scepticism towards the morerhetorical examples of flexibility, particularly thosethat doggedly take the word at face value to denoteelements that move and flex (another standardsignal of progressive modernity). As we shall see,some of the most successful examples of flexibilitytend to operate in the background.12 As GerardMaccreanor notes, flexible housing often worksthrough its very ordinariness, employing robust andtimeless techniques, rather than throughforeground imagery or overtly representationalsignals.13

Participation / useIf one approach to flexibility may be about extendingthe control of the architect, another is aboutapparently dissolving it. Herman Hertzberger, forexample, regards an architect as someone who can‘contribute to creating an environment which offersfar more opportunities for people to make theirpersonal markings and identifications, in such a waythat it can be appropriated and annexed by all as aplace that truly “belongs” to them’.14 Similarly, JeanRenaudie states that, ‘the important thing, for me, isto give everyone the possibility to express that whichis not determined, but which remains latent vis-à-visthe use of space’.15

Here flexibility is seen as something that gives the user the choice as to how they want to use spaces instead of architecturally predeterminingtheir lives. In the words of the French architectArsène-Henri, flexible housing provides ‘a privatedomain that will fulfil each occupant’sexpectations’; it is not about designing allegedly‘good’ or ‘correct’ layouts but aims to provide a space which can accommodate the vicissitudes ofeveryday use over the long term.16

theory arq . vol 9 . no 2 . 2005 159

Flexible housing: opportunities and limits Tatjana Schneider and Jeremy Till

4 Wohnen morgen,Hollabrunn, Austria(architects: Ottokar Uhl + occupiers, 1976).Around half of the 70dwelling units weredesigned by theoccupiers themselves.They were able tochoose: a) thearrangement of thegiven support structurein the dwelling units; b)the size of the dwellings,by determining theposition of the facadeelements; c) thesubdivision of thedwelling into rooms –also kitchen andbathrooms; d) thenumber, type andposition of windows and doors; and e) thefinishing of thedwellings. 4

This notion of empowerment is also a centralfeature of participatory design processes. Flexiblehousing not only allows users to take control of theirenvironments post-occupation, but also during thedesign stage. Generally, buildings that are designedto be adaptable over time, will also lend themselvesto user participation during the design process. Oneof the most fervent advocates of participation wasthe late Austrian architect Ottokar Uhl and the office

Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Architektur, Stadtplanung,Koordination, who proposed that the advancementof architecture would not come through form, butwould only come from engagement with theprocesses of designing and building [4].17

However, participation, if understood as thetailoring of buildings to the precise needs of a user atone point in time, can very quickly be turned adabsurdum by changing occupant configurations.



5

6

5 Competition entryfor Hegi Winterthur,Switzerland(architect: WalterStamm, 1987). Unitsof 9.90 x 11.40 have‘hard’ (services,technology) and‘soft’ areas (space).Rooms don’t have aspecific function,but can bebedroom, livingroom or work space.

6 ‘Living Wall’concept, UK(architect: PCKO,2002). All spaceswithin a building areconnected by a

‘Living Wall’ zone,which contains allthe horizontal andvertical services,but also all thestorage and energycollection. Therewill be blank slots,shelves and spaceswhere the ‘LivingWall’ can beupgraded and retro-fitted withadditional or newtechnology, i.e. acentral vacuumingsystem, or a waterrecirculationsystem, rubbishcollection andrecycling.

Therefore architects such as Walter Stamm, thearchitect of a participatory scheme in Wasterkingen,Switzerland, developed structural and designprinciples made for the ‘second tenant’ (typicallyunknown) or multi-usability [5].18 This system ofmulti-usability considers walls as furniture:removing or adding a wall doesn’t necessitate plasterwork or new flooring; notches in the columnssuggest and visualise possible points of connections.For Stamm, the quality and details of the spacesresulting from this in-built adaptability are equal inimportance to the service strategies and designprinciples that enable the flexibility.19

TechnologyA certain logic of construction and provision ofservices allows flexibility of configuration, which inturn enables flexible use and occupation. Many ofthe more emphatic examples of intentionallyflexible housing have a formal clarity, distinguishingbetween those elements that are fixed and those thatare open to change and variation, allowing the

upgrading of individual items with little disruptionto the entirety of the building.20 This form of ‘futureproofing’ is particularly relevant to the provision ofservices which tend to need to be both continuallyupdated and protected against obsolescence [6].

Probably the best-known constructionalprinciple to facilitate flexibility in housing is that ofHabraken, whose theory of ‘supports’ was developedin opposition to prevailing conditions in the Dutchhousing sector of the 1960s, as well as to enable hisideas of user participation. ‘Supports’ laid out asystem in which the ‘support’ or base building isdifferentiated from ‘infill’ or interior fit-out inresidential construction and design. A supportstructure, as both technical device and social frame,‘allows the provision of dwellings which can be built,altered and taken down, independently of theothers’ [7].21 The theory of ‘supports’ wassubsequently developed into an approach that hasgenerally become known as Open Building. The termis used to indicate a number of concepts thatconsider architecture and the built environment as a

theory arq . vol 9 . no 2 . 2005 161


7

8

7 Molenvliet,Papendrecht, TheNetherlands(architect:Werkgroep KOKON,1977). Molenvliet-Wilgendonk was aproject submittedfor a competition forthe design of 2400dwellings in 1969.The supportstructure consists ofcast-in-placeconcreteframework, withopenings in the slabsfor verticalmechanical chasesand stairs; to allowfor variation andchangeability in unitdesigns, the location

of support elementswas determined by aseries of capacitystudies: the facade isa prefabricatedwooden framework.The design ofhousing units alsoinvolved userparticipation invarious levels of thedesign process.

8 Next21, Osaka,Japan (architect:SHU-KO-SHA arch. +urban designstudio, 1993). Here,the componentsystem is dividedinto four groupsaccording to therequired life of each

component andproduction path,they aremanufactured asseparate systemsand modules so thatouter walls,kitchens, baths andtoilets, and gardenscan be moved.Building elementsare divided into twogroups: long-lifeelements with ahigh degree ofcommunal utility(columns, beamsand floors), andshort-life elementsin private areas(partition walls,building facilitiesand equipment).

series of distinct levels of intervention or processes,under the general precondition that the builtenvironment is in constant transformation andchange [8]. Habraken, and the current Open Buildingmovement, emphasise the use of modernconstruction techniques and prefabricated elements(factory-produced columns, beams and floorelements), but also the separation of base building,infill systems and subsystems, and manufacture anddesign for ease of assembly and disassembly.22

While Open Building today typically presents ahighly technicised building method, flexibility canalso be achieved through simple building materialssuch as timber, as exemplified in the work of WalterSegal. Segal’s approach centres on systematisationwithout inventing a system ab initio:‘Standardisation in itself I have tried to do all myworking life. But in building it is only significant ifyou do not standardise but that you use standardisedthings’ [9].23 As with Habraken, we see in Segal the useof a flexible technical system as a means to achieve a‘flexible’ social end, with his seminal buildings ofthe 1960s founded first on a belief in theempowerment of the lay self-builder. There is atendency for technical solutions to flexibility tomove from being a means to an end, to ends inthemselves. Flexible technologies lend themselves toa certain technical determinism in which the use ofnew construction techniques and prefabricationoverrides issues of design and social occupation.24

FinanceThe least researched area of flexible housing is thefinancial side. Sense tells us that flexibility is moreeconomic in the long term because obsolescence ofhousing stock is limited, but there is littlequantitative data to substantiate this argument.However, all our qualitative research indicates that iftechnological systems, service strategies and spatialprinciples are employed that enable the flexible useof a building, these buildings in turn will last longer,and they will be cheaper in the long run becausethey reduce the need and frequency for wholesalerefurbishment [10].

Although it is generally acknowledged thatbuildings which can be easily adapted over time willreduce running costs (to a housing association,

public landlord, or home owners) whole life costingor the ‘systematic consideration of all relevant costsand revenues associated with the acquisition andownership of an asset’, is seldom taken fully intoconsideration.25 Overall, the increasing importanceof whole life costing in the public sector isinextricably linked with notions of flexibility.

In the private sector, arguments about whole lifecosting fall on the deaf ears of the developers and soone has to turn to the argument of user satisfaction,which, as studies in other countries have shown, canbe increased by implementing spatial adaptabilityand flexibility.26 These arguments are supported byrecent studies in the UK. The CABE / RIBA (2004)report on the future of housing identified ‘Culture,Flexibility and Choice’ as one of the key emergingthemes over the next twenty years, stating that ‘thenature of the individual households is forecast to



9 10

9 Lewisham 2,London, UK(architects: WalterSegal with JonBroome and selfbuilders, 1986). Self-builders have rangedfrom retired men intheir 60s to singlemothers and manywere families withyoung children; allsemi-skilled peoplewho ended upconstructing a housewith a concept thatis generally that ofMeccano. Mass-produced materialsare assembled intheir market sizes,the structure is aballoon frame, mostinfill parts of thestructure are notfixed together (allmaterials typicallyheld in position byfriction in order tomaximise resalevalue of materials).

10 Flexsus House, Seto-City, Japan(architect: TakenakaCorporation, 2000).Flexsus 22 wasdesigned as a systemthat can provide

high changeabilityas well as a newstructural systemwith high endurancethat can improve theflexibility of housingunits. It guarantees adurability of 100years and flexibilityof room plans beingadaptable tochanges in lifestages and styles.The building iscomposed of auniversal structuralframe made of slabsand wall columnswithout hangingbeams, a doublefloor system forpublic circulation,easy to renewmonitoring andevaluation system(M&E system)installed inside ofthe shared M&Eshaft, and handrailings in kit-formatwith minimumconnection with thestructural elementsfor easy removal/installation. Theexterior wall, theintermediate partbetween the‘Support’ and the

‘Infill’, is in thecladding system, inhigh precision andfor easy renewal,which consists ofstandardisedconcrete panels andaluminium sillapplicable eitherfor glazing orpanels.

11 GreenwichMillennium VillagePhase II, London, UK(architect: Proctor &Matthews, 2001).Identical plan formsof around 70m2 canpotentiallyaccommodate afamily, a couple thatalso uses the flat as awork space, andthree independentpeople sharing. Thesubdivision ispossible throughacoustically soundsliding walls.

12 St. James,Nottingham, UK(developer: The LifeBuilding Company,2001). Potentialbuyers could choosea ‘loft’, a ‘1-bed’ or‘2-bed’ plan.

continue changing. Viewed in tandem with thediverse modes of living, working and leisure time, itcan be seen that our future housing needs to beflexible’.27

The lost opportunityIt appears that all these arguments in favour offlexibility in housing are some way from beingaccepted. Housing, particularly in the UK, is stillregarded as a disposable commodity with theimplicit suggestion that people just move on to thenext property when their personal circumstanceschange. This runs contrary to the fact that houses areone of a country’s most important assets, as wasrecognised all those years ago in the Parker MorrisReport.28 Certainly other countries have beenacknowledging this not least through the higherpercentage of GDP invested in housing.29

A number of conditions lead to the vast majority ofcontemporary housing in the UK being built forboth inflexibility and thereby for obsolescence. Inthe UK, market-led factors largely determine theshape of housing, even in the hugely diminishedpublic sector.30 First, in the private sector there is amassive excess of demand over supply due to thescarcity of land, or at least land in the right places.31

This means that with houses selling almostautomatically, there is no incentive for developers toinnovate or offer added value. Their main objective isto get the housing sold as quickly as possible and inthis the future needs of the users hardly registers as afactor. Second, because the number of rooms is seento be more important than the size of rooms, privatehousing tends to be designed down to minimumspace standards and designated room types. Thisresults in what Andrew Rabeneck calls ‘tight-fit

theory arq . vol 9 . no 2 . 2005 163


11

12

functionalism’, the idea that rooms can only be usedin one predetermined way because of the size andshapes of the rooms.32 For example dining rooms areoften included because they add perceived status tothe property – but they are long and thin and usuallyhave two doors thus making them extremelydifficult to use for other purposes. Third, because ofthe economics of the building industry, outdatedand inherently inflexible construction techniquesare the norm.33 Internal partitions are oftenloadbearing and roof spaces generally filled withtrussed rafters which means that they can never beconverted in the future.34 Finally, services are fitted ina time-honoured and now outmoded manner,buried into walls or floors and so extremely difficultto add to or upgrade.

In effect, therefore, the housing sector is buildingin obsolescence through inflexibility; as one housingdeveloper told us, this is not entirely accidental.Inflexibility means that once the users’ needs change,as inevitably they do, the occupants have no choicebut to move. This keeps the housing market in a stateof permanent demand. If flexibility were built in,occupants would be able to adapt their houses and sostay longer in them; this would depress the housingmarket and limit the continuing sales on whichdevelopers depend. Housing developers actuallypromoting flexibility were thus described to us as liketurkeys voting for Christmas. The only way to get overthis problem is to show that building in flexibilityadds value to the property and so it can command ahigher price for little, if any, extra investment.35

However, there are a few signs that in the UK thingsare changing. The UK Design Council, for example,suggests that the best way to make sure customersbuy the industry’s products and services is to ‘givethem exactly what they want. [...] Observing peoplecarefully and analysing how they live their everydaylives needs to be central to the design process’ [11].36

In the end a move to the incorporation of flexibilityin private sector housing will inevitably be marketdriven. Private sector customers, missing a realchoice that goes beyond choosing the carpet colouror the frontage of kitchen cabinets, are being servedby a few house builders who have moved into what isstill a niche market by offering alternative layoutswithin the same shell [12].

Contrary to the private sector where people canexercise choice or simply sell on, people rentingfrom a social landlord typically cannot just movesomewhere else if their social situation changes. The

Housing Corporation, which is responsible forinvesting public money in housing associations,states that it wants ‘to ensure that people will want,and be able, to live in these homes, now and in thefuture’.37 In its Scheme Development Standards,which is the overriding, and for many overbearing,design document for social housing, it lists under‘recommended items’ that dwellings should bedesigned to facilitate future internal remodelling byfull span floor construction, non load-bearinginternal walls, floor / ceiling space service runs, thepossibility of later loft conversions, and to facilitatethe subsequent provision of a side or rearextension.38 However, this comes at the very end of along list of essential items housing associations needto fulfil in order to receive grants; ‘recommended’suggesting that it is not necessary. In many otherways the Scheme Development Standards workagainst flexibility. So, determining a standard widthfor any room determines a fixed configuration offurniture, which in turn fixes patterns of use. One ofthe most provocative, but also sensible, suggestionsat a recent conference on flexible housing,39 was thatthe best way of achieving flexibility would be to getrid of room designations – labels on rooms that backin 1961 the Parker Morris Report found to beinhibiting flexibility ‘both in the initial design andin the subsequent use of a dwelling’.40

This paper has argued that the adoption of flexiblehousing has benefits in many areas. It addressesissues of finance: the idea that flexibility is moreeconomic in the long term; participation: the waythat flexible housing encourages user involvement inthe design process; technology: the ways that flexiblehousing exploits, or is determined by, advances inconstruction technology; and use: the way thatflexible housing adapts to different usage over time.The body of work already in existence provides a richsource of examples which can inspire futurepractices. With an approach to flexibility as broad asthis, the multitude of methods for achievingflexibility is large. Architects, policy makers, housingdevelopers, providers and most of all users cannotafford to overlook any of these issues. Despite the longlist of lost opportunities and present obstacles, muchhas already been done to challenge existingconditions and much can be done to lever the issue offlexibility into the wider public domain.

arq 9/3-4 will continue this discussion in Jeremy Till and Tatjana

Schneider’s ‘Flexible Housing: the means to the end’



Notes1. Steven Groák, The Idea of Building:

Thought and Action in the Design andProduction of Buildings (London: E &FN Spon, 1992), p. 15.

2. Alexander Henz and Hannes Henz,Anpassbare Wohnungen (Zürich: ETHWohnforum, 1997), p. 4.

3. Architectural competitions,research projects and governmentreports included: ‘Das wachsendeHaus’, competition, Germany(1932); ‘The new house 194X’,Architectural Forum, USA (1942);‘Homes for today and tomorrow’,government report, UK (1961); SAR,founding of a research instituteunder Habraken, Netherlands(1961); ‘FlexiblerWohnungsgrundriß’,competition, Germany (1971);‘Wohnen Morgen’, competition,Austria (1971); ‘Fleksible boliger’,competition, Denmark (1986,1990/91); ‘AccommodatingChange’, competition, uk (2002).

4. Adrian Forty, Words and Buildings: aVocabulary of Modern Architecture(London: Thames & Hudson, 2000).

5. Jia Beisi, ‘Adaptable Housing orAdaptable People?’ in Architecture etComportement / Architecture andBehaviour 11, pt. 2 (1995), 139–162.

6. Maureen Taylor, ‘User Needs orExploiter Needs’, AD 11, (1973),728–732 (p. 728).

7. Forty, p. 143.8. Karin Kirsch, Die Weissenhofsiedlung:

Werkbund-Ausstellung ‘DieWohnung’:Stuttgart 1927 (Stuttgart:Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt GmbH,1987), pp. 59–61.

9. Forty, p. 143.10. Ibid. p. 143.11. Günther Domenig, ‘Wohnprojekt

“Neufeldweg” in Graz/A’ in DeutscheBauzeitschrift 39, pt. 4 (1991),492–502.

12. Jeremy Till and SarahWigglesworth, ‘The BackgroundType’ in Accommodating Change, ed.by French (London: ArchitectureFoundation, 2002), pp. 150–58(p. 152).

13. Gerard Maccreanor, ‘Adaptability’in a+t 12 (1998), 40–45 (p. 43).

14. Herman Hertzberger, Lessons forStudents in Architecture (Rotterdam:Uitgeverij 010 Publishers, 1991), p. 47.

15. Irénée Scalbert, A Right to Difference:The Architecture of Jean Renaudie(London, ArchitecturalAssociation, 2004), p. 40.

16. Andrew Rabeneck, David Sheppardand others, ‘Housing flexibility?’in Architectural Design 43 (1973),698–727 (p. 701). The most extremeexpression of flexibility canprobably be found in YonaFriedman’s demand for structuresthat are ‘transformable at will bythe individual’.

17. Bernhard Steger, Über Partizipation.Mitbestimmung bei Ottokar Uhl<http://www.parq.at/parq/sections/research/stories/297/> [Accessed 19July 2005].

18. Nikolaus Kuhnert, Philipp Oswaltand others, ‘Die Wohnung für denZweitmieter’ in Arch+ 100/101(1989), 30–33. Despite a cross-wallconstruction and no furtherinternal subdivision, the floorplans of the scheme atWasterkingen proved to beexpensive to alter.

19. Ibid., p. 32. Twenty years beforeStamm, the Dutch architect JohnHabraken (1972) called for theinterdependence of the dwellerand dwelling in buildings which‘from the beginning are totallypart of ourselves, for better orworse’. It may be easy now todismiss this as hopeful rhetoric,but Habraken’s vision is not simplyone of ideology.

20. Flexibility with regard to theprovision of services is, above all,important for the public sector.Maintenance of existing housingstock (upgrading of technicalsystems, ranging from newkitchens to wiring and heating) isno longer grant assisted in the UK.Whereas a number of years agosocial landlords could get grantsfor improvement, today long termmaintenance of properties has tocome out of income and a ‘settingand sinking fund’ for eachscheme.

21. Nicolaas John Habraken, Supports:An Alternative to Mass Housing(London: Architectural Press,1972), p.13. Too often interpretedon a merely technical level,Habraken himself stresses, first,that the book ‘Supports’ wasintended to be a ‘suggestion for onepossibility among many’ and,second, that a dwelling is only adwelling, when people come tolive in it. Habraken saw ‘Supports’as an alternative approach to thefunctionalist concept of the‘machine for living’.

22. Ibid. and Stephen Kendall andJonathan Teicher, Residential OpenBuilding (London: E & FN Spon,2000). While Open Buildingcertainly provides the foundationfor flexible and adaptable spaces,the quality of some of theenvironments produced couldcertainly be questioned. In WalterStamm’s understanding, thisarises because technical issues andthose of prefabrication are toooften stressed over the provision ofspatial quality.

23. John McKean, Learning from Segal:Walter Segal’s Life, Work and Influence(Basel: Birkhäuser, 1989), p. 148.

24. David Gann, Mark Biffin and

theory arq . vol 9 . no 2 . 2005 165


others, Flexibility and Choice inHousing (Bristol: Policy Press, 1999).While the report addressesinnovation in construction, newprocesses, the reduction ofinefficiencies, etc., in the UK andabroad, it fails to connect thesetechnical conclusions to issues ofdesign.

25. BRE, Whole Life Costing<http://www.bre.co.uk/service.jsp?id=48> [Accessed 4 May 2005].Future costs include all operatingcosts, such as rent, rates, cleaning,inspection, maintenance, repair,replacements / renewals, energyand utilities use, dismantling,disposal, security andmanagement over the life of thebuilt asset. A report recentlypublished by the Housing Forum(2002) and entitled ‘20 steps toencourage the use of Whole LifeCosting’, encouraged ‘thosehousing organisations that havenot yet considered the importanceand value of using Whole LifeCosting as a mechanism forachieving enhanced value andperformance in the delivery of ahousing product either for rent orfor sale’ to do so.

26. Ottokar Uhl, ‘AblesbarePartizipation’ in Bauwelt 72, pt. 38(1981), 1688–1691 (p. 1691) and NurEsin Altas and Ahsen Özsoy,‘Spatial Adaptability andFlexibility as Parameters of UserSatisfaction for Quality Housing’in Building and Environment 33,(1998), 315–324 (p. 322).

27. CABE and RIBA, Housing Futures2024: A Provocative Look at FutureTrends in Housing (London: BuildingFutures, 2004), pp. 14–15.

28. Ministry for Housing and LocalGovernment, Homes for Today &Tomorrow (London: Her Majesty’sStationery Office, 1961), pp. 5–6.

29. Paul Balchin and MaureenRhoden, ‘An Introduction’, inHousing Policy ed. by Balchin andRhoden (London: Routledge, 2002),p. 31.

30. In 2003 figures for the value of newconstruction were £2009m for thepublic sector and £13,183m for theprivate sector. Stephen Hughes, ‘G.B. Construction Review: AComprehensive Review of Statisticsand Trends in the Great BritainConstruction Industry 2003’<http://www.construction-statistics.co.uk>

31. Kate Barker, ‘Review of HousingSupply. Delivering Stability:Securing our Future HousingNeeds’ (London: Her Majesty’sStationery Office, 2004), p. 20.

32. Andrew Rabeneck, David Sheppardand others, ‘Housing Flexibility?’in Architectural Design 43 (1973),698–727 (p. 698).

33. This problem has been the subjectof a number of UK Governmentreports, most recently the so-called Egan Report (1998).

34. In some cases, even if walls are notloadbearing, they are made ofblockwork because, as one of ourinterviewees said, this gives afeeling of ‘superior robustness’ topotential purchasers. Anyone whohas attempted to knock downblockwork knows that it is notexactly the most flexible material.

35. This research has not been carriedout, though there is someevidence that potential purchasersdo value the ability to adapt theirfuture homes, if only because theyfeel they are being given a choice.In the uk only one small developer,The Lifebuilding Company, hasexplicitly addressed the issues offlexibility as part of a widersustainable agenda.

36. Design Council, CompetitiveAdvantage through Design (London:Design Council, 2002), p. 23.

37. Housing Corporation, ‘About Us’<http://www.housingcorp.gov.uk>[Accessed 5 May 2005]

38. Housing Corporation, SchemeDevelopment Standards (London:Housing Corporation, 2003), p. 24.

39. ‘Flexible Housing: CurrentPerspective and Future Potential’,University of Sheffield, Sept 2005.<http://www.flexiblehousing.org>

40. Ministry for Housing and LocalGovernment, Homes for Today &Tomorrow (London: Her Majesty’sStationery Office, 1961), pp. 3–4.

Illustration creditsarq gratefully acknowledges:em2n, 1The Architectural Forum, 2Architekturzentrum Wien,Sammlung, 4Walter Stamm-Teske, 5pcko, 6Frans van der Werf, 7Osaka Gas Co. Ltd., 8Phil Sayer, 9Proctor & Matthews, 11The Life Building Company, 12

AcknowledgementThe research for this paper wasfunded by a grant from the Arts andHumanities Research Council.

BiographiesTatjana Schneider studiedarchitecture in Kaiserslautern,Germany and Glasgow, Scotland. Shepractised in Munich and Glasgow, and

researched a PhD at StrathclydeUniversity. Now a Research Associateat Sheffield University, she is co-writing with Professor Jeremy Till abook on Flexible Housing forpublication by Architectural Press.

Jeremy Till is an architect andProfessor and Director of Architectureat the University of Sheffield where hehas established an internationalreputation in educational theory andpractice. His widely published writtenwork includes Architecture andParticipation and the forthcomingArchitecture and Contingency. He is aDirector in Sarah WigglesworthArchitects, Chair of RIBA AwardsGroup and will represent Britain atthe 2006 Venice ArchitectureBiennale.

Authors’ addressDr Tatjana SchneiderProfessor Jeremy TillSchool of ArchitectureUniversity of SheffieldWestern BankSheffield s10 [email protected]@sheffield.ac.uk



Till Flex1

Documents

Transcript of Till Flex1