!!!

!UK Residential Buildings;

The Spatial Quality of Compact Living

!!By Luke Riggall. !!

! of !1 98

!

! of !2 98

Dissertation!UK Residential Buildings: The Spatial Quality of Compact Living!!What makes a space a liveable home, and can compact living achieve this? !Luke Riggall P13201616 May 2014 !De Montfort University, Leicester School of Architecture, Master of Architecture Year 5, Dissertation !11,138 words ______________________________________________________________________________ !

! of !3 98

!

! of !4 98

Abstract!!This dissertation sets out to examine high quality examples of compact living to determine how liveable this type of residential living can be. An ‘Indicative Design Guide to Liveable Homes’ was created from a variety of influential sources. This guide was tested against five case studies and the results were analysed. I found that compact living can achieve a high standard of living as long as the area of the dwellings footprint per person does not fall below a realistic minimum size of around 20m2, or a more recommended area of at least 25m2. These figures however require an exceptionally high quality of design and meticulous attention to detail. !Acknowledgement!!This research project would not have been possible without the support of many people. The author wishes to express his gratitude to his supervisor, Dr. John Ebohon who was abundantly helpful and offered invaluable assistance, support and guidance. Deepest gratitude are also due to Dr. Jamileh Manoochehri without whose knowledge and assistance this study would not have been successful. !Special thanks also to all his friends, family and partner, who have always been there and expressed their understanding and support throughout the duration of his studies. !The author would also like to convey thanks to the De Montfort University and The Leicester School of Architecture for providing the platform, resources and facilities. !!

! of !5 98

!

! of !6 98

Table of Contents!!

Abstract!Acknowledgement!Table of Contents!Credited Illustrations!

I. Introduction - Setting the Scene! 12! I.I Successful Places for Compact Spaces!I.II The Desolation of UK Compact Living!

II. Literature Review! 16! II.I Spatial Quality and Compact Living!II.II Summary and Question!

III. Methodology! 24! III.I How Suitable is Compact Living based on the Spatial Qualities of a Liveable Home?!

IV. Spatial Qualities within Liveable Spaces! 26! IV.I Design Guide for Liveable Homes!

V. Compact Living! 38! V.I Approaches - Small Space, Single Space & Multi-functionality!

VI. Apply and Analyse! 42! VI.I Application of Liveability Design Guide to Examples of Compact Living!VI.II Summary of Analysis!VI.III Future Progression of Design Guide through Post-Occupation!

VII. Conclusion - The Future for Compact Living! 54! VII.I Challenges!VII.II Alternative Strategies for Improving Residential Life!

VIII. Bibliography! 56!

IX. Appendix! 61

! of !7 98

!

! of !8 98

Credited Illustrations!!Cover. Blundell, M. May 2012. Crystal Palace Toilets Panorama. [Photograph] Available at: <http://markblundellphoto.com/tag/victorian-toilet-conversion/> [Accessed May 2014] Page 1. !Figure 1. RIBA. April 2013. Average Newly Built House Size Comparison. [Diagram] Available at: <http://www.withoutspaceandlight.com/#!without-space> [Accessed May 2014] Page 12. !Figure 2. Authors own. May 2014. Collage of Literature Review Sources. [Collage] Page 14-15. !Figure 3. Authors own. May 2014. Diagram of Methodology. [Diagram] Page 24. !Figure 4. Authors own. May 2014. The Predominant Profile of the Respondents from the Survey of 73 People. [Table] Page 28. !Figure 5. Authors own. May 2014. Analysed Results of Q13 Showing the Life Values from the Survey of 73 People. [Table] Page 29. !Figure 6. Authors own. May 2014. Analysed Results of Q14 Showing the Important Aspects within a UK Home. [Table] Page 30. !Figure 7. Authors own. May 2014. Analysed Results of Q15 Showing what Makes the UK Population Comfortable in a Home from the Survey of 73 People. [Table] Page 31. !Figure 8. Authors own. May 2014. Analysed Results of Q16 Showing What Enables People to Feel a Sense of Possession in a Home from the Survey of 73 People. [Table] Page 32. !Figure 9. Authors own. May 2014. Analysed Results of Q17 Showing Which Type of Space People Most Like to Live in from the Survey of 73 People. [Table] Page 33. !Figure 10. Analysed Results of Q16 Showing What Makes a Home Liveable According to the Respondents from the Survey of 73 People. [Table] Page 34. !Figure 11. COCO Flats. n.d. Petite Penthouse - 1. [Photograph] Available at: <http://www.cocoflats.com/index.php/en/our-flats/petit-penthouse> [Accessed May 2014] Page 42. !

! of !9 98

Figure 12. COCO Flats. n.d. Petite Penthouse - 2. [Photograph] Available at: <http://www.cocoflats.com/index.php/en/our-flats/petit-penthouse> [Accessed May 2014] Page 43. !Figure 13. COCO Flats. n.d. Petite Penthouse - 3. [Photograph] Available at: <http://www.cocoflats.com/index.php/en/our-flats/petit-penthouse> [Accessed May 2014] Page 43. !Figure 14. Cube Project. n.d. QB2 - 1. [Photograph] Available at: <http://www.cubeproject.org.uk> [Accessed May 2014] Page 44. !Figure 15. Cube Project. n.d. QB2 - 2. [Photograph] Available at: <http://www.cubeproject.org.uk> [Accessed May 2014] Page 45. !Figure 16. Cube Project. n.d. QB2 - 3. [Photograph] Available at: <http://www.cubeproject.org.uk> [Accessed May 2014] Page 45. !Figure 17. Jane-Clark, L. March 2012. Crystal Palace Toilets - 1. [Photograph] Available at: <http://crystalpalacetoilets.blogspot.co.uk> [Accessed May 2014] Page 46. !Figure 18. Jane-Clark, L. March 2012. Crystal Palace Toilets - 2. [Photograph] Available at: <http://crystalpalacetoilets.blogspot.co.uk> [Accessed May 2014] Page 47. !Figure 19. Jane-Clark, L. March 2012. Crystal Palace Toilets - 3. [Photograph] Available at: <http://crystalpalacetoilets.blogspot.co.uk> [Accessed May 2014] Page 47. !Figure 20. Williams, M. January 2013. Life-Edited Apartment - 1. [Photograph] Available at: <http://www.lifeedited.com/see-full-set-of-official-lifeedited-apartment-photos/> [Accessed May 2014] Page 48. !Figure 21. Williams, M. January 2013. Life-Edited Apartment - 2. [Photograph] Available at: <http://www.lifeedited.com/see-full-set-of-official-lifeedited-apartment-photos/> [Accessed May 2014] Page 49. !Figure 22. Williams, M. January 2013. Life-Edited Apartment - 3. [Photograph] Available at: <http://www.lifeedited.com/see-full-set-of-official-lifeedited-apartment-photos/> [Accessed May 2014] Page 49. !!

! of !10 98

Figure 23. Specht Harpman. December 2013. Manhattan Micro-Loft - 1. [Photograph] Available at: <http://design-milk.com/manhattan-micro-loft-by-specht-harpman-architects/> [Accessed May 2014] Page 50. !Figure 24. Specht Harpman. December 2013. Manhattan Micro-Loft - 2. [Photograph] Available at: <http://design-milk.com/manhattan-micro-loft-by-specht-harpman-architects/> [Accessed May 2014] Page 51. !Figure 25. Specht Harpman. December 2013. Manhattan Micro-Loft - 3. [Photograph] Available at: <http://design-milk.com/manhattan-micro-loft-by-specht-harpman-architects/> [Accessed May 2014] Page 51.

! of !11 98

I. Introduction - Setting the Scene!!Homes within the UK are shrinking each year. The average home used to be 85 square meters where as now the comparable statistic is now 76 square meters for new builds, this is around 10% smaller (ONS, 2008). This now makes the average UK home one of the smallest in Western Europe by a considerable mark (RIBA, 2012). Additionally, 50% of social dwellings and 35% of privately rented flats are less than 50m2 (ONS, 2008). Whilst home sizes are changing, the design approach is not, generally speaking, the same rooms, layout and functions as before, are being squeezed into smaller spaces. This has caused dissatisfaction in new builds and the need to move more regularly to a more suitable home is growing. “Dissatisfaction is highest among those living in the newest properties.” (Ipsos MORI, 2013, p2). Some groups are campaigning for the re-introduction of minimum space standards across the whole of the UK and to include private sector developments (RIBA, 2012). Whilst it is easy to think that increasing floor area would improve the quality of living, it could also have other undesirable effects. !!!!!!!!!!

Figure 1. Average Newly Built House Size Comparison. !Increasing the space in a home is likely to lead to higher prices for the end purchaser. Changes such as this would have a negative affect on first time buyers as they would be further priced out of certain house types. Bringing in minimum space standards could also stifle the growing trend of compact living which has many benefits which are especially appealing to first time buyers. Properly designed compact living can be cheaper to build and buy, use less energy, be easier to maintain, require less land, be built faster, require less resources and less financial assistance. With this potential for compact living, should we believe that we need more space to live a high quality of life, or perhaps a change in design approach can help us achieve more with less. This could give first time buyers and households of lower incomes a better chance to own a property. !

! of !12 98

This dissertation first sets out to determine what makes a dwelling liveable, then secondly, to test examples of compact living and see how they score. This should show whether compact living can achieve a high standard of living and if they should be more common within the UK housing market. !I.I Successful Places for Compact Spaces!!Japan provides some of the most interesting solutions to compact living spaces (McGrath, 2011). Many of these still follow traditional Japanese design approaches which fundamentally lend themselves to small spaces. One of the main reasons for this, is because their culture and values are very different to those of UK residents, following concepts such as purity, simplicity and harmony to influence their lifestyles. Japanese homes are often light in every sense of the word, boasting bright daylight levels as well as a light and elegant construction. Their homes contain a sense of space and openness. They are primarily single spaces, and only divided with translucent sliding screens. Rooms are designed to be multifunctional; to easily change between uses throughout the day. As well as this, objects are only ‘brought to the front’ when in use, an approach comparable to a theatre opposed to the western habit described as a ‘museum’, as their possessions are on permanent display (Freeman, 2004). Finally zoning laws in Tokyo demand 30% of the total plot size to be dedicated as semi-enclosed or external space. !“Tokyo, where the ‘micro-homes’ movement has really taken off, is not Birmingham, but lessons can still be learned from cultures that successfully build homes on tiny, urban plots.” (McGrath, 2011) !Given that people are living very different lifestyles in Japan to the UK, we cannot directly replicate the same design of homes. What we can do however, is learn from how closely their lifestyles are intertwined into their living solutions and translate this, along with techniques for compact living, to influence the design of UK compact homes. !I.II The Desolation of UK Compact Living!!With the campaigns calling for minimum space standards to be re-introduced for all homes throughout the UK (RIBA, 2012), the future of UK compact living looks uncertain. Before this may become true, my dissertation aims to assess this way of living and discover whether it can provide a high quality of life, or instead, if they should be suppressed through new categorised standards.

! of !13 98

!

! of !14 98

!

! of !15 98

II. Literature Review!!The aim of this literature review is to outline possible definitions of what it means for a space to be liveable, identify key techniques of compact living spaces and to highlight a range of examples. The term ‘liveable’ can simply be defined as “an environment or climate fit to live in” (Oxford Dictionary of English). This is accurate, however I consider this definition to be vague and raise the question, ‘what does it mean to live’. This is a question so open to interpretation, and influenced by peoples values, culture and beliefs that I doubt two people would answer the same. I aim to use key influential texts to provide a theoretical angle, as well as first hand survey research with particular attention to areas such as space and light. The purpose of this literature review is to identify and appreciate existing work within my research area, avoid duplicating the efforts of other authors, as well as to identify where I can contribute with this study. !II.I Spatial Quality and Compact Living!!The term spatial quality covers all environmental conditions such as size, light, colour and layout, therefore providing a comprehensive understanding of space. Each of these characteristics must be rigorously tested when designing compact dwellings. !I begin my review by discussing the context and the inception of my research proposal. The Royal Institute of British Architects is currently running a campaign via their ‘Homewise' division called ‘Without Space and Light”. The ultimate aim of which is to influence the government and policy makers to introduce new minimum space and light standards for housing developments throughout the UK. Initially aimed at the public sector but it is also expected to be rolled out to the private sector over time. They make bold claims, however these are nothing that have not already been publicly discussed; “Living in cramped homes with little natural light has an adverse effect on health and affects the way we live. Our homes have been shrinking and windows are too small - many homes built today simply aren't up to scratch” (RIBA, 2012). I anticipate that most of these assertions have already been proven and generally accepted, on the other hand, perhaps it is that the design and layout of these developments that no longer represent how we live today. They also state that there are no minimum standards for space or light outside of the Greater London region, the RIBA clearly believes new standards are the solution to inadequate homes and that these will increase the liveability of new residential developments. The RIBA goes on to support the statement above with sources including first hand surveys collected from residents living in homes under 10 years old. Statistics such as the “lack of space (32%) and lack of natural light (20%) are the most cited causes of dissatisfaction with the home” (ipsos MORI, 2013). More space and more light are clearly desirable elements, nevertheless, people will always desire more

! of !16 98

and as shown these are the main reasons for upgrading to their next larger and brighter home. Perhaps also the reason for these responses are related to unsuitable layouts possibly invoking the feeling of constricted living, their perception of space and light or the sense of openness throughout the home. !Taking a look back at historical residential campaigns, the German Bauhaus movement produced an analysis entitled; ‘Existenzminimum’. This project intended to set minimum standards for elements such as floorspace, density and fresh air amongst other items and was a response to the German postwar housing crisis. This actually lead to newly built residential spaces to be more compact than before, perhaps showing that minimum standards are not always the solution if more space and light are the objective. !With the emerging trend of compact living spaces potentially being suppressed by new proposals for minimum standards, some are opposing the move. McGrath (2011) states that, “If this subtlety of design is replaced by a dumb table of mandatory space standards applied to the limited categories defined by the use classes, then architects will have no alternative but to churn out identikit shoe boxes with stuck-on facades. Is this what we really want for our built environment?”. McGrath is perhaps exaggerating here, however his point is clear, these new and innovative spaces should not be killed off and overrun by traditional configurations of homes being forced to fit in with todays expectations. Given that compact living has not yet widely developed in the UK, restricting them could block innovative design for the future of homes. McGrath continues to write, “In his Break Down installation, artist Michael Landy shredded every possession he owned. In so doing, he asked a fundamental question of us all. What things do we really need to lead fulfilling lives?” (McGrath, 2011). This statement leads back to the ‘Existenzminimum’ to ask a similar question of liveability, yet now being asked of todays homes and lifestyles within the UK. !Well known and widely valued theoretical texts such as Perec’s Species of Spaces could help define what it means for a space to be liveable. Once disentangled, many vital points can be raised from his writings such as the freedom to pass between spaces and functions. “There are spaces today of every kind and every size, for every use and every function. To live is to pass from one space to another, while doing your very best not to bump yourself.” (Perec, 1997, p6). The physical limit of a room is a wall, but it is not what we perceive as the limit to that space. “The wall is no longer what delimits and defines the place where I live, that which separates it from the other places where other people live, it is nothing more than a support for the picture.” (Perec, 1997, p39). Whilst walls are imperceptible, doors become phycological barricades between ‘our space’ and the outside world. “We protect ourselves, we barricade ourselves in. Doors stop and separate.” (Perec, 1997, p37). Though lacking verifiable data as evidence, Perec writes rationally

! of !17 98

using theoretical and philosophical explanations as well as a meticulously careful perception of his past and present experiences. “What does is mean, to live in a room? Is to live in a place to take possession of it? What does taking Possession of a place mean? As from when does somewhere become truly yours?” (Perec, 1997, p24). I believe as humans can only perceive reality through our senses, Perec’s work is mostly self validating and provides an essential component when building up a comprehensive definition of the term ‘liveable’. !Furthering my understanding of what it means for a space to be liveable, The Poetics of Space, set to explore the deeply phycological and phenomenological experiences within the house. Bachelard describes the concept of home as a space which is truly inhabited. “…all really inhabited space bears the essence of the notion of home” (Bachelard, 1958 cited in Leach, 1997, p87). We create the illusion of protection within our minds so that we may find comfort. “…whenever the human being has found the slightest shelter: we shall see the imagination build ‘walls’ of impalpable shadows, comfort itself with the illusion of protection…” (Bachelard, 1958 cited in Leach, 1997, p87). We barricade ourselves within a space we control. “…the sheltered being gives perceptible limits to his shelter.” (Bachelard, 1958 cited in Leach, 1997, p87). This ‘home’ is a place of safety and comfort in which our bodies can rest and our minds can dream. “He experiences the house in its reality and in its virtuality, by means of thought and dreams.” (Bachelard, 1958 cited in Leach, 1997, p87). We call upon past experiences, memories, dreams, memories of dreams, dreams of experiences and so on. “We comfort ourselves by reliving memories of protection.” (Bachelard, 1958 cited in Leach, 1997, p87). Bachelard believes that the main comfort of the house is a place of protection and therefore a place to dream. “…if I were asked to name the chief benefit of the house, I should say: the house shelters daydreaming, the house protects the dreamer, the house allows one to dream in peace.” (Bachelard, 1958 cited in Leach, 1997, p88). It is our perception of protection in which comforts us the most and the house is a shell in which accommodates this. !Heidegger carefully deciphers what it means to dwell, to live, through the use of language and comparing each words origins and meaning. “The fundamental character of dwelling is this sparing and preserving.” (Heidegger, 1971 cited in Leach, 1997, p103). To dwell is to be free, “to leave something beforehand in its own nature” (Heidegger, 1971 cited in Leach, 1997, p103). To preserve and protect from harm. !For quite some time the traditional design of compact living has been criticised for being out dated, yet the housing sector has been very slow to react and relatively little has improved. Furthermore Ruby states that these small dwellings have become the form of social issues. “The standard scheme of the modern small dwelling is completely unable to meet today's requirements

! of !18 98

and has increasingly become the housing form further socially underprivileged.” (Ruby, 2002, p28-29). The same issues still remain in todays environment with houses that do not reflect current lifestyles. Simonot states that lifestyles are inhibited by, what were then, current housing developments and that most of these ways of life are difficult if not impossible to classify. “Different lifestyles have emerged, limited with changing living conditions. Taking into account these new lifestyles, which one no longer knows as ‘ways of life’ to indicate that they cannot be reduced to mere ideas of functions or even uses.” (Simonot, 2002, p12). Since current lifestyles should not be classified, creating policies and standards such as the RIBA are campaigning for, could further inhibit peoples lives. This creates an awkward situation where housing is clearly not suitable and where legislation may not solve. “How is it possible to dodge the normalisation brought on by the ‘standard plan’ and put forward a diversity of development capable of meeting individual desires.” (Simonot, 2002, p12). This is where we remain today, “We no longer have a concept for living nonetheless continue building dwellings and living in them.” (Ruby, 2002, p28-29). !When stepping back from the issue of forcing traditionally designed small dwellings to become once again suitable to contemporary life, it becomes apparent that there may be a solution and a future for compact living. “For more and more people, a single-space home is a solution to the challenge of contemporary living. One-space living offers the freedom to organise your home to suit the new informality in the way we live and spend time with family and friends, the diversity of modern lifestyles and the demand for a multi-functional environment.” (Inions, 1999, p7). Inions discusses one of the key techniques of compact living, showing how removing all perceptual and physical boundaries within the limits of a home can radically change the way we live. Without walls, spaces are no longer defined by their restrictive size and this approach could offer vastly improved flexibility. “Conventional preconceptions about designing and planning a domestic interior are completely irrelevant - in a one-space home, there is no need to separate and confine everyday activities within a restrictive traditional layout.” (Inions, 1999, p11). The book continuous to convincingly push forward single space living as the solution for small spaces, adding to this theory; “However, maximum openness is not always the best way forward. Contrasts between openness and enclosure can provide an important dimension to experiencing a space, so contracting part of a space instead of expanding it is an alternative option.” (Inions, 1999, p12). This shows that Inions is aware of the more complex relationship of how we perceive space and scale, presenting the issue that for a space to be truly liveable, the inhabitant must be able to experience a wider range of space. Contrasting the sense of openness and freedom with the capacity for comfort and intimate expression. “Partitions or reconfiguring space with flexible dividers can provide a comfortable and essential degree of separation between public and private areas without compromising the unity or versatility of the overall space.” (Inions, 1999, p7).

! of !19 98

Combining techniques such as these provide an essential approach to the more functional design of compact living spaces, demonstrating a balance between concepts such as freedom, openness, flexibility and integration. This being said, the desired ‘balance’ can easily shift as peoples values, culture and beliefs begin to inform how they live. !In his book, Space; Japanese Design Solutions for Compact Living, Freeman outlines the design approach generally used in Japanese small dwellings; a society in which their values are so intrinsically entwined into their way of life. “Space is more often than not, assessed in terms of size. Our attitude to size is curious, some items admired for being small, others preferred to be large or to be more precise, larger than one has and to the Western ideal, at least, larger is better… More important is the qualitative use of space.” (Freeman, 2004). This demonstrates that the way in which Japanese residents value and desire size is very different from UK residents. It is also apparent that the overall spatial quality is of higher value than size. One essential part of a traditional and compact Japanese house is single space living. “Fundamentally, the traditional Japanese one is a one-room house which has been partitioned into a series of compartments with translucent sliding screens.” (Freeman, 2004). As they are primarily single spaces with the added ability to transform as and when the inhabitant requires, the dwellings have an element of future proofed, multifunctional internal layouts. This would allow the homes to easily adapt to the changing environmental, sociocultural and economic context which in turn shapes the lifestyle of its inhabitant. “Translucent sliding partition walls allow as many activities as possible within a floor as well as opening up. These partitions can be temporary and spatial, allowing the inhabitant to flip from day time and night time uses.” (Freeman, 2004). The typical Japanese house also takes it a step further, “An ideal Japanese house is stripped of furniture and uses alternative ways of accommodating the individual to the space he or she inhabits, both physically and perceptually.” (Freeman, 2004). “Japanese culture strives for purity, simplicity and harmony.” (Freeman, 2004). Freeman highlights the radical differences between the Japanese and UK cultures here, but perhaps suggests this is the level of change that is required to live in such compact spaces and that the design of the house should also involve the details of what the resident requires to live instead of the standard items normally found in homes. “Objects are treated differently between the western world and Japan, the former described as a ‘museum’ and the later as a ‘theatre’. The museum contains visible sets of cupboards and storage spaces where as the theatre keeps even the storage out of sight and concealed, only bringing objects to front when in use.” (Freeman, 2004). Spatial quality is drastically affected by other elements which are addressed in Japanese homes. One “key component to traditional Japanese space is lightness which can relate to the use of material, construction, appearance and colour. Another approach is openness which allows light to permeate the space, airiness and a heightened perception of space.” (Freeman, 2004). Throughout this source, Freeman demonstrates how

! of !20 98

selected Japanese compact homes can work successfully. He also shows the extent in which variable factors such as culture, beliefs and values can extensively alter what a person requires from their home for it to be deemed as genuinely liveable. !As well as following the design and build process for many examples of small space design, George Clarke’s Amazing Spaces, showcases some great precedents for compact living. In particular ‘The LEGO apartment’ located in Barcelona (Clarke & Field-Lewis, 2013, p60-64) combines many functions of a single person’s lifestyle into a 24 square meter multifunctional home. The owner Christian Shallet wanted a basic and highly functional living space with all the comforts he required. “For me, the key approach was to ask one very simple question: what are the essentials of everyday living? The answers I came up with were somewhere to cook, wash, sit and sleep.” (Shallet cited in Clarke & Field-Lewis, 2013, p61). By approaching the design with a highly essentialist ethos, the client and architect were able to create a liveable, single room space in which Shallet appears very satisfied with. The approach is also similar to Japanese solutions where everything is concealed with a minimalist finish in the ‘theatre’ style rather than a museum. “Logic dictated that they couldn’t be permanent fixtures and would have to be stowed away.” (Clarke & Field-Lewis, 2013, p61). The similarities continue when noticing that the apartment has two terraces providing approximately 6 additional square meters, 20 percent of the overall plot, closer to zoning laws in Tokyo demand 30 percent as external or semi-enclosed spaces. There is also something to be said of the change in lifestyle the owner and occupant was confronted with, requiring him to re-build every function of the space when needed and un-build after. “You have to be a certain type of person to live happily in a small space such as this, which, of necessity, demands clean lines and a tidy nature!” (Clarke & Field-Lewis, 2013, p60). The materials play an important role in the success of this compact space, limiting to a few materials and colours, just rich enough to stimulate but not confuse. “In order to simplify the look of this apartment and create a harmonious space, only two materials were used… wood and concrete, which were chosen for their highly textural and elemental nature.” (Clarke & Field-Lewis, 2013, p60). Some of the best techniques are shared here which should influence compact living around the world, however it is also important to point out that this approach required time consuming and meticulous planning and accounting for every object and function, it also only supports a single occupant to live. !!

! of !21 98

II.II Summary and Question!!We are at a cross roads with traditionally designed and newly built homes revealing dissatisfied owners, as well as campaigns aimed at setting new standards for living. Now is the time to ask the question; what does it mean for a home to be liveable and can this be achieved in compact dwellings? !My literature review has shown that philosophers unanimously support the theory, that the fundamental essence to a liveable home is one in which the house is a protective shell, providing a safe environment where our bodies can rest and our minds can dream. This phycological protection allows the inhabitant to feel entirely comfortable by perhaps also unconsciously reliving past memories of protection. Freedom is also of importance; the freedom to pass between spaces or functions, to feel enlightened by the sense of openness and airiness before retreating to the perception of enclosure and comfort. This last component is also heavily emphasised in more practical sources; contrasting the sense of openness and freedom with the capacity for comfort and intimate expression. The layout should be non restrictive which is usually addressed with a flexible open plan and could also react to external changes in life, in order to maintain and support day to day activity. A non restrictive size and scale is also required, along with a stimulating and rich materiality. Finally, all the aforementioned should create a balance between the spaces and functions throughout, these should relate to the dwellers values, culture and beliefs. !This helps to define what it means for a home to be liveable. A question that I will further investigate throughout this dissertation. !!

! of !22 98

!

! of !23 98

!!!!!!

? !!

What makes a space a liveable home, and can compact living achieve this? !!!!!!!!!

III. Methodology!!What makes a space a liveable home can be a complex relationship between the measurable data and our perception. In order to thoroughly investigate whether compact living spaces should be classed as liveable, I must employ a comprehensive, two part approach of both quantitive and qualitative research. I will define the notion of a ‘liveable’ space using key philosophical and practical texts covering a variety of angles as well as data collated from questionnaires, I will also seek appraisals for my findings. I will build upon this with an understanding of secondary data such as existing policies, standards and regulations within the UK, past policies as well as other facts and figures available. Finally I will apply and test this theory of liveability to examples of compact living in order to evaluate their performance.

Figure 3. Diagram of Methodology. !Qualitative research methods take precedence over quantitive within this dissertation as I believe it is our perception which truly affects our lives and not the easily measurable figures and data sheets. For example, in order for a place to feel large, its dimensions do not have to be, we only need to perceive a sense of spaciousness; perhaps an illusion created to enlighten our spirits. !A logical interpretation of well established theoretical texts provides the most weight and value. Texts such as these contain an underlying rationale and provide a deep insight into the phenomenological and psychological aspects of life. There is a small risk that these texts can be out of touch with contemporary life, however since these authors approach their writings on a instinctive and primal level they should remain relevant today. !This approach is supported and further influenced with responses from a questionnaire I have issued to a variety of individuals. The survey should provide a small but up to date sample of peoples values in contemporary life, it should also highlight any differences between the slightly dated literature and the survey results. I have used an expected sample size of between 50 to 100 respondents from a wide range of ages and backgrounds. The survey results may overlap with existing surveys conducted on a national scale, due to this I may be able to express the UK norm and to build upon the issues of home life already highlighted. The most prominent of

! of !24 98

existing surveys being those published by The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) in their home-wise campaign which sets out the main issues in todays new homes. This research was conducted by Ipsos MORI, an independent market research company and thus the original research document is of good value to my own study. It may be possible that the RIBA has set out leading questions within the document to their own agenda and thus must be used carefully. With this being said, one must assume that any agenda which colours this research, to be one aimed at improvement of existing housing standards. !I will carefully feed into my analysis appraisals covering the views of an architect as well as the views of a developer. These are seen as additional sources in which I can use to answer any outstanding queries, highlight any missed opportunities and uncover any remaining issues. These will be seen as one persons views and only have minor value within this study. !The criteria in which I will test examples of compact living will also be informed by quantitative data extracted from existing housing policies, standards and regulations within the UK. These facts and figures show, in what the policy makers deem, as the absolute minimum standards for liveable homes within the UK. This data is the basis on which the vast majority of dwelling are built to according to, and thus, must be tested against alternative approaches. In spite of this, policy has a tendency to change, shift and be removed according to who creates them. The first widely accepted minimum housing standards, at least where size is concerned, were produced by the Parker Morris Committee. These traditional space standards will also influence my testing of compact living, however due to the age of these standards, they are of low importance to my analysis and shall be used only to compare and contrast. !III.I How Suitable is Compact Living based on the Spatial Qualities of a Liveable Home?!!Carefully selected and promising examples of compact dwellings will provide a point of reference and a high standard in which to work from towards improving small homes. Once properly defined, the notion of a place as ‘liveable’ will be applied to these examples. Using this approach I am able to determine the performance of these spaces in a comprehensive manner and in a way that may genuinely reflect contemporary life.

! of !25 98

IV. Spatial Qualities within Liveable Spaces!!‘Spatial quality’ is a term covering all aspects which affect the quality of life within a home. In order for a home to be ‘liveable’, it must provide, support and sustain a high standard of each of these elements. I will first collate a comprehensive definition of what makes a home liveable by using a range of sources across both quantitative and qualitative positions. !In this chapter I will extract and review the spatial qualities which most affect how liveable a dwelling is, with a view to drafting a guide in the following section. !The findings of the RIBA’s housing satisfaction survey identified that lack of space (32%) and lack of natural light (20%) we’re the main causes of dissatisfaction to newly built homes (Ipsos MORI. 2013). The design guide should include these findings. !Perec explores many spatial qualities within a home, expressing what he feels from his own experiences as well as his philosophical and theoretical determinations. Perec discusses ‘freedom’, the idea that “To live is to pass from one space to another” (Perec, 1997, p6), through different spaces of different sizes, uses and functions. Continuing on to suggest a ‘non-restrictive’ environment, “…while doing your very best not to bump yourself.” (Perec, 1997, p6). Perec calls upon his phenomenological experiences as well as critically testing his theories through the use of language. He indicates that the physical boundaries of a space are less important than the perceived limits. The ‘sense of space’ takes precedents over the rooms physicality. “The wall is no longer what delimits and defines the place where I live, that which separates it from the other places where other people live, it is nothing more than a support for the picture.” (Perec, 1997, p39). ‘Protection’ is another key aspects raised here, “We protect ourselves, we barricade ourselves in.” (Perec, 1997, p37). Following on to value a ‘Perceivable separation between public and private’, “Doors stop and separate.” (Perec, 1997, p37). A sense of ‘possession and ownership’ are also discussed, “What does is mean, to live in a room? Is to live in a place to take possession of it? What does taking Possession of a place mean? As from when does somewhere become truly yours?” (Perec, 1997, p24). Finally the author ends with his idea of what to avoid and what to strive for. “The uninhabitable: the skimped, the airless, the small, the mean, the shrunken, the very precisely calculated. … The confined, the out-of-bounds, the encaged, the bolted …” (Perec, 1997, p89-90). “I would like there to exist places that are stable, unmoving, intangible, untouched and almost untouchable, unchanging, deep-rooted; places that might be points of reference, of departure, of origin” (Perec, 1997, p91). Above all the home is to be a ‘point of origin and reference’ in which to live. !

! of !26 98

Bachelard states that the home is a place we truly inhabit. This follows on from Perecs meaning that the home is a ‘point of origin and reference’. “…all really inhabited space bears the essence of the notion of home” (Bachelard, 1958 cited in Leach, 1997, p87). For anywhere we truly inhabit is related to home. ‘Sense of protection’ and ‘comfort’ are also amongst the principle aspects Bachelard discusses throughout his writings. “…whenever the human being has found the slightest shelter: we shall see the imagination build ‘walls’ of impalpable shadows, comfort itself with the illusion of protection…” (Bachelard, 1958 cited in Leach, 1997, p87). The inhabitant must create a ‘perceptible limit’, “…the sheltered being gives perceptible limits to his shelter.” (Bachelard, 1958 cited in Leach, 1997, p87). The combination of a ‘sense of protection’ and ‘comfort’ enable us to have deeper experiences within the home. “He experiences the house in its reality and in its virtuality, by means of thought and dreams.” (Bachelard, 1958 cited in Leach, 1997, p87). By enabling this “We comfort ourselves by reliving memories of protection.” (Bachelard, 1958 cited in Leach, 1997, p87). !Heidegger’s key meanings of what it means to live in a home are ‘freedom’, ‘protection and preservation’. “The fundamental character of dwelling is this sparing and preserving. …to leave something beforehand in its own nature” (Heidegger, 1971 cited in Leach, 1997, p103). !Additional aspects of liveability are suggested by other sources such as ‘reflection of values, culture and beliefs’ (Simonot, 2002) (Freeman, 2004), ‘flexibility’ (Inions, 1999) (Simonot, 2002) (Freeman, 2004), ‘Variation of spatial sensations’ (Inions, 1999), !These are the spatial qualities I have extracted from literature sources which affect how liveable a home is, I will now also building upon this with the use of a survey. !!!

! of !27 98

Figure 4. The Predominant Profile of the Respondents from the Survey of 73 People. !I conducted a survey allowing responses from both online and paper mediums, this was issued at the start of May 2014. Results are based on all respondents unless otherwise stated. Where results do not sum to 100 this may be due to multiple responses or computer rounding. The above table shows the predominant profile of the respondents. The average age is 31 compared to the UK average of 39 (ONS, March 2011). The survey results are from two thirds male to one third female and mostly represent the midlands area. The residential status of this survey found 42% of respondents own their home, and 29% rent. The survey also included living with parents at 26% to cover the majority of 18 to 24 year olds, where as national statistics report that 67.5% are owners with the remaining 32.5% renting (ONS, 2008). The house was the predominant type of residence at 81%, this is exactly in line with national statistics (ONS, 2008). The survey also reports an average of 3.0 residents per household where as the UK population is 2.3 (ONS, March 2011). Finally, the survey reports and average of roughly 8 rooms per household with a size of 114m2 compared to the UK average of 5 rooms with a size of 91m2. !Overall it is fair to say that the survey is weighted towards a younger population who live in larger family houses when compared to the UK average. Since there is an equal number of respondents who live with their parents as there are looking to purchase in the near future, the survey covers a good proportion of first time buyers. This profile is particularly interesting as these are likely to fall into the compact living bracket when they look to purchase an affordable first home. Taking this into account, the results of the survey are relevant to this research study. !I will now discuss the survey results and findings to help determine a principle standard of ‘liveability’ in order to compare against examples of compact living.

! of !28 98

Figure 5. Analysed Results of Q13 Showing the Life Values from the Survey of 73 People. !There is a direct correlation between the values, culture and beliefs of a population and the way they live their life (Freeman, 2004). In an attempt at discovering the balance of these within the UK, the survey asked people what they value most out of a choice of responses. The resulting data has been analysed to give each choice a rating between 0 to 100, 0 being the minimum score and 100 being the maximum. This research shows that a person’s family is their highest value, followed closely by friends then their career. These are the three biggest values within the UK today. Also of some importance is their community but only scoring a minority rating. Religion as well as national relations and politics are no longer valued by the population and therefore not a priority within UK homes. !These results show that for a home to be classed as liveable, it must ‘accommodate the occupants family and friends’ as well as ‘support and sustain their work and career’, finally it should have some ‘community value’. Interpreting this in the context of a dwelling, it must allow the occupant to entertain and host their friends and family. This can include having appropriate ancillary sleeping arrangements for an additional two people such as parents or friends. The survey shows a rating of 70/100 for the careers of occupants. In context, at least 59% of employers now offer some form of remote working to their staff, a figure which continues to grow rapidly (CBI, 2011), the home must now support this trend. This can be in the form of a small study space for some essentials such as a laptop. Finally, the home should have some community value, this can be how dwellings relate to each other, allowing public open space and other opportunities within the area.

! of !29 98

Figure 6. Analysed Results of Q14 Showing the Important Aspects within a UK Home. !

The survey asked people, “What do you feel are the most important aspects of a home?”. This was an open question allowing people to write their opinions without any restrictions or preset choices. This allowed me to discover a wide range of answers and by compiling a list of each point, along with the number of respondents who stated this point, I was able to rank them in order of popularity. The difference between each choice is fairly shallow making it difficult to draw the line as to what are the most relevant aspects to take into account, this shows the diversity of people. The results show that functionality and access to amenities are the most important aspects of a home with 45% of respondents stating this. ‘Comfort’, ‘space’ and ‘family, friends and companions’ are the next most important with between roughly 30-35% mentioning these points. !These results show that for a home to be classed as liveable, above all it must be ‘functional and have essential amenities’, both within the home and also within its locality. The essential functions and amenities may already covered by existing policy, standards and regulations. These are constantly assessed and already widely accepted throughout the industry. A home must be ‘comfortable’, a term I have further explored in the following survey question. It must also have a ‘sense of space and enough physical space’ to live. Having a sense of space can be achieved with techniques such as higher ceilings, light neutral coloured walls, lighter furniture and less clutter, this will be further discussed with examples and techniques of compact living later in my dissertation. Allowing for ‘family, friends and companionship’ within a home is also important, this has been covered in the previous question but again reinforces its relevance.

! of !30 98

Figure 7. Analysed Results of Q15 Showing what Makes the UK Population Comfortable in a Home from the Survey of 73 People.

!The survey asked people, “What makes you feel comfortable in a home?”. This was again an open question allowing people to write their opinions without any restrictions or preset choices. This enabled me to discover a deeper breakdown of what it means to be comfortable; being one of the most important aspects of a home. Nearly 45 percent of the respondents stated their feeling of comfort was most greatly influenced by their choice of furnishings, finishes and interior decoration, generally stating how soft they should be. The sense of space was the second most popular aspect with roughly 25 percent mentioning the sense of space or physically having enough space to live, helped them feel comfortable. These are the two most prominent characteristics respondents have stated. There were also another 7 points of minor relevance including family and friends, personal belongings, security and protection, warmth, natural light, quietness and the connection to exterior space. !These results show the most influential aspect of comfort relates to the furnishings, finishes and interior decoration. For a home to be liveable it should be fitted with perceptually soft finishes, meaning they should provide a ‘soft experience’ relating to their appearance, touch or other aspects such as acoustic properties. The right balance to the inhabitants ‘sense of space’ has again been mentioned, to not feel too cramped but also not too open. The results reinforce the idea of comfort as a soft, nurturing space, full of personal relevance relating the inhabitants to their relationships and memories. The dwelling should also evoke a sense of safety, security and protection. Finally a comfortable space should be warm in both the perceptual and climatic meanings and have enough natural light as to avoid the feeling of gloominess.

! of !31 98

Figure 8. Analysed Results of Q16 Showing What Enables People to Feel a Sense of Possession in a Home from the Survey of 73 People.

!The survey asked people “What do you feel enables you to take possession of a home?”. This was a multiple choice question in order to define the point in which people feel a sense of ownership for their homes. The results were fairly evenly distributed with all choices scoring a rating between 40 and 60 out of a maximum 100. Legally owning the home was the top answer scoring a value of 60/100, interestingly the majority 52 percent of respondents rated ‘owning’ as the top answer with the remaining being distributed to the other choices. !Perec discussed the question of possession as if it could bring meaning to living in a place (2009, p24). If taking possession is part of living in a space, and to take possession of a home is to legally own it, then for a place to be liveable the occupant should have a sense and legality of ownership. This could even suggest that other types of tenure such as private or social renting is not as liveable as the owner-occupant type. In a population where renting makes up 32.5% of households, or as the results of my survey show 26% living with parents and 29% renting, this is a huge proportion which are missing out on the highest sense of ownership. This is not to say that these people do not have any sense of possession however, since the survey has shown other aspects still rate similarly between 40-50 out of 100. With all this being said it appears that the sense of possession is related to how liveable a place is and that a third of the UK population could improve this factor by around 20% by purchasing their property. The right to buy scheme within the UK acknowledges this fact.

! of !32 98

Figure 9. Analysed Results of Q17 Showing Which Type of Space People Most Like to Live in from the Survey of 73 People.

!The survey asked people “which description of home would you most like to live in?”. This was a multiple choice question with three different choices. The vast majority of the respondents at 70% voted that they prefer a mix of both types of spaces. !This confirms the suggestion that “maximum openness is not always the best way forward. Contrasts between openness and enclosure can provide an important dimension to experiencing a space” (Inions, 1999, p12). The ability to experience a ‘variety of spatial sensations’ contributes to how liveable a dwelling is and highlighting the importance of our qualitative spatial perception over more quantifiable facts. A dwelling containing a mix of both sensations heightens the sensitivity and responsiveness to each type of space meaning for example that the exact same space can feel larger and lighter when roaming into an enclosed, cosy space. This is an important factor to take into account when designing and assessing the liveability of a dwelling. !!

! of !33 98

Figure 10. Analysed Results of Q16 Showing What Makes a Home Liveable According to the Respondents from the Survey of 73 People.

!The final question in the survey asked “what do you feel makes a home liveable?”. This was a multiple choice question introducing some characteristics introduced throughout my previous research, giving the respondents an opportunity to rate these in importance. A three star rating was used to show either high, medium or low importance, data which was then analysed and converted into ratings between 0 and the maximum 100. Generally speaking nearly all the choices put forward to the survey respondents received a high rating with only one being valued below 50. This supports my previous research showing that all the characteristics I have suggested are of a high value. The results also show them in order of importance with comfort, space, light and protection receiving a very high value rating above 75. !There is an overlap between this question and question 14, giving the respondents the opportunity to answer an open question as well as one with preset choices. A home must cover all of the choices covered in this question with the exception of ‘rich materials’.

! of !34 98

IV.I Design Guide for Liveable Homes!!Using the findings of my research I have drafted an indicative design guide for liveable homes. I plan to use this to test selected examples of compact living in order to determine how liveable they can be. This may also be used outside of this dissertation to assess other dwellings. I have received appraisals for this document from established architects and developers. !“In all the document has merit, but I think a little more clarity to the document structure and its function is necessary.” (Appendix D) !Following these initial comments I have amended and improved the guide. This was then sent out for a second appraisal once complete. !“The guide highlights the many important roles of the home. An indicative guide such as this could help improve living standards within residential developments and may positively influence design teams rather than restricting them” (Appendix E)

! of !35 98

Indicative Design Guide for Liveable Homes!(last revised May 2014) !

This design guide is intended to highlight the core principles which affect how liveable a dwelling is. The development team should interpret this as a set of design drivers with the aim of improving the core liveability of the homes they produce. This is to be in addition to and along side existing UK housing policy and standards. !Usage: The characteristics are listed in a suggestive order of priority, from high to low, as well as receiving a priority rating of (1) ’essential’, or (2) ‘additionally beneficial’. You may also produce a rough rating for any proposals out of a maximum 100 points. This is calculated by the sum of the values, noted next to each characteristic, which has been incorporated in the proposal. !

<70 = Inadequate 70 - 80 = Good 80 - 90 = Great >90 = Excellent

ref.!no.

Core!Characteristic

Description & Criteria!(in addition to any existing guidelines)

PriorityValue

1 2

1

Sense of Protection, Safety & Security

The occupant must perceive a sense of protection, safety and security in order for them to feel sheltered. This allows physical rest, the easing of ones tension, the release of stress and allows their minds to ‘dream’.

✓ 10

2 Spaciousness & size

The occupant must feel a sense of spaciousness, this will help avoid negative feelings relating to lack of space. Additionally, there must be reasonable and adequate physical space and storage for all essentials.

✓ 9

3 Freedom & Non-restrictive

The occupant must feel a sense of freedom in their home, the ability to freely pass between spaces and functions as they wish to. They should not feel as though their home restricts their day to day lifestyle.

✓ 8

4 LightThe occupant must feel an uplifting sense of light and lightness to all aspects of the design, as well as encounter enough natural light within their home.

✓ 7

5 Comfort

The occupant must feel comfortable within their home, this includes providing a ‘soft’ experience for the occupant relating to furnishings, finishes and decor. Also accentuating the following points; ‘Space’ (2), ‘Accommodate Family, Friends and Companionship’ (9) and ’Sense of Protection, Safety & Security’ (1).

✓ 7

6Separation between public & private

The occupant must perceive a separation between external public spaces and the private space where a dwelling begins. This also enhances ‘Ownership’ (7).

✓ 6

7 Possession & Ownership

The occupant must feel a sense of possession and ownership for their home. Allowing the option to purchase can enhance this feeling, along with allowing the occupant to personalise the property for example.

✓ 6

8 Point of origin and reference

The dwelling must be able to serve as a point of origin and reference from which they can relate to and live from. The dwelling should evoke the feeling of stability and be deep-rooted within its context.

✓ 6

! of !36 98

9

Accommodate family, friends and companionship

The dwelling must be able to accommodate the occupants family, friends and sustain companionship. Having the ability to host and entertain a reasonable number of guests (two is recommended).

✓ 5

10Essential functions and amenities

The dwelling must include the essential functions and amenities required to live within a home, including external factors such as local facilities.

✓ 5

11 Flexibility

The dwelling must have a good degree of flexibility. Spaces can be altered to changes in the way the occupant uses and demands. Open plan and multifunctional capabilities greatly increase this ability.

✓ 4

12Variety of spatial sensations

Having a variety of spatial experiences within a home can amplify each sensation, greatly increasing its impact on the occupant. For example contrasting the sense of openness, lightness and airiness with the sense of enclosure, safety and comfort will heighten their sensitivity to both conditions.

✓ 4

13 Location The location of the dwelling should be suitable. ✓ 4

14Reflection of values, culture and beliefs

The dwelling must directly reflect the occupants values, culture and beliefs. This also accentuates the following points ‘Accommodate family, friends and companionship' (9), ‘Community Value’ (19) and ‘Support and sustain employment' (20).

✓ 3

15 Belongings The dwelling should be able to store and display a reasonable amount of personal items. ✓ 2

16 Warmth The dwelling should have a sense of warmth as well as being physically warm enough to inhabit. ✓ 2

17 Exterior Space The dwelling should contain strong links to external spaces, making them both accessible and visible. ✓ 2

18 Privacy & Noise

The dwelling should provide a sense of privacy as well as a sufficient level of sound insulation. ✓ 2

19 Community value

The dwelling should express some community value such as how they relate to each other, including public open spaces as well as other opportunities.

✓ 2

20Support & sustain employment

The dwelling should provide a space to work from home and be carefully linked with employment opportunities within its locality.

✓ 2

21 Cleanliness and tidiness

The dwelling should encourage cleanliness and tidiness using a low maintenance approach to fixtures, fittings and finishes.

✓ 2

22 Personal appeal

The dwelling should have personal appeal to the occupant relating to the visual appearance and quality of the product.

✓ 1

23 Pets The dwelling should allow for co-inhabitation with pets. ✓ 1

! of !37 98

V. Compact Living!!This chapter discusses in theory the principles, methods and techniques commonly found in compact living, many of which are successfully established. !V.I Approaches - Small Space, Single Space & Multi-functionality!!When is comes to compact living, two approaches are fundamental to the success of the space; it should be predominantly a ‘single space’ and it must work effectively for ‘multiple uses’. These core methods provide many more opportunities and significantly increase the spatial efficiency of a dwelling. With this being said they also cause some design issues, such as a supposedly multifunctional space not serving any uses appropriately, a single space being too open and uninhabitable or the need to change an occupants lifestyle too radically. Compact living has since shown it is capable of dealing with these issues using other, secondary approaches such as ‘zoning and division’, a ‘variation in spatial sensations’, a ‘reduction to essentials’, ‘integration and storage’ as well as ‘lighting’ techniques. !Spaces of multiple functions, or multifunctional, allow for many different uses to work together within the same, shared room. This enables each use to be defined by the softer elements such as furniture, elements which can be changed and adapted by the occupant much easier and efficiently. The space becomes more flexible; being able to change as and when required, as well as being more versatile; remaining relevant when requirements shift. Multi-functionality allows the maximum space to be used at all times to make the most of what is available. The more successful of these are labelled as ‘fluctuating spaces’, these combine both fixed uses with flexible spaces. Fixed uses are much less likely to need to change and are able to be suited more closely to the function, whilst flexible spaces sustain varying uses into the future. !“Thinking and planning will take time, but will ensure that the space really does work effectively for multiple uses, rather than not functioning well for any of them.” (Clarke & Field-Lewis, 2013, p12) !Most successful examples of compact living are single spaces, this approach can bring enhanced benefits such as freedom, sense of space and increased flexibility. It can potentially create a more efficient use of the space whilst maximising the positive experience for the occupant. !

! of !38 98

“A single-space living environment …presents the opportunity to use your space more efficiently and imaginatively, to create a welcoming and flexible home environment and enjoy a sense of light, openness and integration.” (Inions, 1999, p7). !Essentially to create a single space, means to remove most internal walls in light of creating one large, open plan room. This room then works with different zones throughout, allowing the finishes, fixings and furnishings to define each zone. Typical zones may include; ‘relaxing’, ‘cooking’, ‘bathing’, ‘sleeping’ and ‘working’. Since the dwelling is opened up to allow the maximum volume, the occupant will experience the room as a whole as opposed to a room by room basis, generally resulting in a more satisfying experience all round. !“Removing walls or floors to create a double-height space, increasing the size of windows or converting redundant roof space, will all increase a feeling of openness and improve light distribution.” (Inions, 1999, p12) !For most, a single larger space is much more appealing than a series of smaller and darker rooms; rooms which also restrict the overall functionality often creating awkward areas within a home. !“A sense of space is life-enhancing. and makes all the difference between a dynamic, welcoming environment and an unappealing one. Single-space living offers you an opportunity to make the most of the available space, whatever its size or shape” (Inions, 1999, p12) !Whilst being in a larger and lighter space is attractive, occupying the same space all the time could lead to a shift in spatial perception, decreasing the sensitivity to spatial conditions. This is due to perceiving the same boundaries such as walls and ceilings constantly throughout the day. A common technique to solve this, is to break this regularity with softer division of the zones, utilising furnishings, lighting, or changes in ceiling height. Compact spaces often consist of changes in levels with mezzanines, basements and platforms. Techniques from other cultures such as traditional Japanese, include dividing up a single space using light, translucent sliding screens. These act as the key dividers of use as opposed to furniture, choosing instead to use alternative ways of accommodating the individual, both physically and perceptually. !“However, maximum openness is not always the best way forward. Contrasts between openness and enclosure can provide and important dimension to experiencing a space, so contracting part of a space instead of expanding it is an alternative option.” (Inions, 1999, p12) !

! of !39 98

Japanese culture also enables them to experience a heightened sense of spaciousness for they use ‘tatami mats’; a densely woven straw mat which is resilient and load bearing yet comfortable. The tatami mat encourages floor-level living which induces a lower perspective meaning the ceiling appears higher. Although this would not be appropriate for UK occupants, it is easy to see that this change in use increases the sense of spaciousness without changing the physical size of the room. !In theory, single spaces have the potential to bring along other benefits such as being cheaper due to less interior walls, subsequent finishes and decoration as well as decreases in energy consumption due to the increase in efficiency. They could also require less maintenance such as cleaning since there is less surface area to clean. Also considering the design team, it seems that single spaces actually require more human resources throughout the design process. !“Nevertheless, be aware that, … projects like these are huge undertakings and require a great deal of commitment, time, energy and effort.” (Inions, 1999, p11) !Slight changes in the lifestyle of the occupant are often required, to reduce it down to the essentials. This is part of what compact living is about, by reducing and refining, people can often experience a more fulfilling life. !“… the act of spending time in simpler spaces reminded them that we can be happy and fulfilled with fewer things. By reducing the belongings that surrounded them they were able to create more meaningful environments.” (Clarke & Field-Lewis, 2013, p16) !In order to maintain this level of refinement, the occupant could employ a ‘change and review’ policy in their lifestyle. Reviewing what they require and how they organise their space, making changes when required. !“Everything is up for review, from how you organise and use your space to the levels of openness and sharing.” (Inions, 1999, p22) !Single spaces also require a higher level of integration than traditional layouts; how multifunctional uses overlap and relate to each other, as well as identifying spare volumes for storage. This enables essential storage for the home as well as freeing up the space when something is not being used. The integration of uses into a multifunction space requires careful planning to identify what each function needs. Examples include structural requirements, services and day to day usage.

! of !40 98

!Light is also an important design consideration as often small spaces will only have a few openings for natural light. Considerations should include the lightness and reflectance of the finishes as well as solutions to modulate light; to diffuse, bounce or screen as required. Light should be encouraged to spread between different zones. The design should also boast an elegance and lightness to the interior and construction. !Whilst these points benefit compact living, they are also its main constraints and should emphasise the importance of careful design as well as the occupants responsibilities. !These approaches continue to be the key methods to successful compact living, many of which are found in the case studies analysed in the following chapter. !!

! of !41 98

VI. Apply and Analyse!!Now I have drafted a set of criteria to assess how liveable a dwelling is, I will apply this to selected examples of compact living. These example are a high quality selection in which I have come across and cover a range of dwellings from around the world. !VI.I Application of Liveability Design Guide to Examples of Compact Living!

Figure 11. Petite Penthouse - 1. Case Study 1: The LEGO Apartment / Petite Penthouse Client/ Team: COCO Flats!Location: Barcelona, Spain Footprint Size: 24m2 Sources: (COCO Flats) and (Clarke & Field-Lewis, 2013, p60-64)!!Description:!The ‘LEGO Apartment’ is an incredibly small space designed to be highly efficient and function as a dwelling of single occupancy. It is a highly multifunctional space combining many uses into a single room including; sleeping, living, dining, cooking, working, entertaining and bathing. The design aims to hide everything away to achieve a clean, uninterrupted interior. This is realised with two long walls of fold out furniture, storage amongst other solutions such as the fold out desk, the double bed which slides underneath the terrace, the kitchen area hidden within a cupboard and the separated toilet closet. !Assessment and Analysis:!See appendix F: Review of ‘Petite Penthouse’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’ for the full written review. !!

! of !42 98

Summary:!The apartment scores a great liveability rating of 89 out of 100. The apartment is of a very high quality throughout and includes all the essentials to live. There has been a clear effort from the design team to produce a liveable space in such a small floor area. Due to the limited size, the occupant must live an essentialist lifestyle with an effective ‘change and review’ strategy. The apartment is designed for a single occupancy but also has merit if its occupancy was to rise to two for a limited period of time. The apartment could be further improved if it allowed a higher level of personalisation, as well as increased flexibility.

Figure 12. Petite Penthouse - 2.

Figure 13. Petite Penthouse - 3.

! of !43 98

Figure 14. QB2 - 1. Case Study 2: The Cube / QB2 Client/ Team: Dr. Mike Page!Location: University of Hertfordshire, UK Footprint Size: 12m2 Sources: (The Cube Project) and (Clarke & Field-Lewis, 2013, p126-131)!!Description:!‘The Cube’ is an ultra-compact living solution which makes maximum use of its entire volume. There are no folding elements meaning everything is always out and ready for use with minimal overlap. Most of the interior furniture and fittings are are scaled down versions of traditional pieces. !Assessment and Analysis:!See appendix G: Review of ‘QB2’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’ for the full written review. !Summary:!The ‘QB2’ scores an inadequate liveability rating of 49 out of 100. The ultra compact size considerably hinders an acceptable standard of living and is perhaps more suitable as a short term, secondary home. The dwelling feels too small and fragile to live from, with internal spaces constrained in too many ways. Triple glazing and high levels of insulation bring a warmth and privacy in terms of noise, along with the fitted blinds around the windows. It would highly benefit from large skylights in the roof to provide an uplifting sense of space and light to the interior as a whole. The dwelling is so compact, that it can be transported almost anywhere therefore its temporality is to be commended. Overall, this is an interesting proposal however it falls well below the minimum level of liveability for a permanent home.

! of !44 98

Figure 15. QB2 - 2.

Figure 16. QB2 - 3. !

! of !45 98

Figure 17. Crystal Palace Toilets - 1. Project: Crystal Palace Toilets Client/ Team: Lamp Architects!Location: Crystal Palace, London, UK Footprint Size: 62m2 Sources: (Crystal Palace Toilets), (Lamp Architects) and (Clarke & Field-Lewis, 2013, p90-94) !Description:!This compact living project is an unusual conversion from public toilets to a dwelling. Accessed from the street walkway, there is a gate followed by steps leading down into the dwelling. The space a fairly linear with a generous, long corridor linking together its different uses. The design was severely constrained from the existing concrete structure but has been very well adapted to suit the new layout. The furniture and fittings are full sized allowing a traditional lifestyle without the need to fold out or pack elements away. !Assessment and Analysis:!See appendix H: Review of ‘Crystal Palace Toilets’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’ for the full written review. !Summary:!The converted underground toilets received an excellent liveability rating of 94 out of 100. This example of UK compact living has expressed great potential and shows how small spaces can be incredibly liveable. The dwelling posses nearly all of the criteria for it to be liveable, with some improvements to be made. It should supporting work and employment better by adding some arrangement of workspace, as well as improving its flexibility to deal with changes in lifestyles and its the wider context.

! of !46 98

Figure 18. Crystal Palace Toilets - 2.

Figure 19. Crystal Palace Toilets - 3.

! of !47 98

Figure 20. Life-Edited Apartment - 1. Project: The Life-Edited Apartment Client/ Team: Grahame Hill - Life Edited!Location: New York, USA Footprint Size: 39m2 Sources: (Life Edited)!!Description:!The Life-edited apartment is a highly renovated dwelling located in New York, USA. It uses the single, multifunctional space approach meaning there is only one large room, with the exception of the toilet. There are many interesting folding elements to the dwelling which enable the use to change considerably whilst maximising the space at all times. This includes a large storage wall which can slide out revealing two wall mounted fold-out guest beds. The main double bed also folds out from the wall over the top of the large sofa. There is an integrated curtain system which slides along the ceiling when the guest beds are in use and can also separate the main living zones from the kitchen and bathing areas. The owner highly believes in ‘editing’ your life to free it up and create a happier lifestyle. !Assessment and Analysis:!See appendix I: Review of ‘Petite Penthouse’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’ for the full written review. !Summary:!This morphing apartment received a great liveability rating of 87 out of 100. This is a high value which comes across in its carefully thought out design. Overall this dwelling just lacks the opportunity for personalisation and makes no effort to relate to the exterior space. This could be improved by introducing areas for personal touches including display shelving and different finishes to the many cupboards. Window seating for example could also provide a good alternative to genuine exterior space and relate the apartment to its wider context. This is another very good example of how compact living can be liveable if designed right.

! of !48 98

Figure 21. Life-Edited Apartment - 2.

Figure 22. Life-Edited Apartment - 3.

! of !49 98

Figure 23. Manhattan Micro-Loft - 1.!Project: Manhattan Micro-Loft Client/ Team: Specht Harpman Architects!Location: Manhattan, USA Footprint Size: 40m2 Sources: (Specht Harpman) and (Design Milk)!!Description:!The ‘Manhattan Micro-Loft’ is a sixth floor loft conversion spread across a total of 3 floors at 4 different levels with access to a roof terrace. The design is very open plan with the feeling of a single unified space as well as using many space saving techniques for example utilising the storage spaces underneath the stairs. !Assessment and Analysis:!See appendix J: Review of ‘The Manhattan Micro-Loft’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’ for the full written review. !Summary:!This project has received an excellent liveability score of 91 out of 100 making it an outstanding example of a liveable compact space. The dwelling has a quality mix of levels and materials throughout and focuses on the living and kitchen areas for entertaining guests. It also has very good external links including a roof terrace and deep window surrounds to be used as window seats. With this being said it lacks any area to work from home and there is little privacy within the space itself if two people were to share it. This could be improved for example using sliding fabric screens, especially between the mezzanine and living levels. It could also improve its flexibility to future demands as the space is fairly permanent due to it fitted interior.

! of !50 98

Figure 24. Manhattan Micro-Loft - 2.

Figure 25. Manhattan Micro-Loft - 3.

! of !51 98

!

! of !52 98

VI.II Summary of Analysis!!

!VI.III Future Progression of Design Guide through Post-Occupation!!In order to avoid any future stagnation in the relevance of the design guide to liveable homes as well as in a continued effort to improve the document, I proposed that subsequent information gathered from post-occupation is to be included. Following up the occupants with simple surveys and interviews within in a period after they have inhabited their home could highlight other potential issues not yet covered by the document, issues that could affect the liveability dwellings.

Case Study # Footprint of!Dwelling (m2)

No. of!Occupants

Footprint per Occupant (m2)

Liveability Rating!(x/100)

QB2 2 12 1 12 49

Life-Edited Apartment 4 39 2 19.5 87

Manhattan Micro-Loft 5 40 2 20 91

Petite Penthouse 1 24 1 24 89

Crystal Palace Toilets 3 62 2 31 94

! of !53 98

VII. Conclusion - The Future for Compact Living!!I have identified the key spatial qualities which affect how liveable a dwelling can be by using a variety of sources such as literature and survey’s. This should serve as a valid, indicative design guide to creating liveable homes for the future. The design guide has also enabled me to examine five case studies to determine how liveable compact living can be. !This dissertation has shown that compact living can achieve a very high standard of ‘liveability’ according to the ‘Design Guide for Liveable Homes’ I have produced. The analysis of case studies has also shown that there is a direct relationship between the size of the dwelling and how liveable it is. It is evident that there is a cut off point of around a minimum of 20m2 of the buildings footprint for a single person, below this and it is very difficult for the building to remain liveable. It has also shown that a dwelling footprint of larger than 20m2 per person can be increasingly liveable when designed right. This is true in most case studies I have tested as they received an excellent rating which further increased at around 30m2 per person. !Many of the case studies examined in this dissertation have been meticulously designed to a very high quality and would require more effort and more resources from the design team per square meter relative to mass produced traditional dwellings. With this being said, the final cost is still likely to be relatively low. I expect this would certainly be true once compact living becomes the norm and the design teams as well as the construction teams are experienced enough with this type of residential development to produce it efficiently. Although they require more effort, they also require less resources elsewhere such as being cheaper overall, require less land, less materials and less energy to run as well as being built quicker, easier to maintain and require less financial assistance. !VII.I Challenges!!The UK must build more than 300,000 new homes per year in order to meet the government target of 3 million new homes by the year 2016. Most of the previous years have failed to meet this target, the year of 2013 creating just 125,000 new dwellings (Gov, 2013). This is becoming increasingly important as average house prices are now rising by around 5% per year throughout the UK and more than triple this figure in the London area (ONS, May 2014). New homes should increase the supply and better meet the demand in order to stabilise the emerging property boom as we recover from years of financial suppression. !

! of !54 98

Compact living solutions could help meet this demand more efficiently than building traditionally residential developments throughout the UK. I strongly believe that if compact living solutions were carried out effectively they would become a very popular choice, especially for first time buyers and households with lower incomes. They could provide a natural step between living with family, friends or renting to owning larger residences. !I propose that the developers and government should begin to trial compact living developments at a larger scale to produce some well designed examples in order to gauge their popularity and prove how successful they could be. !VII.II Alternative Strategies for Improving Residential Life!!Improvements in residential dwelling could also be driven by policy and standards, however there is something to be said about introducing new standards particularly regarding minimum space. These could restrict the subtitle of design especially to compact living. What would be more beneficial is to influence residential developments with a guide to creating liveable homes as well as showcasing and marketing the potential of successful compact living solutions. !!

! of !55 98

VIII. Bibliography!!Books!Bachelard, G. 1994, first published 1964. The Poetics of Space. US: Beacon Press. [DMU ref: 194 BAC] !Brand, S. 1997 edition to 1994. How Buildings Learn; What Happens After They’re Built. London, UK: Pheonix Illustrated. [DMU ref: 720.103 BRA] !Ruby, A. At the Zero Point of Housing. and Simonot, B. Strategies and Tactics. In: Brayer, M. and Simonot, B. 2002. Archilab's Futurehouse: Radical Experiments in Living Space. London, UK: Thames & Hudson. [DMU ref: 728 ARC] !Clarke, G. and Field-Lewis, J. 2013. Amazing Spaces. London, UK: Quadrille Publishing Ltd. !Colquhoun, I. 2008 edition to 1999. RIBA Book of British Housing. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd. [DMU ref: 728.0941 COL] !Design Museum. 2010. How to Design a House. London, UK: Conran Octopus. [DMU ref:728 WIL] !Freeman, M. 2004. Space; Japanese Design Solutions for Compact Living. New York, USA: Universe Publishing. [DMU ref: 720.952 FRE] !Holl, S. 2006 edition, reprinted 2008, first published 1994. Questions of Perception: Phenomenology of Architecture. San Francisco, USA: William Stout Publishers. !Inions, C. 1999. One Space Living. London, UK: Ryland, Peters & Small Ltd. [DMU ref: 728.3 INI] !Kronenburg, R. 2007. Flexible Architecture. London, UK: Laurence King Publishing Ltd. !Lefebvre, H. 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. [DMU ref: 114 LEF]

! of !56 98

!Norberg-Schulz, C. 1980. Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. US: Rizzoli International Publications Inc. !Perec, G. 2008 edition to 1997. Species of Spaces and Other Pieces. London, UK: Penguin. [DMU ref: 844.914 PER] !Schittich, C. 2010. In Detail; Small Structures. Munich, Germany: GmbH & Co. KG. [DMU ref: 720.4 SMA] !Towers, G. 2005. An Introduction to Urban Housing Design; At Home In The City. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd. [DMU ref: 728.3 TOW] !Leach, N (ed.). 1997 Rethinking Architecture; A Reader in Cultural Theory. London, UK: Routledge. [DMU ref: 720.1 RET] !Articles & Websites!CABE. 2009. Space in New Homes; What Residents Think. [pdf] London, UK: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. [online] Available at: <http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/space-in-new-homes.pdf> !CBI, 2011. Navigating Choppy Waters. [online] Available at: <http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/955608/2011.06-navigating_choppy_waters_-_employment_trends_survey.pdf> [Accessed May 2014] !COCO Flats. [online] Available at: <http://www.cocoflats.com/index.php/en/our-flats/petit-penthouse> [Accessed February 2014] !The Cube Project. [online] Available at: <http://www.cubeproject.org.uk> [Accessed March 2014] !Design For Homes. [online] Available at: <http://www.designforhomes.org> [Accessed October 2013] !

! of !57 98

Design for London. August 2010. London Housing Design Guide. [pdf] London: London Development Agency. [online] Available at: <http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/housing-land/publications/london-housing-design-guide> [Accessed October 2013] !Design Milk. Manhattan Micro Loft. [online] Available at: <http://design-milk.com/manhattan-micro-loft-by-specht-harpman-architects/> [Accessed April 2014] !Design Taxi. [online] Available at: <http://designtaxi.com/news/363802/A-Tiny-Manhattan-Micro-Loft-Apartment-Transformed-Into-A-Stylish-Spacious-Home/> [Accessed March 2014] !Gov. April 2013. Household Projections for England and Local Authority Districts. [online] Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-household-projections> !Gov. 2013. Dwelling Stock Estimates. [online] Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/285001/Dwelling_Stock_Estimates_2013_England.pdf> !Hill, G. December 2012. Life Edited. [online] Available at: <http://www.lifeedited.com/about/> [Accessed January 2014] !Hurst, W. November 2007. Agency brings back space standards. Building Design Online. [online] Available at: <http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/agency-brings-back-space-standards/3098967.article> [Accessed October 2013] !Hussein, A. January 2009. Space standards for new homes. The Design of Homes. [online] Available at: <http://www.designofhomes.co.uk/015-space-standards-for-new-homes.html> [Accessed October 2013] !Ipsos MORI. April 2013. Housing Standards and Satisfaction; What the Public Wants. [pdf] London: RIBA HomeWise Without Space and Light. [online] Available at: <http://www.withoutspaceandlight.com/Resources/WithoutSpaceLightReport.pdf> [Accessed October 2013] !Life Edited. [online] Available at: <http://www.lifeedited.com/about/> [Accessed January 2014] !

! of !58 98

Lifetime Homes. 16 Design Criteria from 5 July 2010 (REVISED). [online] Available at: <http://www.lifetimehomes.org.uk/pages/revised-design-criteria.html> [Accessed October 2013] !McGrath, P. October 2011. Best Practice: How big is a house?. Architects Journal. [online] Available at: <http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/comment/best-practice-how-big-is-a-house/8620809.article> [Accessed October 2013] !Morris, P. Great Britain Ministry of Housing and Local Government. December 1961. Homes for today and tomorrow report of a Sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee. London, UK: HMSO. !ONS - The Office for National Statistics, 2008. English Housing Survey. [online] Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6703/1750754.pdf> [Accessed May 2014] !ONS - The Office for National Statistics, 2011. Social Trends - Households and Families. [online] Available at: < http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/social-trends-rd/social-trends/social-trends-41/social-trends-41---household-and-families.pdf > !ONS - The Office for National Statistics, March 2011. Population and Household Estimates for the United Kingdom. [online] Available at: <http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/population-estimates-by-five-year-age-bands--and-household-estimates--for-local-authorities-in-the-united-kingdom/stb-population-and-household-estimates-for-the-united-kingdom-march-2011.html> [Accessed May 2014] !ONS - The Office for National Statistics, May 2014. House Price Index March 2014. [online] Available at: <http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/hpi/house-price-index/march-2014/stb-march-2014.html> !Oxford Dictionary of English. [online] available at: <http://www.oxforddictionaries.com> [Accessed January 2014] !RIBA, HomeWise, October 2012. Without Space and Light Campaign. [online] Available at: <http://www.withoutspaceandlight.com> [Accessed October 2013] !RIBA, HomeWise. [online] Available at: <http://www.architecture.com/HomeWise/Home.aspx> [Accessed October 2013]

! of !59 98

Specht Harpman. Manhattan Micro Loft. [online] Available at: <http://www.spechtharpman.com/residential/west_73rd_street_residence.php> [Accessed April 2014] !Swing a Cat. 2006? Facts and Figures. [online] Available at: <http://www.swingacat.info/facts_figures.php> [Accessed October 2013] !Waite, R. November 2010. RIBA attacks government over housing standards u-turn. Architects Journal. [online] Available at: <http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/riba-attacks-government-over-housing-standards-u-turn/8608542.article> [Accessed October 2013] !Wilson, L. 2013. How big is a house? Average house size by country. [online] Available at: <http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house> [Accessed April 2014] !Wollop, H. August 2009. Honey, they've shrunk the house. The Telegraph. [online] Available at: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/6068170/Honey-theyve-shrunk-the-house.html> [Accessed October 2013] !Videos!Gehl, J. RIBA. Urban Thresholds. [video online] Available at: <http://www.architecture.com/TheRIBA/AboutUs/InfluencingPolicy/ResearchAndInnovation/ResearchSymposium/ResearchSymposium2013.aspx#.UuaS-Hk4m35> [Accessed January 2014] !George Clarke’s Amazing Spaces, 2012-2013. [TV Series] Channel 4. !Life Edited. 6 rooms into 1, morphing apartment [video online] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYV0qATsyts> [Accessed January 2014] !Page, M. A longer tour of QB2 [video online] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDzjFEU_gjg> [Accessed May 2014] !RelaxshacksDOTcom. 210 Square Foot MODERN Tiny House. [video online] Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLSxcLww2V4> [Accessed May 2014] !!

! of !60 98

IX. Appendix!!Appendix A: Survey - Printed Handout! 62! Appendix B: Survey - Online Version! 64! Appendix C: Survey - Results! 67! Appendix D: Initial Email Appraisal to ‘Design Guide to Liveable Homes’ - LK2 Architects! 78! Appendix E: Second Email Appraisal to ‘Design Guide to Liveable Homes’ - LK2 Architects!79!Appendix F: Review of ‘Petite Penthouse’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’! 80! Appendix G: Review of ‘QB2’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’! 83! Appendix H: Review of ‘Crystal Palace Toilets’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’! 87! Appendix I: Review of ‘The Life-Edited Apartment’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’! 91! Appendix J: Review of ‘The Manhattan Micro-Loft’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’! 95

! of !61 98

Appendix A: Survey - Printed Handout!!This survey contributes towards a dissertation looking at the quality of living in the UK. Answers are completely anonymous and it is important to be as honest and accurate as possible. Please return in person or email responses to info@lukeriggall.co.uk !1. What is your age?!☐ 18 - 24 ☐ 25 - 34 ☐ 35 - 44 ☐ 45 - 54 ☐ 55 - 64 ☐ 65+ !2. What gender are you?!☐ Male ☐ Female !3. What region of the UK do you currently live in?!☐ Northern England ☐ Midlands ☐ East of England ☐ London Area ☐ South East of England ☐ South West of England ☐ Wales ☐ Scotland !4. What is your current residential status?!☐ Owner occupied ☐ Private rented ☐ Living with parents ☐ Other ………………………… !5. What type of residence do you live in?!☐ House ☐ Flat ☐ Other ……………………………………………………………………………… !6. How many people live at this residence?!☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7 ☐ 8 ☐ 9 ☐ 10+ !7. How many significant rooms does your residence have? (excludes storage & circulation)!☐ 0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7 ☐ 8 ☐ 9 ☐ 10 ☐ 11 ☐ 12 ☐ 13 ☐ 14 ☐ 15 ☐ 16 ☐ 17 ☐ 18 ☐ 19 ☐ 20 ☐ 21 ☐ 22 ☐ 23 ☐ 24 ☐ 25+ !8. What is the approximate size of your residence? (Including all floors)!☐ Compact Living <75m2 (800sqft) ☐ Average House 75m2 (800sqft) - 125m2 (1350sqft) ☐ Generous House 125m2 (1350sqft) - 175m2 (1900sqft) ☐ Large House >175m2 (1900sqft) !9. Are you looking to move residence or extend your existing residence?!☐ Within the next 1 year ☐ Within the next 2-3 years ☐ No (skip to Q12) 10. And are you considering purchasing, renting or extending existing?!☐ Purchase ☐ Rent ☐ Extend existing ☐ Other ……………….. 11. What are your reasons for this change? (list all, as accurately as you can & in priority order)!…………………………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….…

! of !62 98

…………………………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….… …………………………………….……………………….……………………….………………… P.T.O > 12. What do you anticipate are your main restrictions when moving to your next residence?!(for example finance, location relative to work, to be near existing friends etc…) …………………………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….… …………………………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….… !13. What do you value most? (Rate each. high = ^ medium = • low = v )![^ • v] Family [^ • v] Friends [^ • v] Work [^ • v] Community [^ • v] Religion [^ • v] National Relations & Politics !14. What do you feel are the most important aspects of a home? (list all & in priority order)!…………………………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….… …………………………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….… !15. What makes you feel comfortable in a home?!…………………………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….… …………………………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….… !16. What do you feel enables you to take possession of a home?!(number in priority order 1-4, 1 being first) ☐ Owning it ☐ Moving your belongings in ☐ Personalising/ decorating it ☐ Living in it !17. Which description of home would you most like to live in?!☐ Open, light and airy ☐ Enclosed, safe and cosy ☐ A mix of both !18. What do you feel makes a home liveable? (Rate each. high = ^ medium = • low = v ) [^ • v] Freedom [^ • v] Space [^ • v] Light [^ • v] Not-restricted [^ • v] Rich materials [^ • v] Flexibility [^ • v] Comfort [^ • v] Ownership [^ • v] Protection Please also mention any other aspects if necessary: …………………………………………………… !!Any further notes and comments welcome: …………………………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….… …………………………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….… …………………………………….……………………….……………………….……………………….… !

!Thank you for your time and contribution.

! of !63 98

Appendix B: Survey - Online Version

! of !64 98

������������ ���������������������������� ������ ���������������������� ��� �������

� ����������������� � ������ ��������������� ������������ ���� ���������������������

����������� �����

������ ������ ������ ������ ������ ����

�������������� �� �����

�����

�������

��������� ������� �����!"�������#� �������$�����

�%� ��� ��&������ �������� �&���� �&������ �'������( ��

�)�����&���� �&������ �)���������� �&������ ����� �)#������

�%� ��� ��* �����

������������� �#� ���� ���������������

�+,�� ��##�-��� �. �$���� ����� �'�$����,����-� ��� �+���

����������-��� � �����#����������$�����

�/��� ����� �+���

����/�,�����-��-�����$��������� �����#��

�� �� ��

�� �� ��

�0 �� �1

��2�

��0�/�,��������� �#���� ���������� � �����#����$���3�4#������� ����5#� #���������#��������,�6

�� �� ��

�� �� ��

�0 �� �1

��2 ��� ���

��� ��� ���

��� ��0 ���

��1 ��2 ���

��� ��� ���

����

! of !65 98

����������������-- �4�������7��� ��� � �����#���3*�#����������� ��� 6

�8��-�#��'�$����90����3�22: �6

�($� ����/����0����3�22: �6���������3���2: �6

�;��� ���/����������3���2: �6����0����3�122: �6

�'� ���/����<�0����3�122: �6

��1�( ��������=���������$�� �����#��� ��4������� ��4������ �����#��

��������������4������ ��������������4�������� �%��3=�-����>��6

�2�(���� �����#����� ����-� #�����?� �������� ��4���������4������

�.� #��� �@��� �&4������4����� �+���

��������� ���� � ����� � �����#�������3�������?����##� ����������#���5����- �� ��� �� 6

��������������������#�-����� ���� ������ �� �#�����,������$��������� ���4� �����#��

3 � ��4��-��� ����#�?���#������ �����$�����,� =?����A����� ��4������ �������#B6

����������������$����������3 ������#���?��� ����� 6

�����

� ����

�� =C�8� ��

8�������

@�������

%��������@��������5�.�����#

���������������� ����� ������������-� ������-�#��� ���������3��������5����- �� ���� �� 6

������������=����� ����#�� � ��A�������������

! of !66 98

�������������� �������A�����������=��-������� ���������3���A� ����- �� ���� �� ���?���A����� � �6

� � � �

+,�������

��$������ �A�����������

.� ���������C���#� ��������

'�$���������

���0����#����# �-������ ������,��������������=�������$�����

�+-��?������������� �&�#����?�� ������#� �(���4�� �A���

���������������� ������=�����������$��A����3 ������#���?��� ����� 6

� �����

)-�#�

'����

%��� �� �#���

@�#������ ���

���4�A����

8�� � �

+,�� ��-

. ���#����

.������������������������ ��-�#��� ���#��

��� ������������������ ���� �������� �

Appendix C: Survey - Results

! of !67 98

������������ �����������������

������������ ���������������������������� ������ ���������������������� ��� �������

� ����������������� � ������ ��������������� ������������ ���� ���������������������

��� �������������!

����������� ��������

�"#$% %&��' ()

$'#(% $*�&+ �"

('#%% &��' %

%'#'% �)�** *

''#&% &��' %

&', (�)" $

� � �����-����� &'

� .������-����� "

/$�� ����� ��������!

����������� ��������

0�� &'�*' %"

1��� (%�$' $'

� � �����-����� *(

� .������-����� )

/(�� �������� �������������������� �������� !

����������� ��������

2����� �3 ��� � �&�%% �$

0���� �� ("�(& $"

3�������3 ��� � �$�(( +

4� �� ���� '�%" %

.�����3�������3 ��� � +�'+ *

.����� ������3 ��� � "�$$ &

��� '�%" %

.����� � %��� (

2����� �5��� � )�)) )

� � �����-����� *(

� .������-����� )

/%�� ��������������� ������ �����������!

����������� ��������

6� ��������� %$�%* (�

7������� �� $"�** $�

4��� ���������� �� $&�)( �+

6��� $�*% $

� � �����-����� *(

� .������-����� )

/'�� �������������� ������������� !

����������� ��������

8��� ")�"$ '+

1��� �*�"� �(

6��� ��(* �

� � �����-����� *(

� .������-����� )

! of !68 98

/&��8����� ���������������������� �!

����������� ��������

� ��(* �

$ (+�*( $+

( ()��% $$

% $)�'' �'

' '�%" %

& ��(* �

* )�)) )

" )�)) )

+ )�)) )

�), ��(* �

� � �����-����� *(

� .������-����� )

/*��8����� ���� ����� �������������������� �����!�9:�������������;����������� �����������������

����������� ��������

� )�)) )

$ ��(* �

( $�*% $

% +�'+ *

' +�'+ *

& �'�)* ��

* "�$$ &

" �+��" �%

+ �)�+& "

�) +�'+ *

�� '�%" %

�$ %��� (

�( )�)) )

�% )�)) )

�' ��(* �

�& )�)) )

�* )�)) )

�" )�)) )

�+ )�)) )

$) )�)) )

$� )�)) )

$$ )�)) )

$( )�)) )

$% )�)) )

$', $�*% $

� � �����-����� *(

� .������-����� )

/"�� ���������������:�������<������������ �!�95 ����� �������������

����������� ��������

=�������4��� ��>*'�$�9"))����� �(�*) �)

������8����*'�$�9"))������#��$'�$9�(')�����

'&��& %�

? �����8�����$'�$�9�(')������#�*'�$�9�+))�����

�+��" �%

4����8����@�*'�$�9�+))����� �)�+& "

� � �����-����� *(

� .������-����� )

! of !69 98

/+������������� ������������� �����:� ������:���� ������ �!

����������� ��������

���� ���� :������ ()��% $$

���� ���� :��$#(���� $��+$ �&

2��9��������-�$� %*�+' ('

� � �����-����� *(

� .������-����� )

�)��� ���������� ����� ���������� �A�� �� �����:� �� ��:���� �!

����������� ��������

7������ '��$" $)

B � $(�)" +

3:� ��:���� � �*�+' *

6��� *�&+ (

� � �����-����� (+

� .������-����� (%

���� ��������������� �������������� �!�9��������A��������������������� �;�� ��������������

! of !70 98

�������� �������

��� ��������� ����������������������� �������������6� ����� �������

B �� ����������������� C

B����0������A�D�� ��<����������������� ��������A�0��� ��������

0��� ������������ �������

��������������������A����� ��������� ���������

�����������������������

������� A���������<

�������������A������ ������������������� ��������� ������������ ���������� ��������������

����� ���������� �

6� ����

7���������� �������� �������������� ���� ������� ��������������������������� �� :�����E��

2������� ��������������� �����

��������

B������ ������E��

������� ���������������

���� �����

0��� �������������� �������

5��������������

7���������������E���� ���� ��� �� �������� ������� ��������E��

��������� ���������A���������������A� ���������� �

7��:������������A������ ���7������������������� ����������<

=�� ������������

5 ������������� �� ���.���� ����� ��F� �������������������������������� �����

���� ���������� ��� �������� ��������

0��� ������������ �

� ������

F�������������� �����������������A����� ������ ����������

����������������

4���8��

�������������� �����

2������������������ ��

2��E��

=� ���������������

0��������������������������������� ����������� ���7������������

/�$�� ����������� ������������������ ���������� ���� ����� ��������� :������ �!�9����:������� � �A�������� ��������������A������ ���:���� ����� �����G�

! of !71 98

�������� �������

�� � �A�������� ���������������A��� �� ���������������

�������� ����������������������������7��������� � ����������

�� � �A�������� ���������������

152�2=3

1� � ��� ��������� ����������

=���

�� � �

1� � �A������� �������

��������������������� ������ ���������<A�������� ����������������

�� � �

�� � ��� ���������

�������

�� ������������������������������������ ����� ���������� ����������������� �����������

�� � ��#��������� �� �:���� �������������������������

����� ��������A�� ���� � ��������� ����������� �������

1� � �

2������������� ����� ��

������ ����������� �� ������������

1�� � �

=�����������

=�������������A�7��:����������� ��H������

4������

4������

0��������������A��������������� �������

�� � �

=��� �������� �����

D�� ���<� �

=������������=��������������

.��������

1� � �������������� ���������� ����������� ������������������� ����5���������� � ������������

7����

�� � �

2������������

0��� ����� :���������������

2��� ����������������� ��� �������������I�D���������������������������� ����������������������������� ���� ����� ����0��� ������

0��� �F�������

1� � �A�������� ���������

4������ �3:���� ����� ��

0���������� ����7��:�������������� �� ��A�������� ����� ���

1���� ���� �

1� � �

������� ���������������A�������

7��:�������������7��:����������� ���7��:������������������9������������� ������� �

=����������� �

�� � ��� ����

1� � �

H�

=�������� �A����:������������

�� � �A�������� �� ����<�������������������

1� � �A�������� ���������������A���� ���

! of !72 98

0��� ������������

D� J���� ����

=��������������

1������ ���� � �

4������ ����������������

������������������������ ������� ������������ ���������������������������������� �����������

4������ ��������

1� � ��� ��������� ������������ ������

1� � �

0� A�������� �

0���������������������������� �����

����� ���:���� ����� ���� �������A���������5������ ����

1� � ��� ���� J���� �������� ������������5������ �

1� � �

1� � �

1� � �A�������� ����������������� �������

F� ������������� ���� ����E��

1� � �A����� �� �������

2��� �����

��������������� � �

1� � �

1� � �

D� J���� ��������

1� � �

/�(�� �������������������!�9���������A$����(�������

� � $ ( B��� �� �����

1���� � � � �� �!!

1�� �� � !" #� �� !"

���H�=��� $ �! �� �� !��

=���� �� �� �% " �� !�!

B����� � � �� $�

2���� ���B����� ��;�7������� ## !# � �� "�

/�%�� ������������������������������� �����������������!�9���������;�� ��������������

! of !73 98

�������� �������

�����A��������A

�������� ���������������4�������������.���������� �������

D������� A� ���������A�����

1�054KA�166DA�=600�2�4�45L52?�B660

4������ A�-������������� ������A�� ��� ������������

4��� �������9��� �H����� ��� ���������������� �

����A� ���������� �� ��������A��������<�������� ������

�������8����������������� ������������2����������������������������� �

������������ A����������������� ����A�����������������

������������ A����� ��� ������

�� ���� ������ �����������������������

��<�� �������� ��������������� �� ���� � �������

����������������A�������A�����������A�������� ������������ ����������

����A�������A���� �������� �� ��� ���������

����A�������� A�����������A������A�������A�������

.�������� ��������

.�<��������� ����� ����� � ����� ��

�������� �����������������

1�����=������

������� ������A�����A��� ���� �������������

1�������A�7��:����������� ��A��������������������

��

=�������� ����������

4�������� ������A������������� ������������������� A���� ����������������������A������������A������

�� ������ ����

=� � � ��� ��������������� ���������� ���� �������� �

1�������� A������������A��������A����

.�<�����������1�:�����������������=���������=� ����� �

����� ����� ������������������

.��A�����������A������A���������A����

.����

������ ���������

1����

���=��� ���������$��.������������(��2�������������

2�����<�������7������������9��� ��A��������A������������A����������A�����?����3 ����� � �������2�����������������0���

����� HF���������

4������ A��� � � �A���������

.����=�������1����4������

4������ ����������������A������� ��������������������� �� �����������������<����������� �

.�����A����������A� E����

F�� �� ��

.������� A���������A��� ���� �����;�� ������ A����� ������A����������� ����� �������

?����������� ������������������������.�� ��� ������� �8���� �������

7� ���������A��������#�������� ������ ������<������ �

�������������������

?��������� A�����������A�������������� ��

��������� �������� �

=������A����������� A�:��:��������������������

������������������� ��������������������� � �������� ���������

.��� ��� �����1����A��������

! of !74 98

����L

.�����=�������.�����

1�����

8���� ��A��� ������������:A�������A�����

����� ��1����A�����������������������

4��C�4��� ������A�.����������A������ ��������A���������� ������������9 ����� ����� ����� ������������

=������

1����A�����A�������A������A���� ����A��������A���� ��A���������

4������

F� ������������A����� �������:�� �������������������������� ��

.����� ��������

������ ����������������������������7��� �������� �� �������������� ���� �������� �������

=������A�� ������ �����A������A�������A�����A��������� � � ������������ ������ �

2�������� �� ����������A����� ���<

=����������� ����� �2�������������������������������D� ������� �2���F�������

����� �����������$�� ��������������������������(�������� ��������������������%��������� ������ ������ ����� ����������������A�������#

���� �������A������ ��������A����������� ������������������

� ��� ������������ �����������

=�� A����A������������������� A����

��������������

����

=���� �-���������

D��� A������������������� �������.����0��� ������ �0��� ���������

=�������.�����

1��������

/�'�� ��������������������������� ������!

! of !75 98

�������� �������

�� ������A������������ ����A

�������� ��������������������

7��� ����������� ���������� A����

1�B25.852?A�1B532D.H1�054KA

4����A���� ������� ��������� ��� �����������H�������������

1� ���� �������

�� ������� ������������� ������ ������������������

6� �����A�������A� ������������A������A�� �������� ���� �������� �

������������ ������ ������� ��A����������� A��������������

������� �������� ��������

������� ������ ������ �� ��

���:��� ����������� ���� � �

��� �A������� ������ ������ �� ���

����A����� ������ ��A����� �������� �����

������A��������� ���� ��A���������� �� ��

.��������������

.������� ���� ���� �������

8��� �������� �������� ���A�������� �������A���������������� ���� ��������

.�����

���� �������

3:��������������A������A�����A���������������� �������H������������

������ �� ���� ���������������� ����� ����<

D������ ������ �����

���� ��A����� ���� �����A�������A������������ �

���������������

.����� ������������� �����

����������� ����

.������������������:�

���������������������� ���

?�����������<� ��#� � ��������H�����������0������������������������� ��#� �����������H��� �����

�����������������������

����

1����

.������� ���������

� ��� ���������� ��F� ����������������������� ����F� ��������� E������������� ��H������������������ ��������� E��� ����������������

�������� �

4����� ���������������� �������� �� ���

1�� �����7����� ���������������

���������5������ ���� ������������������������������������

2������ ����A�� ������������

1�� ���� ��

�� �����A����� ������A����:�������������A������

2������� ����E�� ����������A�5��� J���� ���������������������� �� �������������� ���A���

?������<������ A���� ��� ������������ ���� ����������

������

0����

2�����������A�����������

?���������� �A�� �����������

������ ���������������������������������� ����� ���� ��

������������ �������

! of !76 98

=� ����

7����L�0�����=����

� �����

��������������

������ �����

��������������������� �������

1�� ���� ��

�����A�������� ������� A���� ����A������������:

6� �����

F� ������������A����� �������:�� �������������������������� ��

.�����H����

7��� ����� ������=����� �H�����H�������H��������������

7�����A�����������A����������� ����������������������� ���� �����

=�� �� ��

=�� A������� ������������������� �� ���

���������A��������������� �� �� ���A�������������� ������� ���������� ����A�������� ��������������������������� ��������A��� ����������

.���

0� ���������������������������A����A����

��������������

�����

0��� ���� �� ��

=�������������� �� ������2�������

1�����7��

8��� �

�&�� ������������� ����������������������� ���������!�9 ������ ���������������#%A����� ��������

� � $ ( % B��� �� �����

6� � ���� �$ !% � �� �� �#�

0��� ��������� �� ���� !" �% !� �� �#�

7��� ����� ��H�������� ���� !� �� !" !$ �� �#�

4��� ��� ��� ! �! �% !# �� �#�

/�*�� �������������� ���������������������������������� !

����������� ��������

6� A�������� ����� �*�"� �(

3 �����A������ ����� �$�(( +

����:�������� &+�"& '�

� � �����-����� *(

� .������-����� )

/�"�� ������������������������������!�9���������A$����(�������

! of !77 98

� � $ ( B��� �� �����

1���� �� �# �� !�#

.��� � �� �$ �� !"!

4���� � �# �� �� !$

2��#�������� " � �$ �� ! #

B������������ � !� !% �� !!%

1�:������ !$ �" ! �� !��

=������ ! !� % �� �%#

6� ����� !# �! �� �� !#$

7������� � �� �� �� !$�

&�������������������'���������(��������(����'

���� �A�������� A��������� ������ ���������

2���2��������

�����

� �����

.����(/

Appendix D: Initial Email Appraisal to ‘Design Guide to Liveable Homes’ - LK2 Architects!!Dear Luke, A few observations - (joint views Dale and Paul - Partners at LK2 Architects). You should make the value and rating system clearer and easier to follow.    ref 1 - Sense of protection - Not sure about the use of the word ‘dreaming’ in this statement, being safe and secure in your home can mean many different things to many people. Relaxation isn't necessarily a physical lie-down and ‘dream’ for many; is it more the ability to ease one's tension, apprehension and perhaps stress. To unwind and do things which are conducive to 'turning off' for a while, which in itself ‘dreaming'.... Try to reword this for better clarity and understanding.   ref 2 - Space - Space can also mean ‘enclosure’, where does this fit into your description?   ref 5 - Comfort - Should the word ‘soft' be inverted comma's?   ref 6 - Private/public space - Good point, I also see this relating to ref 7.   ref 7 - Possession & Ownership - Ownership is key and the ability to define what is 'mine' is essential. Is allowing an option to purchase an enhancement to owning something?   This is clearly part of a greater study. Is this the conclusion to a survey and the results therefore highlight people's perceptions? Another point is how this reflects peoples varying and different priorities in life .i.e. age gaps?   In all the document has merit, but I think a little more clarity as to the document structure and its function is necessary.   Hope this helps. Dale Lui (Managing Partner) and Paul Starbuck (Partner and Architect). LK2 Consultants, Studio 2, Deepdale Enterprise Park, Nettleham, Lincoln, LN2 2LL Tel: 01522 750777. Email: info@lk2.co.uk. Web: www.lk2.co.uk

! of !78 98

Appendix E: Second Email Appraisal to ‘Design Guide to Liveable Homes’ - LK2 Architects!!Dear Luke, !Overall the guide appears to be clearer and more accurate. !The guide highlights the many important roles of the home. An indicative guide such as this could help improve living standards within residential developments and may positively influence design teams rather than restricting them” !Regards. Dale Lui (Managing Partner) and Paul Starbuck (Partner and Architect). LK2 Consultants, Studio 2, Deepdale Enterprise Park, Nettleham, Lincoln, LN2 2LL Tel: 01522 750777. Email: info@lk2.co.uk. Web: www.lk2.co.uk

! of !79 98

Appendix F: Review of ‘Petite Penthouse’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’!!Format relating to the ‘Indicative Design Guide for Liveable Homes’: ![Reference Number] - [‘Core Characteristic’] - [Pass or Fail] [(Point Value)] [Statement outlining positive assets unless stated otherwise.] !1 - ‘Sense of Protection, Safety & Security’ - Pass (10) The apartment is amongst the top floors of the building. All windows and doors are lockable with enough thickness to appear secure. Terrace balustrade has solid base with sufficient railings. !2 - ‘Space’ - Pass (9) The large glass doors opening onto the balcony lead views out and over the cityscape. Hidden and foldable furniture, storage and functions maximise the experience. The storage wall appears to be enough for one person in permanent residence. !3 - ‘Freedom & Non-Restrictive’ - Pass (8) The zones are defined by the foldable elements in which many can be deployed simultaneously allowing the occupant to move freely between multiple uses with minimal disruption. The tactile and active nature of the folding elements should give the user the sense of control. !4 - ‘Light’ - Pass (7) The large glass doors flood the space with natural daylight. Full height glass shower cubicle. Lightness and elegance to the fittings and furniture as opposed to any bulkiness. !5 - ‘Comfort’ - Pass (7) A range of soft and natural materials greatly enhances the feeling of comfort. !6 - ‘Separation Between Public & Private’ - Pass (6) The apartment is accessed via 100 steps off a public street, with a clear definition where the apartment begins at the front door and separation between terraces. !7 - ‘Possession & Ownership’ - Fail (6) Possessions may be displayed to evoke a lived-in feeling. However, the folding elements, storage and finishes are fairly fixed and rigid allowing little room for the occupant to personalise. The apartment is also rented out currently. !

! of !80 98

8 - ‘Point of Origin & Reference’ - Pass (6) The glass doors and terrace spaces allow the occupants lifestyle to spill out, overlooking the city and relates the apartment to its context. !9 - ‘Accommodate Family, Friends & Companionship’ - Pass (5) The apartment holds a double bed allowing two people maximum to sleep. There is no separate overnight accommodation for any guests however dining and terrace areas allow around 8 people maximum to be entertained throughout a day. This is more than sufficient for the occupancy of the apartment and its city centre locality. There is little negative overlap between the multi-uses and therefore could allow companionship for a sustained period of time. !10 - ‘Essential Functions & Amenities’ - Pass (5) The city centre living provides plenty of local amenities. The apartment holds all the required and essential functionality to live. !11 - ‘Flexibility’ - Fail (4) Though the space can change throughout the day between set uses, the apartment suffers from its high level of integration required at this size of floor area, allowing little adaptation. !12 - ‘Variety of Spatial Sensations’ - Pass (4) There is contrast between the narrow steps from the street up into the apartment and the apartments large glass doors. The blinds can be shut and a lush double bed can be deployed to contrast the fully folded away arrangement likely used in the day. Ceiling heights remain the same throughout however the open terrace space makes up for this. !13 - ‘Location’ - Pass (4) Highly desirable area within the city of Barcelona built on top of a block of flats providing great views however with difficult access. !14 - ‘Reflection of Values, Culture & Beliefs’ - Pass (3) Good entertainment possibilities for a lively culture with external space relating to the outdoor nature of the spanish. !15 - ‘Belongings’ - Pass (2) Window cills and side tables allow the display of personal artefacts with good storage options. !16 - ‘Warmth’ - Pass (2)

! of !81 98

The quality of natural materials and finishes used create a visual warmth to the space. !17 - ‘Exterior Space’ - Pass (2) Plentiful and high quality terrace space and secondary terrace. !18 - ‘Privacy & Noise’ - Pass (2) A wide, thin window allows light and eye level views out to the side with maximum privacy. Large glass terrace doors can be obstructed with curtains. !19 - ‘Community Value’ - Pass (2) The terrace allows a relationship to surrounding streets and terraces. !20 - ‘Support & Sustain Employment’ - Pass (2) There is sufficient provisions to work from home and central location for a range of employment. !21 - ‘Cleanliness & Tidiness’ - Pass (2) Smooth finishes to the floor, walls and ceilings as well as the lifestyle required to live here encourage a clean and tidy environment. The space is also so compact there is minimal surfaces to maintain. !22 - ‘Personal Appeal’ - Pass (1) The final product is of high quality and visual style. !23 - ‘Pets’ - Fail (1) The location and nature of this apartment means co-inhabitation with freely roaming pets is not suitable. !Summary: For summary see main section ‘VII. Apply and Analyse’.

! of !82 98

Appendix G: Review of ‘QB2’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’!!Format relating to the ‘Indicative Design Guide for Liveable Homes’: ![Reference Number] - [‘Core Characteristic’] - [Pass or Fail] [(Points Received)] [Statement outlining positive and negative assets.] !1 - ‘Sense of Protection, Safety & Security’ - Fail (10) The dwelling has triple glazing to passive house standard, highly insulated walls and everything can be locked down, however there is still a slightly uneasy sense of fragility to it. Perhaps this is due to the choice of finishes and lack of quality on the interior space with a mostly timber structure and panelling construction. It may also be related to the perceivable scale of the dwelling, living so close to the exterior walls constantly reminding the occupant of its lack of solidity. !2 - ‘Space’ - Fail (9) The heights of the ceilings seem generous for its size, but at 2m high are considerably lower than what most people are used to. The visual clutter of many permanent fittings seem to dominate any real sense of space relative to what an occupant would desire. Storage space is better but again it seems as though it is lacking enough for even essentials. Everything has an underlying sense that it has been shrunk in order to fit into the box. !3 - ‘Freedom & Non-Restrictive’ - Pass (8) As there are little overlapping or folding elements the space appears as though the occupant could freely move between uses. Aside from lack of space, the dwelling does not seem to restrict the occupant. !4 - ‘Light’ - Fail (7) The choice of finishes is fairly dark and dull, they seem to absorb most of the natural light even though the window openings should be more than enough for this floor space. As the spaces are spread over many levels it seems that the light is being constantly divided and lost creating many dark corners. Looking at each use individually it seems there is sufficient light to function. As well as dark materials, the form seems slightly heavy. The dwelling leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to feeling that its a light and transparent space. !5 - ‘Comfort’ - Fail (7)

! of !83 98

The interior furnishings, finishes and decor are mixed with natural wood, cork and some soft materials helping with the feeling of comfort. However, the inadequacies such as ‘space’ (1) and ‘sense of protection, safety and security’, overshadow any real feeling of comfort. !6 - ‘Separation Between Public & Private’ - Fail (6) There is clear definition to where the public space ends and the private space begins with the front door. However this is slightly tainted as there are no buffer zones between these and that all external space is public. Living so close to the external walls means the inhabitant could barely be further than a meter away from the public space. !7 - ‘Possession & Ownership’ - Pass (6) There is nothing to stop the occupant redecorating most elements of the interior and creating the lived in experience with their personal belongings. Due to the fully functional price of £50,000 which is fairly low for a dwelling, the occupant is likely to purchase with little financial assistance, heightening the sense of ownership. !8 - ‘Point of Origin & Reference’ - Fail (6) There is an almost temporary feeling of the dwelling which sits uneasy as a stable point of reference to live from. As this home is a product which is to be deployed anywhere it also lacks any real sense of context and would not feel as though it is deep-rooted to its surroundings. !9 - ‘Accommodate Family, Friends & Companionship’ - Pass (5) The dwelling can entertain around 4 people in total for a limited period of time. The dwelling can also sleep two at a maximum, however given that this is suited to single person living, three guests is admirable. Companionship is likely to be tested within this space after a sustained period of time. !10 - ‘Essential Functions & Amenities’ - Pass (5) The dwelling expresses all the required basic functions in order to live. Access to local amenities is a grey area as there is no set location for this product, however, given the easily transportable nature of this, there is no reason it can’t be situated in a reasonable location. !11 - ‘Flexibility’ - Fail (4) The dwelling has clearly defined spaces which are fixed and would prove difficult to alter if required. The flexibility is minimal. !12 - ‘Variety of Spatial Sensations’ - Pass (4)

! of !84 98

The contrast between a head height of around 600mm when in bed, to 2000mm in the living space creates a good contrast of sensations. It has already been mentioned that these are likely to not be sufficient for living, however the contrast does enhance the feeling of space slightly when the occupants sensitivity has adjusted. !13 - ‘Location’ - Pass (4) Given that the dwelling can be situated anywhere the location is open to great sites, however I am unsure of how a series of these dwelling would perform when used to create a small settlement area. !14 - ‘Reflection of Values, Culture & Beliefs’ - Pass (3) As the dwelling can support 3 additional guests above the single occupancy level it is designed for, it takes into account the value of human company within the home. The design also creates many opportunities for improved public open spaces due to the much smaller footprint enhancing its community value. Overall the design has a sense of what people values and believe in. !15 - ‘Belongings’ - Fail (2) Storage is reasonable if not slightly inadequate for day to day life, the space also lacks any real space to display home comforts and possessions, these would become obstructions if situated on work surfaces. !16 - ‘Warmth’ - Pass (2) The passive house standard makes the internal climate very liveable and warm. The effort to use natural materials throughout also helps. !17 - ‘Exterior Space’ - Pass (2) Large window openings placed where the occupant can obtain views of the external space is welcomed. Given the compact size, more external space would be freed up for the occupant. !18 - ‘Privacy & Noise’ - Pass (2) All the windows and opening have fitted venetian or roller blinds for privacy. High levels of insulation also help dampen noise. !19 - ‘Community Value’ - Pass (2) The design creates many opportunities for improved public open spaces due to the much smaller footprint enhancing its community value. Given the temporal natural of the design it is hard to

! of !85 98

comment on any further community benefit however the potential is there and could be achieved with a suitable master-plan. !20 - ‘Support & Sustain Employment’ - Pass (2) The work space is a direct overlap with the living space as the same surface is shared between uses. This could be a potential constraint however since the dwelling is for single occupancy this is acceptable. Additionally since the dwelling can be temporary and moveable, its location can be suited to the employment. !21 - ‘Cleanliness & Tidiness’ - Pass (2) Most surfaces are smooth and can be wiped clean, there is minimal floor area however this is spread across many levels which could be slightly more difficult. The lack of space would seriously require a clean and tidy occupant to function, however this becomes a requirement rather than an encouragement. Overall and mainly due to the small size, the dwelling would require relatively low maintenance. !22 - ‘Personal Appeal’ - Pass (1) The building has some charm and style to the design, more so on the exterior than interior. This could also be personalised to appeal further to the occupant. !23 - ‘Pets’ - Pass (1) Due to the ground floor level living, the space is suitable for co-inhabitation with freely roaming pets. !Summary: For summary see main section ‘VII. Apply and Analyse’.

! of !86 98

Appendix H: Review of ‘Crystal Palace Toilets’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’!!Format relating to the ‘Indicative Design Guide for Liveable Homes’: ![Reference Number] - [‘Core Characteristic’] - [Pass or Fail] [(Points Received)] [Statement outlining positive assets unless stated otherwise.] !1 - ‘Sense of Protection, Safety & Security’ - Pass (10) Although underground, the substantial concrete structure is visible throughout the interior creating a sense of solidity. Accessed with cast iron gates and a sturdy front door it feels well protected from the world. The entrance stairway is visible from a glass door and generous windows both sides allowing a view of any guests before opening the door. Finally, the sleeping area can be closed off with a thick fabric curtain. !2 - ‘Space’ - Pass (9) Changes in the ceiling heights as well as the much needed use of sky lights create a good sense of spaciousness. The layout is open plan with minimal doors to allow maximum perception of space. Overall the interior feels roomy and certainly large enough. !3 - ‘Freedom & Non-Restrictive’ - Pass (8) The lack of doors as well as the separate, well defined zones, help the occupant to pass easily between spaces and uses as they wish without any obstructions. !4 - ‘Light’ - Pass (7) The heavy, concrete structure could have easily dominated the space and made it feel too bulky, however the smooth white finish used a neutral base allows light to bounce around the interior. Skylights produce significant light throughout the space with additional windows to the entrance stairway. Additionally the furniture used is low level which lifts the perception of the ceiling. !5 - ‘Comfort’ - Pass (7) The interior is finished with a rich and indulgent pallet of materials, contrasting soft textures and patterns, hard industrial looks as well as natural wood and stone. The interior seems very comfortable further enhanced by the sense of space, accommodation of guests and sense of protection. !6 - ‘Separation Between Public & Private’ - Pass (6)

! of !87 98

As there are different levels of access; the gate, stairs and front door, once inside there is a good sense of separation. These levels act as buffers zones leading into the private dwelling. !7 - ‘Possession & Ownership’ - Pass (6) There are many opportunities for the occupant to personalise the space and also to easily create a lived in experience since many of the furnishings can be replaced with other standard items. Also the relatively low cost should help financially, allowing the occupant to completely and legally own the property faster. !8 - ‘Point of Origin & Reference’ - Pass (6) As the dwelling is renovated from a previous use, along with the fact it is physically embedded into the street context, there is a strong sense of stability and deep-rooted to its surroundings. The city centre location also helps serve as a good point of reference in its locality. !9 - ‘Accommodate Family, Friends & Companionship’ - Pass (5) The dwelling sleeps a maximum of two people in bed and is likely to be able to entertain at least 4 people in total, possibly more. The dwelling is likely suitable for an occupancy of two companions, allowing an additional two guests comfortably throughout the day. !10 - ‘Essential Functions & Amenities’ - Pass (5) The dwelling expresses all the required functions for day to day life with plentiful local amenities within its locality. A proper dining space would be welcomed. !11 - ‘Flexibility’ - Fail (4) The interior is fairly static, mostly fixed furniture set into purpose made areas, the living room could be slightly altered by moving furniture but aside from that there is little flexibility. This is partly due to the constraints of a heavy concrete structure. !12 - ‘Variety of Spatial Sensations’ - Pass (4) Variation in the room sizes as well as the sense of enclosure from the bedroom to the living room help raise the sensitivity of the occupant to their spatial experiences. The bathroom sits in between the bed and living spaces with a feeling of enclosure the occupant would likely engage with throughout the day. !13 - ‘Location’ - Pass (4) A desirable city centre location with good access. !

! of !88 98

14 - ‘Reflection of Values, Culture & Beliefs’ - Pass (3) The dwelling expresses a good reflection of UK values, culture and beliefs. Guests are welcome, the renovation helps regenerate a dilapidated space strengthen community value and the location is suitable for a number of city centre employment opportunities. !15 - ‘Belongings’ - Pass (2) Storage as well as display areas for personal belongings are plentiful. Using a generous built in wardrobe storage as well as fitted kitchen cabinets and a side cabinet in the living room. A shelving system stretches the entire length of the interior allow many opportunities to display. !16 - ‘Warmth’ - Pass (2) The rich materials, organised and visible possessions as well as the warm tonality throughout create a sense of warmth. Furthermore, as the dwelling is underground it is likely to be highly insulated and therefore creating a warm environment for inhabitation. !17 - ‘Exterior Space’ - Pass (2) There is dedicated exterior terrace space with large double glass doors allowing views out. The space is sufficient for a couple of people to sit outside. With this being said, the terrace is still underground and so surrounded with high walls. !18 - ‘Privacy & Noise’ - Pass (2) Being situated on a street will bring many issues with privacy and noise, however the dwelling deals with these well. The skylights are thick glass blocks which channel light but make it impossible to get a view into the dwelling, whilst the thick structure insulates against street noise. !19 - ‘Community Value’ - Pass (2) The dwelling is a renovation from a dilapidated community use and therefore has community value. The dwelling also does not turn its back on the street but instead creates a gentle buffer into the interior. !20 - ‘Support & Sustain Employment’ - Fail (2) There is no desk or work space within the dwelling but the city centre location helps. A small fold out work space set in the shelving area would have been sufficient. !21 - ‘Cleanliness & Tidiness’ - Pass (2) The floor is on a single level with a smooth surface and no breaks between rooms. Overall the space appears to be very low maintenance with the compact size also helping this.

! of !89 98

!22 - ‘Personal Appeal’ - Pass (1) The dwelling has many likeable elements and has been completed with a stylish and appealing look. This can be adapted to suit most occupants easily. !23 - ‘Pets’ - Pass (1) As the external space is walled, the terrace door could be left open. It would certainly be a different life compared to what rural pets experience but this dwelling could support the co-inhabitation with a freely roaming pet. !Summary: For summary see main section ‘VII. Apply and Analyse’.

! of !90 98

Appendix I: Review of ‘The Life-Edited Apartment’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’!!Format relating to the ‘Indicative Design Guide for Liveable Homes’: ![Reference Number] - [‘Core Characteristic’] - [Pass or Fail] [(Points Received)] [Statement outlining positive assets unless stated otherwise.] !1 - ‘Sense of Protection, Safety & Security’ - Pass (10) The apartment is high up and within a block, heightening the sense of security. All windows and doors are double glazed and lockable. The apartment seems solid and secure. !2 - ‘Space’ - Pass (9) The interior is very open and the ceiling height seems generous creating a large sense of space. The large sliding wall is mostly dedicated to storage along with many additional cabinets and storage areas throughout the apartment. !3 - ‘Freedom & Non-Restrictive’ - Pass (8) The apartment has a high level of multi functionality meaning there is a significant overlap between the uses. It seems as though the overlaps have been taken into account though as someone can be sleeping in bed whilst another it working late into the night. Spaces of this kind could easily become restrictive and not allow any freedom, this apartment however has been meticulously designed so that there can be personal space between multiple occupants with thick fabric sliding curtains to mask off zones for example. Additionally the folding, preparing and hiding away each use seems very smooth and effortless, the bed for example folds out over part of the sofa with a shelf which remains upright, therefore very little additional effort is required by the occupant. !4 - ‘Light’ - Pass (7) The apartment has very average sized windows but the sense of lightness is good. The pallet has been kept light in colour as well as the space feeling a sense of elegance and lightness as nothing looks overly bulky. Daylight is encouraged to bounce around the room. !5 - ‘Comfort’ - Pass (7) There are some soft elements of the apartment such as the sofa, a rug and a bed, aside from these, there are little other efforts to create a soft experience. However this is offset with a good sense of space to avoid any cramped feelings, guests are very well accommodated and the

! of !91 98

space feel protective. Overall the space seems fairly comfortable but with room for improvement with more indulging and softer materials in selected areas. !6 - ‘Separation Between Public & Private’ - Pass (6) The apartment is a great distance from the street as it is on a high level, there are plenty of buffer zones between the outer public space, the buildings public spaces and the interior private space creating a good sense of separation. !7 - ‘Possession & Ownership’ - Fail (6) There are some minor opportunities to personalise the space and minor areas for displaying possessions to create a lived-in experience. The apartment is purchased. Allowing the occupant to create the spaces they use from fold out fittings and furniture furthers a sense of ownership in the day to day use. Overall the apartment could allow for more personalisation in areas as it lacks a sense of possession and ownership for new occupants. !8 - ‘Point of Origin & Reference’ - Pass (6) The apartment is structurally stable and this should be apparent when living there. The apartments are also in the city centre and have remained for some time evoking a deep-rooted contextual relationship. !9 - ‘Accommodate Family, Friends & Companionship’ - Pass (5) The dwelling can sleep 4 people in total and entertain 10. For a place which is designed for two people to occupy this is impressive. !10 - ‘Essential Functions & Amenities’ - Pass (5) There is plenty of essential functions and local amenities in the space as well as its city locality. !11 - ‘Flexibility’ - Pass (4) Everything is highly integrated yet there seems to be a reasonable sense of flexibility. This may be due to the smoothness in operation between a large number of functions and that there is easily enough storage areas to deal with a fluctuating lifestyle. The apartment seems able to adapt to changes in use no matter how significant. !12 - ‘Variety of Spatial Sensations’ - Pass (4) The majority of the space is within the single room which is very open, however the occupant can use two thick sliding curtains to divide and vary this as well as the sliding wall. Additionally the

! of !92 98

toilet is a multi-use enclosed space to also allow for private space and reading for example. At first the dwelling seems to be a single open space but the added elements allow it to vary. !13 - ‘Location’ - Pass (4) The city centre location, at a high level within the apartment block is desirable. Access seems acceptable. !14 - ‘Reflection of Values, Culture & Beliefs’ - Pass (3) Guests are very welcome and there are good employment opportunities due to its work spaces and locality. This reflects the values, culture and beliefs of the occupant well. !15 - ‘Belongings’ - Pass (2) There is a very large amount of storage space, easily enough for an occupancy of two people. There is little display opportunities which could be improved. !16 - ‘Warmth’ - Fail (2) The dwelling is insulated and climatically warm, however the interior comes across as clinical, a space which would benefit from more visual and perceptible warmth from materials and furnishings. !17 - ‘Exterior Space’ - Fail (2) There is no external space and there is little to no links and views with its external surroundings. !18 - ‘Privacy & Noise’ - Pass (2) There thick fabric sliding curtains help with privacy for the occupants as well as the guests. The toilet and bathroom have separate doors and both require passing through two doors. Privacy and noise is tackled well throughout the space, especially considering it is essentially one room. !19 - ‘Community Value’ - Fail (2) The apartment appears to turn its back on the context and relationship to the surrounding community. This could benefit from external spaces or even a use designed around the windows such as window seats. !20 - ‘Support & Sustain Employment’ - Pass (2) There are two separate work spaces combined with great locality. !21 - ‘Cleanliness & Tidiness’ - Pass (2)

! of !93 98

The materials are nearly all smooth and very easy to clean and maintain. !22 - ‘Personal Appeal’ - Pass (1) The apartment has been carried out with a high quality of finish and simplistic style. It would however benefit by allowing touches of personalisation. !23 - ‘Pets’ - Fail (1) Freely roaming pets would not be suitable for co-inhabitation. !Summary: For summary see main section ‘VII. Apply and Analyse’.

! of !94 98

Appendix J: Review of ‘The Manhattan Micro-Loft’ Tested Against the ‘DGLH’!!Format relating to the ‘Indicative Design Guide for Liveable Homes’: ![Reference Number] - [‘Core Characteristic’] - [Pass or Fail] [(Points Received)] [Statement outlining positive assets unless stated otherwise.] !1 - ‘Sense of Protection, Safety & Security’ - Pass (10) The apartment has a substantial brick structure and shows this where the thickness of the walls are highlighted around the window cills. The windows and doors are fully lockable with a double glazing. The bed sits on a platform at a higher level which also helps. !2 - ‘Space’ - Pass (9) There is a great sense of space within the dwelling due to the very generous ceiling heights and the open plan, no doors approach throughout the apartment. There are many storage options underneath all the stairs as well as in the kitchen cabinets. !3 - ‘Freedom & Non-Restrictive’ - Pass (8) The openness of the apartment along with the static furniture gives a sense of freedom for the occupant to move between spaces. There is good separation between spaces using changes in floor levels. !4 - ‘Light’ - Pass (7) There are many windows within the space to provide sufficient natural daylight with high ceilings and room for light to bounce between the different levels. This is enhanced with the lightly painted walls and colour scheme throughout the walls and ceilings with elegant balustrades to the stairs as well as other lightweight fittings further enhancing the dwelling. !5 - ‘Comfort’ - Pass (7) The plush rug and room for other soft furnishings helps create a soft experience. The exposed texture of the brickwork also helps whilst being painted white enhances the spaciousness. There is plenty of room to entertain guests too. !6 - ‘Separation Between Public & Private’ - Pass (6) It is on the 6th floor of an apartment block which gives it plenty of buffer zones between the public and private space as well as a good separation. !

! of !95 98

7 - ‘Possession & Ownership’ - Pass (6) There are lots of opportunities to personalise, refurnish and redecorate to give the occupant a sense of possession and ownership with a good balance between the amount of integrated elements. This is combined with plenty of display space for personal items. !8 - ‘Point of Origin & Reference’ - Pass (6) The apartment is structurally stable and this should be apparent when living there. The apartments are also in the city centre and have remained for some time evoking a deep-rooted contextual relationship. !9 - ‘Accommodate Family, Friends & Companionship’ - Pass (5) There is a large living and kitchen space to entertain at least 6 people in total however the apartment only sleeps two in a bed. It will also allow companionship between two people for a long sustained period of time. !10 - ‘Essential Functions & Amenities’ - Pass (5) All the essential functions and amenities are included as well as a city centre location giving access to local amenities. !11 - ‘Flexibility’ - Fail (4) Although the apartment is very open and the living space is open plan, there does not seem to be any attention to making the space more flexible, along with many of the aspect being permanently fitted or static. !12 - ‘Variety of Spatial Sensations’ - Pass (4) There are many changes in ceiling heights, the mezzanine level forms the ceiling to the kitchen which then opens up to a much higher space in the living area. This degree of variation is sufficient to heighten the experience as a whole. !13 - ‘Location’ - Pass (4) The 6th floor, city centre location with good access is a desirable asset. !14 - ‘Reflection of Values, Culture & Beliefs’ - Pass (3) The uses seem to revolve around the kitchen and living spaces making it a great space to entertain guests combined with great community value makes it a good reflection of the occupant. !

! of !96 98

15 - ‘Belongings’ - Pass (2) There is sufficient storage for all belongings as well as reasonably surfaces to display these objects throughout. !16 - ‘Warmth’ - Pass (2) There is very good wall thickness hinting to a well insulated space. The interior also seems fairly warm with the natural dark wood flooring and plenty of opportunity for soft furnishings. !17 - ‘Exterior Space’ - Pass (2) The apartment has access to the roof space included in the design as well as large openings giving good views of the city. !18 - ‘Privacy & Noise’ - Fail (2) There is little privacy between the spaces as they are very open, there is no ability to close these off even with fabric divisions which should be included for the occupancy of two people. !19 - ‘Community Value’ - Pass (2) The roof top terrace makes a good reference to the city along with the apartment being a renovation of a long standing property bringing value to the community. The thick walls surrounding the windows are also framed as though they could be sat on to observe the neighbourhood which is an attractive element. !20 - ‘Support & Sustain Employment’ - Fail (2) The city centre location helps bring many employment opportunities to the occupancy however there is no space to work from home which could have easily been included in the living or mezzanine levels. !21 - ‘Cleanliness & Tidiness’ - Pass (2) The large smooth surfaces throughout the floors and other surfaces make it easy to keep clean. !22 - ‘Personal Appeal’ - Pass (1) The apartment is completed to a very high quality which has many desirable qualities to it. There is room for plenty of personal touches such as artwork or photos on the wall spaces or additions to the spacious living area. !23 - ‘Pets’ - Fail (1)

! of !97 98

The apartment would only be suitable for highly trained pets and is therefore not satisfactory for most freely roaming animals to co-inhabit. !Summary: For summary see main section ‘VII. Apply and Analyse’.

! of !98 98