Re-thinking the minimum: how can architects extend their duty of care in the application of

how new low-cost homes are developed?

Housing is a pressing issue in both political and architectural circles. Te UK is confronted by an
urgent demand for housing in the face of stringent policies that limit and curtail urban sprawl. Yet
such demands must be met and a tension arises between a housing market driven by proft margin and
philanthropic ambitions to produce high quality spaces for living. Huge amounts of documentation
aim to reconcile these two somewhat conficting interests; endeavoring to improve and maintain
the quality of our towns and cities. Te documentation concerning minimum housing standards is
something of current debateparticularly concerning the intrinsic need for more afordable
1
and
social housing in the UK. Te unhappy truth is that our current standards are producing new builds
that are 65% smaller than those of our Dutch counterparts and 55% the size of Danish new builds
2
. In
reaction to such statistics the RIBA recently petitioned for a rise in our minimum housing standards
with their Without Space and Light campaign. Tisthough a well-intentioned exerciseseemed to
highlight a number of serious questions: are minimum standards the maximum aspiration we have
for our new homes? And really, to what extent can the application of a series of tick-box criteria truly
make our new homes better homes?
We must understand whether by complying with this device of minimum we are as architectsas an
architectural communityin fact complying with something that could be fundamantally bettered. If
we are to ask why these standards exist in the frst place perhaps we could be better positioned to ofer
creative solutions. Afer all, standardization, on the one hand, and designing with context-specifc
sensibilities, on the other hand, make unlikely bedfellows. If architects are the makers of place, can
they then formulate alternative ways of avoiding this minimum as maximum dilemma?
On Standards : history and application
To understand low-cost and afordable housing is to understand the political climates of the past
and present: social priorities have defned how the urban world has developed. Minimum housing
standards have their roots in the Parker Morris Committee who defned a series of standards in 1961
that consequently had a great impact on the development of post-war mass housing. Tese standards
began to outline the minimum quantity of foor area per person, the minimum access homes should
have to bathroom facilities, etc., and were made mandatory for all private homes in 1967 and for council
housing in 1969. Tese national housing standards were superseded in 1980 as part of a nationwide
turn towards localization and the privatization of all civic sectors.
3
Whilst the end of the war prompted
enormous population growth and the consequent necessity for more homes, our immediate future
beholds similar demands for an aging and migrating population, as well as a population that is more
demanding of single-person homes. In 2013 more middle-aged, more elderly pensioners and more
single parents live alonemost of whom live in houses of their own
4
. Te importance of building
more high-density developments within our cities is therefore paramount. Furthermore, low-cost
and social housing needs are critical: a quarter of working age adults and 41% of children in London
are categorically in poverty
5
. In light of these statistics, new build homes are ofen politically aimed
1
Afordable in the truest sense: afordable to the majority as opposed to afordable in relativity.
2
Homewise/RIBA Without Space and Light Campaign 2013
3
Tatchers government compounded the issue of low cost housing in selling of state-owned housing at remarkably cheap
prices; therefore allowing private owners to later let such homes at unprecedentedly infated prices causing a huge leakage
in state money and adding to our current inability to provide enough social housing, in-spite of planning attempts such as
Section 106.
4
For example the social housing waiting list in Tower Hamlets have 22,000 people on the list Of this 22,000, 10,000 are
waiting for a one-bedroom fat. James Meek (2014) Where Will we Live? in Te London Review of Books, Vol. 36 No. 1.
5
Te London Plan, 22
nd
July 2011, part 1.26.
at alleviating these circumstances. Te London Housing Strategy identifes a clear link between
deprivation and housing those with lower incomes fnd it very difcult to access the housing they
need, with many having to seek social housing
6
, and furthermore in outlining how to address such
issues Te London Plan estimates a broad requirement between 2007 and 2017 for 144,000 more
market homes and for 182,000 additional afordable homes
7
. Here we can see how new builds and
low-cost housing needs are intrinsically intertwined, bringing to the fore the question of minimum
standards. Indeed, how low can we expect to go?
Our housing standards come under an umbrella of an accumulated and rather convoluted set of
guidelines and policies. Standards are mediated through a variety initiatives of varying depth and detail,
some of which include: Building Regulations, National Planning Policy, Regional Space Strategies (RSS
or the London Plan), Te London Housing Design Guide, Lifetime Homes and Secure by Design (to
name a few). In addition to this, quality control consultancies also mediate the likelihood of planning
permission such as the Design Council (formerly CABE). Certain prominent architects such as Richard
Rogers have also played infuential governmental roles in the planning of cities
8
. With such an array
of regulatory tools, it is important to understand who develops such documentation. For example, the
London Plan 2011 was formulated through the consultation of bodies (all governmental) that drew up
a draf before it was then submitted for public consultation. Here architects, developers and individuals
could input their comments. To put this into context, the 2011 London Plan consultation received
7,166 comments
9
. Although this response is heartening, it does begin to throw up questions as to who
exactly gets heard. From the governmental agencies that draw up the draf to the panel
10
responsible
for creating the fnal document, it is difcult to imagine how architects (particularly smaller frms) or
the general public could have signifcant input into this process. How many degrees of separation exist
between those that defne a minimum and those that end up living in one? High profle architects such
as Rogers may be able to infuence policy on an individual basis, but to what extent does this refect the
diverse thoughts, arguments, and positions contained within those 7,166 comments?
Todays uprising : Sparking debate
Te RIBA Without Space and Light campaign (2013) brought to attention the fact that the UK has some
of the smallest homes in Europe.
11
Tis campaign is not the frst of its kind produced by the RIBA; in
September 2011 the Case for Space report was published and sought to open up a conversation on how
we live in the twenty frst century. Harry Rich, Chief Executive of the RIBA, writes:
At a time when the Government, the housebuilding industry, economists, homebuyers
and renters are concerned about whether we are building enough new homes in the UK,
it might seem odd to suggest that the focus should move to thinking about the quality of
those homes. And yet this is the very time to do so. In a rush to build quickly and cheaply
we risk storing up unnecessary problems for the future.
12
Here Harry Rich is beginning to describe the importance of the longer term economic consequences
that is to say that fewer high quality homes produce higher equity than more low quality homes. His
mentioning of storing up unnecessary problems is a suggestion that cheap homes are a false economy
6
Te London Plan, 22
nd
July 2011, part 1.30.
7
Te London Plan (revised early minor alterations), October 2013, 3.44
8
Rogers was chair of the Greater London Authority panel for Architecture and Urbanism and advisor on architecture
and urbanism to the London Mayor (both Ken Livingston and Boris Johnson) from 2001 2009.
9
Te London Plan, 22
nd
July 2011, part 0.11.
10
Individuals/bodies undisclosed.
11
Te average new UK home being 76m
2
, whilst Ireland, Netherlands and Denmark have average homes of 87.7 m
2
, 115.5
m
2
and 137m
2
respectively. RIBA/Homewise (2013) Without Space and Light.
12
Harry Rich (2011) Te Case for Space, RIBA: London, p3 emphasis in the original.
when considered over time. Te short-term proft of these (as Rich refers to as) shameful shoebox-
homes
13
is ultimately out-weighed by their eventual redundancy. Indeed, such homes are depriving
households of the space they need to live comfortably and cohesively.
14
Te report also outlines its
fndings on what housing consumers want from their homes. Tellingly, it states that 31% of people
would not consider buying a home built in the last ten years, or would only consider it as a last resort.
Of these, 60% said it was because the rooms are too small, 46% said they lack style, and 45% were
concerned about the lack of outside space.
15
It is not a well-kept secret therefore, that our new builds
are somewhat lacking. Furthermore, members of the public are much aware of the lack in quality of
their surroundings; implying that our new builds (whilst not provisioning for private-use outdoor
activity) are unlikely to be fulflling shared landscape requirements. Tis ultimately suggests that new
build developments are not improving our cities in the way they ought to.
Te Case for Space report further illustrates comparisons between the UK and our European neighbors
(Fig.1). England and Wales only maintain space standards for publicly funded homes, and London is
the only city in the UK that has its own (more rigorous) set of standards in the form of the London
Housing Design Guide (LHDG). Tus, the Without Space and Light campaign sought to provide an
impetus for the creation of space standards nationwide. To support such a case the RIBA have found
what we as home-buyers wantbut how is this attended to in practice? To thoroughly understand
exactly how these minimum space standards are used, a case study must be made.
Minimums in practice
Maccreanor Lavington has been building in both the UK and the Netherlands since the early nineties
and many of their projects have concerned both social and afordable housing. Consequently, their
projects have directly encountered various minimum space standards in their various evolutions
including the mayor of Londons LHDG. Tis guide sets far more stringent quantitative standards than
the rest of the UK and therefore provides a good assessment of how a generalized minimum standard
would operate at a national level. Furthermore, the LHDG provides far more generous minimums
than previous years, thus it intends to maximize the minimum as petitioned in Without Space and
Light.
Maccreanor Lavingtons Phase two of the Barrier Park regeneration scheme (Fig. 2) was completed in
2012 and designed in accordance to the London Mayors 2007 policies (rather than the LHDG which
was produced in 2011). Te later phases of the project comply with the LHDG edition though have
not yet been realized. I spoke to Dominic Milner of Maccreanor Lavington who outlined exactly how
such documentation became absorbed into the design process.
Firstly, the basic requirements for homes are described in Lifetime Homes and historically have formed
the basis for minimum standards today. As the title suggests, Lifetime Homes aims to help provision
for space that can accommodate people throughout their life. Lifetime Homes therefore, as Dominic
elaborates, puts a great emphasis on disabled living and storage; these parameters have consequent
design implications such as necessitating large corridors and bathrooms.
16
Te provision for the
long run therefore, assumes the accumulation of possessions and the possibility that any given home
might accommodate a disabled person. Tese kinds of provisions are admirable, but as Milner goes
on they do limit the room lef for ingenuity as everything is orientated towards achieving a standard.
Sometimes design can turn into endlessly rearranging diagrams from the LHDG appendix
17
(Fig.3).
13
Rich interviewed by Homewise/RIBA (2011) as seen on www.architecture.com/homewise/news
14
Ibid.
15
Rebecca Roberts-Hughes (2011) Te Case for Space, RIBA:London, p8
16
Interview with Dominic Milner, 16/12/2013.
17
Ibid.
Fig. 1 shows the UKs most generous minimum standards (the LHDG) compared to Dublin and
Germany from A Case for Space, p12.
Fig. 2: Maccreanor Lavingtons Barrier Park regeneration scheme. Photo by Tim Crocker.
Fig. 3: Te London Housing Design Guide appendix, drawn by Emily Greeves (continues on next
page).
He also further points out that as an architecture practice they are less able to look into historic
precedents as they do not support such standards. Tis is an interesting insight into the (at times)
place-less nature of new developments. Indeed, it is not difcult to recall old, small and narrow spaces
that we have found pleasurable (Fig. 4).
Milner, however, is quick to point out the gains of minimum standards for architectural practice:
Te good thing about minimum standards is that they force architects to really deal with
the boring things; to learn a series of parameters under which they must design. Without
minimum standards, it is unlikely that an architect would ofen consider how long a
kitchen must be for example. Tere should be more encouragement to then learn how
such rules can be bent and broken for the greater good.
18
Maccreanor Lavington do indeed have a great portfolio of housing projects and therefore are likely
candidates for such rule-bending exercises. Teir sheer experience in housing design mandates a
license for re-interpretation and even refnement of minimum standardsperhaps a key element
to their success. Milner spoke of combating the disabled bathroom conundrum; here Maccreanor
Lavington designed a new bathroom in such a way as to enable it to expand when and if a disabled
person were to eventually live in the property. Te bathroom was no longer minimum compliant in
favour of use-compliancy.
Here we can begin to understand how successes can be made of what is an incredibly dominant
minimum structure. We can learn from Maccreanor Lavington that minimums are not necessarily
an end in themselves, but can be tools through which they squeeze out more and more ingenuous
ways of making good space. Te perception of minimum standards as a set of frozen objectives can
therefore be seen as more of a psychological barrier than a practical one. Tough smaller and less
experienced practices may struggle to win over the GLA (Greater London Authority) and clients,
reputable practices such as Maccreanor Lavington are well positioned to begin to blur the lines of
those LHDG diagrams.
Te greater impact of minimum standards on how projects are run was also discussed. Indeed, what
are these much spoken about tensions between architects and developers actually like in practice?
Milner highlights the fact that we need to understand developers and their priorities: frstly that of
proft margin. For every plot of land a developer buys, the maximum amount of money can be made
not through fewer, luxury homes but with the maximum quantity of homes. Here we immediately hit
the minimum as maximum issue in terms of land procurement and market equity. Following that,
another important issue we must be aware of is the high-risk nature of the construction business: all
developers are extremely risk-adverse: above all else, they want to deliver a product.
19
Tese factors
contribute to how working with developer clients cannot easily provide fertile ground for new and
experimental ways of designing space. Furthermore, regarding the various bodies that maintain
and control minimum standards, Milner speaks about the problem with all large-scale forms of
institutional organization: that of middle management. Within such convoluted structures people
are not empowered to truly engage with new developments and what is best for them
20
and therefore
a point of contact is lost on architects and developers. Te prized wiggle-room for space standards is
ofen out of reach.
Our conversation closed with the positing of a hypothetical scenario. Suppose minimum standards
should be lost, suppose they are inadequate and deprave us of our design capabilities. Suppose these
18
Interview with Dominic Milner, 16/12/2013.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
Fig. 4: Te small and fond (top: Olivier Martin Gambier, middle: Martha Rawlinson and bottom:
myself).
standards begin to encroach and inhibit the development of good cities. What then? In that case the
architectural community itself should have sufcient infuence to change the documentation. Who?
Practices like ourselves; weve done feasibility studies for the government in the past.
21
Te message
from Milner is that architects can work with such a system if we are intuitive enough to make it work for
our projects rather than against them. Te attitude is one of faith in our ability to infuence minimum
standards and our developer clients though, of course, this relies upon a certain level of reputability
(for the architect). Te efect of minimum standards in practice is multi-dimensional: though initially
inhibiting, they are potentially a framework through which one can make project-specifc divergence.
At least, for our medium to large scale practices.
Why minimum? the economy of un-livable homes
It can be seen in the case of Maccreanor Lavington that though minimum standards ofen function
as maximum aspiration for developer clients, they can be utilized with a little agency. Tough this
evaluation is not wholly negative, it unfortunately does not negate the afore-mentioned tension. Te
architect remains a fghter for spatial quality and progress is only slowly won. Architectural practice
and think tank oo:/ insightfully reports in A Right to Build that the guidelines we have in place have
been largely focused on protecting public value by changing the architecture of the product (the design
of buildings), in fact in doing so they have been marginalised to the end of the process: to a point of
very poor leverage.
22
Tis comment touches back upon the impenetrability of the large regulatory
bodies Milner mentioned and more broadly, highlights minimum standards as a means of protection.
Ultimately, minimum standards are the end product of a much more complex system at work: that
of market driven house-builder models. Property investment has dominated the UK economy:
increasing demand within a fnancial system where prospective home-buyers are able to borrow more
and more money which has then led to smaller, unafordable homes. Somewhat regrettably, the 2007
Calcutt Review stated that [t]he hard fact is that across most of the current market, aiming for high
quality is questionable commercial strategy which ofen adds little to shareholder value.
23
So if we are
to assess the production of housing as one where quality is essentially an incidental outcome for clients
(i.e. developers) then how are we to assess minimum standards?
Tere are essentially two ways of reviewing such minimum standard mechanics, one where we take
Milners vote for architectural know-how, that is to say that we accept the minimums as necessary
over a greater evil and as architects determine ourselves to seek the best within such minimums.
Alternatively minimum standards can also be evaluated more critically. On the one-hand they formulate
an opposition to falling housing quality and thus ofer the protection previously mentioned, but on
the other-hand they formulate a series of tick-boxes that allow an overall failing system to continue.
We must look further.
00:/ ofer a unique theory for a case study that challenges such established top-down orientated (both
developer and state) house-building models. 00:/s Wikihouse challenges the assumption that the most
efcient way of producing housing is indeed in mass-produced Fordist models the evidence being
that these systems have thus far failed to meet housing demands over the last quarter-century.
24
Here
the WikiHouse project seeks to provide an open source construction set. Te aim is to allow anyone
to design, download, and print CNC-milled houses and components, which can be assembled with
21
Interview with Dominic Milner, 16/12/2013.
22
00:/ and Shefeld University (2012) A Right to Build, Calverts Co-operative: London, p22 emphasis in original.
23
Calcutt Review (2007) DCLG, quote taken from Te Right to Build, p15 .
24
A Right to Build quotes Toby Lloyd: Tere is no need to mourn the potential death of the typical housebuilder model
afer all, it singularly failed to deliver the number or the quality of homes we needed during years of record house-price
growth and profts p11.
46 47
STRATEGY 1. AGGREGATE THE CROWD
LAND LAND LAND LAND LAND LAND
STRATEGY 2. FORM GROUPS
LAND
STRATEGY 1. AGGREGATE THE CROWD
LAND LAND LAND LAND LAND LAND
STRATEGY 2. FORM GROUPS
LAND
Fig. 5: an example of a Wikihouse (lef: photo by Andy Roberts) and image from www.wikihouse.cc.
Fig. 6: from A Right to Build (p. 46) - re-thinking the procurement of land.
minimal formal skill or training.
25
Te implications of the ambitions outlined in A Right to Build are
therefore manifest in utilizing newer technologies such as CNC-milling to enable the general public
to build their own homes. Te idea is that three-dimensional computer programs can be made readily
available, therefore allowing people to download buildings onto their computers. Tese buildings can
be broken down in a series of diferent ways, whether that be down to rooms, walls or details. Te
downloaded data can then be CNC-milled on-site (Fig 5.). Te key to Wikihouse is in the process
of building. As succinctly described in A Right to Build it enables us to extend our focus from the
architecture of the product to the architecture of the process: redesigning the systems of procurement
and delivery which shape our environment.
26
Te architecture of housing itself is therefore re-
orientated from an asset-value (i.e. sitting money: a pension/an investment/an inheritance) to a user-
value. Tis, in theory, will innately re-shape the architecture of our homes and it logically follows that
self-made buildings will have their own self-imposed user-specifc minimums.
Wikihouse is still in its infancy, an intriguing venture into re-formulating what we as users rather than
consumers should really expect from our homes. Such a project also throws up many problematic
questions as well as answers. For example, 00:/ suggests that land could be bought in groups: therefore
formulating a community of roughly thirty homes that would then co-operate in order to build the
development (Fig. 6). Tis community would share their CNC-milling machine as well as other self-
chosen amenities. Perhaps this envisions a rather idealistic scenario over the logical eventuality that if
such a system were in place, it would be far more accessible to the fnancially mobile middle-classes.
Such a factor is therefore liable to produce somewhat homogenous communities due to how a new
procurement system would relate to one that is already in place. Wikihouse is furthermore a great
departure from a series of cultural values that are embodied in how we live
27
. Indeed, can such long-
standing values be un-done?
A duty of care: where do we draw a line?
Duty of care is an ambiguous term. One can set their defnition of duty of care to include a care
towards their clients, another might extend theirs to include incidental users, the public, or the person
that is alive in the year 2100. Care is negotiable because it is essentially ethical. What we can afrm is
the level of duty of care that is currently maintained and another level: the one we hope to achieve.
Minimum standards directly implicate ideas on care as that is what they theoretically set out to do.
Minimum standards allow homes to be of a certain size and incidental quality that they otherwise
would have been deprived of. However, as suggested previously, minimums not only protect from, but
also support house-building as a divisive means to generate a market economy. Minimum standards
go as far as to say that yes, living comes second to proft margin, but at least they are livable. Here the idea
of self-build comes into play whereby an empowered consumer becomes producer. Homes themselves
are no longer market currency. Minimum standardization thus becomes somewhat redundant;
users are able to defne their own minimums in response to their own economies and ambitions.
Key to this self-build concept is public awareness and consequent public agency in shaping our new
developments. In order for homes to be self-built, an element of public confdence in such practices
must be developed: a careful confdence that is not contained to higher income communities (the
aforementioned middle classes) but ofered strongholds in the growing population whose incomes
are too low to be able to aford to buy, but too high to qualify for social housing or housing beneft.
28

Regulation therefore must not be limited to the building but also extended to how land is sold.
25
www.wikihouse.cc/about
26
00:/ and Shefeld University (2012) A Right to Build, Calverts Co-operative: London, p22.
27
Tese values include housing as pension and inheritance as well as general aesthetic the fat-pack nature of Wikihouse
being of great divergence to the UKs Arts and Crafs derived vernacular.
28
00:/ and Shefeld University (2012) A Right to Build, Calverts Co-operative: London, p14.
It is perhaps a little unrealistic that all prospective home-buyers should become home-builders. It
might be more realistic that top-down developer and state house-builder models could co-exist with
a gaining self-build culture. Te diference between two such models would sustain a long-view
economy; professionally procured and developed land would have to compete with self-build homes
catered to individual idiosyncrasies. Quality can therefore become of greater marketable equity than
before. Furthermore, an aware and empowered general public makes for harsher critics: the insatiable
demand for housing units could be replaced by a demand for quality.
Ultimately we should suppose that minimums are needed. Afer all, top-down developer models and
our current proft-driven, entrepreneurial culture cannot be eradicated. Short-term profts may always
infuence people in spite of how much we try to minimize their efects. Tus to make minimums
work in such conditions we must re-assess a duty of care in taking possession of them at a far more
conscious level. Tese minimums should not be the face-less standards that architects beat, but a
series of recommendations from a series of people who take responsibility for them. Minimums should
become a dialogue that references a pool of knowledge shared by architects (from large and small
practices) as well as other professionals from other relevant disciplines. Tey should relate to current
needs and beliefs and be under constant challenge, thus inspiring ingenuity rather than inhibiting it.
Architects must realize their duty of care through unlocking a collaborative latent (though evident)
think-tank agency.
If architects presently consider their duty of care as to that of their client and to that of their future
users, then we must look to extending our duty of care to the demolition of the very system that
threatens them. Architects must acknowledge that though their duty is to build and to build well, it is
also to recognize the implications of building. In knowledge of how it both shapes in reinforces social
and political priorities, care must become holistic in the application of building. In particular we must
consider those most vulnerable to its more unfortunate outcomes. We must not ignore minimums but
look at ways they may be creatively transformed.
Bibliography
thanks to:
Dominic Milner of Maccreanor Lavington
Colin Wharry of Maccreanor Lavington
Alastair Parvin of 00:/
Policy Documentation
Te London Housing Design Guide (2011 Interim Edition)
Te London Housing Design Guidge draf for consultation (2009)
Te London Plan (October 2013 revised minor alterations)
Te London Plan (July 2011)
Te London Housing Strategy (2011)
Housing Space Standards (2006)
Lifetime Homes (2010)
Code for Sustainable Homes (2006)
Housing Standards Review Consultation (August 2013)
Books and Reports
00:/ and Shefeld University (written by Alastair Parvin, David Saxby, Cristina Cerulli and Tatjana
Schneider) 2012, A Right to Build, Calverts Co-operative: London
Greeves. E, 2008, Te Development of Housing in Britain 1870-2008, British Council: London
Homewise/RIBA (written by Rebecca Roberts-Hughes) 2011, Te Case for Space, RIBA: London
Parvin. R, 2008, Te Proft Function.
RIBA/Ipsos MORI, 2013, Housing Standards and Satisfaction: What the Public Wants, RIBA: London
Woodman. E, 2008, Home/Away: 5 British Architects build housing in Europe, British Council: London
Articles
von Bradsky, A. Te Housing Provision Crisis Architects Journal (March 2013)
Carr. S and Whitaker. A, Is Boris Johnson right to bring back Parker Morris standards? Building Design
(June 2008)
Hopkirk. E, Government considers housing space standards Building Design (August 2013)
Hurst. W, Agency brings back space standards Building Design (November 2007)
Mark. L, Government looks to bring in minimum space standards for homes Architects Journal(August
2013)
Meek. J, Where Will We Live? London Review of Books, Vol. 36 No. 1, (January 2014)
Strongman. C, Building regulations: the next generation of housing policy Architects Journal (March
2008)
Tompson. M, John Callcutt, author of Review of Housebuilding Delivery Architects Journal (Novem-
ber 2007)
Waite. R, Public wants minimum standards for new homes, says RIBA Architects Journal (April 2013)
Winston. A, We cant live without space and light Building Design (April 2013)