Housing Standardisation: The Architecture of Regulations and Design Standards

公平获得负担得起和设计良好的住房是公正社会的根本。然而，仅在英格兰，每年就有345，000套新房的需求。住房不平等以及市场未能向补贴部门提供体面住房以满足不断变化的用户和家庭需求，这些都因新冠肺炎而加剧。在第一次封锁期间，大约31%的英国成年人因住房条件而出现精神或身体健康问题，超过10%的人因缺乏空间而感到沮丧。提供更多和设计更好的住房的压力越来越大，需要重新评估住房的使用、设计和质量。然而，设计研究非常缺乏，将实践主导的研究，建筑学术研究和其他学科的住房研究结合在一起。特别是如何确定和限制创新的证据基础通知住宅设计及其监管很少受到关注。这种知识差距对建筑至关重要，证明英国建筑师皇家协会和英国住房证据合作中心认可的住房设计价值是一个紧迫的问题。尽管人们对住房的积极影响达成了广泛的共识，但设计的具体含义以及建筑扮演的角色往往不清楚。特别是建筑和设计的价值，我们花了一半以上的生活在家里，他们是如何确定的法规和标准或外部因素定义他们，是不够理解的。事实上，我们对普通家庭的外观或决定其设计的因素知之甚少。该项目研究了建筑住宅如何通过设计治理实现标准化，特别是在补贴住房领域。它探讨了以下问题：什么是设计治理的手段来规范住房设计，什么是基于证据的设计和决策，从基础的空间，技术和社会推理？典型的住宅设计如何通过设计控制、类型偏好和社会规范标准化？设计管理、设计控制的定义和评估以及典型的住宅设计之间的关系在多大程度上与时间和地点相关或可转移？ 该项目通过对英国设计管理和住房设计方法的历史比较以及对智利、西班牙、瑞士、荷兰和中国典型住房设计的国际比较来研究这些问题，这些设计代表了当今在不同设计管理、住房市场和补贴住房环境中使用的最常见的设计控制。提供一个全面的分析，住房设计的背景决定因素和空间，社会和技术推理和住房设计研究之间的联系的重新评估，可以从中吸取的教训，今天在英格兰的住房挑战将进行评估。虽然有大量的研究从设计的建筑角度来看，这些在很大程度上是从其他学科的住房研究，反过来，往往忽视设计的问题断开。特别是很少有人关注政策如何与设计管理和技术研究相关，以及这如何决定典型的住房设计和可用性。这些问题通常被认为是建筑实践的问题，不值得史学关注或批判性研究。为了解决这个问题，该项目开发了一个综合的和跨学科的审查和设计历史的住房设计，设计治理和证据基础之间的关系，形成了不同的住房研究。这将进一步促进对住房研究和建筑设计研究进行更具包容性的史学和方法学修订。

Equitable access to affordable and well-designed housing is fundamental for a just society. Yet, there is an estimated demand for 345,000 new homes per year in England alone. Housing inequalities and a failure of the market to supply decent housing to the subsidised sector that meet changing user and household demands is exacerbated by Covid-19. Already around 31% of adults in Britain experienced mental or physical health problems due to housing conditions during the first lockdown, with over 10% feeling depressed because of a lack of space. Growing pressure to deliver more and better-designed housing requires a re-evaluation of housing use, design, and quality. However, there is a great lack of design research bringing together practice-led research, architectural academic studies, and housing research in other disciplines. Especially how the evidence base informing housing design and its regulation is determined and limits innovation has received little attention. This knowledge gap is critical to architecture, with evidencing housing design value recognised by the Royal Institute of British Architects and the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence as an urgent problem. Despite widespread consensus on the positive impact that housing can have, what is specifically meant by design and what role architecture plays is often unclear. Especially the value of architecture and design to the homes we spent more than half of our lives in and how they are determined by regulations and standards or the external factors defining them, is insufficiently understood. In fact, we know surprisingly little about what the average home looks like or what determines its design. This project examines how architectural housing is standardised by design governance, especially in the subsidised housing sector. It explores the questions: What are the means of design governance to regulate housing design, and what evidence-based design and decision-making emerge from the underpinning spatial, technical, and social reasoning? How are typical housing designs standardised through design controls, typological preferences, and social norms? To what extent are the relationships between design governance, definition and assessment of design controls, and typical housing design contextual to a time and place or transferable? This project examines these questions through a historical comparison of design governance and housing design approaches in England and an international comparison of typical housing designs in Chile, Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and China that represent the most common design controls used today in different design governance, housing market, and subsidised housing contexts. Providing a comprehensive analysis of the contextual determinants of housing design and a re-evaluation of the links between spatial, social, and technical reasoning and housing design research, the lessons that can be learned from this for housing challenges in England today will be assessed. While there is an abundance of studies from an architectural perspective of design, these are largely disconnected from housing studies in other disciplines that, in turn, tend to disregard questions of design. Especially little attention has been paid to how policies relate to design governance and technical research, and how this determines typical housing design and usability. These issues are commonly dismissed as a problem of architectural practice, undeserving of historiographical attention or critical study. To address this, the project develops an integrated and transdisciplinary review and design history of the relationships between housing design, design governance, and evidence base as shaped by diverse housing research. This will further enable a more inclusive historiographical and methodological revision of housing studies and architectural design research.