1-s2.0-S019739750900068X-main

8/19/2019 1-s2.0-S019739750900068X-main

1/9

Factors affecting open building implementation in high densitymass housing design in Hong Kong

Joseph Francis Wong

Division of Building Science and Technology, The City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Keywords:

Mass housing design

Open building

Adaptability

Flexible design

a b s t r a c t

The vast majority of buildings being constructed in Hong Kong today are massive 40þ

-storey high-riseresidential building towers housing hundreds of families. Immense resources – land, material, time,

labour, money, energy – have been invested in their realization. However, almost all of these buildings,including those currently under construction and on the drawing boards, are not designed withadaptability and flexibility as a design intention and will cause major problems in the future: their lack of

capacity for re-activation means that their only fate is demolition, thereby consuming even more

resources, producing more waste, and causing more disruption to the environment. Unless we changeour mind-set in mass housing design, today’s designs will inevitably become tomorrow’s problems. Thispaper studies the scenario design requirements and critical dimensions of use-territories in public mass

housing in Hong Kong in view of extracting useful patterns for use in future designs. Case studies of

popular residential layouts currently used in Hong Kong will be used to illustrate the kind of problemsthe majority of the existing residential building stock will face when the need for renewal and upgradearises.

2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

In modern cities and countries, mass housing emerges as a moreand more vital issue to the well being of the community. In places

like Japan, Singapore and Hong Kong, a lack of developable land inurban areas makes multi-unit housing the most common mode of living for the vast majority of the people. For these environmentswhere high density is inevitable, there are strong supports for this

type of compact city approach as a form of sustainable urbandevelopment (Chan & Yung, 2004; Haughton, 1997). In Hong Kong,such residential buildings typically extend over 40 storeys to fullyutilize the scarce land supply (Sullivan & Chen, 1997). At present,

Hong Kong is the home to 37 of the 100 tallest residential buildings

in the world (Emporis, 2009). All of these residential towers areover 60 floors in height with the tallest, Sorrento Tower 1, topping75 floors at 256 m (Fig. 1). The Hong Kong SAR Government

provides and builds the majority of such high-rise residentialbuildings for both rental and sale, accounting for around 60% of allhousing units currently occupied. At present, slightly over 50% of Hong Kong’s population live in some kind of public housing.

To counter growing economic restraints and to minimise therisks associated with novel designs, both the public and private

sector favour the use of standardised designs over individualiseddesigns for the majority of their developments (Hooper & Nicol,1999; West & Emmitt, 2004). However, the room layout variationsof the present typical high-rise residential designs in Hong Kong

are severely limited and cannot satisfy the highly variable spatialneeds of the many users (Sullivan & Chen, 1997). Users have tomake alterations to their units before moving in. Many even changethe spatial layout of the units by knocking down brick walls and

building new ones to form rooms that suite their requirements.Understandably, certain aspects of a building may become obsoleteover time as the needs of the users also change. In this case,

however, valuable resources – material, energy, time, money,manpower – are rendered obsolete before they are even put into

use. Such immediate obsolescence is unacceptable in the light of theinternational direction towards a sustainable community. Flexible

housing design can help to reduce the impact of this problembecause with adaptability in layout configurations there is a betterchance for the users to find a unit that can fulfil their respective

spatial requirements (Atlas ¸ & }Ozsoy, 1998).As the function of housing shifts from provision of shelter to

serving multiple purposes, the spatial capacity of plan organisa-tions to support various user activities has become as important

a quality parameter in mass housing designs as other more tradi-tional evaluation criteria such as gross area, materials used anddetailing (}Ozsoy, Atlaş, Ok, & Pulat Gö kmen, 1996). Generally, theE-mail address: [email protected]

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / h a b i t a t i n t

0197-3975/$ – see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.09.001

Habitat International 34 (2010) 174–182

mailto:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01973975http://www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatinthttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatinthttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01973975mailto:[email protected]

8/19/2019 1-s2.0-S019739750900068X-main

2/9

life-cycle of a unit in a mass housing development is considerablylonger than time-span of user tenancies that circulate through theunit. Each successive tenant undoubtedly makes changes to the

unit to suite their immediate spatial needs upon moving in andwould continue to make incremental changes throughout theperiod of their stay in the unit as their own spatial needs evolves

over time (Whitchniul, Morton, & Carr, 1999). To achieve this, theconfiguration of the unalterable elements of the unit – envelopewall, structural components, pipe ducts, etc. – must be composedand dimensioned to allow for adaptation to a wide variety of room/space arrangements to fulfil different user spatial requirements

(Saari, Kruus, Hä mä lainen, & Kiiras, 2007). This paper looks at thelayout of a number of mass housing design in Hong Kong andexamines their spatial capacity to provide for configurationalchanges under the open building approach to adaptable design.

The open building approach

The ‘‘open building’’ approach to building design separates the

building into fixed elements and changeable elements (Kendall &

Teicher, 2000). The adaptability (Atlaş & }Ozsoy, 1998: 316) of

a building depends on how well the fixed elements are organised toprovide for variations in the configuration of the changeable

elements. This property is distinct from flexibility, which is definedby Atlaş and }Ozsoy (1998: 316) as the provision forthe ‘‘use of spacefor various purposes without making physical alterations.’’ In other

words, the adaptability of a building describes its physical andmorphological characteristics, and the flexibility of a buildingdescribes its functional characteristics. The former attributeinvolves alteration in the physical characteristics of the building –

dimensions, form, openings, etc. – while the latter does not. Thesetwo attributes of the adaptability and flexibility of a building relatesdirectly to the two types of requirements for the spaces in resi-dential units according to Çağ daş (1996): the dimensional require-

ments and functional requirements.

Adopting the principles of open building in mass housing designis not new. More than three decades ago, Habraken had proposeda similar approach to mass housing design (Boekholt, Dinjens,

Habraken, & Thijssen, 1976; Habraken, 1972) by organizing the builtenvironment into a number of levels (Fig. 2). These levels arestructured in a hierarchy over the different scales of the built envi-

ronment – urban structure / tissue/ building / partition/furniture (Habraken,1998, 2002). Within this hierarchy of levels anygiven or fixed elements can be termed ‘‘support’’ and any elementthe user/designer is free to add in or change ‘‘infill’’ (Kendall, 1987).At any level, the given support elements define the unalterable

framework around which one asserts control over the addition,replacement and arrangement of infill elements.

The open building approach to design allows decisions on eachlevel to be made separately and systemizes the apparent unsys-

tematic process of architectural design. As the designer moves fromthe higherlevels (such as site or building) onto the lower ones (unit,room or furniture), what is put in as infill elements at a higher levelbecomes the support elements for the next lower-level. The design

of a building can therefore be simplified into selection of options

from a solution set from each of the levels the design involves.Although this approach to architectural design, which is known bythe name of ‘‘open building’’, has been applied with varied success

up to present, it has not been widely adopted for building projects(Saari et al., 2007). One of the reasons is the considerable moreeffort required to design a building that not only serves its present

functions well but is also adaptable and flexible to serve possiblefuture user needs (West & Emmitt, 2004).

Tiuri describes open building as ‘‘an organisedway of respondingto the demands of diversity, adaptability and user involvement in

housing (Tiuri, 2000: 35),’’ which means that possibilities for re-configuration need to be considered beforehand as one of the keycriteria during the design stage. However, it seems that most masshousing designs in both the public and private sectors in Hong Kong

do not take future adaptability into consideration, resulting in very

Fig. 1. Super-high-rise residential developments in the Kowloon Station development in Hong Kong.

J.F. Wong / Habitat International 34 (2010) 174–182 175

8/19/2019 1-s2.0-S019739750900068X-main

3/9

limited options when the need to re-configuration room-levelelements in housing developments arises. Although, the eventualuses of a mass housing unit and the resulting required room-level

configurations are increasingly unpredictable under the currentmarket conditions (Wu, 1999), it is irresponsible for designers toignore the capacity for future adaptations when designing mass

housing layouts. On the contrary, this should motivate architects toinclude the analysis of room-level configurational possibilities andtheir relationship to different user activities as a key task in theirdesign process (Wu & Qin, 2002).

Study objectives and methodology

In the past decade or so, there were many studies that focused

on various aspects of residential design: density (Griffiths, 2000;Haughton, 1997; Shihembetsa & Olima, 2001), quality of livingspace (Chan, Tang, & Wong, 2002; Liu, Wu, & Lee, 1999), spatial

functionality and furnishing (van der Voordt, Vrielink, & vanWegen, 1997; West & Emmitt, 2004), spatial relationships (Guney &Wineman, 2008; Seo, 2007), form and layout (Çağ daş , 1996;Whitchniul et al., 1999), standardised plans (Hooper & Nicol, 1999;Sullivan & Chen, 1997) and so on. However, none of these studies

had examined the implications of implementing open buildingprinciples in the high-rise multi-unit residential buildings thatdominate the built environment in Hong Kong.

The objectives of this paper are divided into 3 parts. First, this

paper investigates the types of changes to the room-level config-urations that the tenants would like to make to the current unitlayout in order to better serve their spatial needs. Second, thispaper examines the furniture-level configuration in the existing

public housing units associated with the desired room-level

configuration changes. Finally, this paper applies the above findingson room-level and furniture-level configurations to test thecapacity to accommodate the desired room-level changes of

a number of typical mass housing designs commonly adopted inthe private sector in Hong Kong.

The first two objectives listed above are achieved through

surveys conducted on 80 public housing units in Hong Kong. Publichousing is targeted because standardised layouts are used in HongKong with all public housing developments in the same period allsharing the same standardised plan layout, which theoretically

would lead to the highest numberof mismatch between room-levelconfigurations and actual spatial needs of individual tenants.Unlike their counterparts in the private sector, public housingtenants do not have a choice in room-level layout configurations. As

a result, studying public housing units and their tenants can reveal

the most diversified data regarding desired room-level configura-tion changes to the existing units (Sullivan & Chen, 1997). Thesurvey consisted of visits to public housing units for face-to-face

interviews and documentation of the existing furniture-levelconfigurations. The interview was a semi-structured interview withan interview guide to gather data from the tenants. The interview

guide contained one standard question that was always asked atthe beginning of the interview and a pool of questions that could beasked subsequently to prompt for more information from theinterviewees. It was comprised of the following open-ended

questions:

Are there any changes that you would like to make to your unitto match your spatial needs, given that the overall floor area of

the unit cannot be increased? (Standard question) Do you want to move around any of the rooms? Is/are there any room(s) that you want to add to or take away

from the unit? Is/are there any room(s) that you want to make bigger or

smaller? What are the ideal dimensions?

The collected data are recorded on a standard questionnaireform and consent was sought from the participants to record theinterviews with a digital voice-recorder for checking and futurereferences. Anonymity of the participants was maintained by

removing all means of identification – names, block number, unitnumber, etc. – from the collected data. The interviews were thentranscribed and coded for analysis to identify and tabulate thedifferent types of desired changes to the room-level configuration

in the units.

After interviewing the tenants, the furniture-level configurationin each of the rooms in the unit was measured and recorded: thefurniture layout serving a particular function, the dimensions of

the furniture, the dimensions of the space around the furniture, thedimensions of the use-territory, and the position of the use-terri-tory in the room. A use-territory is represented by the furniture

layouts and the required spaces around them associated with anactivity (e.g. dining table þ chairs ¼ dining, sofa set þ TV cabinet ¼ living, computer desk þ chair ¼ work/study, etc.). Thedata were recorded by means of free-hand measured drawings,

sketches and digital photos. The free-hand drawings were furtherdrawn up in AutoCAD format to facilitate comparative analysis.Breaking up the unit plans and grouping corresponding partstogether in digital format, the furniture-level configurations for

the different rooms – living/dining room, small bedroom, master

Fig. 2. Habraken’s basic support and three layout options of infill arrangements.

J.F. Wong / Habitat International 34 (2010) 174–182176

8/19/2019 1-s2.0-S019739750900068X-main

4/9

bedroom – were compared to identify patterns and criticaldimensions. The resulting information – desired changes and crit-

ical dimensions – were applied to 10 selected mass housing layoutsthat were representative of typical private residential designs inHong Kong to study their capacity to accommodate the desiredchanges.

Use-territory study on public housing units

The subject of study was the latest Home Ownership Scheme(public housing for sale) housing block design by the Hong KongHousing Authority that is repeated all over Hong Kong in public

housing estates in towers reaching 40 floors in height is theConcord Block. This design is based on the common ‘‘cruciform’’tower with four wings, which holds a pair of units each. Thisconfiguration forms an 8-unit typical plan with 2 unit-type varia-

tions – a 62 m2 net area 3-bedroom unit and a 45 m2 net area2-bedroom unit. Looking at the internal layout of the Concord Blockdesign reveals that the spatial configuration not only lacks variety

but also the capacity to provide options for post-occupancy alter-ations resulting in different room layouts. Due to various reasons,

one of which ironically is the adaptation of prefabricated buildingcomponents and mechanized formwork, the main facade wall of

the units is not straight. For example, in the 3-bedroom unit, thetwo bedrooms protrude about 400 mm from the face of the livingroom and 1475 mm from the face of the en suite bedroom. Thismakes altering the internal layout of the unit difficult.

After interviewing 80 households – 40 in 3-bedroom units and40 in 2-bedroom units – recording the furniture layouts in each of the units, the data collected was tabulated and analysed. Thefindings can be divided into 2 main topics: the tenants’ current

use-territory configurations and their preferences for future re-configuration at the room-level. The recorded use-territoryconfigurations as reflected in the furniture layout in individualunits show a wide range of different configurations within the

relatively confined spaces in both types of units (Fig. 3). Despite the

small sizes of the rooms, the tenants demonstrated that a highnumber of use-territory configuration variations remain possible.

There are two ways to change the arrangements of the room-level elements in a residential unit: changing the size(s) of one ormore room-level elements, and changing the numberof room-levelelements. It is therefore critical to take the potential desired

changes into consideration when designing the initial layout of theunit and allow for the capacity to accommodate these futurechanges (Kendall & Teicher, 2000). This way, prospective tenantscan determine the possibility for re-configuring the layouts before

they purchase the flat and can therefore decide whether or not theunit-type can meet their present and any future foreseeable needsand changes in needs. The survey discovered that the mostcommon future re-configuration needs of the room-level elements

of the units relating to their sizes and numbers are as follows:1) increase the size of the living room, 2) providing an additionalroom (as study or smallbedroom), 3) increase the size of the masterbedroom, and 4) merging two rooms to form a larger room (mostly

to achieve the purposes of 1 and 2 when the number of rooms canbe reduced).

Table 1 tabulates desired room-level elements re-configuration

mentioned by the surveyed tenants and the percentage of tenants

agreeing to the respective items. These scenario design require-ments and the above critical dimensions will be applied in the nextsection to test the potential for future activation in terms of room

layout adaptability in existing mass housing designs in Hong Kong.

Future activation of current building stock

Following the study on existing use territorial patterns andpreferred re-configuration needs, 10 unit layout designs of plantypes commonly adopted in Hong Kong (Fig. 4) are analysed byapplying the resulting scenario design, i.e. desired changes, and

dimensional requirements. The plans selected are of 3-bedroomunits from existing residential buildings in Hong Kong completed inthe past 5–10 years, ranging from 75 m2 to88m2 in gross floor area.

Fig. 3. Use-territory configuration variations in the 3-bedroom units.


8/19/2019 1-s2.0-S019739750900068X-main

5/9

The selected plans are representative of the majority of the morepopular typical room-level arrangements in mass housing blocks inHong Kong.

In the figure, the hatched walls represent the non-structuralwall that can be treated as removable infill elements. The solidwalls mark either the structural shear walls or envelope walls thatcannot be altered, and are therefore support elements in these

layouts. It is obvious that in most of the layouts, the shear wallsoccupy not only the external envelope but also the internal walls.

Their location in the interior of the units severely limits theadaptability in terms of the arrangement of room-level elements.

Almost all of the high-rise residential developments in Hong Kongadopts a concrete core and shear wall structural system. Unfortu-nately, with the high wind loads experienced by buildings in HongKong and their ever increasing heights, it becomes inevitable that

one or more of the interior walls will be structural shear walls toresist the heavy lateral wind forces.

In applying the scenario design and dimensional requirementsresulting from the use-territory study to the selected layout plans, it

is apparent that the capacity for future room-level elements re-configuration was not one of the main design considerations. Thereis no evidence of references to critical dimensions for the re-configuration of use-territories and room-level elements in the

designs of the units. In this top–down configuration process, inwhich a pre-determined overall unit form is given for the designerto compose the functional space sub-divisions, there are problemswith ‘‘finding realisable designs for functionally adequate lower-

level elements (Mitchell, 1998: 230).’’ As a result, most of the unitscan only support very minimal room-level element re-configura-tions (Fig. 5a and b) in relation to those stipulated in the previoussection.

Increase the size of the living room

This is only achievable in four of the analysed layouts withoutreducing the number of rooms. The maximum allowable enlarge-

ment in one of these four designs is 750 mm. However, theenlargement is limited to a maximum of 200 mm–400 mm in the

remaining three designs because any further increasewould reducethe width of the adjacent bedroom to less than the preferred

dimension of 2100 mm, the minimum width required to fit in anadult bed. So unless the adjacent room is not used as a bedroom oris only used as a bedroom for children, the adaptability forincreasing the size of the living room is severely limited. There are

no possible enlargements in the other six analysed layouts becausethe living rooms are: 1) entirely confined by structural walls in five

Table 1

The most desired room-level element re-configurations.

R ank R oom-level re-confi gu ra ti on Percentage of tenants (%)

1 In cre ase the size of the livin g roo m 58.8

2 Providing an additional room

(study or small bedroom)

47.5

3 Increase the size of the master bedroom 38.8

4 Merging two rooms to form a large room 33.8

5 Increase the size of the small bedroom 16.36 Increase the size of the kitchen 11.3

7 Others 8.8

Fig. 4. The 10 unit layout designs analysed in the study.


8/19/2019 1-s2.0-S019739750900068X-main

6/9

8/19/2019 1-s2.0-S019739750900068X-main

7/9

Fig. 5. (continued).


8/19/2019 1-s2.0-S019739750900068X-main

8/9

layouts, and 2) confined by a combination of structural walls andthe configuration of the adjacent master bedroom in one layout.

Increase the size of the master bedroom

This is only achievable in two of the designs without reducing

the number of rooms. The increase in size is further limited to

a maximum of 200 mm–300 mm. As in the previous case, unlessthe adjacent room is not used as a bedroom or is only used asa bedroom for children, the adaptability for increasing the size of

the master bedroom is limited. There are no possible enlargementsin the other eight analysed layouts because the master bedroomsare: 1) entirely confined by structural walls in four layouts,

2) confined by a combination of structural walls and the configu-ration of the adjacent room in two layouts, and 3) an isolated roomin one layout.

Provide an additional room (as study or small bedroom)

None of the designs in the sample can support the commonscenario design need of providing an additional room, unless

a room without a window is considered acceptable. Performing thisroom-level element re-configuration would make the living roomtoo small to accommodate the requisite furniture-level elements inseven out of the eight layouts in which an additional room can be

provided. In two of the analysed layouts, it is impossible even toprovide a small windowless room because of their room-levelelement configurations.

Merge two rooms to form a larger room

This is achievable in seven of the analysed layouts. However, thisre-configuration leaves the undesirable result of a secondary roomlarger than the master bedroom in all of these cases. Besides, theemergent shapes are either too irregular or long and narrow to be

effectively utilised. The two secondary rooms are disjointed in thethree designs and therefore cannot be merged.

Refinement of mass housing design layouts in Hong Kong

The analysis in the previous sectionpointsto a numberof factorsthat are indicative of the adaptability of the room-level elements.These factors must be taken into consideration in conjunction with

the scenario design requirements and critical use-territorydimensions when designing a mass housing unit to ensure that itcan be re-configured to serve future use patterns. In practice, all of

these factors must be considered concurrently as there are inter-related:

Location of structural shear walls

As explained above, structural shear walls are always present in

high-rise residential units in Hong Kong. As an unalterable element,the arrangement of the shear walls in the layout imposes a signifi-cant effect on how spaces can be configured within the unit. Hence,the structural frame design should not be only aiming at structural

efficiency but also maximisation of adaptability of room-levelelements. One solution is to shift all structural walls away from theshared walls between habitable rooms (living room/secondaryroom, secondary room/secondary room and secondary room/

masterbedroom) so that these walls can be taken awayor moved toallow for more room-level elements re-configuration options.

Location of openings

In all but one of the layout designs, bay windows dominate the

front façade of the unit to maximise views and natural light. Asa partition wall can only be located at the solid wall between baywindows, the expense of the bay windows severely limited theoptions for re-configuring the room layout for these units. In most

cases, the wall space measures only 500 mm, which is theminimum separation allowed between bay windows under HongKong building regulations. As a result walls can be displaced no

more than 400 mm along the envelope wall. Increasing the wall

space to 700 mm allows partition walls to be moved up to 600 mm,which can accommodate the depth of many furniture-level

Fig. 6. Refinement of existing layout design to improve room-level adaptability.


8/19/2019 1-s2.0-S019739750900068X-main

9/9

elements, such as wardrobes, cabinets, computer desks, tables,bedside stand, and so on.

Form of unit-level shell

In general, the more complicated/irregular the form of the unit-

level shell the more difficult it is to configure the space into regu-larly shaped rooms in different ways. From a morphological point of view, a simpler form facilitates adaptability in internal layoutoptions, especially at the front façade where most of the rooms

align against. When protrusions/recesses are desired to breakdownthe building mass and to minimise the negative impact of anextensive wall-like elevation, the potential emergent shapes of possible room-level elements re-configurations – enlarge, merge,

add – must be carefully taken into consideration.The above findings infer that developing designs with higher

adaptability for Hong Kong actually does not require compre-hensive overall changes to the way architects conceive mass

housing layouts. Removing the hindrance to the above desiredfurniture room-level elements re-configurations from most of thereviewed layout designs translate to refinements rather than

major re-design. Fig. 6 demonstrates how simple amendments in

accordance with the identified indicative factors to one of thelayout designs can significantly improve its adaptability in relationto the desired re-configurations. Besides reasonably satisfying the

four desired room-level elements re-configurations, the refinedlayout exhibits higher adaptability and the capacity to supporta number of additional room combinations.

Conclusion

With increasingly rapid transformation of the life-style of resi-dents, user preferences out-grow the capacity of buildings faster

than ever before. In residential buildings, especially mass housingbuildings that are not custom-designed to individual residentneeds, this mismatch occurs across different levels: use-territory

requirements at the furniture-level, spatial organization at theroom-level, flat sizes and distribution at the unit-level, envelopeconfiguration at the building level, and so on. The effect of thismismatch is especially significant at the furniture-level and room-level as they directly influence the users’ behaviour and activities

inside the units. Mass housing buildings that are designed to satisfyimmediate needs only will eventually become obsolete when theycan no longer serve the users’ changing needs. Vast amount of resources – energy, material, time, money, etc. – are invested in

building developments and such obsolescence must not be toler-ated because these problems can be avoided if the architect is moresensible to open building considerations in the design of masshousing layouts.

Unfortunately, the short-sighted approach driven by economic

concerns and time constraints dominates the current market. Thispaper demonstrates that many present typical mass housingdesigns cannot support the desired changes to the room-level

configurations derived from the collected data, which representsreal needs of actual users. Unless we review our design prioritiesand take a more long-term view of the impact of our designs, we

areinevitably creating problems for the future generations. In orderto achieve this, comprehensive and continuous research into thespatial behaviour of the actual tenants is essential to determine thecritical furniture-level and room-level configurations that mass

housing designs must support to satisfy the diversified spatialneeds. A more systematic approach to collecting and incorporatingspatial configuration data, and combination with open buildingprinciples are required to create mass housing designs that grow

with the community by adapting to its changing spatial needs.

References

Atlaş, N. E., & }Ozsoy, A. (1998). Spatial adaptability and flexibility as parameters of user satisfaction for quality housing. Building and Environment, 33(5), 311–323.

Çağ daş, G. (1996). A shape grammar model for designing row-houses. DesignStudies, 17 , 35–51.

Chan, E. H. W., Tang, B. S., & Wong, W. S. (2002). Density control and the quality of living space: a case study of private housing development in Hong Kong.Habitat International, 26 , 159–175.

Chan, E. H. W., & Yung, E. H. K. (2004). Is the development control legal frameworkconducive to a sustainable dense urban development in Hong Kong? Habitat International, 28, 409–426.

Emporis. (2009). Emporis website www.emporis.com.Griffiths, I. K. (2000). High density housing in Asia, your home in 2004. Hong Kong

Institute of Surveyors Conference, 26th may, 1999.Guney, Y. I., & Wineman, J. (2008). The evolving design of 20th-century apartmentsin Ankara. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35 , 627–646.

Habraken, N. J. (1972). Supports: An alternative to mass housing . London: TheArchitectural Press.

Habraken, N. J. (1998). The structure of the ordinary. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Habraken, N. J. (2002). The uses of levels. Open House International, 27 (2), 9–20.Haughton, G. (1997). Developing sustainable urban development models. Cities, 14,

189–195.Hooper, A., & Nicol, C. (1999). The design and planning of residential development:

standard house types in the speculative housebuilding industry. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26 , 793–805.

Kendall, S. (1987). Notes on ‘open systems’ in building technology. Building andEnvironment, 22(2), 93–100.

Kendall, S., & Teicher, J. (2000). Residential open building . London: E & FN Spon.Liu, E., Wu, J., & Lee, J. (1999). Housing standards of private dwellings . Research and

Library Services Division Legislative Council Secretariat. 29 June 1999.Mitchell, W. J. (1998). The logic of architecture. Cambridge: The MIT Press.}Ozsoy, A., Atlaş, N. E., Ok, V., & Pulat Gö kmen, G. (1996). Quality assessment model

for housing: a case study on outdoor spaces in Istanbul. Habitat International, 20(2), 163–173.

Saari, A., Kruus, M., Hä mä lainen, A., & Kiiras, J. (2007). Flexibuild – a systematicflexibility management procedure for building projects. Facilities, 25(3/4),104–114.

Seo, K. W. (2007). Space puzzle in a concrete box: finding design competence thatgenerates the modern apartment houses in Seoul. Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design, 34, 1071–1084.

Shihembetsa, L. U., & Olima, W. H. A. (2001). The rationalisation of residentialdensities in an inner city area of Nairobi. Habitat International, 25, 291–301.

Sullivan, B., & Chen, K. (1997). Design for tenant fitout: a critical review of publichousing flat design in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 21(3), 291–303.

Tiuri, U. (2000). Open building concept and recent practice. Open House Interna-tional, 25(1), 34–43.

van der Voordt, T. J. M., Vrielink, D., & van Wegen, H. B. R. (1997). Comparative floorplan-analysis in programming and architectural design. Design Studies, 18(1),67–88.

West, B., & Emmitt, S. (2004). Functional design? An analysis of new speculativehouse plans in the UK. Design Studies, 25(3), 275–299.

Whitchniul, J. W. R., Morton, N. J., & Carr, C. M. H. (1999). Urban morphogenesis atthe microscale: how houses change. Environment and Planning B: Planning andDesign, 26 , 503–515.

Wu, L. (1999). Adaptable terrace housing in Yantai, China. Open House International, 24(2), 37–47.

Wu, J., & Qin, X. (2002). Post-occupancy evaluation of two residential open buildingprojects in China. Open House International, 27 (1), 60–69.

http://www.emporis.com/http://www.emporis.com/

1-s2.0-S019739750900068X-main

Documents

Transcript of 1-s2.0-S019739750900068X-main