Abstract
People’s Housing requirements commonly transition over time, and there are financial, social and environmental impacts associated with altering and moving houses. With possible future alteration in mind, this paper looks at the viability of deliberately incorporating flexibility into houses at the time they are designed and built, as compared with no specifically incorporated flexibility (yet still possibly capable of being altered). A comparative analysis, rather than an absolute analysis, is outlined. The financial viability is performed as an options analysis, while the social and environmental matters are evaluated along life cycle assessment lines. As a case example, the paper considers the viability of incorporating deliberate two-storey flexibility into a single-storey house using Australian practices. It is shown on the case example that incorporating deliberate built-in flexibility can perform positively against all sustainability criteria – financial, social and environmental, separately or combined – however the generality of this conclusion remains to be proven.
Highlights
Flexibility is seen as an important issue within modern commercial and residential buildings, as the needs and wants, real and perceived, of the user change over time (Gann & Barlow, 1996; Heath, 2001)
This paper provides a methodology for valuing deliberate built-in flexibility
This paper, by contrast, uses a rational quantitative analysis that gives the financial value of flexibility, with social and environmental matters evaluated along life cycle assessment lines
Summary
Flexibility is seen as an important issue within modern commercial and residential buildings, as the needs and wants, real and perceived, of the user change over time (Gann & Barlow, 1996; Heath, 2001). As families grow/shrink, house owners look for more/less space (ABS, 2011, 2012) This might be accomplished by relocating to another neighbourhood or, if this is not desired, converting the current house, including the undertaking of alterations and additions, with the extreme being complete demolition and replacement. Changing interiors includes reconfiguring space layout from closed individual spaces to open-plan spaces, or vice versa (Greden, 2005; Till & Schneider, 2005) This alteration aims to enhance space usage efficiency, reusability of spaces, and take advantage of existing space potential to accommodate minor changes in needs. Common practice involves a rearrangement of rooms by relocation of interior partitions, with associated modification in ceiling and floor finishes (Friedman, 1993; Moffatt & Russell, 2001; Till & Schneider, 2005)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call