1986
DOI: 10.1080/02640828608723903
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Standards in housing design: A review of the main changes since the Parker Morris report (1961)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Yet, from the point of view of understanding something of levels of satisfaction among residents living in flats in high‐rise experiments, such hybrid laboratories were simply not ‘whole’ enough or sufficiently ‘in place’. As we shall see, in the wake of postwar housing modernization there were a spate of social scientific, field‐based, post‐occupancy studies that sought to better understand the ‘total residential environment’, particularly as it pertained to high‐rise living (Hayden, ; Goodchild and Furbey, ; Forty, ). High‐rise housing complexes were viewed at least by some social‐scientific eyes as an ‘unparalleled near‐experimental setting’ (Merton, : 185–86) which, unlike laboratory experiments, were not ‘artificially impoverished’ of complexity (Studer, : 59).…”
Section: Laboratories Of High‐rise Experimentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet, from the point of view of understanding something of levels of satisfaction among residents living in flats in high‐rise experiments, such hybrid laboratories were simply not ‘whole’ enough or sufficiently ‘in place’. As we shall see, in the wake of postwar housing modernization there were a spate of social scientific, field‐based, post‐occupancy studies that sought to better understand the ‘total residential environment’, particularly as it pertained to high‐rise living (Hayden, ; Goodchild and Furbey, ; Forty, ). High‐rise housing complexes were viewed at least by some social‐scientific eyes as an ‘unparalleled near‐experimental setting’ (Merton, : 185–86) which, unlike laboratory experiments, were not ‘artificially impoverished’ of complexity (Studer, : 59).…”
Section: Laboratories Of High‐rise Experimentationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although they tend to concern all new/newly-refurbished housing, it is clearly difficult to be applied retrospectively or enforced post-construction (Goodchild and Furbey 1986). In Romania, the Housing Act (RG 1996) regulates minimal SSOS for new dwellings in terms of minimal number of habitable rooms, which includes bedrooms and a living room (Table 3) and floor-area by household size.…”
Section: The Distribution Of Habitable Spacementioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, Goodchild and Furbey (1986, page 80) note that``such controls are negative devices which can only prevent dwellings with certain characteristics being built.'' It is also suggested that the minimum design standards of the building regulations tend to be confused with optimal or best standards when, in reality, they represent what Wylde et al (1994, page 248) refer to as the``least acceptable solution'' (see also Carmona, 2001;Goodchild and Furbey, 1986;Karn and Sheridan, 1994).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These sentiments suggest that the physical and technical nature of Part M may be at the expense of it conceiving of the interrelationships between disability and housing quality in terms of what Goodchild (1997, page 46) calls``the house as a home'', or a place that carries real social and psychological meaning for its inhabitants (see also Goodchild and Furbey, 1986;Lynch, 1960;Mumford, 1966;Papanek, 1984;Rapoport, 1977). Others, such as Papanek (1984) and Turner (1976), concur in noting that the development of design quality in housing ought to relate to and draw upon intangible and nonquantifiable variables, such as dwellers' sense of belonging, privacy, enjoyment, self-worth, and well-being (see also Franklin, 2001).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%