Transforming Issues in Housing Design E-Book
76,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
TRANSFORMING ISSUES IN HOUSING DESIGN
A practical and complete resource for students, researchers, and practitioners of housing design
Transforming Issues in Housing Design delivers a comprehensive vision for the design, philosophy, psychology, efficiency, and constitution of housing. This collection of articles explores many of the most pressing and relevant issues related to the ongoing transformation of housing design.
Twenty-two contributed chapters discuss the past and current state of housing design, how it evolved to become what it is today, and, finally, how it may unfold in the future. A team of global experts presents the most up-to-date research and a diverse and illuminating collection of examples to highlight housing design around the world.
Readers will also find:
- A thorough introduction to modern housing design and how it relieves and contributes to various social and economic problems
- Insightful explorations of the built environment, interior architecture, urban design, sustainable living, space planning, and more
- Practical discussions of a theoretical framework to make sense of housing design concepts
- Complete treatments of concepts, research, and built projects from a diverse range of communities and cultures
Perfect for architects and students of urban studies, interior design, and architecture, Transforming Issues in Housing Design will also benefit those who design, research, and teach housing.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 1018
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023
Ähnliche
Transforming Issues in Housing Design
Edited by
Kutay Guler
Kansas State UniversityManhattan, Kansas, USA
Copyright © 2024 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.
Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
Paperback ISBN: 9781119857167; ePub ISBN: 9781119857174; ePDF ISBN: 9781119857181; oBook ISBN: 9781119857198
Cover Image: © Arcady/Adobe Stock Photos
Cover Design: Wiley
Set in 9.5/12.5pt STIXTwoText by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd, Pondicherry, India
Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
List of Contributors
Foreword
Introduction
1 Sustaining the American Dream: Living Large in a Depleting World
2 Modern Residential Heritage in Transformation
3 Adaptive Reuse as a Strategy to Meet Contemporary Housing Needs
4 Lean Tech, High Performance: Balancing Affordability and Technology in Net Zero Housing
5 Passive Resistance: North American Passive House Complexities
6 Home is Where the Tiny House is? Re-framing Downsized Livings Potential
7 On Stigma, Homelessness, and Homes: Housing Typologies and the Tent City
8 Post-Crisis Housing and Placemaking: Preserving Identity amid the Loss of Home
9 Soviet Era Apartments in Ukraine: Then and Now
10 Demystifying Flexibility and Enhancing Quality of Life in Multi-Family Housing Design
11 The Transformation of Work and Home as Workspace
12 Home Improvement: The Intersection of Functionality, Economics, and Aesthetics
13 Assemble-It-Yourself: The Perceived Value of Residential Furniture
14 On Generating Domestic Atmospheres Which Nurture Our Bodies and Moods
15 Reinvention of Color in Housing: From Vernacular Interiors to Post-pandemic Strategies
16 Parametric Design as a Tool / As a Goal: Shifting Focus from Form to Function
17 Transformation of Interfaces and Interactions in and around the Contemporary House
18 Indoor Soundscapes of the Future: Listening to Smart Houses
19 Health Smart Homes and the Transformation of Occupant Experience and Wellness
20 Design Guidelines for Effective Long-term Care Needs of Older Adults at Home
21 Designing Cohousing Environments for Older Adults
22 Expanding Concepts of Inclusive Housing
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
CHAPTER 02
Table 2.1 The information of...
CHAPTER 07
Table 7.1 Persons affected by...
Table 7.2 Residents’ perceptions...
CHAPTER 08
Table 8.1 Home meanings based...
CHAPTER 10
Table 10.1 Matrix of levels...
CHAPTER 14
Table 14.1 The ABODE...
CHAPTER 15
Table 15.1 Changes in housing...
Table 15.2 Color-emotion...
CHAPTER 16
Table 16.1 Contents of articles...
CHAPTER 19
Table 19.1 Activities of daily...
Table 19.2 Sociodemographic...
Table 19.3 Characteristics...
CHAPTER 20
Table 20.1 Framework used for...
Table 20.2 Frequently observed...
CHAPTER 21
Table 21.1 Five dimensions of...
List of Illustrations
CHAPTER 01
Figure 1.1 The Architects’...
Figure 1.2 Arthurdale House, built...
Figure 1.3 The increase in average...
Figure 1.4 Sample Universal Design...
CHAPTER 02
Figure 2.1 The Guiding Scheme.
CHAPTER 03
Figure 3.1 Groen Kwartier (Antwerp,...
Figure 3.2 Groen Kwartier (Antwerp,...
Figure 3.3 Groen Kwartier (Antwerp,...
Figure 3.4 Q-Ville (Essen, Belgium)...
Figure 3.5 Q-Ville (Essen, Belgium)...
Figure 3.6 Kleiburg, DIY regeneration...
Figure 3.7 Kleiburg, DIY regeneration...
Figure 3.8 House Rot-Ellen-Berg...
Figure 3.9 House Rot-Ellen-Berg...
Figure 3.10 House Rot-Ellen-Berg...
CHAPTER 04
Figure 4.1 The net positive...
Figure 4.2 Lean tech as part...
Figure 4.3 Three energy models...
Figure 4.4 Progression of models...
Figure 4.5 Energy consumption...
CHAPTER 05
Figure 5.1 Kaplan Thompson...
Figure 5.2 Section-perspective...
CHAPTER 06
Figure 6.1 Tiny houses are often...
Figure 6.2 Tiny-houses-on-wheels...
Figure 6.3 The creation of a legal...
Figure 6.4 This tiny house was...
Figure 6.5 Many tiny house advocates...
CHAPTER 07
Figure 7.1 A child’s drawing...
Figure 7.2 Pruitt-Igoe public...
Figure 7.3 The city-sanctioned...
CHAPTER 09
Figure 9.1 Nine-story panel apartment...
Figure 9.2 Twelve-story apartment...
Figure 9.3 Façade of a typical...
Figure 9.4 A prestigious luxury...
Figure 9.5 An apartment building...
CHAPTER 10
Figure 10.1 Conceptual development...
Figure 10.2 Steps for improving the...
Figure 10.3 Measurement indicators...
CHAPTER 12
Figure 12.1 The building life cycle...
CHAPTER 14
Figure 14.1 The Hermitage cabin...
Figure 14.2 The Hermitage cabin:...
Figure 14.3 The Hermitage cabin:...
Figure 14.4 The Hermitage cabin:...
Figure 14.5 The Hermitage cabin:...
CHAPTER 15
Figure 15.1 The interior of...
Figure 15.2 Interior of Topkapı...
Figure 15.3 Interior of St. Sophia...
Figure 15.4 Pirogovo open-air...
Figure 15.6 An interior view...
Figure 15.5 A vernacular interior...
Figure 15.7 Single and paired...
Figure 15.8 20th-century color...
Figure 15.9 Color and material...
CHAPTER 16
Figure 16.1 The keyword co-occurrence...
Figure 16.2 Grasshopper interface.
CHAPTER 17
Figure 17.1 Interaction points...
CHAPTER 18
Figure 18.1 The three-step process...
Figure 18.2 The process of designing...
CHAPTER 19
Figure 19.1 A conceptual framework...
CHAPTER 20
Figure 20.1 The ecological...
Figure 20.2 Data visualization...
CHAPTER 21
Figure 21.1 Site plan, Glacier...
Figure 21.2 Site plan, Silver...
Figure 21.3 Site plan, Oakcreek...
Figure 21.4 Kitchen in common...
Figure 21.5 Hearth room in common...
Figure 21.6 Great room in common...
Figure 21.7 Living and dining room...
Figure 21.8 Courtyard, Silver Sage...
Figure 21.9 Chair lift installed in...
CHAPTER 22
Figure 22.1 The multi-level island...
Figure 22.2 Maslow’s Hierarchy...
Figure 22.3 This kitchen island has...
Figure 22.4 The Johns Hopkins diversity...
Figure 22.5 The visual and physical...
Guide
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of Contributors
Foreword
Begin Reading
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
List of Contributors
Abdullah AlkanCankaya University, Ankara, Turkey
Mehmet Ali AltinEskisehir Technical University, Eskisehir, Turkey
Donia M. BettaiebKing Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Elisabetta CanepaKansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA
Myung Eun ChoHanyang University, Seoul, South Korea
Bob CondiaKansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA
Krista EvansMissouri State University, Springfield, Missouri, USA
Michael GibsonKansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA
Kutay GulerKansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA
Mehmet Akif GulerSultan Abdulhamid Han Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Mariana G. JunqueiraKansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA
Mihyun KangPennsylvania State University, University Part, Pennsylvania, USA
Byungsoo KimKansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA
Mi Jeong KimHanyang University, Seoul, South Korea
Kendra KirchmerKansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA
Kıvanç KitapciCankaya University, Ankara, Turkey
Nadya KozinetsUniversity of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA
Matthew LutzNorwich University, Northfield, Vermont, USA
Marie MoorsHasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium
Jill PableFlorida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Sule Tasli PektasOSTIM Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
Gabriela Fonseca PereiraIllinois State University, Normal, Illinois, USA
Bie PleovetsHasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium
Jung‐hye ShinUniversity of Wisconsin – Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Beth TaukeUniversity at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA
Lisa TuckerVirginia Technical University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
Aysen Huma TulceAnkara Science University, Ankara, Turkey
Begum UlusoyUniversity of Lincoln, Lincoln, United Kingdom
Papatya Nur Dökmeci YörükoğluCankaya University, Ankara, Turkey
Foreword
There is probably no place-type more significant than housing as it relates to humanity and the survival of the human population. Without shelter, individuals and families cannot thrive. But housing is more than just a single archetype. It takes many forms and exists at multiple scales. It is a place that embodies meaning and supports self-actualization. This dynamic is what distinguishes a home from housing. Homes are central to our worlds. They give us a place of respite and refuge. These are environments where we are free to express ourselves and to gather and connect with people around the most intimate of experiences.
The study of the domestic sphere is one of the most complicated as it is entangled with the intricacies of culture and meaning, socio-economic status, materiality and form, lifestyle patterns, and life-span dynamics. As a setting, housing is a functional expression of life’s most basic needs, but the meaning of home is nested within these structures giving occupants a place to form relationships, create life stories, and establish their identities within larger social structures.
Housing is also an archetype that is more likely to be shaped by its inhabitants rather than by architectural/design professionals. The consequences of these practices impact communities of people and the surrounding environments in dynamic and interesting ways. These settings are also highly subject to the styles and fads of contemporary design trends as occupants of these spaces are very likely to adjust and change their surroundings much more frequently than occupants in non-residential settings.
The roles that a home play also evolve and respond to changing social dynamics. For example, working from home was a norm until the industrial revolution when manufacturing and supply chains moved the employee to the factory and the office. Now, in a post-COVID world, our technological capacity to work from home has been radically redefined. Employees are looking at their homes as a place of dual experience and we have returned to merging these functions. What this will mean for the future of home design is yet to be fully understood.
Compounding these issues are the facts that housing stock is a critical part of our world’s ecosystem. These structures draw and drain energy. As a species, our approach to habitats is to develop and construct structures that predominately exist “on top of” and “separate from” instead of “within” their natural surroundings. The consumption of materials used to construct and furnish our homes is also a significant factor in the long-term sustainability of the surrounding ecosystems.
The scope of research on housing studies and the domestic sphere is vast. There are numerous issues of importance that warrant attention across social, economic, cultural, technical, and architectural disciplinary lenses. Furthering our understanding requires building upon our existing knowledge base and probing deeper. Improving the approaches to domestic architecture requires the study of the outcomes of our lived experiences through a rigorous research lens.
Transforming Issues in Housing Design provides a rich collection of housing topics presented by recognized authors from around the world. These authors present their research and expertise in areas such as the history of housing, materiality and form, regulatory and social structures that impact availability, affordability, and accessibility, adaptive reuse, sustainability and energy consumption, technological advancements, psychosocial and behavioral factors related to territoriality and meaning, life-patterns and the consideration of homes in multi-dimensional roles, and the need for our housing approaches to be more flexible to changes across demographic and the lifespan.
With attention to the historical context that has shaped our housing landscape, multiple authors provide readers with a basis to understand how attitudes and trends about housing options have been shaped; politically, ecologically, and socially. Readers will also appreciate the diversity of epistemological and methodological approaches used to study and discuss these various topics. A critical analysis of the types of housing solutions needed to shelter our burgeoning populations is presented in several chapters and discussed through different theoretical lenses. Chapters in this text can easily stand alone, but there is a significant benefit to the reader to consider the multiple cross-overs that occur between each study.
The world is ever-changing and represents a dynamic collection of lives and lifestyles. There is no singular answer to housing, home, or shelter. There must be many approaches to transforming housing solutions to meet our changing needs, and there must be further research into the combinations of materiality, form, and embodied meaning of space. This text can be a foundational reference for those who are interested in not only designing residential settings but also those whose pursuit is to study and understand them further. Students and practitioners of design who are looking for a starting point to understand these diverse issues will be wise to digest the multiplicity of approaches to studying these spaces, these inhabitants, the tectonics of space and form, and the experiences contained in between. Design researchers pursuing housing topics will find these chapters to provide significant evidence, conceptual frameworks, and methodologies for further inquiry.
This collection is a significant representation of important work on important questions in the field of housing studies. You will leave informed and inspired, and you will return again and again to learn more.
Migette L. Kaup, PhDKansas State UniversityInterior Design and Fashion Studies
Introduction
The concept of housing is tightly intertwined with the human condition, shaping the day-to-day of virtually every person in a multitude of ways. In the most basic sense, a house is the roof over one’s head, simply providing refuge and facilitating the livelihood of its inhabitants, acting as a functional apparatus, a machine so to speak. However, even Le Corbusier, who famously and controversially equated housing to a machine, was profoundly cognizant of the way a house molded the mindset, self-perception, and even the emotional wellbeing of its residents, as evidenced in his adept use of light, form, texture, and color.
Even though some aspects of housing are mechanical in nature, such as functionality, accessibility, and energy efficiency, the contemporary understanding of housing is significantly more nuanced. As a reflection of identity, a house serves as a stage where experiences, memories, and dreams unfold, further shaping the inhabitants’ sense of self. At a higher level, housing is the reflection of the sociocultural and socioeconomic reality, but reciprocally, it possesses the power to actively shape them – reminiscent of Winston Churchill’s famed quote, but potentially more prevalent than initially conceived. Considering how every aspect of modern life is interwoven with housing, the issues related to it are multifaceted, and given the rapid pace of societal change, they are also highly fluid. These issues have undergone continual transformation throughout the course of history, as evidenced by a substantial body of research and thought, and will continue to undergo further transformation.
This book is an anthology of 22 articles that focus on the needs, aspirations, perceptions, paradigms, practices, technologies, implementations, and uses enveloping contemporary housing design. The book provides a critical analysis of the past and current state of housing design, what has already been established, researched, and published, what has been envisioned, designed, and built, what has altered, advanced, or disappeared; departing from this foundation, this book aims to set forth a comprehensive resource that explores the evolution of housing design from many unique viewpoints, painting a vivid illustration of how the many issues tied to housing design have been transforming and will continue to transform.
The scope of this book spans a wide array of issues on housing design, building upon an expansive theoretical foundation, referencing examples from diverse communities and cultures. The organization of the book is based on a series of themes that flow into each other. Contemporary housing is complex, and the surrounding issues are not isolated from each other, but rather overlap. For example, adaptive reuse references aspects of conservation, sustainability, affordability, and place identity. On the other hand, health smart homes integrate the concepts of technology, wellbeing, and accessibility together. The major themes addressed in this book are sustainability, conservation, efficiency, affordability, identity, policy, function, experience, technology, wellbeing, and inclusivity. The book is organized as a series of chapters each addressing multiple themes, and these themes flow into the next chapter while new themes are introduced. Below, the themes that define chapter groups are discussed in detail.
The first group of chapters, from 1 through 5, focuses on the diverse facets of sustainability. The historically established methods of designing houses, as well as preservation of the residential heritage are the initial drivers. Affordability ends up being another key supporting theme, highlighting challenges and the downsides of profit-driven practices. This group of chapters also delve into the more technical side of sustainability with the exploration of lean-tech as well as passive house construction methodologies for maximizing energy efficiency, while also considering issues of affordability and occupant experience as central factors.
In the subsequent set of chapters, from 6 to 9, affordability remains to be a foundational theme, although in this next group, identity and sense of belonging are the primary drivers alongside social change and cultural transformation. These elements influence user perception, requirements, and expectations, inspiring a discussion on how housing typologies are transforming. These chapters further explore various alternative and innovative housing solutions, such as tiny house movement, transitional housing for displaced individuals, dwellings for the unhoused, and micro-housing.
Chapters 10 to 13 focus on the transformation of home but at the level of the occupant, influencing their perceptions of and interactions within the house. For this group of chapters, the primary drivers include the evolution of the society and user needs, worldwide events including the COVID-19 pandemic, the internet and social media, as well as transforming manufacturing and marketing methods impacting the domestic environment at multiple scales, from the larger interior volumetry down to furniture details.
Chapters 14 and 15 explore user perception at a deeper level, employing an interdisciplinary approach. First, the notion of atmosphere and the visceral experience of residential space are examined, followed by the environmental preferences shaped by transforming perceptions, taste, and the impact of semantics, investigated through the lens of color.
Chapters 16 through 18 center around the key themes of technological advancements and their integration within residential environments. The transformation of user experience as well as quality of life, and the designer’s role in shaping the trajectory of this transformation are discussed at multiple levels, ranging from the macro level of the building shell and interior volumetry, down to the micro level of product interfaces and interactions.
In the final segment, Chapters 19 to 22 primarily focus on shifting demographics. The principal driving themes are technological advancement, community building, and inclusive practices. Collectively, these chapters discuss the importance of devising housing solutions that are inclusive, with an emphasis on the unique needs of older adults. Topics covered include health, wellbeing, independence, and social engagement within the framework of aging-in-place, long-term home healthcare, and co-housing.
“Transforming Issues in Housing Design” presents a comprehensive study of the complex dynamics of housing and its ongoing evolution. By shedding light on critical issues and innovative approaches, this book seeks to contribute to the ongoing discourse and offers insights that can help readers understand the future trajectory of housing design.
1 Sustaining the American Dream: Living Large in a Depleting World
Lisa Tucker
Chapter Highlights
The lack of trained architects in the New World forced builders to turn to pattern books for guidance on how to build a properly designed house, which in turn diminished the role of educated design input.
Design is considered a luxury for the wealthy when it comes to house design in the US. Consequently, the ability to skip consulting with a trained design professional is embedded in building codes and how the home building industry functions.
The current state of the American House is driven by the home-building machine to maximize profits. It has continued to increase in size despite the call across all other market sectors for sustainability and a need for affordability.
Historic examples, particularly the Architects’ Small House Service Bureau, provide a beginning template for how the state of the American House can better align with both the needs of people and the environment.
Affordability (equity), resource depletion (sustainability), and the aging population are the three key considerations challenging the evolution of the American Dream.
1.1 Background
The recent history of the single-family house in the US has been predominantly market-driven without significant input from the design professions (Eichler, 1982; Gutman, 1985). Arguably, as a client specific project type, single-family house design does not fit comfortably with a capitalist mass-production model (Chase, 1991). According to the Oxford Languages Dictionary, capitalism is defined as “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state” (Oxford Languages, n.d.).1 To put it simply, most people cannot afford or do not want to pay for professional design services for their homes. They assume what they are buying from a homebuilder or developer has been designed, although not specifically for the buyer’s needs. Design is considered a luxury for the wealthy when it comes to house design in the US. The ability to skip consulting with a trained design professional is embedded in both our building codes and how the home building industry functions. Anyone can design a house and most people think they have this skill whether they are trained to do so or not. This has led to the current state of the single-family house in the US. For the most part, houses are oversized, inefficient, and often ugly. Misused classical references are common in tract houses as are enormous roofs with unnecessary complexity.
The history of housing provides a basis to understand this phenomenon. The first houses in North America replicated their European counterparts. With a lack of trained architects in the New World, people seeking to build houses turned to pattern books, which were being produced in Europe, specifically from England. These books gave builders guidance on how to build a properly designed house by looking at plates for plans, trim details, mantels, windows, and doors. Previous studies have compared houses in the US and those in Europe (Reiff, 1986, 2000). Other researchers have compiled lists of the architectural pattern books which were used in the US, including those from the library of one of the most famous amateur architects, Thomas Jefferson (Hafertepe & O’Gorman, 2001; Park, 1973; Schimmelman, 1999). The prominence of pattern books resulted in their overuse, and gave rise to the amateur, untrained architect and a heavy reliance on pattern books for house design (Upton, 1984). This phenomenon set a trajectory that continues to this day and is characterized by two main thrusts; first, a builder is a perfectly adequate home designer; and second, there is no need for an architect when designing and building a house. This dynamic attitude is evident in building codes adopted throughout the US. The International Code Council has one building code for commercial buildings, the International Building Code, and a separate code for residences, the International Residential Code. A Registered Design Professional is defined as “an individual who is registered or licensed to practice their respective design profession as defined by the statutory requirements of the professional registration laws of the state or jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed” (International Code Council, 2018, p. 35). By this definition, either the homeowner or the contractor can apply for the permit to build a house, and the only things required are the drawings required by the jurisdiction and the application form. Commercial construction, on the other hand, requires stamped drawings that undergo a far more rigorous process of development and approval and typically are created by an architect or engineer.
Questions of style and taste have developed around residential design in a markedly different way than commercial buildings. Furthermore, there is a distinction between what trained design professionals perceive to be “good design” and what most people desire for their houses. The minimalism found in modernism does not coincide with the way many people actually live. Clean lines and environments lacking decoration appeal to many designers but not to the majority of the people. The widely accepted aesthetic for the single-family house in the US is traditional and often emulates a Colonial Revival style, though with regional variations and interpretations such as Spanish Colonial in the West, Southwest, and Florida, and French Colonial in Louisiana. The advent of modernism led to a pronounced split between designers’ preferred lack of ornamentation and an average person’s preference for a more traditional look. While designers enthusiastically embraced mid-century modern as a residential aesthetic for high-end single-family house commissions, the general public did not do the same.
1.2 Historic Efforts to Improve the Single-Family House
There have been few efforts in the US to improve this gap and to provide better houses for people. Architects and designers motivated by social change have attempted to improve house design over the years. The first concerted effort, the Architects’ Small House Service Bureau (ASHSB) sought to provide well-designed houses for all through a combination of a plan book service and individualized customization. Founded in 1914 and in operation across the US until the 1930s, the group ultimately faced its demise due to internal politics in the architecture profession. The ASHSB was endorsed by the American Institute of Architects (AIA)2 between 1922 and 1934 and had strong support from the Better Homes in America Movement. The first major query for the architecture profession was whether the design of typical single-family houses could rise to the level of “Architecture,” while the second concern for most architects was making money. Designing houses to meet individual needs at the level of production for the masses does not produce comparable profits to one-off commissions for the wealthy.
The ASHSB was founded in 1914 by four residential architects in Minnesota. The original charter states the organization’s mission was “to inform the public by means of social education about the application of principles of good architecture to building” (Tucker, 2008, p. 59). In its heyday, the bureau had thirteen regional offices across the country (Figure 1.1). The bureau members created single-family house designs for 4, 5, and 6 room houses. The designs were included in the monthly ASHSB magazine, The Small Home, as well as in a series of plan books which were sold to interested would-be homeowners. The house designs reflected regional differences such as Spanish Colonial in the Southwest and West and more traditional Colonial Revival designs for the Midwest and East Coast. The largest number of plans were purchased in Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania, although sets were also purchased in twenty-eight other states and the District of Columbia.
Figure 1.1 The Architects’ Small House Service Bureau (ASHSB) organization hierarchy.
In the time that the AIA endorsed the ASHSB, beginning in 1922, there were internal critics who voiced opposition to the endorsement. Ultimately, the AIA member body voted to revoke the endorsement in 1934. Once support of the architecture profession’s principal professional organization was removed, the ASHSB declined and eventually became obsolete.
The Better Homes in America Movement, which took place at the same time as the ASHSB, focused on improving the home as a way of improving character. Many prominent individuals associated with the Better Homes in America Movement also were part of the ASHSB. Blanche Halbert was the research director of the Better Homes in America Movement and, in her seminal book The Better Homes Manual (1931), wrote a comprehensive treatise on the requirements for a “good home”. The contents of the manual covers home ownership and financing, the cost of building a house and how to reduce those costs, the site for the house, architecture and style, house planning essentials, common building materials, home lighting, heating, ventilation and humidity, plumbing, refrigeration, wall and floor finishes, home furnishings, the kitchen, refinishing walls, floors and furniture, house standards, designing the grounds around the house, and rural homes. A second section of Halbert's work focuses on the need to improve housing conditions in cities and the organizations focused on these improvements—one, notably, being the Better Homes in America Movement.
In the section on style and architecture, Halbert (1931) outlines the elements and principles of good design: proportion, balance, rhythm, harmony, contrast, dominance, and unity. The historian and architectural critic Lewis Mumford provided essays on Beauty in Architecture and Materials in Architecture. The topic of Architectural Style was addressed by the architect Aymar Embury II and begins with a discussion of the large houses of England. He then proceeds to discuss the Colonial House. Other authors then provide information on the Dutch Colonial and the Spanish Colonial house typologies; notably, several of the examples given are from the ASHSB. R.W. Sexton concludes that “Colonial architecture is still the inspiration for the greater part of domestic architecture in all sections of this country….and we think of it as pre-eminently American. Then too, colonial architecture may reflect English, Spanish, French, or Dutch ancestry without detracting from its Americanism” (Halbert, 1931, p. 151). Modernism is then presented with an example of a flat roof concrete and glass house from Berlin. James Ford, director of the Better Homes in America Movement, concluded the chapter on design by emphasizing the need for small houses of sound construction and the duties of the architect. Ford described the need for an architect to provide economic and aesthetic value, and claimed the fee for services could be saved by making decisions that resulted in economies of planning and construction along with materials. Ford includes advice on what the architect should charge (6%—a minimum living wage) of the house cost.
Architect Arthur Holden’s advice on good house planning was that “the business of designing our homes has been in the hands of people who have been incapable” (Halbert, 1931, p. 172), and he concluded that the best minds were probably occupied with the design of larger buildings. Donn Barber, AIA comes to a similar conclusion: “Taken as a whole our houses as a real expression of satisfactory domestic architecture are way below par” (Halbert, 1931, p. 176). The advice concludes with James Ford directing would-be homeowners to the ASHSB for a small home that is well-designed.
Another early 20th century effort to provide well-designed houses was promoted by the Federal Government in the 1930s and again failed along political and financial lines. Under the Roosevelt Administration several housing solutions were proposed, including both urban and rural options. One of these was the Subsistence Homestead initiative directed toward displaced coal miners. The four subsistence farming developments were situated in Arthurdale, WV; Norvelt, PA; Westmoreland, TN; and Daly, WV. The most well-known of these four was Arthurdale, WV, as it was a personal project of Eleanor Roosevelt (Figure 1.2). Each of the developments included 200 or more single-family houses set on large parcels of land ranging in size from one to five acres. New residents were encouraged to grow their own food and raise livestock such as chickens, goats, pigs or cows. Small orchards were also common on these properties.
Figure 1.2 Arthurdale House, built as part of a rural housing initiative by the Roosevelt Administration. Image by Lisa Tucker.
Some of the challenges residents faced included the shift from coal mining to agricultural pursuits as well as the need to embrace a new way of life. Ultimately, the four communities lost federal financial support and were sold to private citizens, many of whom were residents of the same communities. Critics of the post-Great Depression New Deal Subsistence Homestead movement regarded these efforts as socialist, and once government funding was revoked the communities failed economically. Retrospectively, in a recent research project, Galford et al. (2023) found that despite the economic failure of these communities the residents and their descendants found great success in life from having lived in a community focused on self-sustained living.
The Subsistence Homestead houses were small, and in many ways similar to the ones designed by the ASHSB. Architects were engaged to produce the designs in all cases except phase one of Arthurdale, which was based on the Hodgson House Plan book models for recreational cabins. Incidentally, the phase one Arthurdale houses were also the least successful as they had not been properly adapted for the climate or year-round dwelling.
Following the New Deal Housing initiatives, the federal government and the architecture profession stepped back from having a direct involvement in single-family house design. Not surprisingly, in a capitalist society the dynamics surrounding housing and house design reflects the issues of both social class and economic privilege—the “haves” and the “have nots.” Only those with access to the most resources can afford to pay for customized design, while others must choose from what is available within a given price range. Issues of racial inequity, the gap between rich and poor, and the overall inadequate design of most houses have been underscored by the recent pandemic. Recent housing research has revolved primarily around racial issues, affordability, and COVID-19.
1.3 The American Dream Today
The concept of the “American Dream” is essential to understanding home building in the US. According to Cullen (2003), the term is credited to James Truslow Adams who first wrote about the idea in 1931, describing hope for a better life that might be attained through religion, education, home ownership, a better job, or simply the chance to start over as represented by the possibility of the United States (Cullen, 2003). One of the most common concrete manifestations of the dream is to own a freestanding single-family house and the property on which it is located. In his recent book, Architecture and Suburbia, John Archer (2005) analyzes the American Dream as it manifests at the beginning of the 21st century. According to Archer (2005), there are “deep seated American political and ideological currents” (p. 292) underpinning the American Dream. These include possessive individualism, my private arcadia (the notion that a man’s home is his castle), and the resulting behavioral fragmentation and isolation fueled by these concepts. The American Dream is predicated on land ownership, personalization, and territoriality; themes all common to environmental and behavioral research about the home.
The American Dream, to which most US citizens aspire, consists in large part of house ownership. The dream reflects the principles of property ownership and the self-made man. According to Archer (2005), “A crucial element of this political element and economic ideology that underpins both democracy in America and capitalism in general is the understanding that private possession of land is fundamental to economic activity, liberty, and political agency. Since these have become three key dimensions of modern identity, it has followed in Western culture and especially America that owning property, and especially land, has become a necessary basis for articulating self-hood” (p. 293).
In addition to reflecting one’s worth in the world, one primary way to build wealth in the US is through home ownership. The price of the average house in the US is over $397,000 for a new construction, and over $464,000 for resale houses—both of these are far outside of many peoples’ budgets. Added to this, the expectation to put down a substantial deposit when many people are living paycheck-to-paycheck excludes a substantial group of people from becoming homeowners.
Despite some of the design issues surrounding houses in the US, people assign significant meaning to where they live. Since early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced people to spend more time in their homes than ever before. Houses became places for living, working, learning, and exercising in response to stay at home mandates and the need to both work and attend school remotely.
For all these reasons, it is time to look at the design of houses and the current needs of people requiring houses. Most houses were not built to accommodate working and learning at home. Further, most do not accommodate people with reduced mobility needs. The critical question remains: How can designers make our housing stock respond to human needs while ensuring affordability and sustainability?
1.4 Organizations Involved in Single-Family Houses
Several organizations and groups have taken on parts of the house in an effort to meet people’s needs in their home environments. The National Kitchen and Bath Association (NKBA) has established guidelines for kitchen and bathroom design to make sure these important and expensive components of a house function correctly; the International Living Future Institute (ILFI), the Passive House rating system, and Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Homes have all tackled sustainability for houses along with the wellbeing of occupants; the International Living Future Institute has also engaged in work around affordability as an integral part of sustainability for housing projects; and the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) launched the ReGreen initiative in the early 2000s to spark conversation regarding sustainability for residential designers—today, the effort is currently being reinvigorated as part of ASID’s Climate, Health, and Equity Committee.
The NKBA research follows closely along the lines of the Kitchen and Bath Industry Show (KBIS) and is focused on market trends and luxury which is consistent with other major industry players. A recent report from May 2022 indicates three predominant trends in housing: intergenerational living, biophilic design, and technology adoption—especially by seniors. As illuminated by a recent ASID sponsored study conducted by academic researchers on integrative technologies, there appears to be a disconnect between industry research and academic findings on whether seniors are likely to adopt technology (Tural et al., 2021). ASID’s study is just one example of the clear divide between market-driven research on housing and research conducted by academic entities.
Several organizations are engaged in the homebuilding industry. The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) has a design committee, and the ASID created their Residential Design Green Tools (ReGreen) in the early 2000s (although currently undergoing an update). A more recent program, the Impact of Design, Volume 3 has highlighted case studies of using green approaches to residential projects (“Impact of Design Series,” 2018). As an organization, ASID has embraced issues of climate, health and equity and is examining the resources available to their members surrounding sustainable design. One of the key constituencies that might benefit from these resources are residential designers who have been much slower to adopt sustainability measures. The AIA has also been fostering a knowledge community around residential work and recently created a framework for design excellence in support of sustainability goals.
In addition to the work by professional organizations, there are several established green rating systems specifically focusing on residential design. Passive House standard claims to be the only internationally recognized performance-based energy standard, and as mentioned previously, the ILFI has a pilot project pertaining to affordable and sustainable homes and also directs the Living Building Challenge Certified Homes program. The LEED for Homes initiative has been around for many years, as has the LEED for Neighborhood Development rating system.
1.5 The American Dream Challenged
The lofty desire for a single-family house is a uniquely American aspiration. Thomas Jefferson first promoted the idea as a national ideal of democracy which highlighted the model family farm over the village model (Hayden, 2002). Jefferson equated happiness as contained within the Declaration of Independence3 with land ownership. The American Dream relies on home ownership, and while still an American aspiration, is challenged on several fronts in the 21st century. Key issues confronting many Americans include affordability and the ability to find houses that both meet their needs and are where they want to live. Several studies pointed to a move to more urban settings, but the recent pandemic challenged this notion. Instead of increased density, people sought space and physical distance, and many people fled urban areas, embracing teleworking and learning.
The current state of the American House is driven by the home-building machine. The typical American house has continued to increase in size despite the call across all other market sectors for sustainability and a need for affordability. Luxury kitchens and baths show up in every market survey reflecting current housing trends. Open plans with large great rooms, a combination of living rooms and kitchens, have replaced smaller, differentiated rooms. Despite all of this, the pandemic called this space-planning approach into question. One large open room might work well for entertaining yet can be disruptive to families working and learning at home. This did, however, offer an opportunity for people to question what they actually wanted and needed from their houses. When an industry is so closely aligned with capitalism and the need for a constantly expanding market to survive, it will be inherently at odds with sustainability and affordability and the desire to have a smaller carbon footprint.4
Three key considerations which challenge the evolutions of the American Dream are: affordability (equity), sustainability (resource depletion), and the demographic shift towards an aging population.
1.5.1 Affordability
According to the most recent census data on new housing in the US, the median sales price of new single-family homes sold in 2022 was $457,800, while the average sales price was $540,000. The median size of a new single-family home was 2,383 square feet (US Census, 2022). The size of the single-family house has risen continually since the early 20th century, reaching an all-time high in 2014 (Newser Staff, 2016) as shown in Figures 1.3 and 1.4
Figure 1.3 The increase in average single-family house size since 1920. (Adapted from https://www.statista.com/statistics/456925/median-size-of-single-family-home-usa).
Figure 1.4 Sample Universal Design guidelines pertaining to daylighting developed by The Kelsey Organization (The Kelsey Design Standards, 2021 / The Kelsey).
Recent survey anthologies have outlined current trends in housing. These include The Routledge Handbook of Housing Policy and Planning (Anacker et al., 2020) and the Introduction to Housing (Anacker et al., 2018). Anacker et al. (2020) focuses on affordability issues in the final section, mentioning inequality and gentrification in earlier sections. Special Topics in Housing (Anacker et al., 2018) underlines racial and ethnic diversity, aging, health, sustainability, and natural disasters. The handbooks are not focused on the design of housing, but instead highlight the issues facing housing.
1.5.2 Sustainability
The housing industry has an enormous impact on climate change, energy use, and resource depletion. Even though the entire commercial architecture sector has embraced sustainable rating systems such as LEED and the Living Building Challenge as well as human wellness through healthy materials and the International WELL Building Standard, the residential sector has been slow to embrace these same key initiatives. Knowing that the typical person spends over 90% of their time inside of buildings, and that interior environments and air quality contribute to the transmission of COVID-19 infection, the need for a new approach to housing options is critical.
Sustainable residential design has not yet been a market focus. Despite large successes in the commercial design marketplace moving manufacturers towards sustainable products and manufacturing techniques as well as designers who hold credentials pertaining to sustainability, the same trend has not yet transpired in the residential design area, which still focuses heavily on trends and taste making. In fact, contrary to promoting measures in sustainability, influencers frequently tout new products to both designers and homeowners with a focus on endless consumption.
1.5.3 Aging Population
Called the “Silver Tsunami” by housing experts, the population in Japan, Korea, western European countries and the US are rapidly aging. The need for housing that can accommodate people with both physical and mental issues increases daily. In addition, a recent survey of people over the age of 50 shows that 76% want to stay in their own home as they age. According to a report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (2019), the fastest growing age group in the US population during the next twenty years will be people in their eighties. Concurrent with this, those aged 65–79 are the least likely to move and only 2.9% of those over 80 relocated in 2017–2018. The highest percentage of those owning a home in this age group live in low-density areas and this number has been increasing since 2000. The research also shows large gaps in homeownership based on race, with White people far outpacing Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as homeowners (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2019), moreover, those owning a home show far greater wealth than those that rent, even when their incomes are similar. This has led to an all-time high in the number of retirement-age households facing cost burdens related to housing.
Most single-family houses as well as other housing types do not meet the needs of those who desire to age in place. Although the concept of Universal Design has been around for decades, in the majority of cases house designers still fail to integrate this approach. A study from the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University conducted in 2011 estimated that only 3.5% of all US homes had basic accessibility features (Harvard, 2019). A new affordable housing initiative within the International Living Future Institute recently highlighted the importance of Universal Design in the work of The Kelsey project’s Housing Standards for Accessibility and Inclusion. According to the work of The Kelsey in partnership with Mikiten Architecture and the Inclusive Design Council, 26% of Americans have sensory or mobility issues while only 6% of housing accommodates their needs; of this population, less than 11% can afford to rent or own their own homes (The Kelsey Design Standards, 2021).
1.6 Solutions
A range of solutions have been proposed with regards to solving some of the issues facing housing. These range from solutions addressing accessibility and aging in place in the single-family home to suburban accessory dwelling units, and from cohousing developments to urban living in dense high rises. A new focus on health and wellness has transcended the workplace and is now being evaluated in the home environment.
1.6.1 Accessory Dwelling Units and Cohousing
In response to the need for senior housing, several proposals have been introduced. Among these, multigenerational housing, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and cohousing communities have been presented as potential solutions for the impending senior living crisis. Golant (2020) studied the relationship between feeling connected and the perception of housing quality, noting that connectivity often depends on the use of automobiles, leaving those who do not drive at a disadvantage. Ahrentzen and Steiner (2020) evaluated various models for older adults and aging in a community, including village style retirement communities, multigenerational and senior cohousing, and ADUs. The authors mention lack of choice and affordability as challenges confronted with these options. In addition, some municipalities prohibit some of these options, especially ADUs. In order to support older adults, barriers to these types of options must be removed at the community level. Pfeiffer et al. (2020) reiterate many of the same housing solutions (e.g., cohousing, ADUs), including case studies from Denmark and Canada which provide opportunities and constraints in these solutions related to physical and social accessibility and emotional wellbeing. Challenges to these communities include regulation, financing issues, and the social capacity for support.
1.6.2 Is Multi-family Housing the Answer?
Many architects have argued that the answer to the housing problem is urban dwelling in a multi-family housing complex. This contradicts the American Dream and its inherent core value of land ownership in a country of vast land mass. While arguments are to be made for density and sustainability, the recent COVID-19 pandemic also revealed the problems with this approach to housing people. Small urban apartments did not readily support telecommuting, which most people turned to as a strategy for work and education when required to isolate in place. In addition to not providing adequate workspace for teleworking and learning, these small, densely populated properties led to experienced confinement and isolation.
Recent research on biophilic design reinforces the importance that connection to nature holds to human beings. While it is possible to design urban housing projects to include biophilic elements, this has not traditionally been a primary design focus of these projects. Thus, to be part of the solution for housing, urban developments must respond to basic human needs for health and wellbeing.
1.6.3 Health and Wellbeing
Regardless of the type of housing solutions proposed, basic human needs and health must be considered. Recent affordable housing developments registered with the ILFI have sought to include healthy interior materials as well as other sustainability criteria within the affordable housing lexicon. The ILFI has created a Red List of chemicals to be avoided that have proven harmful to humans, many of which are commonly found in building materials. The rise in Environmental Product Declarations and Health Product Declarations are a positive indicator of human health consideration, but it is incumbent upon designers and architects to specify products that are healthy rather than rely on any regulatory bodies to mandate these considerations. Present legislation for healthy materials lags far behind our current understanding of what is harmful to include in interior environments.
Several new initiatives around materials for construction support healthier approaches. These include the Health Product Declarations (HPDs) and Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) mentioned above, along with initiatives like Mindful Materials, the AIA Material Pledge, ASID’s Climate Health and Equity work, the Living Building Challenge Declare Label and Red List, Parsons Healthy Material Lab, and Perkins and Will Transparency database. Ecomedes is a platform seeking to host as much information as possible about manufacturers and their efforts toward transparency of healthy building materials. These examples are merely some of the efforts being spent to correct the major health and wellbeing problem in the built environment. Unfortunately, a significant amount of this knowledge is not being integrated into residential design at the same rate as large commercial projects.
1.7 Housing Is a Human Right
The state of housing in the US challenges researchers and designers to consider core values. If the average cost of a house is over $300,000, where do most people live? What about the 26% of people who cannot use the average house due to sensory or mobility issues? The population is aging, so, where are the adequate options for the elderly as they age? What matters the most to people?
An excellent example of the disconnect between those providing housing and the population is encapsulated in Builder Magazine’s list of housing trends for 2022: down-to-earth colors, functional offices, sustainability and efficiency, outdoor living, comfy cozy, smart technology, hardworking storage, aging in place, furry friends, health and wellness (Strong, 2022). While these trends reflect many of the current needs, they also downplay the importance of the big issues by starting with down-to-earth colors and including comfy cozy, and furry friends, highlighting matters of privilege alongside (and in place of) critical issues of equity, health, and wellness.
According to the United Nations, housing is a basic human right. The legal basis of this was recognized as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and again in article 11.1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (United Nations, 1966). Moreover, twice in the history of the US, a president has explicitly claimed housing is a basic human right—in 1932, at the election of Franklin Roosevelt, and in 2020, when Joe Biden was elected (Tars, 2021).
All of these and other related issues are found in the United Nation’s 17 Sustainability Goals. In conjunction with these goals, American houses need to provide affordable housing for all (Goal 11), use less energy (Goal 7) and resources (Goal 12), all of which can be accomplished through design. It is time to reflect on the state of the American House, and for designers to step into this arena and design for people of all ages, income levels, and regions of the US. Historic examples, particularly the ASHSB, provide precedent and a beginning template for how this might be accomplished. All people deserve a well-designed house that meets their needs and the needs of their family—whatever that might look like. As demographics change in the US, so too does the definition of family and who might want to be living together. An assumption of husband and wife with 2.5 kids no longer reflects the reality of how most people live in the US. Extended families are more commonly cohabitating, as are new and diverse types of families, while the population of those living alone rises. The birth rate in the US continues to fall while the population continues to grow—largely driven by immigration. All of these factors impact actual human housing needs.
References
Ahrentzen, S., & Steiner, R. (2020). Housing models for aging in community. In K. B. Anacker, M. T. Nguyen, & D. P. Varady, (Eds.),
The routledge handbook of housing policy and planning
. Routledge.
Anacker, K. B., Carswell, A. T., Kirby, S. D., & Tremblay, K. R. (Eds.). (2018).
Introduction to housing
(2nd ed.). The University of Georgia Press.
Anacker, K. B., Nguyen, M. T., & Varady, D. P. (Eds.). (2020).
The routledge handbook of housing policy and planning
. Routledge.
Archer, J. (2005).
Architecture and suburbia: From English villa to American dream house, 1690–2000
. The University of Minnesota Press.
Chase, J. (1991). The role of consumerism in American architecture.
Journal of Architectural Education
,
44
(4), 211–224.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1991.11102697
Cullen, J. (2003).
The American dream: A short story of the idea that shaped a nation
. Oxford University Press.
Eichler, N. (1982).
The merchant builders
. The MIT Press.
Galford, G., Tucker, L., & Martin, L. (2023).
Sustainable Arthurdale: A Reevaluation of a 1930s planned community
.
Journal of Appalachian Studies, 29(1), 47–63
.
Golant, S. (2020). Connectivity as an indicator of older people’s housing quality. In K. B. Anacker, M. T. Nguyen, & D. P. Varady (Eds.),
The routledge handbook of housing policy and planning
. Routledge.
Gutman, R. (1985).
The design of American housing: A reappraisal of the architect’s role
. National Endowment for the Arts Design Arts Program.
Hafertepe, K., & O’Gorman, J. (2001).
American architects and their books to 1848
. University of Massachusetts Press.
Halbert, B. (1931).
The better home manual
. The University of Chicago Press.
Hayden, D. (2002).
Redesigning the American dream: Gender, housing and family life
(2nd ed.). WW Norton and Co.
Impact of Design Series. (2018). Vol. 3. Retrieved from
https://www.asid.org/impact-of-design/gradients-of-green
International Code Council. (2018).
International Building Code
. ICC.
International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. (1966). United Nations. Retrieved from
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2019).
Housing America’s Older Adults 2019: A Supplement to the State of the Nation’s Housing Report
. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.
Newser Staff. (2016, May 29).
Average size of US homes. Newser.
Retrieved from
https://www.newser.com/story/225645/average-size-of-us-homes-decade-by-decade.html
Oxford Languages (n.d.) Definition of “Capitalism”. Retrieved from
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en
Park, H. (1973).
A list of architectural pattern books available in America before the revolution
. Adolf K. Placzek.
