Challenges

The active involvement of individuals and groups in shaping their housing environments at a neighbourhood level can play a vital role in addressing the current conditions of the housing crisis. The collective participation in the decision-making of developing, and upgrading their housing environments or neighbourhoods, can generate social innovation and new housing models with the collaboration of the public with residents and non-profit associations. Empowering communities to achieve meaningful housing solutions, while acknowledging their diverse needs, poses a multifaceted challenge that can significantly improve the community's well-being.  The challenge should encompass considerations of affordability, community engagement, social equity, and inclusion, as well as, the development of policies and regulations that support these goals, equitable access to resources, and the strengthening of community capacity. In order to effectively support the community, it is essential to take cultural factors into account and gain an understanding of what sustains long-term community sustainability.

Meeting the diverse range of needs in multi-family housing through mass customisation strategies is necessary to meet the varied requirements of numerous households within a sustainable and affordable framework. Industrialised methods of construction have the potential to leverage mass production techniques, optimise fabrication processes and reduce the environmental impact of construction through higher degrees of digitisation and a streamlined coordination. Unfortunately, the construction sector traditionally operates in silos. Architects, engineers, component makers, and construction companies working separately and with short-sighted strategies. Therefore, interdisciplinary collaboration is necessary to develop product platforms of standardised components, connections, and processes that can provide flexible and adaptable multi-family housing. Moreover, to deliver adaptable housing solutions for both short and long-term customisation, it is crucial to consider Open Building principles that account for the lifespan of various building layers. Finally, integrating users into the customisation process through workshops and digital tools would result not only in the reduction of waste and efficient use of resources but as well in co-creating meaningful dwellings with a greater sense of ownership. 

Political challenges lie in legally protecting buildings and housing from future destruction. Currently, designing housing to be circular – with the intention for future disassembly and reuse – does not guarantee the current or future asset owner will not choose to demolish. Demolition is common practice and in fact at times rewarded. In the UK for example, new build projects, which often entail demolition, are exempt from Value Added Tax (VAT) in contrast to refurbishment projects. Retention of whole buildings should be prioritised, and where feasible building parts, such as the structure should be saved from demolition.

Stakeholders attempting to deliver circular housing are confronted with unclear, and at times contradictory industry guidance on circular construction from the European Commission down to the local level. This includes variation across the EU-wide framework Level(s), national policies, advice from the Green Building Council (a non-governmental organisation), regional and local guidelines. Built environment professionals and local councils require harmonised and practical guidance that has been applied to exemplary case studies.

It is crucial policies focussed on improving different areas of housing sustainability are harmonised to achieve the common goal of improving affordability and minimising negative environmental impacts of construction. Energy efficiency policies are at risk of taking a narrow focus on the use phase, lacking consideration for embodied energy arising from the production and transport of building materials and parts. How can policymakers ensure embodied carbon isn’t inadvertently increased and demolition is prevented? A whole life cycle approach is key to consider a greater range of factors over a much longer time-period to reduce this risk.

When designing affordable homes, it is crucial to strike a balance between construction costs, future operational expenses (such as energy, maintenance, and repairs), and long-term quality, all of which impact residents’ health and financial wellbeing. Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is a method that helps estimate the total costs over a home’s lifespan, integrating both initial and ongoing expenses based on design choices that affect quality. However, using LCC in design stages might lead to a focus on reducing upfront costs, potentially overlooking investments in tangible features crucial for residents’ long-term health and financial stability. This oversight could be attributed to inconsistencies  in parameter selection for inclusion in an LCC model.  For instance, due to budget constraints, housing providers might need to reduce upfront costs as construction expenses continue to rise. In such cases, photovoltaic panels, despite their long-term financial benefits for households, might be omitted to achieve immediate cost savings.

The normative housing studio pedagogical model has been proven to reinforce high levels of isolation from the realities of people (increased population mobility, climate crisis, extreme financialisation of housing, commodification of urban life etc.), fostering self-reference, competitiveness, and a false sense of primacy in spatial matters. Live studio methodologies have sought to break the silos of disciplinary boundaries and reconfigure the archetype of the architect, however due to the mostly acupuncture nature of their application on a global scale, the gap between education and real-world practices persists.