Barriers to implementing adaptable housing: architects’ perceptions in Finland and Denmark

Abstract

Adaptability is one key aspect in making housing more sustainable. One major approach to adaptability is internal transformability of buildings, i.e. the possibility to make modifications to the spaces and their equipment within the existing building envelope. This aspect is often taken into consideration in the design and implementation of office buildings. However, in housing the situation is different, and internal transformability is very seldom implemented in apartment buildings. There is a lack of studies for the reasons for this. In this article we take a look at the barriers to internal transformability of apartment buildings in two Nordic countries, Finland and Denmark. We compare the situations in both countries, and highlight their similarities and differences. The research is based on interviews of Finnish and Danish architects who have been involved in designing such buildings within the last 20 years. The interviews show that the disinterest of housing developers has been the main barrier to implementing internal transformability. Another important barrier is the developers’ cost-optimization. Secondary barriers were related to lack of solutions in building services that would support internal transformability. Additionally, secondary barriers were related to common construction techniques, regulations, and building conventions. Major barriers were similar in both countries. However, some differences in the secondary and other barriers between the two countries also exist.

Motivations and market solutions for flexible housing in Finland

“…These views support earlier descriptions of flexibility in the history of residential buildings (c.f. Hakaste, 2014 ; Tarpio, 2015 ; Tarpio et al, 2021 ).…”

“…(c.f. Hakaste, 2014 ; Tarpio, 2015 ; Tarpio et al, 2021 ) Research on the current drivers and market solutions for flexible residential housing in Finland is scarce.…”

Residents’ views on adaptable housing: a virtual reality-based study

“…Compared with regular housing construction, where design is optimised to meet the present demand (e.g. Schneider & Till 2007;Krokfors 2017;Tarpio et al 2021), multifunctional or transformable solutions may require overprovision of space, structural capacity or building services (Rabeneck et al 1974; see also Rabeneck 2021). Unsurprisingly, most factors beneficial to adaptability also increase investment costs, while it remains obscure whether these provisions will ever be capitalised on (Geraedts et al 2017).…”

“…Unsurprisingly, most factors beneficial to adaptability also increase investment costs, while it remains obscure whether these provisions will ever be capitalised on (Geraedts et al 2017). Consequently, developers have been hesitant to invest on them (Geraedts et al 2017;Tarpio et al 2021). One additional reason for this may be that despite the academic discourse on benefits for residents, some practitioners believe that no substantial market demand truly exists (Tarpio et al 2021).…”

“…Consequently, developers have been hesitant to invest on them (Geraedts et al 2017;Tarpio et al 2021). One additional reason for this may be that despite the academic discourse on benefits for residents, some practitioners believe that no substantial market demand truly exists (Tarpio et al 2021). It has also been recently proposed that the market should identify and understand people's needs for adaptability better (Femenias & Geromel 2019).…”