The sanctuary of home – ADC

The housing market has changed radically in the last few decades due to economic and regulatory upheavals, as well as the shifting preferences and expectations of those who buy or rent properties. Unsurprisingly, this has impacted all aspects of residential design and procurement – not least the humble bathroom and what it can and should be in the 21st century. So what are the key issues and challenges facing the housing industry today, and how are these factors influencing the way we think about and design domestic bathrooms?

These questions were addressed by a panel of experts at a round table discussion in London hosted by Architecture Today in partnership with VitrA. Selected for their diverse experience and perspectives, the round table participants comprised representatives from architectural practice, interior design and marketing, developers, and a leading bathroom manufacturer.

Responding to future needs

The discussion started with AT Editor and chairperson Isabel Allen asking the panel how aware they thought house buyers were of the need to think about their future needs, and whether it was part of their job to help them envisage what these might be. Nimi Attanayake of nimtim architects was the first panellist to respond, explaining how her practice had developed an informal ‘game’ aimed at exploring how new clients live now and how they might live in the future. “Everybody knows that a game is fun and semi-serious, so they [the clients] get invested in it, and from there we’re able to draw out the brief,” She said. “Clients often look at their existing spaces and think they need something bigger. But it’s not always about the space, it’s about how you live and how can you adapt the property for how you would like to live in the future. That doesn’t always mean providing more space, it could be about retrofitting or reworking what’s already there.”

Referencing the new-build housing sector, developer Roger Black of Ballymore said that big estates provided an opportunity for social interaction – something the company was committed to and passionate about. “For me, success in real estate now is measured by the social outcomes.” he said. “If you get a high score on the social component of the scheme, the commercial stuff just follows.” In respect of the changing priorities of house buyers, Black felt that value and quality were highly regarded, while sustainability was not a major concern – due in part to the expectation that this element would be ‘taken care of’ by the developer. By contrast, those in the rental market who were not making a permanent commitment to a building or location, tended to be more concerned about and show a greater awareness of environmental issues.

Allen asked Damien Sharkey of HUB whether he thought longer rental periods, seen in countries such as France and Germany, were becoming commonplace in UK. He said that there had been a shift towards longer tenancies, and that his company was witnessing a new generation of tenants who really care about the environment around them. “They’re interested in social impact of what we [HUB] are doing,” he explained. “They’re also asking how are we recycling? How is the building constructed? And what are we doing for the local community? All of our schemes are seeking a positive impact, both socially and environmentally.”

Sharkey also highlighted the ‘amenity arms race’ that has arisen amongst developers – a point Black picked up on, believing that this approach had now got out of hand. “Sociability trumps amenity every time,” he said. “People are searching for social quality ahead of swimming pools in the sky.”

Maximising engagement

Attanayake made the point that community engagement is critical for both new and existing residents when it comes to creating successful housing developments, and that developers were starting to see the value of this. Black took a more cynical view, suggesting that many developers were still dismissive of this approach; although he expected this to change in the coming years. Attanayake, Black and Sharkey were in agreement on the merits of community engagement, with the later saying that this had improved many aspects of his company’s projects – not least the planning journey.

Sharan Elliott of Ademchic spoke about the disconnect between marketing and design in terms of engaging with potential house buyers and communicating the values of the property company and/or architect involved. “Taking control of everything from floor plan optimisation to social media campaigns, marketing, showhomes, and hoardings results in a single language for the design vision, which is easy for potential occupants to follow and understand,” she explained. Repeat clients attest to the success of this approach for the multi-disciplinary company. Elliott also highlighted the importance of post-occupancy evaluation, durable amenities, and minimal maintenance requirements, in respect of maximising tenant satisfaction and tenancy retention.

Re-evaluating the bathroom

On the subject of bathroom trends, Ruth Davies of VitrA said that there had been a shift away from purely functional spaces to environments that encouraged occupiers to linger and enjoy their time. “For us, it’s about how can we maximise the experience of using your bathroom.” She explained. Returning to the question of future needs within residential developments, Davies said that the company’s approach was to suggest practical measures, that would ensure client/user enjoyment today and in the in the years to come. “Bathrooms are a big investment in terms of time, energy and money, so it’s important to get it right and achieve longevity,” she said.

VitrA’s David Richards concurred, saying that the company was bringing more products to market aimed at longevity of use, and catering to the needs of a wider age demographic. “The functionality [of the products] is still there, but from an installation and RMI aspect they are easier to look after for the length of time they are installed,” he explained. The diversification of bathroom product was also going hand-in-hand with a design language that purposely avoided associations with fixtures and fittings that were previously only found in institutional or care environments. Specifically, there are more options for people wishing to plan ahead.

Getting the basics right

Christian Ducker of Gundry + Ducker made the point that many residential clients tend to focus only on their current needs. “We always encourage make people to think five years ahead, but trying to make them think any further ahead than that is almost impossible,” he reflected. Referencing Attanayake’s earlier observation on the possibility of retrofitting rather than extending, Ducker said that the cliché of living in a large open-plan barn persisted, but that there was a richness to spatial variety in terms of feel, function, daylighting and aspect. He also decried the current propensity for ‘unnecessary extensions,’ which in his opinion wasted both resources and money.

Demian Erbar of Erbar Mattes was in agreement with the points raised by Ducker and Attanayake on spatial variety and flexibility in the home. “Domestic buildings can have hundreds of different lives if they are well designed,” he said. “For us, it’s about getting the shell right with well-proportioned rooms and a strong connection to the outside. If the architectural ‘bones’ are there, we can build in adaptability.” Erbar cautioned against ‘over designing’ domestic projects, and thereby limiting the way the spaces might be used or repurposed in the future.

Sustainability theory and practice

As the conversation turned to sustainability, Ducker revealed that while many clients aspire to greater environmental responsibility, they often chose to spend their money on items they could see, such as quality kitchens and bathrooms, rather than ‘hidden’ performance upgrades to the building fabric. From a manufacturers perspective, Richards said that the demand for greener bathroom products was being driven by both developers and VitrA itself. He also highlighted the potential dichotomy between green product theory and practice. “We’ve had requests for showers that run at six litres per minute, which is possible from a technical perspective,” he explained. “But in reality it means that users will probably spend five-times longer under the shower than they would with a 12 or 18 litre per minute product! It’s about achieving a practical balance between environmental gains and performance in use.”

Elliott and Black agreed that sustainability buy-in for housing customers was closely linked to cost and visibility of the environmental technologies, with many choosing to prioritise other factors, including the ‘experience’ and overall value. Black was critical of environmental ‘gestures’, such as green walls and photovoltaic panels, which he felt were often ineffective or even wasteful, but necessary in terms of gaining planning permission. By contrast, he favoured addressing embodied carbon, carbon in use, and long-term durability at design stage in order to make more meaningful environmental gains. This point was echoed by Sharkey who advocated a fabric-first approach and exceeding minimum standards set out in the Building Regulations.

Speaking about smaller-scale residential developments, Attanayake said, “We’re finding on the ground that people care about more practical matters. They don’t want a full Passivhaus or environmental accreditation; they want certainty for their [energy] bills. So improved insulation, electric heating, and greener/healthier materials are gaining more traction among our clients.”

Living with the Building Safety Act

The final question posed by Allen was, what single regulatory or fiscal measure could the government introduce to aid the delivery of high-quality housing? Black was unequivocal: repeal the Building Safety Act. “The obligations and liabilities on the supply chain and the professionals are already there,” he said, “But the Building Safety Act has completely paralysed the building industry and we don’t know what the consequences are going to be.”

Sharkey concurred: “We don’t need more legislation – we need to take some of it away, as  we’ve tied ourselves up in red tape. We have a 2000-home development going through the process next year. It’s meant to take 12 weeks, but it’s probably going to be more like 39 weeks, and it’s costing millions of pounds more. The BSA is changing how we procure and fund buildings, as well as creating a lot of uncertainty, yet in spite of this we are expected to deliver more housing.”

Attanayake bemoaned the lack of clarity and industry guidance around the implementation of the Building Safety Act. She also felt that architects were in a good position to assume the Principal Designer role, but the responsibility of the position required a commensurate fee. Ducker asked Attanayake if she felt her practice could charge a fee for this role and whether clients would accept it. “It’s a tricky one, as we are having to justify what it [the BSA] is, without a consensus on what it entails,” she confessed. Ducker concurred, “It’s very difficult to agree a fee with the client and then add another fee on top for this ‘mysterious’ other role, which the client assumes is just red tape. So inevitably you end up having to do the work for free.”

“We have architects not wanting to do the [Principal Designer] role, because they don’t know enough about it, and their PI doesn’t cover it,” commented Sharkey. “We are pushing and paying architects to do it because we feel that they are the most appropriate people to fulfil the role – particularly when they are novated. I would say that 50 per cent of architects that we work with don’t want to do it, and I understand that because it’s a leap into the unknown.”

For Black, the real safety issue in the UK was an inadequate inspection regime for multi-family housing. He advocated for a certification system based on yearly safety inspections – in line with current legislation in the USA. “The [BSA] legislation infers that we have a problem with new housing, but actually the problem is with our existing and older stock,” he said. “People are not dying in new buildings, they’re dying in old ones, because front doors are changed, fire doors are wedged open, fire extinguishers are not replaced on a regular basis, fire alarms don’t work, and so on.”

While the discussion ended on a somewhat downbeat note, it nevertheless highlighted a wide range of issues, from the changing priorities and expectations of housing occupiers to the real and perceived effects of environmental technologies, and the importance of good social outcomes. Above all perhaps, it reinforced the notion that designing houses and housing with the future in mind is a prerequisite not a luxury.