Housing space standards: is it time for a more flexible approach?

There is no skirting around the topic I want to discuss: we need to talk about space standards in housing. And more specifically, to confront a controversial yet increasingly relevant question: should space standards apply to all new housing in the future?

This might seem contradictory to my usual advocacy for ‘quality not just quantity’, but as we move forward with the ‘Towards a New London Plan’ consultation, I feel that now is the time to interrogate how, as architects, we define quality and whether fixed space standards always support it.

Why do we have space standards?

The Nationally Described Space Standard (NDSS) exists for a good reason; it provides protection over minimum habitable space in new homes. In London, the NDSS is already adopted under the current London Plan and supplemented by two additional requirements:

1. Ceiling heights 20 cm higher than the national standard

2. A minimum area of private outdoor space for each home

These standards rightly aim to protect residents from substandard living conditions and avoid the ‘race to the bottom’, an issue we saw manifest itself in many early Permitted Development conversions.

But even with their good intentions, space standards deserve scrutiny, especially now. In a rapidly evolving housing landscape, we must ask: do current standards encourage the best design outcomes? Or have they become an inflexible metric that risks suppressing more viable alternatives?

Quality, affordability, and the space dilemma

Let’s talk specifics. The current London Plan encourages homes to be around 10% larger than NDSS. If we instead allowed homes to be 10% smaller, could we unlock a 10% increase in the number of homes created?

That’s not an argument for density at all costs. But consider housing models like Pocket Living; their homes are typically 20% smaller than NDSS, yet they’re also 20% below market rate. They are purposefully designed and very desirable among first-time buyers. These are homes that prioritise design intelligence over footprint.

Architects designing for Pocket and similar models are not compromising quality. They’re refining it.

And Pocket buyers aren’t necessarily looking for bigger homes; they want affordability, independence and design that fits their needs. So, are these smaller homes substandard? Or are they a smart response to a shifting housing landscape?

Smaller homes: smart or risky?

Some will argue that smaller homes can be detrimental to health and wellbeing, but this is not a one-size-fits-all situation. To understand the broader implications, we should ask design for wellbeing specialists like Ben Channon – author of Happy by Design (RIBA Publishing 2018) and now head of inclusive environments at Buro Happold – who have explored how mental health and design intersect.

Ben tells us that “while larger homes can certainly allow us to provide features and facilities that can enhance liveability and ultimately mental wellbeing, it is certainly not a simple equation of ‘bigger homes = happier people’. There are a plethora of other factors which impact how we feel both in our home and about our home, be that our level of physical comfort (including acoustic and thermal comfort), our sense of safety, our perceived level of control, and even things like the material selection and views offered from our home.

“And without smaller homes – in my case through Pocket Living – I would never have been able to get on the property ladder.”

Ben also emphasises that “there is certainly a case, therefore, that we need a range of ‘product types’ to suit the needs of people at different stages of their lives, although of course it is also fundamental that we ensure homes are still liveable, accessible and adaptable, regardless of size.”

Perhaps the answer lies not in the size of the home, but in how it is designed. Prioritising daylight, views, ventilation, floor to ceiling height and intelligent storage may deliver quality living in compact spaces. A tight plan can still be a healthy, generous home if the right principles are applied.

Price per square metre: a metric we should use?

As architects, we’re often left out of economic decision-making, but we shouldn’t be. If we are asked to design within rigid standards, we should also be able to question whether those standards reflect value.

In housing markets like Paris, price per square metre is a public, transparent figure. It is treated as a critical metric, much as I check cost per kilo at the supermarket. Should we not adopt the same transparency for housing, arguably the most expensive purchase we will ever make?

Space costs money. If we’re going to argue for more space, let’s be honest about what it costs and whether that value is always proportionate to what it provides.

Who gets to choose smaller?

It is worth asking: should smaller homes be limited to the private sector, where buyers choose them, and not for those who have less choice about their housing situation? Nobody relying on social or affordable housing should be forced into homes that feel inadequate. But for those who want small, compact, well-designed homes, we shouldn’t stand in their way.

Choice matters. Design makes that choice viable.

Adapting to life transitions

Housing needs are not static. As Sonia Lavadinho, a Swiss sociologist, explained at the Housing Matters forum during MIPIM 2024, traditional housing models haven’t kept pace with the fluidity of modern life. She used the terms “aloning” and “togethering” to reflect key lifestyle phases. She described the recurring shifts in how people live: alone in their 20s and 30s, with others after forming families or partnerships, and often alone again later in life.

In a world where divorce, relocation, delayed family formation and longer life expectancies are common, housing should offer flexibility. The market, however, is still creating standard frameworks that assume one type fits all as the default.

If the housing sector is to stay relevant and supportive, it must reflect these realities, providing homes that cater to varied life stages, living arrangements and economic circumstances. The industry needs to catch up. We need a housing mix that reflects this dynamism. And as architects, we can question whether assumptions about permanence, family structure and size are serving modern lives.

Variety, not uniformity

So, what if we allowed some flexibility in space standards to foster greater housing variety? A proportion of smaller homes could be one tool in a bigger strategy, to be used intelligently to meet demand without compromising dignity. That doesn’t mean abandoning standards altogether; it means applying them thoughtfully, considering both minimum quality and maximum choice.

Because ultimately, the right home isn’t always the biggest one. It’s the one that fits.