Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 M.Sc. Student in Architectural Engineering-Housing, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
2 Associate Professor of Architecture and Urban planning, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor of Architecture and Urban planning, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
As affordable housing is primarily designed with affordability in mind, qualitative and quantitative criteria are often not considered together. Therefore, this research aims to analyze the relationship between quantity and quality in affordable housing. The first step involved identifying the qualitative and quantitative criteria, their frequency, and importance coefficients using a descriptive methodology and Shannon entropy testing. Next, scoring regulations for plan analysis were developed based on design strategies derived from surveys (structured interviews). Nine selected plans in Parand New City were then evaluated by specialists in accordance with these regulations. Finally, the relationship between the area and the quality of the selected qualitative plans was analyzed. The findings revealed that the public zone plays a key role in one- and three-bedroom units, while in two-bedroom units; the service zone is of greater importance. In conclusion, contrary to common belief, increasing the area does not necessarily result in higher quality.
Keywords: Affordable Housing, Quantity-Quality Relationship, Qualitative Optimization.
Introduction
Housing is a multifaceted phenomenon, encompassing social, cultural, physical, economic, and other dimensions. Affordable housing is often at risk of losing quality due to an emphasis on economic considerations and quantitative optimization, such as reducing area. However, resident satisfaction is achieved through a balance of both quantitative and qualitative aspects of housing. Identifying the factors that influence quality alone is not sufficient; therefore, the research question is: what are the minimum quantitative dimensions and spatial relationships that result in maximum quality? Based on this, the aim of this research is to examine the relationship between quantity and quality in affordable housing plans.
Literature Review
In the domain of affordable housing, various criteria exert influence, particularly the categorization of qualitative and quantitative factors. Several studies have focused on qualitative criteria. For instance, Ameri and Poudat (2021) identified three key qualitative factors: the integration of uses, flexible furniture arrangements, and spatial transparency (p. 5). Elkady et al. (2018) similarly emphasized the importance of flexible design. Brysch and colleagues, focusing on the qualitative dimensions of cooperative housing, concluded that participatory design processes significantly enhance the likelihood of improving housing affordability (Brysch & Czischke, 2022). In "The Theory of Social Sustainability and Residential Complexes," Zarghami (2017) examined the relationship between quantitative and qualitative criteria but placed greater emphasis on the quality of living spaces in relation to the built environment rather than spatial dimensions (p. 4). Rahmaniani, Memarian, and Mohammad Moradi (2021) highlighted "interior architecture" and "level of general and specialized knowledge" as the most influential factors in enhancing the quality of small-scale housing in Iran (p. 131).
Research centered on quantitative criteria presents similar insights. Ajiliyan Momtaz, Rafieian, and Agha Safari (2017) identified housing size, the number of rooms, and room dimensions as essential indicators within the physical category (pp. 247, 255). Zohreh and Rezaei (2020) emphasized block size, unit size, and residential space dimensions as significant indices of residential satisfaction in mass housing developments, including affordable housing (pp. 10, 15).
A critical gap in the existing literature is the insufficient exploration of how the relationship between spatial area (quantity) and housing quality functions, and how maximum quality can be achieved through specific quantitative spatial relationships. This research addresses this gap, representing a novel contribution to the field.
Methodology
In the initial phase of the study, 21 qualitative criteria were selected, drawn from a comprehensive review of the relevant literature. Content analysis was employed to determine the frequency of each criterion within the sources, and their respective importance coefficients were calculated using Shannon's entropy method. In the second phase, a survey research method was employed, whereby interview questions were formulated based on the extracted criteria. The results from these structured interviews were utilized to refine the criteria and develop a scoring rubric for plan evaluation. In the third phase, a case study approach, complemented by comparative analogy methodologies, was applied to categorize the existing housing plans in Parand New City based on quantitative criteria. Subsequently, these plans were subjected to detailed evaluation and analysis. A total of nine plan types—comprising three one-bedroom, three two-bedroom, and three three-bedroom unit plans—were assessed by specialists according to the developed scoring rubric. The scores generated from this process provided the basis for analysis and conclusions within each plan category.
Results
For the one-bedroom units, those with areas of 59.56 and 65.00 square meters have been identified as optimal, representing the minimum area with the maximum quality. Within this range, as the overall area of the unit increases, the proportion of the public zone expands, the proportion of the service zone contracts, and the proportion of the private zone remains relatively constant. For the two-bedroom units, those with areas of 71.04 and 83.83 square meters have been selected as the most efficient plans in terms of minimum area and maximum quality. In this range, as the unit area increases, the percentage of the public and private zones diminishes, while the service zone expands. It can be concluded that, in two-bedroom units, an increase in overall area is predominantly allocated to the service zone, while the relative shares of the public and private zones decrease. For the three-bedroom units, plans with areas of 117 and 121 square meters were identified as the most effective in achieving a balance between minimal area and maximum quality. In this range, an increase in unit size correlates with an expansion of the public zone, while the private and service zones contract. Across all unit types—one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom—the percentage allocated to enclosed and semi-open zones remains relatively stable due to the limited presence of terraces within the unit designs. However, according to both the literature and interview findings, this distribution requires adjustment, with the semi-open zone needing to constitute at least 15% of the total unit area to align with optimal design standards.
Conclusion
The results indicate that within the selected range of one-bedroom plans, the private zone plays a negligible role in influencing the total area, whether reduced or increased, while maintaining housing quality. In the selected two-bedroom units, the findings suggest that the private zone, given its larger share of the area, holds greater importance than the public zone. However, when the area of a two-bedroom unit is expanded, the additional space is primarily allocated to the service zone. In the three-bedroom unit plans, the approximate parity between the percentages of public and private zones across the first and last plans within the selected range implies that both zones hold nearly equal significance. Nevertheless, when the area increases, the expansion tends to prioritize the public zone. To optimize housing quality while minimizing area, the proportions of private, public, and service zones in residential units must adhere to specific ranges (Figure 1). For one-bedroom units, the public zone has the broadest range, accounting for up to 45% of the total area. In contrast, two-bedroom and three-bedroom units exhibit narrower ranges for the public zone percentage. The private zone occupies the highest percentage in two-bedroom units, covering up to 45% of the total area. This proportion decreases by approximately ten percent in three-bedroom units, while in one-bedroom units, the private zone remains consistently around 25%. The service zone constitutes the largest share in one-bedroom units, potentially comprising up to 50% of the total area, whereas in two- and three-bedroom units, the percentage allocated to the service zone is lower.
Figure 1. Final Conclusion Graph
Keywords
)