Institutional design – the pathway to freedom
By Rory Coonan

“But it’s so institutional “. We can all spot dreary uniformity in the built environment, especially in social housing. In hospitals and care homes it suggests duplicated furniture, signs in corridors and the absence of decoration. (Uniformity might also include people who wear uniforms). The term points the finger at others. ’Institutional’ design is something done to people.

Public institutions do not always please the people they serve because they do not have to. Often there is no alternative. The NHS is the only UK health service free at the point of use. The law compels payment of the BBC licence fee. You cannot choose the Sovereign.  All in their own way are monopolies.

Public and private – twin ends of a tightrope

Smaller institutions can better avoid monopolistic behaviours. Coral Living, for example,  is a limited company that aims to change lives for the better.  It operates in a ‘mixed economy’ of public funding and private investment where happily there are no monopoly providers. This is where things get interesting. Pleasing customers becomes more important because (unlike in monopolies) they could go elsewhere. To avoid this, quality and choice should increase.

The government’s policy recognises this. Homes for vulnerable adults are to be created using private finance, while taxpayers fund rents through housing allowances. (They also pay for care.) Investors require a reasonable return on their investment. Taxpayers desire economy in public spending.

The challenge is to reconcile them. Public investment is regarded as a brake on extravagance (correct) while private investment should secure greater innovation (also correct). It’s a tightrope. It doesn’t work unless it’s under tension from both ends.

Innovation is not an end in itself

How do we get the best value for money out of private investment and public funding while pleasing customers, who are the tenants, their families and carers?  It’s a commonplace that everyone wants better customer service (departments for increasing disappointment do not exist). But satisfying customers’ needs should begin long before design and construction takes place.

Here are four areas of focus:

Consultation

Genuine consultation with customers before reaching conclusions pays dividends. False consultation about intentions is likely to be found out, as the Government in England discovered to its cost when consulting on its national disability strategy (see Coral Thinking January 2022). But having an open mind does not mean having an empty mind. It is fine to make a plan and test it with those who will experience its consequences. In the case of people with learning disability, a variety of tools can be used, including prospective tenants’ own drawings, interviews and other records of personal desires for how people wish to live. This does not mean that everything wished for can be provided but it signals openly that design teams and others will do their best to accommodate individuals’ wishes.

Innovation

Genuine innovation is easier said than done. Everyone is in favour of it because of the promise it holds out of savings, greater efficiency or effectiveness. But departing from established norms or settled practice also carries risk as well as potential benefits. We all want things to be better but we don’t necessarily want to be first. The promise of cheaper and faster ‘modular’ buildings is a good example. Modular design will remain at a small scale until there are sufficient volumes of orders to make it commercially worthwhile at a factory scale. Supported housing has special design features that would need to be included in ‘modular’ manufacturing. Coral Living is actively exploring how this can be achieved affordably, so that customers’ needs can truly be reflected in what is built. Innovation is not an end in itself. It has to be justified in the ‘real world’ setting of projects.

Lower bills

Climate change is no longer the issue. What matters now is climate adaptation. How we meet this challenge in the supply of new homes will affect customers and tenants for decades. Demands on public expenditure are likely to increase, whether for defence or the NHS. The benefits on which people with learning disabilities and autism depend will be constrained. Yet energy and other monthly bills are set to soar.  Private investment in new homes can help mitigate this burden through an unflinching regard for low energy design and performance in new projects. If these benefits are embedded in the fabric of new homes, their benefits could be felt for decades.

Avoid ‘empty shells’

Pick up a house and turn it upside down. Everything that falls (furniture, books, table lights – everything not fixed) is strictly speaking not part of the house at all. Investment in supported living generally stops at the empty shell (it includes so-called ‘white goods’ in kitchens and bathrooms). Budgets do not generally stretch as far as providing those moveable objects that help turn houses into homes, often simply by their visual effect.  This would be fine if you already possessed furnishings and personal objects but it would not be fine if you had little or nothing and few resources. For autistic people the effect of being presented with a bare, empty shall as a ‘new home’ could be profound. Assessing the psychological impacts of colour and decoration, and the benefits of providing well-designed modern furniture (at least to start off with) should be a priority for all providers of specialist supported housing. For example, budget contract furnishing designed with offices in mind can also find applications in the home. Robust good design can be found in UK outlets of Nordic or Scandinavian designers such as Bo Concept (www.boconcept.com), Muuto (www.muuto.com) and [if building budgets stretch] Vitra (www.vitra.com).

Conclusion

Avoiding ‘institutional’ design is not principally about spending money (whether from the public purse or from private investors). It’s really about spending time. Making an effort requires all ‘stakeholders’ – tenants (customers), design teams, developers, investors, commissioners and care providers – to combine aspirations in a shared vision of what life will be like in the new homes.   This is what some people call the ‘design brief’. Getting it right is the most important first step in any project. Thinking costs little compared to building and looking is always  better than leaping.

Institutional design – the pathway to freedom
By Rory Coonan

“But it’s so institutional “. We can all spot dreary uniformity in the built environment, especially in social housing. In hospitals and care homes it suggests duplicated furniture, signs in corridors and the absence of decoration. (Uniformity might also include people who wear uniforms). The term points the finger at others. ’Institutional’ design is something done to people.

Public institutions do not always please the people they serve because they do not have to. Often there is no alternative. The NHS is the only UK health service free at the point of use. The law compels payment of the BBC licence fee. You cannot choose the Sovereign.  All in their own way are monopolies.

Public and private – twin ends of a tightrope

Smaller institutions can better avoid monopolistic behaviours. Coral Living, for example,  is a limited company that aims to change lives for the better.  It operates in a ‘mixed economy’ of public funding and private investment where happily there are no monopoly providers. This is where things get interesting. Pleasing customers becomes more important because (unlike in monopolies) they could go elsewhere. To avoid this, quality and choice should increase.

The government’s policy recognises this. Homes for vulnerable adults are to be created using private finance, while taxpayers fund rents through housing allowances. (They also pay for care.) Investors require a reasonable return on their investment. Taxpayers desire economy in public spending.

The challenge is to reconcile them. Public investment is regarded as a brake on extravagance (correct) while private investment should secure greater innovation (also correct). It’s a tightrope. It doesn’t work unless it’s under tension from both ends.

Innovation is not an end in itself

How do we get the best value for money out of private investment and public funding while pleasing customers, who are the tenants, their families and carers?  It’s a commonplace that everyone wants better customer service (departments for increasing disappointment do not exist). But satisfying customers’ needs should begin long before design and construction takes place.

Here are four areas of focus:

Consultation

Genuine consultation with customers before reaching conclusions pays dividends. False consultation about intentions is likely to be found out, as the Government in England discovered to its cost when consulting on its national disability strategy (see Coral Thinking January 2022). But having an open mind does not mean having an empty mind. It is fine to make a plan and test it with those who will experience its consequences. In the case of people with learning disability, a variety of tools can be used, including prospective tenants’ own drawings, interviews and other records of personal desires for how people wish to live. This does not mean that everything wished for can be provided but it signals openly that design teams and others will do their best to accommodate individuals’ wishes.

Innovation

Genuine innovation is easier said than done. Everyone is in favour of it because of the promise it holds out of savings, greater efficiency or effectiveness. But departing from established norms or settled practice also carries risk as well as potential benefits. We all want things to be better but we don’t necessarily want to be first. The promise of cheaper and faster ‘modular’ buildings is a good example. Modular design will remain at a small scale until there are sufficient volumes of orders to make it commercially worthwhile at a factory scale. Supported housing has special design features that would need to be included in ‘modular’ manufacturing. Coral Living is actively exploring how this can be achieved affordably, so that customers’ needs can truly be reflected in what is built. Innovation is not an end in itself. It has to be justified in the ‘real world’ setting of projects.

Lower bills

Climate change is no longer the issue. What matters now is climate adaptation. How we meet this challenge in the supply of new homes will affect customers and tenants for decades. Demands on public expenditure are likely to increase, whether for defence or the NHS. The benefits on which people with learning disabilities and autism depend will be constrained. Yet energy and other monthly bills are set to soar.  Private investment in new homes can help mitigate this burden through an unflinching regard for low energy design and performance in new projects. If these benefits are embedded in the fabric of new homes, their benefits could be felt for decades.

Avoid ‘empty shells’

Pick up a house and turn it upside down. Everything that falls (furniture, books, table lights – everything not fixed) is strictly speaking not part of the house at all. Investment in supported living generally stops at the empty shell (it includes so-called ‘white goods’ in kitchens and bathrooms). Budgets do not generally stretch as far as providing those moveable objects that help turn houses into homes, often simply by their visual effect.  This would be fine if you already possessed furnishings and personal objects but it would not be fine if you had little or nothing and few resources. For autistic people the effect of being presented with a bare, empty shall as a ‘new home’ could be profound. Assessing the psychological impacts of colour and decoration, and the benefits of providing well-designed modern furniture (at least to start off with) should be a priority for all providers of specialist supported housing. For example, budget contract furnishing designed with offices in mind can also find applications in the home. Robust good design can be found in UK outlets of Nordic or Scandinavian designers such as Bo Concept (www.boconcept.com), Muuto (www.muuto.com) and [if building budgets stretch] Vitra (www.vitra.com).

Conclusion

Avoiding ‘institutional’ design is not principally about spending money (whether from the public purse or from private investors). It’s really about spending time. Making an effort requires all ‘stakeholders’ – tenants (customers), design teams, developers, investors, commissioners and care providers – to combine aspirations in a shared vision of what life will be like in the new homes.   This is what some people call the ‘design brief’. Getting it right is the most important first step in any project. Thinking costs little compared to building and looking is always  better than leaping.

Institutional design – the pathway to freedom
By Rory Coonan

“But it’s so institutional “. We can all spot dreary uniformity in the built environment, especially in social housing. In hospitals and care homes it suggests duplicated furniture, signs in corridors and the absence of decoration. (Uniformity might also include people who wear uniforms). The term points the finger at others. ’Institutional’ design is something done to people.

Public institutions do not always please the people they serve because they do not have to. Often there is no alternative. The NHS is the only UK health service free at the point of use. The law compels payment of the BBC licence fee. You cannot choose the Sovereign.  All in their own way are monopolies.

Public and private – twin ends of a tightrope

Smaller institutions can better avoid monopolistic behaviours. Coral Living, for example,  is a limited company that aims to change lives for the better.  It operates in a ‘mixed economy’ of public funding and private investment where happily there are no monopoly providers. This is where things get interesting. Pleasing customers becomes more important because (unlike in monopolies) they could go elsewhere. To avoid this, quality and choice should increase.

The government’s policy recognises this. Homes for vulnerable adults are to be created using private finance, while taxpayers fund rents through housing allowances. (They also pay for care.) Investors require a reasonable return on their investment. Taxpayers desire economy in public spending.

The challenge is to reconcile them. Public investment is regarded as a brake on extravagance (correct) while private investment should secure greater innovation (also correct). It’s a tightrope. It doesn’t work unless it’s under tension from both ends.

Innovation is not an end in itself

How do we get the best value for money out of private investment and public funding while pleasing customers, who are the tenants, their families and carers?  It’s a commonplace that everyone wants better customer service (departments for increasing disappointment do not exist). But satisfying customers’ needs should begin long before design and construction takes place.

Here are four areas of focus:

Consultation

Genuine consultation with customers before reaching conclusions pays dividends. False consultation about intentions is likely to be found out, as the Government in England discovered to its cost when consulting on its national disability strategy (see Coral Thinking January 2022). But having an open mind does not mean having an empty mind. It is fine to make a plan and test it with those who will experience its consequences. In the case of people with learning disability, a variety of tools can be used, including prospective tenants’ own drawings, interviews and other records of personal desires for how people wish to live. This does not mean that everything wished for can be provided but it signals openly that design teams and others will do their best to accommodate individuals’ wishes.

Innovation

Genuine innovation is easier said than done. Everyone is in favour of it because of the promise it holds out of savings, greater efficiency or effectiveness. But departing from established norms or settled practice also carries risk as well as potential benefits. We all want things to be better but we don’t necessarily want to be first. The promise of cheaper and faster ‘modular’ buildings is a good example. Modular design will remain at a small scale until there are sufficient volumes of orders to make it commercially worthwhile at a factory scale. Supported housing has special design features that would need to be included in ‘modular’ manufacturing. Coral Living is actively exploring how this can be achieved affordably, so that customers’ needs can truly be reflected in what is built. Innovation is not an end in itself. It has to be justified in the ‘real world’ setting of projects.

Lower bills

Climate change is no longer the issue. What matters now is climate adaptation. How we meet this challenge in the supply of new homes will affect customers and tenants for decades. Demands on public expenditure are likely to increase, whether for defence or the NHS. The benefits on which people with learning disabilities and autism depend will be constrained. Yet energy and other monthly bills are set to soar.  Private investment in new homes can help mitigate this burden through an unflinching regard for low energy design and performance in new projects. If these benefits are embedded in the fabric of new homes, their benefits could be felt for decades.

Avoid ‘empty shells’

Pick up a house and turn it upside down. Everything that falls (furniture, books, table lights – everything not fixed) is strictly speaking not part of the house at all. Investment in supported living generally stops at the empty shell (it includes so-called ‘white goods’ in kitchens and bathrooms). Budgets do not generally stretch as far as providing those moveable objects that help turn houses into homes, often simply by their visual effect.  This would be fine if you already possessed furnishings and personal objects but it would not be fine if you had little or nothing and few resources. For autistic people the effect of being presented with a bare, empty shall as a ‘new home’ could be profound. Assessing the psychological impacts of colour and decoration, and the benefits of providing well-designed modern furniture (at least to start off with) should be a priority for all providers of specialist supported housing. For example, budget contract furnishing designed with offices in mind can also find applications in the home. Robust good design can be found in UK outlets of Nordic or Scandinavian designers such as Bo Concept (www.boconcept.com), Muuto (www.muuto.com) and [if building budgets stretch] Vitra (www.vitra.com).

Conclusion

Avoiding ‘institutional’ design is not principally about spending money (whether from the public purse or from private investors). It’s really about spending time. Making an effort requires all ‘stakeholders’ – tenants (customers), design teams, developers, investors, commissioners and care providers – to combine aspirations in a shared vision of what life will be like in the new homes.   This is what some people call the ‘design brief’. Getting it right is the most important first step in any project. Thinking costs little compared to building and looking is always  better than leaping.