Citation
Affordable Spatial Adaptability of Single-Family Homes

Material Information

Title:
Affordable Spatial Adaptability of Single-Family Homes
Creator:
Updike, Michelle
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (95 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.B.C.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Building Construction
Committee Chair:
Issa, R. Raymond
Committee Co-Chair:
Olbina, Svetlana
Committee Members:
Stroh, Robert C.
Graduation Date:
12/18/2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Bedrooms ( jstor )
Dining rooms ( jstor )
Family rooms ( jstor )
Floor plans ( jstor )
Furniture tables ( jstor )
Home ownership ( jstor )
Homes ( jstor )
Housing ( jstor )
Housing developments ( jstor )
Living rooms ( jstor )
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
adaptability, affordable, renovation, single, spatial, sustainable
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.

Notes

Abstract:
AFFORDABLE SPATIAL ADAPTABILITY OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES Michelle Updike Phone: (386)801-5394 E-mail: michtan1@ufl.edu Department: College of Building Construction Supervisory Committee Chair: Raymond Issa Degree: Master of Science in Building Construction (MSBC) December 2009 To enhance our efforts to become a sustainable society it is important to identify how efficiently homeowners are using the spaces within their homes in order to reduce consumption, improve resource efficiency, promote length of habitation by occupants, and identify new development strategies for reducing the current sprawling low-density patterns in the Central Florida This study aimed to identify how efficiently the spaces were being used in residential construction. The Glenwood Springs Community in Deland, Florida was studied and single-family homes were surveyed. The occupant?s responses to the survey questions were matched with the individual's floor plan in order to fully understand the reasoning behind their answers. Fifty-Seven (57) occupants were contacted for participation and thirteen (13) replied. The data collected from these surveys were studied by using Chi-squared statistical analysis and the Fisher's F-ratio test in order to identify similarities among home layouts. The analysis identified common areas within homes that are inefficiently used and suggestions were offered for consideration in mitigating these inefficiencies. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local:
Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Local:
Co-adviser: Olbina, Svetlana.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-12-31
Statement of Responsibility:
by Michelle Updike.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Copyright Updike, Michelle. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
12/31/2010
Classification:
LD1780 2009 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 AFFORDABLE SPATIAL ADAPTABILITY OF SINGLEFAMILY HOMES By MICHELLE M. UPDIKE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SC IENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Michelle M. Updike

PAGE 3

3 To my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my parents for their love, motivation, and support in my educational efforts. I thank my brother and sister for thei r inspiration and I thank my extended family for always seeing my potential. I thank all of the faculty and staff at the University of Florida for their help and support and special thanks to Robert Fitzsimmons at Gallery Homes and Land for being reliable and a positive influence to the content of my study.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INT RODUCTION .................................................................................................... 12 Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................... 12 Efficiency and Sustainability ............................................................................. 15 Changes in Housing Supply and Demand ........................................................ 16 Objective of the Study ............................................................................................. 17 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 17 Hypothesis Statement ............................................................................................. 17 Limitations of Research .......................................................................................... 18 Overview ................................................................................................................. 18 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 21 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 21 Evolution of the Design and Construction of Housing Developments ..................... 21 Human Factors Associated with Spatial Configurations of the Home ............... 22 Spatial Adaptability ........................................................................................... 23 Spatial Perception ............................................................................................ 23 Sense of Security (Level of Comfort and Privacy) ............................................ 24 Housing Market Trends ........................................................................................... 25 Affordability Concerns ...................................................................................... 25 Vacancy Rates ................................................................................................. 27 Renovations ..................................................................................................... 28 Central Floridas Growth and Development Patterns .............................................. 29 Affects of Sprawling Low Density Development ..................................................... 30 Patent Search ......................................................................................................... 30 Modular Wall and Ceiling System (US Patent 3683100) .................................. 30 Portable Wall System and Method of Installing Same (US Patent 3967420) ... 31 Flexible Space Management System and Method (US Patent 7228664) ......... 32 T he PATH Concept Home ...................................................................................... 32 Summary ................................................................................................................ 33 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... 35 Res earch Plan for Identifying SingleStory Floor Plans in the Community .............. 36

PAGE 6

6 Method for SingleStory Floor Plan Evaluations ..................................................... 38 4 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ................................................................... 41 Glenwood Springs Community Data ....................................................................... 41 Survey Distribution Data ......................................................................................... 41 Floor Plan Analysis ................................................................................................. 44 Spatial Evaluations ................................................................................................. 44 Survey Analysis ...................................................................................................... 53 Demographic Data ........................................................................................... 53 Spatial Use Data .............................................................................................. 53 Spatial Perception Data .................................................................................... 55 5 RESEARCH RESULTS .......................................................................................... 56 Use of Space .......................................................................................................... 56 Averages for Evaluated Spaces ....................................................................... 59 Averages for Remainder Spaces ...................................................................... 59 Analysis of Variance Test and Students t Test ................................................ 59 Length of Occupancy .............................................................................................. 65 Case Study for a Suggested Adaptable Construction Technique ........................... 71 6 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 78 7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ................................................... 80 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................. 81 B SURVEY SCORING RUBRI C ................................................................................. 90 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 93 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 95

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1. East Central Florida Regional Planning Councils 2050 development prediction ............................................................................................................ 15 2 1. Second quarter 2008 versus second quarter 20 09: employment statistics .......... 26 2 2. Household costs (% AMI) for occupants in 2010 .................................................. 28 4 1. Quantitative survey data ...................................................................................... 43 4 2. Square footage of spaces: developer (A) homes ................................................. 45 4 3. Square footage of spaces: developer (B) ............................................................. 46 4 4. Summary of floor plan measurements ................................................................. 47 5 1. Average square feet of homes ............................................................................. 57 5 2. Res ponses and scoring for question 9 ................................................................. 61 5 3. Individual bedroom scores ................................................................................... 62 5 4. Analysis of variance for calculated spatial use score ........................................... 63 5 5. Results of F ratio test for analyzing the mean % efficient use of space ................ 64 5 6. Results of Students t test for 95% confidence interval ......................................... 64 5 7. Response and scoring for question 12 ................................................................. 65 5 8. Responses for questions 7 through question 9 .................................................... 67 5 9. Demographics of survey respondents .................................................................. 68 5 10. Response and scoring for question 17 through question 24 .............................. 70 5 .11. Response and scoring for question 25 through question 33 ............................. 71 A 1. Housing inventory ................................................................................................ 86

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIG URES Figure page 1 1. Standard suburban housing development ............................................................ 13 1 2. Diagram of housing assessment .......................................................................... 18 2 1. Volusia county home foreclosure rates for 20082009 ......................................... 26 2 2. Subprime mortgage crisis: Vicious Cycles of foreclosure and bank instability .... 29 2 3. Modular wall and ceiling system illustration ......................................................... 30 2 4. Illustration of portable wall system and method of instal ling same ....................... 31 2 5. Flexible space management system and method illustration ............................... 32 2 6. Interior nonload bearing partitions of t he PATH concept home .......................... 33 3 1. Research methodology flow chart ........................................................................ 35 3 2. Map of housing developments constructed in Deland, Flor ida since 2000: highlighting the Glenwood Springs community ................................................... 37 3 3. Research plan showing layout, organization and sectional groupings of the Glenwood Springs community ............................................................................ 38 4 1. Construction data for Glenwood Springs community ............................................ 42 4 2. Spatial evaluations of developer (A) floor plans ................................................... 48 4 3. Spatial evaluations of developer (B) floor plans ................................................... 49 4 4. Private and public zones of developer (A) floor plans .......................................... 51 4 5. Private and public zones of developer (B) floor plans ........................................... 52 5 1. Graph of average size of measured spaces: comparison between developers .... 58 5 2. Graph of percentage of evaluated spaces efficiently used .................................... 63 5 3. Original Oxford layout .......................................................................................... 73 5 4. Adaptable Oxford layout identifying new living room layout ................................. 73 5 5. Adaptable Oxford layout: adapting living room to new bedroom space. ............... 74 5 6. Conceptual sectional rendering showing space as living room ............................ 75

PAGE 9

9 5 7. Conceptual sectional rendering of newly created bedroom .................................. 75 5 8. Operable wall panel positioned for installation or ceiling storage ......................... 76 5 9. Rendered interior view from back of family room: Oxford layout .......................... 76 5 10. Transitional images of the space: demonstrating the suggested adaptable technique for Oxford layout ................................................................................ 77

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate S chool of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requir ements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction AFFORDABLE SPATIAL ADAPTABILITY OF SINGLEFAMILY HOMES By Michelle M. Updike December 2009 Chair: R. Raymond Issa Co chair: Svetlana Olbina Major: Building Construction Standard singlefamily, single lot housing developments take up a great deal of land area in most cities around the world and have been predicted to be the leading cause for developmental urban sprawl. Research has been conducted and will continue to further develop the technologies of energy efficiency, water efficiency, landuse efficiency, as well as, the efficiency of other systems that make up our cities infrastructure in order to operate in a more sustainable manner. However, it is equally important to identify how efficiently homeowners are using the spaces within their homes in order to promote length of habitation, reduce consumption and enhance our efforts to become a sustaina ble society. This study aimed to identify how efficiently the spaces were being used in residential construction, in order to identify new development strategies for reducing the current sprawling low density patterns in the Central Florida area. The Glenwood Springs Community in Deland, Florida was studied and singlefamily homes were surveyed and the responses were matched with the individual's floor plan in order to fully understand the reasoning behind their answers.

PAGE 11

11 Fifty Seven (57) homeowners were contacted for participation and thirteen (13) replied. The data collected from these surveys were studied by using Chi squared statistical analysis and the Fisher's F ratio test in order to identify similarities among home layouts. The analysis identified co mmon areas within homes that are inefficiently used and suggestions were offered for consideration in mitigating these inefficiencies.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The current global initiative to identify and promote sustainable development strategies has becom e a very important goal for the Central Florida region. Beginning in 2006, over 20,000 Central Floridians and more than 500 leaders throughout the areaincluding elected officials from every county and many of the regions 86 cities collaborated in a his toric 18month conversation, referred to as the Central Florida Regional Growth Vision, to help answer the question, How Shall We Grow? Over 86 percent of the Central Floridians surveyed indicated that continuing on the current path of growth was their least preferred option. Instead, residents thoughts on future development identified a strong consensus toward an approach in which the region preserves its most precious environmental land, maintains its open space and rural countryside, concentrates development in urban centers, and connects these centers with transportation corridors to provide choices for how to travel (Myregion.org 2009). In order to address the necessary changes in the Central Florida development patterns, it is imperative to assess the strategies for design and construction in the residential sector. This study aimed to confront these topics by analyzing the nature of housing developments and the level of utilization of the spaces within the homes. Identifying efficiency of spaces w ould also address issues related to the current housing market crisis by confronting the economical, social, and technological dilemmas faced by the industry. Statement of the Problem Standard singlefamily, single lot housing developments take up a mass amount of land area in most cities around the world. Two thirds of all units in the nations housing

PAGE 13

13 stock are single family detached or attached (NAHB 2007). Many of these communities are very similar in nature. A recent term the "cookie cutter home has begun to describe the standard suburban housing development, which typically consists of over 100 threebedroom twobath singlestory homes, occupied by low to mid income level families. Figure 11 is an image of the standard suburban housing development. Figure11. Standard suburban housing development Homeowners that fall into the low to mid income levels are typically limited in their ability to buy a new home whenever changes occur to the number household members living in the home. For instance, if there is an increase in the number of people living in the home, low to mid income families usually are not able to move to a different home that offers more bedrooms. They have to work with the permanently constructed spaces that their home has to offer. Also, if that same family experiences a decrease in the number of family members living in the home, why should the space dedicated to the newly vacated bedrooms go unused? Why cannot the family maximize the use of the space within their home by converting the unused bedrooms into some other needed or desired space? The homeowner is paying for that space, so why not use it?

PAGE 14

14 Traditionally, if a family wanted to use the vacant space of an unused bedroom, they would have to pay a lot of money to renovate the home by removing the walls in the bedroom. This process is very expensive and even disruptive to most families because work crews have to come and work for days or even weeks. The research aims to remedy this situation by first, identifying how frequently families experience these types of issues, followed by an indepth review of possible construction and design strategies that may offer some form of flexibility for occupants. In the past few years, the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council has d eveloped a series of development scenarios for the Central Florida region. The most recent scenario for the year 2050 based on current development trends is shown in Table 11. The predictions shown in Table 11, further stress the need to analyze the regi ons current development strategies by addressing the industrys methods for New Construction. If Central Florida continues to develop land based on the predictions in Table 11 with new construction predicted to be that of singlestory, single family home s on onethird to half acre lots, then the industry must identify how to most efficiently address both of these issues. Development patterns and new construction highly influence the nature of all other areas of concern within the region. Any progress made in either of these two categories to reduce the degrading elements within their processes will, as a result, show improvements to other areas of concern for environmental preservation. Therefore, the population for this study is based on the predictions m ade by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council that most new construction will be that of singlestory, single family homes on onethird to half acre

PAGE 15

15 lots. This study can then identify inefficiencies in the processes of designing and constructin g these homes in an attempt to reduce overall land development. The location of the population selected for this study is in Deland, Florida. Table 11. East Central Florida R egional Planning Councils 2050 development prediction PREDCITED SCENARIO FOR 2050: Based on Current Development Trends Land Development The region will consume as much land in 45 years 2,577 square-miles as has been developed over the last 440 years. Transportation Residents will continue to move further away from where they work, resulting in increased commute times and less time at home. The majority of new money spent on transportation will be spent on new roads. Even so, the average person will spend more than 90 minutes per day commuting, compared to about 20 minutes today. Environmental Habitats About 344 additional square-miles of irreplaceable environmental lands and wildlife habitats will be consumed. Water Consumption Water consumption will increase by 70 percent, depleting the Floridian aquifer and raising questions about the availability of water for future generations. Green House Gas Emissions The volume of carbon monoxide and other green house gases produced in the region will more than triple, contributing to a decline in air quality and public health and increased contributions to global climate change. New Construction Most new buildings will be single-story, single-family homes on 1/3 to 1/2 acre lots. From the air, it will be difficult to distinguish one set of rooftops from another. AREA OF CONCERN Efficiency and Sustainability Efficiency has become one of the key determinants in assessing t he need for innovative techniques with regard to performance. Research has been conducted and will continue to further develop the technologies of energy efficiency, water efficiency, landuse efficiency, as well as, the efficiency of other systems that make up our cities infrastructure in order to operate in a more sustainable manner. However, it is equally important to identify how efficiently homeowners are using the spaces within their

PAGE 16

16 homes by understanding the demands of the housing market and the developers strategies for satisfying such demands. Changes in Housing Supply and Demand The 2005 American Housing Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau shows that there are more than 124 million homes in the housing stock, with a median age of 32 years. About one third of the housing stock was built in 1960 or earlier. About 10 percent was built in the 1960s, and another 20 percent was built in the 1970s. Of the remainder, 13 percent was built in the 1980s, another 13 percent was built in the 1990s, and 8 perce nt in the first years of the 21st century (NAHB 2007). Social and economical issues with regard to residential construction, further identify the need for analyzing the efficiencies of residential design and construction. Due to the current economic recess ion in the United States, many residents of the Central Florida region have been experiencing many hardships such as increasing unemployment rates, decrease of consumer spending, and a lack of financial assistance for housing affordability just to name a f ew. As a result, the real estate market has seen unprecedented levels of home foreclosure and vacancy rates, and huge losses on home investments. Recently however, the housing market crisis has started to experience a few changes in the buying and selling of homes. With the help of recent federal and state financial support programs such as, the $8,000 federal tax credit for first time homebuyers and the SHIP program, housing affordability is beginning to see improvements. The increase in affordability and demand is coming from the young, first time homebuyers. Younger families experience changes in the number of household members more than other age ranges. Thus, there is a need to identify strategies for adaptation and flexibility within these homes in or der to promote length and consistent habitation of these homes. This may help in reducing development sprawl by

PAGE 17

17 decreasing the demand for new homes by homeowners who are moving as a result of changes in the number of household members. Objective of the St udy This study aimed to identify how efficiently the spaces were being used in residential construction, in order to identify new development strategies for reducing the current sprawling low density patterns in the Central Florida area. This study focused primarily on single story, single family homes, with specific attention to the affordable options in the city of Deland, Florida. Research Questions Figure 12 is a hierarchical representation behind the logic of this study, which aims to address the fol lowing broadly stated questions: Are the homes that are being built today designed to accommodate the ever changing needs of the families who live in them? Or are homeowners constantly moving and therefore building new homes to find their spatial, economic and financial solutions? Why do people buy homes that they could possibly not afford if certain changes to the market occur? Is this a result of the homebuyer pushing the envelope of what they consider affordable or are the standard homes made available t o the market over sized and over priced? Hypothesis Statement The hypotheses tested were as follows: H10: There is a certain amount of inefficient space in homes. H20: The application of adaptable strategies, technologies and/or products is limited in residential homes. The data obtained from the survey of occupants in singlestory, single family homes and the data obtained from the spatial evaluations of the floor plans in the Glenwood Springs housing development were used to test these hypotheses.

PAGE 18

18 Limitations of Research This study is limited to the occupants of the constructed air conditioned space of the singlestory, single family homes in the Glenwood Springs housing development, located in Deland, Florida. Figure 12. Diagram of housing asse ssment Overview Chapter 2 presents a literature review of the evolution of design and construction for housing developments, the current available singlefamily single story home designs, the human factors associated with the nature of space and feelings o f security relevant to the home, data collection on current housing market trends and home renovation frequency, and an analysis of Central Floridas growth and development patterns. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology used to conduct this research. The t argeted group for this study consisted of homes that met the present local affordable housing criteria in Deland, Florida, and that were, designed and built by a community

PAGE 19

19 developer between the years 2005 and 2009, and that were singlestory, single family homes on onethird to half acre lots. The research plan consisted of surveying the homeowners of these types of homes, followed by an analysis of the spatial features inherent in each of the houses surveyed. In order to locate these specific homes for the survey, a community analysis of the housing developments in Deland Florida was performed. The Volusia county property appraiser and the developer of the homes were contacted to obtain design and construction data. The survey was designed to obtain quali tative and quantitative information in order to identify spatial use within the home. The first part of the survey was designed to collect demographic information about the homeowner and the household members. The second portion of the survey was designed to identify how frequently each space was used within the home. This section of the survey identified quantitative and qualitative features relative to the household members and the public and private spaces within the home. Homeowners were asked to identi fy the ages and number of household members per available bedroom in the home. This helped the researcher understand the use of the bedrooms as well as identify a time frame of habitation for each bedroom. Homeowners were then asked to classify the various spaces within their home into one of two categories: required or supplementary. Supplementary spaces were defined as being the spaces that a respondent may enjoy having but either do not use or are not necessary. This was used to help identify spatial pre ferences. The respondent was also asked to identify the frequency of use for these specific spaces. Spatial efficiencies were more easily identified when the responses made for these questions were compared to one another. Once the level of use was identif ied, then

PAGE 20

20 spatial adaptability could be analyzed, whereupon a strategy for optimal combinations of spatial orientations could be suggested. Supplementary spaces are better utilized if they are adjacent to a required space. The final objective of the survey was to address the variables associated with spatial perception and the feelings of security within the home, to promote satisfaction and longevity of habitation. Chapter 4 discusses the analysis performed on the specific floor plans that were surveyed. The areas of all of the spaces in the home were calculated and assigned a percent of the total living space in order to identify efficiency levels and adaptability options. Chapter 5 discusses the results of the spatial analysis for all single story homes in the community. Chapter 5 also discusses the results of the survey responses where the floor plans of each respondent was further analyzed, whereupon conclusions were made and a suggested adaptability technique was presented. Chapter 6 presents the summary and conclusions for this study. Chapter 7 presents the recommendations for further study and suggests techniques for promoting spatial adaptability in residential construction.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The literature review for this r esearch presents an overview of the recent and future nature of housing development patterns in Central Florida by first highlighting historical patterns that have carried though to todays design and construction strategies, followed by an in depth analys is of the current driving forces behind the housing market demands and sustainability concerns. These topics have been organized into four general sections: 1 Evolution of the Design and Construction of Housing Developments 2 Housing Market Trends 3 Analysis of Central Floridas Growth and Development Patterns 4 Patent Search Evolution of the Design and Construction of Housing Developments The house if to the city what the family is to society, since the home makes up the basic and most intimate unit of the urban fabric, which is spread across a wide ra nge of disparity (Baraona 2009). One of the clearest and most compelling arguments about the plan and its occupants is discussed (Steele 2006). Evans argued that the invention of the corridor as the primary organizational space of the domestic interior did not simply mark a shift in architectural style or even conceptions of space. Instead it indexed the reconfiguration of the family and social organization in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Steele 2006). Evans demonstrated how the introduction of the corridor did not simply separate circulation from rooms, but also how each room enjoyed only one access point to this connective spine (Steele 2006). While previously it would have been completely normal to walk through a childs bedroom on the way to ones own room, the parental

PAGE 22

22 bedchamber and the childs dormitory were now kept strictly apart (Steele 2006). The changes made over time to the nature of dwelling and to the architecture in which it exists, has been suggested to not only be a response to social changes but that these architectures throughout time have in a sense, trained its inhabitants in becoming domestic. In other words, if family and domesticity can be learned through interactions wit h the architecture of homes, then offering spatial adaptability features to a home could allow for further development of domestic behavior and interactions between household members (Steel 2006). Contemporary architecture has lost much of its crusading zeal, and the functionalist ideal has been twisted into an expression of status rather than of utility or egalitarian (Bell 2006). Human Factors Associated with Spatial Configurations of the H ome It is almost self evident that people arrange their living space in ways that suit their needs. As people age they tend to rearrange or modify their home setting to accommodate their current abilities. Some home adaptations are simply changes in the arrangement of existing furniture or accessories. Others introduce a new appliance or a mechanical or electrical system encompassing new technologies. Applying technology to improve quality of life is not new. From the earliest of times, humankind has tried to find ways to make life easier and to improve security, privacy, personal control and comfort within the built and natural environments (Grayson 1997) In evaluating the "spatial adaptability" of a home, there must first exist a clear understanding of the meaning of the phrase. In the case of this evaluation, adaptabi lity refers to the ability of a system to adapt itself efficiently and fast to changed circumstances. An adaptive system is therefore an open system that is able to fit its behavior according to changes in its environment or in parts of the system itself

PAGE 23

23 (Andersen et al. 2005). For this research, the "adaptive system" refers to the framework and building elements that make up the spaces within the standard singlefamily residential home. Spatial A daptability Furthermore, in applying the notion of adaptability to the spatial characteristics created by a structural form requires further investigations into the definition of space. There are a number of theoretical and perceptual issues that limit the clarity of defining the term "space." In general, space is defined as the boundless, threedimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction (Space 2009). The fact that the general definition of space contains the word boundless is a clear indicator that the spatial design still has the ability to transform relative to the position and direction of the objects and events inherent in the space. For purposes of this study, the architecturally constructed spaces are the topic of int erest. Architectural space is created by the act of demarcating a unit. Demarcation begins during the planning stages where boundaries are identified, typically marked by walls the very embodiment of the principle of architectural articulation (Corrodi et al. 2008). An inhabitants response to these boundaries has a great effect on the overall usefulness of a space, which in turn, reflects the overall efficiency of the demarcation process. The challenge thus begins during the planning stages. Spatial P erce ption The perception of space varies among individuals and is influenced by many factors such as; culture, memory, light, sound, temperature, etc. Memory is not in a position to store absolute values of brightness, contrast, color, dimensions, and time. For that reason, there is no absolute scale for space and time. Perception is a

PAGE 24

24 continuous and usually unconscious process, although in assessing space it is essential to realize that the impression of brightness can only be judged in comparison to a familiar experience ( Corrodi et al. 2009). Natural light has become a progressive factor in designing floor plans, building volumes, and layouts of developments. Natural light has also become a crucial factor in choosing the correct orientation of rooms and buildings, in developing adequate patterns for building and typologies for developments, and in designing the peripheral exterior living spaces of houses and apartments (Corrodi et al. 2009). As a result, typical single story, single family homes of housing communities are very similar in plan. The plan is typically organized into approximately three parallel zones. The outer two zones make up the private spaces of the home containing bedrooms and bathrooms, where they sandwich between them the public spacesliving rooms, kitchen, dining and storage rooms. The concept of style demands a corresponding concept of organizationof social organization, political will economic expansion (Dal Co 1990). Sense of S ecurity (Level of Comfort and P rivacy) The protect ive function of housing fulfills a need for security, not only of body and soul but also of goods and assets. In uncertain times, the home has to be a bunker and a hiding place: then its openings are closed and traitorous lights are extinguished. Only in t he secured city and at times of peace can people live in illuminated sk eletons (Corrodi et al. 2009). When applying this notion to the current nature and form of housing developments, the ability to live in illuminated skeletons gets lost due to the clos e proximity of each home to its neighbor. The only way to gain complete privacy within homes of these types of developments is to once again, bunker down and draw the shades. This is typically not an issue of security, but rather a decision for privacy. Only when the homeowner is

PAGE 25

25 comfortable with allowing passer bys to see into their home will the shades be lifted. For some, these shades may never open. Housing Market Trends President George W. Bushs Address to the Nation on September 24, 2008 explai ns the nature of the nations current housing market crisis: The problems we are witnessing today developed over a long period of time. For more than a decade, a massive amount of money flowed into the United States from investors abroad. This large influx of money to U.S. banks and financial institutions along with low interest rates made it easier for Americans to get credit. Easy credit combined with the faulty assumption that home values would continue to rise led to excesses and bad decisions. Many mortgage lenders approved loans for borrowers without carefully examining their ability to pay. Many borrowers took out loans larger than they could afford, assuming that they could sell or refinance their homes at a higher price later on. Both indivi duals and financial institutions increased their debt levels relative to historical norms during the past decade significantly. Optimism about housing values also led to a boom in home construction. Eventually the number of new houses exceeded the number o f people willing to buy them. And with supply exceeding demand, housing prices fell. And this created a problem: Borrowers with adjustable rate mortgages (i.e., those with initially low rates that later rise) who had been planning to sell or refinance thei r homes before the adjustments occurred was unable to refinance. As a result, many mortgage holders began to default as the adjustments began (Offic e of the Press Secretary 2008). Affordability C oncerns Due to the recent economic recession in the United St ates, Central Floridas unemployment rate has continued to climb reaching 11.3% in the middle of 2009 (Volusia County Department of Economic Development 2009). Table 21 shows the changes in employment for Volusia County, the state of Florida and the United States from 2008 to 2009. For those residents who have managed to maintain keeping a job, more than onethird of Central Florida households currently spend more than 30% of their monthly income

PAGE 26

26 on housing (Myregion.org 2009). As a result, the local home foreclosure rates continue to skyrocket. As of June 2009 there were a total of 4,784 home foreclosures in Volusia County, with 3,584 still not sold shown in Figure 22 (Volusia County Department of Economic Development 009). Table 21. Second quarter 200 8 versus second quarter 2009: employment statistics Civilian Workforce (All Available Workers) Change Employment (All Employed Workers) Change 2008 2009 QTY. % 2008 2009 QTY. % Volusia County 253,296 255,762 2,466 1.0% 238,513 228,035 (10,478) (4.4%) Florida 9,211,838 9,224,851 13,013 0.1% 9,037,811 8,294,103 (743,708) (8.2%) Unites States 154,264,333 154,697,000 432,267 0.3% 146,165,667 140,591,667 (5,574,000) (3.8%) Volusia County/Department of Economic Development Update, August 7, 2009 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Figure 21. Volusia county home foreclosure rates for 20082009 Affordable housing is a controversial reality of contemporary life, for gains in affordability, which often result from expanding land available for housing or increasing the density of housing units in a given area. Ensuring a steady supply of affordable

PAGE 27

27 housing requires that communities weigh real and perceived livability impacts against the sheer necessity of affordability. Vacancy R ates High vacancies point to weakness in the sector and are a sign that many homeowners moved out of their primary residence even before it was sold. The housing bust led many owners to vacate properties before they were sold due to low demand and the "upsidedown" phenomenon, where owners owe more on a home than it is worth (Marsh 2009). According to data collected by the United States Postal Service, as of June 2009 the metro a rea of Volusia county which includes, DeltonaDaytona BeachOrmond Beach had 13,613 vacant resident addresses out of 259,695 total resident addresses. Reasons for vacancies were not identified in the USPS data. There are many factors that affect home vacancy rates, however, foreclosures and affordability issues are factors that are affected by the nature of the local economy. Affordability is a fluctuating and highly economic dependent variable that can be difficult to define. However, a general definition states that a ffordability is based on conventional underwriting standards (that the mortgage payment, property taxes, and insurance should not exceed 28 percent of the households income). When the monthly carrying costs of a home exceed 30 35% of househo ld income, then the housing is considered unaffordable for that household. Predictions for Volusia Countys average monthly carrying costs for homes for the year 2010 are shown in Table 22. The table shows that 41.5% of household occupants in Volusia County will be paying 120% or more of the Average Median Income (AMI). By January 2008, the inventory of unsold new homes stood at 9.8 months based on December 2007 sales volume, the highest level since 1981(Associated Press 2008). Further, records of nearly four million unsold existing homes were for sale (Coy 2008)

PAGE 28

28 including nearly 2.9 million that were vacant. This excess supply of home inventory places significant downward pressure on prices. As prices decline, more homeowners are at risk of default and fo reclosure (Standard et al. 2009). Figure 22 illustrates the cause and effects of home foreclosures and how the housing supply increases as a result of these processes (Economist.com 2008). Table 22. Household costs (% AMI) for occupants in 2010 Househ old Demographic Data Households by: Jurisdiction Year Household Income Household Count % of Total Volusia County 2010 0 30% AMI 19090 8.70% Volusia County 2010 120+% AMI 91067 41.49% Volusia County 2010 30.1 50% AMI 22441 10.22% Volusia County 2010 50.1 80% AMI 38431 17.51% Volusia County 2010 80.01 120% AMI 48483 22.09% TOTAL 219512 Source: Florida Housing Data Clearing House Renovations This is a generation that has wealth and longevity and most aging people don't want to move. (Willis 2006). Higher spending per owner household for improvements across most age and racial/ethnic groups will contribute to growth in homeowner spending on remodeling projects; with average expenditures climbing to more than $3,100 in 2015 in inflationadjusted d ollars (Bendimerad 2007). Home improvement activity is driven in part by agerelated spending. Typically, the average expenditures per household, for home improvements, will increase steadily through peak spending years with occupants between the ages of 3 5 45. After that, remodeling decreases slowly as household heads reach their 50s, before dropping off more significantly as they reach 60s and 70s. Moreover, the method of installation also shifts with age. Younger households devote a larger share of tot al spending to DIY projects while older households spend an increasingly higher share on professionally contracted work (Bendimerad 2007).

PAGE 29

29 Figure 22. Subprime mortgage crisis: Vicious Cycles of foreclosure and bank instability Central Floridas Growth and Development Patterns Researchers found that Central Florida has been developing land at an even faster pace than population growth (Myregion.org 2009). The region included a total of 2,618 squaremiles of urban development in 2006, compared to 1,675 s quaremiles in 2000. It was also noted that the number of urban acres developed per household increased by nearly onethird of an acre during those years. Coupled with an average annual population growth rate of 2.3 percent, Central Floridas sprawling low density development patterns have started to negatively affect many of Floridas most precious environmental features (Myregion.org 2009).

PAGE 30

30 Affects of Sprawling Low Density D evelopment The results of Central Floridas development patterns have led to rapid conversion of open space to build more houses, loss of agricultural land, and encroachment on sensitive environmental areas, with significant increases in water and energy use, and over reliance on cars for transportation (Myregion.org 2009). Patent Sear ch The results of the patent search identified methods that could be considered for implementation during the design and construction of homes. Three patents and one design project were considered for this study: Modular Wall and Ceiling System (US Patent 3683100) Portable Wall System and Method of Installing Same (US Patent 3967420) Flexible Space Management System and Method (US Patent 7228664) PATH Concept Home Modular Wall and Ceiling System (US Patent 3683100) Modular Wall and Ceiling System US Patent (US 3683100) a suspended ceiling grid frame that provides an upper support for prefabricated modular wall sections or panels that can be connected to a grid frame in different arrangements to provide a desired floor plan (Deal et al.1972). Figure 23 illu strates the concept and installation of the Modular Wall and Ceiling System. Figure 23. Modular wall and ceiling system illustration

PAGE 31

31 Portable Wall System and Method of Installing Same (US Patent 3967420) The need for more efficient utilization of spac e in schools, auditoriums, convention halls, office buildings and the like has resulted in the development of portable space dividers and partitions which may be erected in finished rooms after installation of carpets and ceilings without damage to either and which may be removed or relocated therein as the need arises. The modules for such walls typically measure 4 ft. x 8 ft. x 3 in. and weigh 150 lbs. and accordingly require two men to handle each module during erection and dismantling of a wall. Moreover, the modules are awkward to handle even with two men and because of metal framing definitely sharp edges and corners are occasionally the cause of injury to the workmen during erection and removal. Because of the ever increasing costs of labor as well as the unavailability of manpower in maintenance crews for erecting such walls, there is a need for a modular wall system that can be erected by one man (Papsco 1976). Figure 24 is an illustration of the partition carrying system showing four views. Figur e 24. Illustration of portable wall system and method of installing s ame

PAGE 32

32 Flexible Space Management System and Method (US Patent 7228664) The invention generally relates to space management. In particular, the invention relates to a control system for sp ace management. A method of managing a plurality of operable wall panels in a room equipped with an overhead track system from which the panels suspend and in which the panels are movable to selectively partition the room, the track system including a reading portion (Clark 2007). Figure 25 identifies the layout and the control systems installed on the individual partitions within a space. Figure 25. Flexible space management s ystem and method i llustration The majority of the patents for operable wall partitions were for use in commercial or public facilities. The results of the patent search helped identify a method for installing wall partitions into singlefamily homes. The PATH Concept Home A recent project called the PATH Concept Home demonstrates how spatial adaptability can be integrated into singlefamily, single story homes with using similar construction methods used today.

PAGE 33

33 The Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing has researched and designed its first PATH Concept Home in Omaha, Neb. The home shows builders how to incorporate flexibility into residential construction. The hallmark of the concept home is its flexible floor plan. The ultimate benefit is that instead of selling the home or paying for a costly remodel, the owners can rem ain in their home as their needs cha nge over time (Shepherd 2007). The product that drew the most attention at the Concept Home was the moveable, nonloadbearing interior partitions. President Scott Webb of the New York Wall Company explains the mechanism s of the moveable, nonloadbearing interior partition: Figure 26. Interior non loadbearing partitions of the PATH concept h ome The key to this partition is compression between ceiling and floor. It's a modular system with feet that create pressure between ceiling and floor. Then connectors are placed between the panels to provide vertical stability. Battens are installed onto the partition to hide any sort of seam that might be visible and make it unsightly. The wall can be placed anywhere within the great room space, creating different floor plan possibilities. It's designed so the average homeowner can move the wall in les s than an hour (Shepherd 2007). Summary The results of the literature review identified that home designs are driven by many cult ural, social, economical, and perceptual factors. The designs, layouts and size of homes influence sprawling low density development patterns, which can have a negative effect on environmental conditions. The patent search also identified methods

PAGE 34

34 available for spatial adaptability, however, most of these products are offered for use in public or commercial buildings. The products researched do not provide a method for sealing the seams between panels in order to satisfy aesthetic needs of homeowner. In order to confront Central Floridas sprawling low density development patterns and preserve the environment, three major topics must be addressed; population growth, design and construction strategies of singlefamily single story housing developments, and eff iciency of space.

PAGE 35

35 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY In order to collect the data needed for this study a survey questionnaire and floor plan analysis was performed. The research methodology flow chart shown in Figure 31 was developed to help organize the pr ocess. Figure 31. Research methodology flow c hart Data were gathered on all of the singlestory homes throughout the Glenwood Springs community. This information helped locate which homes would receive the survey questionnaire (Appendix A). The data g athered by the survey was utilized to evaluate how and why residents use the spaces in their homes, in order to identify spatial efficiencies and length of habitation. The goal is to promote length of habitation in homes, by maximizing spatial use and sati sfaction among homeowners. Spatial efficiencies and length of habitation are influenced by many variables. The use of a space is dependent upon who is using the space, the quantitative aspects of the space,

PAGE 36

36 and the users overall need for the space. Length of habitation is dependent upon factors associated with time, future unanticipated, foreseeable or desired changes, and the level of satisfaction expressed by the inhabitant. These variables were addressed in the survey questionnaire (Appendix A) and anal yzed based on the rubric outlined in Appendix B. Data were collected on patented construction methods for spatial adaptation and were suggested for implementation within homes. Survey respondents were inhabitants of singlestory, single family homes of a specific floor plan on onethird to half acre lots of the Glenwood Springs Community in Deland, Florida. Figure 32 identifies and highlights the location of the selected community in Deland, Florida in reference to other similar housing developments. The areas highlighted in red are housing developments throughout Deland, Florida that were considered for this study. The selected community is circled. Research Plan for Identifying Single Story Floor Plans in the Community The research plan for the survey distribution and floor plan identification was developed by dividing the community into 11 sections. Figure 33 illustrates the layout, organization, and sectional grouping of the Glenwood Springs Community. After these 11 sections were identified and categorized, information was collected on each parcel within the given sections from the Volusia county property appraisers website ( http://atlas.vcgov.org/vcmaps/Palms/viewer.htm ). The data collected for each parcel, within a given section, were organized into a housing inventory table (Appendix A). The housing inventory table was then used to identify floor plan types, quantities, and locations for survey distribution. The homes selected for the survey were identified based on the quantity of each type of floor plan in the community. The homeowners of the selected homes were offered three options for participating in the survey.

PAGE 37

37 Figure 32. Map of housing developments constructed in Deland, Florida since 2000: highlighting the Glenwood Springs community

PAGE 38

38 Figure 33. Research plan showing layout, organization and sectional groupings of the G lenwood Springs community The occupants could either chose to fill out a hard copy of the survey, have t he survey e mailed to them or they could access the survey on a website. When homes were visited and the homeowner was not home, a door tag was left with information on how to access the survey on the web. Method for Single Story Floor Plan Evaluations The room areas of each floor plan were identified, grouped, and categorized by type based on the developers notations of the spaces. Square foot measurements were calculated for each of the spaces in the floor plan by using OnScreen Takeoff computer softwar e. These area measurements were used to assign percentages to each of the spaces within the home based on the total interior constructed, conditioned space. The spatial percentages were used to identify efficiency levels and frequency of use based on the data collected from the survey responses. Each identified space was categorized

PAGE 39

39 into one of two zones Private Spaces or Public Spaces. Private spaces were areas that were enclosed on all sides, required doorway access for entering the space, and were used to serve the needs of a specific individual. Laundry rooms are not included in this category because the function of the space is for use of appliances by all members of the household. The private spaces included: All Bedrooms (this includes any rooms ide ntified as a Study Room each having a door as the entrance to the space) All Bathrooms (The square footage of these spaces were identified, however, these spaces were not included in the Frequency of Use Analysis due to permanence of plumbing fixtures.) Public spaces were areas that were opened to other spaces of the home on one or more sides, did not require passage through a physical doorway as access between the other spaces within the home, and were used to serve the needs of all members of the household at any one time. Public spaces included: Living Rooms and Family Rooms (Living rooms are those spaces that are an addition to a home that has a family room. These areas are typically referred to as formal living rooms. Family rooms represent the m ain gathering space in the home.) Kitchens (Identified by the boundaries of any adjacent walls, countertops, or changes in flooring material). Dining Rooms and Breakfast Nooks (Breakfast nooks are a less formal, typically smaller, addition to a home that h as a dining room. In some cases, the smaller floor plans only had a Breakfast Nook which was to serve as the main dining space.) Remainder spaces (The remainder of the spaces in the homes included all closet space, circulation/hallway space and spaces that contained plumbing fixtures, such as bathrooms and laundry rooms.) Identifying the private and public zones allowed for further categorization of the different floor plans. All of the homes were categorized as being either split plan or

PAGE 40

40 aligned. Split plan layouts were characterized by having three parallel zones two outer private zones and one central public zone. Aligned layouts were characterized by essentially two parallel zones where one private zone was adjacent to the public zone. There were nine split plan layouts and three aligned layouts identified.

PAGE 41

41 CHAPTER 4 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Glenwood Springs Community Data The data gathered from the Glenwood Springs Community analysis are illustrated in Figure 41. There were a total of 210 individual parcels identified in the community of which 148 were occupied by a certain home. Of the total 148 homes, 90 were singlestory homes, two of which were under construction at the time of the analysis and one was the sale center for Developer (B). T he maximum amount of singlestory homes whose occupants could have received a survey was thus, 87 homes. Also, of the total 148 homes in the community, 36 were twostory homes, one of which was the sale center for Developer (A) and one was under construct ion at the time of the analysis. There were also homes in the community that had a lofted space above the garage and were not classified as being a singlestory home or a twostory home. They were referred to as Lofted Homes and of the total 148 homes in the community there were 22 of these types of homes. Developer (A) is the main homebuilder in the community, having built 83 of the total 90 singlestory homes in the Glenwood Springs. Developer (B) has built seven homes in the Glenwood Springs Community at this point. Survey Distribution Data Of the total 90 single story homes in the community, 57 of the occupants received information regarding participation in the survey. There were 33 homes of the total 90 that were not considered for participation for various reasons: Homeowner verbally declined participation Seven Total Home was vacant (identified by lock box on the door) 15 Total Homes identified as uncommon floor plans in the preliminary analysis Eight Total Homes that were under constructi on Two Total Homes that were currently identified as the Sale Center One Total

PAGE 42

4 2 Figure 41. Construction data for Glenwood Springs community

PAGE 43

43 There were two respondents who chose to fill out the hardcopy survey, one occupant requested the survey to be emailed and the remaining 54 occupants were provided with the web address. Eleven (11) respondents completed the survey on the website. A total of 13 survey responses were used in this study. Table 41 shows the quantitative survey distribution data for each type of home. Table 41. Quantitative survey data The data gathered by the survey were utilized to evaluate how and why residents use the spaces in their homes, in order to identify spatial efficiencies and length of habitation. The goal is to promote length of habitation in homes, by maximizing spatial use and satisfaction among homeowners. Spatial efficiencies and length of habitation are influenced by many variables. The use of a space is dependent upon who is using

PAGE 44

44 the space, the quantitative aspects of the space, and the users overall need for the space. Length of habitation is dependent upon factors associated with time, future unanticipated, foreseeable or desired changes, and the level of satisfaction expressed by the inhabitant. These variables were addressed in the survey questionnaire (Appendix A) and analyzed based on the rubric outlined in Appendix B. Floor Plan Analysis There were a total of 24 different single story floor plans throughout the Glenwood Springs Community. Seventeen ( 17) of these were considered for spatial evaluations. The information on each of the 17 floor plans analyzed in this study was obtained from the two developers of the community. The developers provided the specific floor plans for these homes. There were a total of 11 floor plans by Developer (A) representing 72 total single story homes and a total of six floor plans by Developer (B) representing seven total single story homes. Spatial E valuations The room areas of each floor plan were identified, grouped, and categorized by type based on the developers notations of the spaces. Square foot measurements were calculated for each of the spaces in the floor plan by using OnScreen Takeoff computer software shown in Table 42 and Table 43. A summary of th e square foot measurements is shown in Table 44. These area measurements were used to assign percentages to each space in the home based on the total interior constructed, conditioned space. The spatial percentages were used to identify efficiency levels and frequency of use based on the data collected from the survey responses. Figure 42 and Figure 43 illustrate the spatial evaluations for each of the 17 floor plans analyzed in this study .

PAGE 45

45 Table 42. Square footage of spaces: developer (A) homes P rivate Spaces Public Spaces QTY ID Developer (A) SF of Interior Space Master Bed Bed. 2 Bed. 3 Bed. 4/ Study Area Remainder Family Room / Living Room** Dining Room/Nook Kitchen Remainder Master Bath Other Baths Living Family Dining Nook Hall Space Closets Laundry 15 A Alderbrooke 1415 198 125 173 67 45 210 121 136 97 87 40 9 O Oakhill 1454 187 118 110 103 40 302 103 121 104 93 44 10 S St. Andrews 1532 178 111 110 113 85 41 251 123 189 110 81 4 Ce Cervia 2302 299 147 122 1 60 54 432 180 106 154 218 137 50 2 M Maaria 2666 225 174 137 167 148 80 390 303 111 158 258 161 49 5 Ox Oxford 1836 205 105 121 115 59 144 282 103 72 151 91 90 39 7 F Floridian 2057 230 124 124 132 72 148 337 132 86 161 111 128 39 8 C Cervantes 2 270 228 137 141 139 123 47 139 333 125 81 162 150 148 41 1 C4 Castello IV 2015 208 111 118 134 113 44 145 296 103 63 161 117 114 38 10 V Viscaya 2718 345 154 157 145 158 101 180 432 185 82 227 292 175 63 1 Ca Capri 1770 206 133 122 97 47 152 228 145 2 11 117 93 42 72 TOTALS (N) 11 11 11 5 11 11 6 11 7 11 11 11 11 10 Mean (X) 228.09 130.82 130.45 139.60 118.27 57.27 151.33 317.55 161.57 99.36 166.45 151.36 118.82 44.50 S.D. 50.24 20.98 19.84 19.49 29.79 19.39 14.69 76.19 70.67 24.88 31.14 70.81 32.91 7.71 S.E. 15.15 6.33 5.98 8.72 8.98 5.85 6.00 22.97 26.71 7.50 9.39 21.35 9.92 2.44 NOTE: Spatial Breakdowns do not include "UNKNOWN PLANS," which accounts for 11 homes, thus only 79 Homes are represented in t hese tables. Numbers outlined in red indicate that the home has both of the spaces of the category. Numbers that are shaded in red are those homes that have all public spaces (Living Rooms, Family Rooms, Dining Rooms, and Breakfast Nooks) all within the home. Total square footages are ap proximate values based on developer's dimensions and accuracy of On-Screen Takeoff Software. Spatial measurements were taken from the inside face of room bounding elements. The measured areas do not include any structural elements denoted in plan view. Thus this method for measuring excludes approximately 10% of the total interior area.

PAGE 46

46 Table 43. Square footage of spaces: developer (B) Private Spaces Public Spaces QTY ID Developer (B) SF of Interior Space Master Bed Bed. 2 Bed. 3 Bed. 4/ Study Area Remainder Spaces Family Room / Living Room Dining Room/Nook Kitchen Remainder Master Bath Other Baths Living Family Dining Nook Hall Space Closets Laundry 1 1260 1260 155 118 130 41 41 212 103 109 41 67 1 1438 1438 213 113 123 105 42 326 57 111 77 88 40 2 1528 1528 248 132 129 93 78 231 97 145 127 83 18 1 1862 1862 183 127 127 129 112 53 220 129 194 167 128 32 1 1946 1946 193 140 141 148 121 60 246 141 231 180 157 34 1 2289 2289 232 142 144 149 164 85 411 172 60 198 234 153 18 7 TOTALS (N) 6 6 6 3 6 6 0 6 1 6 6 6 6 5 Mean (X) 204.00 128.67 132.33 142.00 106.00 59.83 0.00 274.33 172.00 97.83 164.67 137.67 112.67 28.40 S.D. 33.95 11.66 8.29 11.27 40.05 18.35 0 78.57 0 34.53 50.47 70.81 38.47 9.94 S.E. 13.86 4.76 3.38 6.51 16.35 7.49 0 32.08 0 14.10 20.61 28.91 15.71 4.45 NOTE: Spatial Breakdowns do not include "UNKNOWN PLANS," which accounts for 11 homes, thus only 79 Homes are represented in t hese tables. Numbers outlined in red indicate that the home has both of the spaces of the category. Numbers that are shaded in red are those homes that have all public spaces (Living Rooms, Family Rooms, Dining Rooms, and Breakfast Nooks) all within the home. Total square footages are approximat e values based on developer's dimensions and accuracy of On-Screen Takeoff Software. Spatial measurements were taken from the inside face of room bounding elements. The measured areas do not include any structural elements denoted in plan view. Thus this method for measuring excludes approximately 10% of the total interior area. ** Home was under construction at the point of analysis

PAGE 47

47 Table 44. Summary of floor plan measurements QTY ID Developer (B) Total Measured Spaces % Total* Sum of X Values (Square Feet) 1 1260 1017 80.71% 1760 1 1438 1295 90.06% 2 1528 1381 90.38% 1 1862 1601 85.98% 1 1946 1792 92.09% 1 2289 2162 94.45% 7 TOTAL QTY ID Developer (A) Total Measured Spaces % Total* Sum of X Values (Square Feet) 15 A Alderbrooke 1299 91.80% 2015 9 O Oakhill 1325 91.13% 10 S St. Andrews 1392 90.86% 4 Ce Cervia 2059 89.44% 2 M Maaria 2361 88.56% 5 Ox Oxford 1577 85.89% 7 F Floridian 1824 88.67% 8 C Cervantes 1994 87.84% 1 C4 Castello IV 1765 87.59% 10 V Viscaya 2696 99.19% 1 Ca Capri 1593 90.00% 72 TOTAL

PAGE 48

48 Figure 42. Spatial evaluations of developer (A) floor plans

PAGE 49

49 Figure 43. Spatial evaluations of developer (B) floor plans

PAGE 50

50 The spaces in the homes were then grouped into private and public zones, illustrated in Figure 44 and Figure 45. The private spaces were identified to be: All Bedrooms (this includes any rooms identified as a Study Room each having a door as the entrance to the space) All Bathrooms (The square footage of these spaces were identified, however, these spaces were not included in the Frequency of Use Analysis due to permanence of plumbing fixtures.) Public spaces were identified to be: Living Rooms and Family Rooms (Living rooms are those spaces that are an addition to a home that has a family room. Family room represents the main gathering space in the home.) Kitchen (Identified by the boundaries of any adjacent walls, countertops, or changes in flooring material). Dining Rooms and Breakfast Nooks (Br eakfast nooks appeared to be an addition to a home that has a Dining Room. For homes that had only one of the two options, the space was categorized as being a dining room.) Remainder (The remainder of the spaces in the homes included all of the other sp aces for storage, circulation and spaces that contained plumbing fixtures, such as bathrooms and laundry rooms.) Identifying the private and public zones allowed for further categorization of the 17 different floor plans. All of the homes were categorized as being either split plan or aligned. Split plan layouts were characterized by having three parallel zones two outer private zones and one central public zone. Aligned layouts were characterized by essentially two parallel zones where one private zone was adjacent to the public zone. There were 14 split plan layouts and three aligned layouts identified. The aligned layouts accounted for 25 total single story homes evaluated in this study. The split plan layouts accounted for 54 total single story homes evaluated in this study.

PAGE 51

51 Figure 44. Private and public zones of devel oper (A) floor p lans

PAGE 52

52 Figure 45. Private and public zones of developer (B) floor plans

PAGE 53

53 Survey Analysis The survey data identified the demogr aphics of the user, the frequency of use for each space, and how the space is used. The survey also collected perceptive data for help in understanding levels of spatial satisfaction based on the perceived comfort and security expressed by the respondent. Demographic D ata The responses made to Question 2 were used to help locate the parcel number of the respondent based on the occupants home address. The parcel information was obtained from the Volusia County Property Appraisers Interactive Mapping tool. The information provided building values, land values, and building construction data. Question 1 identified if the respondent was male or female and Question 3 identified if the respondent was the homeowner or renter. Question 4 identified how long the o ccupant has lived in the home and Question 7 identified if the occupant could foresee any changes to the number of household members within the next five years. The questions help assess length of habitation. The ages of all household members were also id entified in Question 6 to identify a time range for habitation of the home by the respondent and their household members. Question 8 identified the ethnic background of the respondents. Question 10 indicated the method for how the homeowner selected their home and Question 11 indicated the main reasons why a renter chose to occupy their home. The responses made to these questions help understand the some of the characteristics of the respondent. Spatial U se D ata Question 5 identifies how many permanent res idents live in the home. The answers to this question were paired with the answers to Question 13 and 14, which

PAGE 54

54 identified how many people inhabited each of the available rooms in the home. If the number of permanent household residents was less than the number of bedrooms available in the home, the answers to Question 15 were then evaluated to determine if there were any spare bedrooms in the home. Respondents were then asked in Question 16 to identify how these spare bedrooms were used. Responses made to these five questions were assigned a score based on the use score guide in Appendix B. These scores were then totaled to identify the cumulative bedroom use for each home. The maximum score per available bedroom was seven points. Rooms that had one to two people living in them received two points. Additional points were added based on the response to Question 9, which asked respondents how frequently, they used the specific spaces in their home. If a bedroom was identified as having 0 people livin g in the room, then Question 15 was analyzed. If respondents answered Yes to Question 15, identifying that the spare bedroom(s) in their home do serve a different purpose, then Question 16 was referenced. If answers made to Question 16 indicated that the spare bedroom was used as an office, then the answers made to Question 9 under the office column were used to identify the additional points for that bedroom. If anything other than an office was identified as being the alternative use for a spare bedroom, then by default the room received 3 points for the frequency of use. Finally, the points for each bedroom were totaled to obtain a Cumulative Bedroom Use score. These values were added to the use scores for the other spaces in the home, where a grand total point value was assigned to the survey responses. The grand total values were then divided by the maximum possible points that a specific floor plan could obtain. This resulted in a percent use value, which was multiplied by the square

PAGE 55

55 footages of each of the evaluatedinterior spaces within each floor plan. By doing this, an efficiency of spatial use could be evaluated for each home and type of layout. Question 12 was designed to identify the respondents level of preference for the evaluated spaces in the home by asking them to indicate whether a space was a required space or a supplementary space in satisfying their daily needs. Supplementary spaces were defined as being the spaces that a respondent may enjoy having but either do not use or do not consider these spaces necessary. Spatial Perception D ata Respondents were asked to identify the level in which they agreed to a set of statements presented in Questions17 through Questions 33. This method of questioning utilized the Likert Scale where a response of one meant the respondent strongly disagreed with the specific statement, whereas, a response of five meant the respondent strongly agreed. The answers made to these types of questions were paired with responses made to other questions throughout the survey to address a few of the perceptual variables associated with spatial use and preference.

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH RESULTS Use of Space Spatial averages were calculated for each layout category: Aligned and Split plan. Aligned layouts had appr oximately 1,193 square feet of constructed conditioned space and the Split plan layouts had approximately 2,041 square feet of constructed conditioned space. Spatial averages were then identified for the group of 17 homes evaluated in this study, regardles s of layout type. By averaging all of the evaluated spaces in all of the 17 different floor plans, the total average floor plan is 1,977 square feet. This average accounts for all of the evaluated spaces included in this study and represent a layout that w ould include the following areas; Four Bedrooms Master Bath and guest bath (Measured but not evaluated for frequency of use) Living room and family room Kitchen Dining room and breakfast nook Laundry room (Measured but not evaluated for frequency of use) Closet space (Measured but not evaluated for frequency of use) Hall space (Measured but not evaluated for frequency of use) Each of the average area measurements for the aligned layouts, split plan layouts, and total averaged layout is shown in Table 51. Figure 51 is a graph of these area measurements. Although six out of 17 homes had a living room and eight out of 17 homes had dining rooms, both of these spaces were included in identifying the average layout in order to assess all of the evaluated spac es as one general layout.

PAGE 57

57 Table 51. Average square feet of homes Private Spaces Public Spaces Master Bed Bed. 2 Bed. 3 Bed. 4/ Study Area Remainder Spaces Family Room / Living Room Dining Room/Nook Kitchen Remainder Sum of X Values (Square Feet) Master Bath Other Baths Living Family Dining Nook Hall Space Closets Laundry All Layouts (N) 17 17 17 8 17 17 6 17 8 17 17 17 17 15 Mean (X) 219.59 130.06 131.12 140.50 113.94 58.18 151.33 302.29 162.88 98.82 165.82 146.53 116.65 39.13 1 976.84 S.D. 45.59 17.86 16.38 15.96 33.05 18.49 14.69 77.53 65.53 27.57 37.46 68.89 33.89 11.32 S.E. 11.06 4.33 3.97 5.64 8.02 4.48 6.00 18.80 23.17 6.69 9.08 16.71 8.22 2.92 Aligned Layouts (N) 3 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 0 3 3 3 3 2 Mean (X) 180.00 120.33 137.67 0.00 70.33 42.00 0.00 241.33 0.00 97.83 97.83 80.67 82.33 42.00 1192.33 S.D. 22.34 4.04 32.19 0 31.13 2.65 0 52.55 0 10.39 13.53 34.53 13.61 2.83 S.E. 12.90 2.33 18.59 0 17.98 1.53 0 30.34 0 6.00 7.81 19.94 7.86 2.00 Split Plan Layout (N) 14 14 14 8 14 14 6 14 14 8 14 14 14 13 Mean (X) 228.07 132.14 129.71 140.50 123.29 61.64 151.33 315.36 162.88 96.64 175.21 160.64 124.00 38.69 2040.11 S.D. 45.19 19.06 12.60 15.96 25.74 18.61 14.69 77.01 65.53 29.83 34.06 66.65 32.49 12.13 S.E. 12.08 5.09 3.37 5.64 6.88 4.97 6.00 20.58 23.17 7.97 9.10 17.81 8.68 3.37

PAGE 58

58 Figure 51. Graph of average size of measured spaces: comparison between developers

PAGE 59

59 Averages for Evaluated Spaces The average master bedroom i s approximately 220 square feet, bedroom 2 and bedroom 3 are approximately 130 square feet and bedroom 4, which was also offered as a library or study area for some homes is identified to be approximately 140 square feet. Bedroom 4 was only offered in eight out of the 17 homes studied. The average area for the living room is approximately 152 square feet and the family room is approximately 302 square feet. The average dining room is approximately 163 square feet and the breakfast nook is approximately 99 s quare feet. As for the kitchen area, the average square feet for all of the homes measured in this study is approximately 166 square feet. Of the total average floor plan (1,977 square feet), 1503 square feet make up the evaluated spaces. The spaces not evaluated for frequency of use account for the remaining 475 square feet. Averages for Remainder S paces The average area for the master bathroom is approximately 114 square feet and for other bathrooms in the home the average area is 58 square feet (this measurement includes the areas of two homes that had a third half bathroom called a powder room, which was on average thirty six square feet.) The hall space is approximately 147 square feet, the closet space117 square feet and the laundry room approxi mately 40 square feet. Analysis of Variance T est and Students t Test An analysis of variance test was performed using Fisher's F ratio method to confirm a 95% confidence level for accepting the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference betw een the means. The data analyzed in the F ratio test are shown in Table 54. The results of the F ratio test are shown in Table 55. Thus, the

PAGE 60

60 average scores between the Split Plan and the Aligned layouts can be analyzed as one group. The data collected fr om the survey questionnaire indicates that inhabitants of the homes surveyed, efficiently use approximately 67.41% of the evaluated spaces based on the scores listed in Table 52. Table 52 shows the scores for each of the evaluated spaces. The cumulative bedroom scores, located in the first column of Table 52, are further identified for individual bedroom use scores in Table 53. According to the results of Students T test, the data indicates a 95% confidence level that the percentage of efficiently used space within the homes analyzed is between 57.89% and 76.92% (Table 55). By identifying the percentage of space that is efficiently used within the homes that were surveyed, it can also be concluded that the remaining percentage of space (23.08% to 42.11%) is inefficiently used. By applying these percentages to the averaged spatial total of the evaluated spaces within all of the homes studied, approximately 347632 square feet of the evaluated spaces are inefficiently used. Inefficiently used spaces were identified in a few of the homes surveyed. The data collected indicate that six out of 13 homes that had both a dining room and breakfast nook reported to never use the formal dining rooms and that they use the breakfast nook at least four to five days of the week. The data collected also indicate that all of the homes that had both a living room and family room reported to never use the living room. The family room in all of the homes on average is used every day. The data collected on the responses to Q uestion 12 indicate that the living rooms and dining rooms were the two areas that occupants felt to be the least required spaces for satisfying their daily needs.

PAGE 61

61 Table 52. Responses and scoring for question 9 Question 9 On average, how often do you use the spaces in your home? If any of these rooms are not a part of your home please select Not Applicable Score Guide Private Spaces Public Spaces Response Score Bedroom Cumulative Total Family Room Living Room Kitchen Dining Room No ok TOTAL SCORE Floor Plan Possible Points % of Evaluated Spaces Used Efficiently Not Applicable 0 12* 5 1 5 1 1 25 Oxford 46 54.35% Never 1 7* 5 0 5 2 5 24 Oxford 46 52.17% 0 -1 day/ week 2 12* 5 0 5 1 5 28 Floridian 46 60.87% 2 -3 days/week 3 28* 5 0 5 0 5 43 St. Andrews 43 100.00% 4 -5 days/week 4 7* 4 0 5 0 0 16 St. Andrews 43 37.21% Every day 5 11* 5 1 5 1 5 28 Capri 41 68.29% 15* 5 0 5 1 5 31 Cervia 41 75.61% 10* 5 0 5 2 5 27 1438 36 75.00% 14* 5 0 5 0 5 29 1528 36 80.56% 12* 5 0 5 0 5 2 7 Alderbrooke 36 75.00% 9* 5 0 4 0 2 25 Alderbrooke 36 69.44% 12* 5 0 5 0 2 24 Alderbrooke 36 66.67% 12* 5 0 5 0 5 27 Alderbrooke 36 75.00% (N) 13 5 2 12 6 12 Mean (X) 12.38 4.92 1.00 4.92 1.17** 4.17** S.D. 5.253 0.277 0 0.277 0.516 1.528 S.E. 1.49 0.08 0 0.08 0.21 0.44 *Refer to Table 5-3 for Individual Bedroom Scores. ** Dining Room is the formal dining areas and is additions to homes that have a breakfast nook. The breakfast nook is the inf ormal dining area, relevant to all homes

PAGE 62

62 Table 53. Individual bedroom scores Question 5 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 How many household members are permanent residents in your home? How many bedrooms do you have? Please indicate how many people live in each bedroom of your house: If you have a spare bedroom in your home and nobody lives in it please select "0." D0 any of the bedrooms in your home serve a different purpose? If Yes, please state HOW the bedroom is used. TOTAL Response Response Bed 1 Score Bed 2 Score Bed 3 Score Bed 4 Score Response Score Response Bedroom Cumulative Total* 1 3 1 7 0 0 0 5 0 0 Yes 1 office 12 2 3 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yes 1 0 7 2 3 2 7 0 0 0 5 0 0 Yes 1 home office 12 5 4 1 7 1 7 1 7 2 7 No 0 0 28 4 4 1 7 1 7 1 0 1 0 No 0 0 7 1 3 1 7 0 0 0 4 0 0 Yes 1 Office 11 2 3 2 7 0 3 0 5 0 0 Yes 1 Office and workout room 15 1 3 1 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 Yes 1 my third bedroom is an office 10 3 3 2 7 1 7 0 0 0 0 No 0 0 14 2 3 2 7 0 0 0 5 0 0 Yes 1 Office/Library 12 2 3 2 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 Yes 1 Office and G uest Bedroom 9 2 3 2 7 0 0 0 5 0 0 Yes 1 office 12 2 3 2 7 0 0 0 5 0 0 Yes 1 Office and a multi purpose 12 (N) = 13 13 13 3 2 2 13 9 13 Mean( X) = 2.23 3.15 1.62 7.00 0.23 1.42 0.15 3.54 0.23 0.54 No: 23.1% Median= 2 3 2 7 0 0 0 5.00 0 0 Yes: 76.9% S.D. = 1.17 0.38 0.51 0 0.44 2.75 0.38 2.33 0.60 1.94 S.E. = 0.32 0.10 0.14 0.25 0.27 0.42 *Scores are based on the responses made to the individual survey questions. Refer to Appendix B for Survey Scoring Rubric.

PAGE 63

63 Table 54. Analy sis of variance for calculated spatial use score % of Space Used Efficiently Split Plan Aligned 0.54 0.75 0.52 0.69 0.61 0.67 1.00 0.75 0.37 0.68 0.76 0.75 0.81 Total N 9 4 13 Sum X 6.04 2.72 8.76 Sum x 4.33 1. 88 6.20 (Sum x) 36.49 7.41 43.90 Mean 0.67 0.68 1.35 Calculations: SSM = (8.71) / 13 = 5.83 SSB=[(36.49 / 9)+ (7.11 / 9)] 5.83 = 0.00 Efficient Use of Evaluated Spaces 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00% 0 2 4 6 8 10 Respondents % Efficient Use Split Plan Aligned Fig ure 52 Graph of percentage of evaluated spaces efficiently used

PAGE 64

64 Table 55 Results of F ratio tes t for analyzing the mean % efficient use of space Source of Variation Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Square F ratio Mean 1 5.91 Between Treatments 1 0.00 0.00024 0.00902 Within Treatments 11 0.30 0.027 Total 13 6.20 The F rati on has 1 d.f. in the numerator and 11 d.f. in the denominator. Referring to Fisher's F Distribution Table for 5% points, F=4.84. This shows a 95% confidence level to accept the null hypothesis that all the group means are not significantly different. T abl e 5 6 Results of Students t test for 95% confidence interval Mean % Use Score of All Homes 67.41% Standard Deviation 15.74% Standard Error 4.37% Students t value 2.179 Degrees of Freedom 13 1 = 12 Lower Limit 57.89% Upper Limit 76.92% Be drooms are also other areas found to have inefficient usage of space. Eleven (11) out of 13 of the respondents indicated that there home had three bedrooms. Two of the 13 respondents reported to have four bedrooms in their home. Bedroom spaces were reported by all respondents to be requirements in satisfying daily needs shown in Table 57 Of the three bedroom homes there were no homes that had all three bedrooms occupied by household members, one home had two out of the three bedrooms occupied by a househ old member, and all homes had at least one household member living in one of the three bedrooms. Thus, 90.9% of the threebedroom homes had two or more bedrooms unoccupied by a household member. Of these respondents, 69.23% indicated that one or more of the bedrooms in their home serve a different purpose

PAGE 65

65 other than that of a bedroom. All of these rooms were identified as being used as an office space and reported to use the office space on average at least four to five days of the week. Table 57. Response and scoring for question 12 Which rooms do you consider to be a requirement in satisfying your daily needs? Please indicate whether the space is Required or Supplementary. (Supplementary spaces are those that you enjoy having but either do not use or could live without.) Response Score Bedroom(s) Bathroom(s) Family Room Living Room Kitchen Dining Room Nook Office Required 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 Supplementary 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 Omitted 0 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 (N) 13 13 13 7 13 9 12 11 Mean (X) 2.00 1.92 1.92 0.69 2.00 0.85 1.62 1.54 Median: 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 S.D. 0.00 0.28 0.80 0.48 0.00 0.69 0.65 0.78 S.E. 0.00 0.08 0.22 0.18 0.00 0.23 0.19 0.23 Length of Occupancy Question 6 identified the average age of occupants to be 37.81 years old as shown in Table 58. These occupants also reported in Quest ion 4 to have lived in their current home for an average of 20.92 months (1.74 years). There were 11 survey respondents that were homeowners and two respondents were renters identified in

PAGE 66

66 Question 3. Question 1 indicated that eight of the survey respondent s were female and five were male. Question 8 identified that seven out of 11 respondents were Caucasian, two were Irish, one was Indian/Persian and one was African American. Question 9 pertained to occupants that were homeowners and the question was designed to identify the method for the selection to buy the home that they occupy. The data indicate that five out of 11 respondents chose their floor plan first then found vacant land to build. The data also indicate that four out of the 11 respondents to Ques tion 9 indicated that the home was already built and a realtor showed them the home as the method for how the home was selected. The responses made to these questions help identify the demographic information of the survey respondent and are shown in Tabl e 5 8 and Table 59. For the responses made to Question 30, with regard to living in the home for the next ten (10) years, homeowners reported on average to be neutral or somewhat agree to the statement. Additionally, 12 respondents reported they could not foresee any future changes to the number of household members in the next five years (Table 59). Question 5 identified the mean number of household members to be 2.23 people with a median of two people (Table 53). The results of Question 31 reported that respondents felt neutral on upgrading and renovating their home rather than moving. Comparison of responses to Question 5, Question 7, Question 12, Question 30 and Question 31 indicate that inhabitants have no strong feelings for or against the prefer ence or desire to move from the home they occupy. The responses made to Question 20 and 21 indicate that the average respondent feels safe within their home and the community.

PAGE 67

67 This could promote length of habitation because the respondent feels a sense of security in the home and community. Table 58. Responses for questions 7 through question 9 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Do you foresee any changes to the number of people living in your home in the next 5 years? (For example, maybe a child is mov ing away to college or a baby is on the way.) What is your ethnicity? FOR HOMEOWNERS ONLY: Which method most accurately describes the process of HOW you selected your home? Response Open-Ended Response Score Response No White A = Bought the land, then chose my favorite floor plan D No African American B = Bought the land, then selected the floor plan I could afford C No Caucasian C = The home was already built and a realtor showed me the home C No White D= I chose my floor plan first, t hen found vacant land to build No White Yes Indian/Persian C No White D No Caucasian D No Irish/German D No A No Mine is Hispanic: Husband is Irish & Russian D No C No Caucasian B 13 11 (N) = 11 No = 12 Caucasian= 7 A= 1 Yes =1 African American =1 B= 1 Indian/Persian =1 C= 4 Irish=2 D= 5

PAGE 68

68 Table 59 Demographics of survey respondents Question 4 Question 6 Question 3 Question 1 How long have you lived in this home? Please list the ages of each permanent household member: The number of boxes filled in should be equal to the number of people that live in your home. Are you the homeowner or do you rent the home you live in? Are you male or female? Floor plan OpenEnded Response Converted to Months Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Response Response Oxford 4 yrs. 48 67 Homeowner Male Oxford 18 MOS. 18 Homeowner Female Floridian 2.5 years 30 32 32 Homeowner Male St. Andrews 4 months 4 33 39 8 7 3 Re nter Female St. Andrews 2 Months 2 23 22 21 19 Renter Male Capri 2 Years 24 30 Homeowner Male Cervia Three and a half years 42 60 60 Homeowner Male 1438 5 months 5 70 Homeowner Female 1528 1 week 0.02 50 44 10 Hom eowner Female Alderbrooke 2 Years 24 58 56 Homeowner Female Alderbrooke 2 yrs 24 30 38 Homeowner Female Alderbrooke 2 years 24 50 49 Homeowner Female Alderbrooke 27 months 27 56 54 TOTAL All Ages Homeowner Female (N) 13 12 9 3 2 1 27 (N)= 13 (N)=13 Mean (X) 20.92 43.92 44.29 10.00 13.00 3.00 37.81 Homeowner= 11 (84.62%) Female = 8 (61.54%) S.D. 14.94 16.21 12.32 7.00 8.49 0.00 19.42 Renter = 2 (15.38%) Male = 5 (38.46%) S.E. 4.14 4.68 4.11 4.04 6.00 0 3.74

PAGE 69

69 In analyzing the level of satisfaction and comfort within the home based on natural daylighting and views to the outdoors, the average respondent indicated in Question 17 that they prefer daylighting to light the spaces in their home and they feel the w indows in their home offer great views to the outdoors identified in Question 18. Also, the average respondent reported to actively utilize the shading devices for their windows to control the amount of light given to the space identified in Question 32. H owever, the data collected on Question 19, indicate agreement among respondents that they do not like for people to be able to see inside their homes. A comparison of the responses to the survey questions indicates some level of dissatisfaction with some o f the spaces in the home, due to the close proximity of homes to neighbors. All of the respondents prefer natural lighting and good views to the outdoors but may not be able to maximize these effects because of privacy issues. Questions 22 through Questi on 24 were designed to identify the privacy preference of the individual. The data collected for Question 22 indicate that respondents prefer to be alone when they are trying to relax or focus. Question 23 identified that respondents were neutral in their feelings about bedrooms being the preferred place to relax within their home. This may be related to the results of Question 5, which indicated that the average household had two people living in the home. Comfort and relaxation possibly may be found in ot her public spaces within the home due to low number of occupants. The results to Question 24 further support the data collected in Question 23, indicating occupants do not spend most of their time in their bedrooms when they are home. Questions 25 through Question 29 were designed to identify preference for spatial use and implications for spatial change. The data

PAGE 70

70 collected for Question 25 indicate that homeowners enjoy entertaining guests in their home. This may have an effect on the configurations of the public spaces within the home. Question 26 identified that occupants have no strong feelings for or against the desire for more space within the home. The data collected for Question 27 further indicate that homeowners have some level of satisfaction with the overall size of their home. Question 28 also found some level of agreement for preference in redecorating the home. However, the data collected for Question 29 indicate that occupants do not strongly agree to that they move the furniture in their home often to change their space. The responses made to these questions are shown in Table 510 and Table 511. Table 510. Response and scoring for question 17 through question 24 Q. 17 Q 18 Q 19 Q 20 Q 21 Q. 22 Q 23 Q 24 Response Score I prefer natur al daylight to light my home. The windows in my home offer great views to the outdoors. I do not like for people to be able to see inside my home. I feel safe in my home. I feel safe in my commun ity. I prefer to be alone when I am trying to relax or focus. I prefer my bedroom as the place to relax. I spend most of my time in my bedroom when I am home. Strongly AGREE 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 2 2 Somewhat AGREE 4 5 5 5 4 4 2 1 1 Neutral 3 4 4 4 5 4 5 3 3 Somewhat DISAGREE 2 4 2 3 4 4 3 3 2 Strongly DISAGREE 1 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 2 4 4 3 5 5 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 5 5 5 2 1 Split Plan 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 Aligned 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 5 5 4 3 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 2 1 (N) 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Mean (X): 4.38 4.08 4.23 4.62 4.31 4.23 3.23 2.38 Median: 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 3 S.D. 0.65 1.12 0.73 0.51 0.63 0.93 1.30 0.96 S.E. 0.18 0.31 0.20 0.14 0.17 0.26 0.36 0.27 .

PAGE 71

71 Table 5.11. Response and scoring for question 25 through question 33 Q 25 Q 26 Q 27 Q 28 Q 29 Q 30 Q 31 Q 32 Q 33 Response Score I would like more space in my house. I am satisfied with the overall size of my home. I enjoy redecorating my home. I move the furniture in my home often to change my space. I plan on living in this home for the next 10 years. If changes occ ur to my daily needs, I would rather renovate and upgrade my home instead of moving. I always adjust my shades to control the amount of lighting in my home. The only way I can find privacy in my home is in a room with the door closed. Strongly AGREE 5 5 4 4 2 3 2 4 2 Somewhat AGREE 4 3 2 1 1 5 4 4 2 Neutral 3 5 2 4 2 2 3 4 4 Somewhat DISAGREE 2 4 3 3 1 1 1 5 5 Strongly DISAGREE 1 3 4 3 3 1 3 3 4 5 2 4 2 1 5 4 2 1 5 1 1 5 2 5 2 4 3 5 2 5 4 5 1 Split Plan 1 5 5 3 5 2 5 1 Aligned 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 5 2 5 5 5 1 2 5 4 3 5 5 5 2 3 5 5 5 1 3 5 1 (N) 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Mean (X): 3.38 3.77 3.77 2.46 3.38 3.38 4.54 2.31 Median: 3 4 4 2 5 3 5 2 S.D. 1.45 1.24 1.42 1.33 1.89 1.39 0.66 1.32 S.E. 0.40 0.34 0.39 0.37 0.53 0.38 0.18 0.36

PAGE 72

72 Case Study for a Suggested Adaptable Construction Technique A method for implementing operable interior walls will further be developed, however, the concept of the idea focuses on maximizing owner control by constructing wall panels to be stored in recessed ceiling cavities. These walls will exist on a track in which the wall can easily be accessed and lowered from the ceiling. These walls will already be sprayed and finished with the necessary dry wall texture and stored in a protective membrane during nonuse. The seams created by adding the wall panel will be strategically located in order to preserve the aesthetic appearance of the space. Methods for s eam sealing are currently under consideration at this point. The height of the wall panel must be equivalent or less than the length of the adjacent ceiling space in order to access the stored wall. Figure 53 is a representation of the original Oxford flo or plan analyzed in this study. The changes made to the layout will occur in the living room. Figure 54 represents a few minor changes that would be required to make for the living room conversion as a bedroom. A closet space was added and the north wall was pulled into the space in order to align the dining space so that the wall is not obstructed during ceiling retrieval. The operable panel would be constructed to already contain the doorway to enter the new bedroom. Figure 55 represents the new adaptable layout where the living room has now become a bedroom by adding the stored interior wall panel.

PAGE 73

73 Figure 53. Original Oxford l ayout Figure 54. Adaptable Oxford layout identifying new living room layout

PAGE 74

74 Figure 55. Adaptable Oxford layout: adapting living room to new bedroom space. Figure 56 and Figure 57 are sectional views of the changes made to the spaces and the idea of storing the wall panel in the recessed ceiling above the space. Figure 58 illustrates how the recessed ceiling cavity may operate to insert the operable wall panel. The panel would be rotated and lifted with the necessary manpower or equipment in order to be positioned into a horizontal plane. Once the wall is positioned horizontally, it can then be attached to a rolling track system so that the wall can be pushed into the dropped ceiling cavity space. This operation would act similar to nonbending garage doors. Once the wall is stored in the ceiling space, the opening to the ceiling would be covered and finished with an appropriately sized framed panel finished with matching drywall aesthetics. Figure 59 illust rates a panoramic rendered view from the family room facing the entrance to help understand the interior spaces.

PAGE 75

75 Figure 56. Conceptual sectional rendering showing space as living room Figure 57. Conceptual sectional rendering of newly created bedr oom

PAGE 76

76 Figure 58. Operable wall panel positioned for installation or ceiling storage Figure 59 Rendered interior view from back of family room: Oxford layout Figure 510 presents a set of transitional images to demonstrate how the spaces will change when the adaptable feature is utilized. These techniques and similar methods will further be studied and developed in hopes of identifying an easily adaptable spatial feature for residential construction.

PAGE 77

77 Figure 510. Transitional images of the space: demonstrating the suggested adaptable technique for Oxford layout

PAGE 78

78 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS There is a certain degree of inefficiently used spaces within the homes that were surveyed in this study, which accepts hypothesis (H1) that there is a certain amount of inefficient space in homes. The most common areas found to be inefficiently used were living rooms, dining rooms and spare bedrooms. These inefficiencies are highly dependent upon the characteristics of the occupants and the dynamics of the household me mbers. Two (2) of the households surveyed, had one (1) or more children living in the home between the ages of three (3) and ten (10). Another home was rented by four (4) roommates between the ages of nineteen (19) and twenty three (23). Ages of household members identifies a time range of habitation for the bedrooms within the homes. When the children in these homes reach a certain age they will eventually move out of the home, leaving their vacant bedrooms behind. Parents of these homes may chose to stay in the home or move to change their space now that they do not require the additional bedrooms. If the parents chose to stay in the current home, then they will more than likely have inefficiencies within the home if the vacant bedroom is not reconsidered. Formal dining rooms and formal living rooms are other areas within the home that are typically unused. These spaces are supplementary and more of an aesthetic concept than a functional area. Homes that have unused spare bedrooms, formal dining areas, and living rooms, should be evaluated on an individual basis as to why this occurrence exists in order to identify more efficient usage of space within residential homes.

PAGE 79

79 If a home needs more private spaces, and the dining room and/or living room is never used, then this space should have the ability to be reconfigured. The results from the patent search also indicate that there are limited adaptable strategies, technologies, and/or products for homes, accepting the hypothesis (H2). An adaptable feature c an be implemented in order to maximize, control, and flex the spaces within the home. In most floor plans, dining rooms, living rooms and bedrooms are all positioned along the outer edges of a homes structural walls. For bedrooms, the remaining boundaries that define the bedroom are all interior partitions. These walls carry no structural load, other than the weight of the materials that make up that specific wall. Why should these elements be constructed as permanent components to a home, if their only purpose is to serve as a boundary between spaces? Likewise, if a living room or dining room already has two defined boundaries, why is it so costly to add the additional interior partitions to the space in order to make the space a private bedroom? Interior partitions are typically only comprised of wood stud members and sheets of drywall. The simplicity of the materiality for interior nonload bearing walls further indicates an opportunity to develop a method for implementing adaptable methods.

PAGE 80

80 CHAPTER 7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY There are a number of patented products offered for use as operable wall systems however the quality and appearance of these products do not address the aesthetic requirements of standard model home construction. Trim elements are applied to cover exposed seams between panels, which affect the overall appearance of the interior spaces. Residential interior construction does not have these elements inherent in their designs. Walls of model homes are smooth, lightly textured dr ywall surfaces. A better method for seam sealing should be offered in order to promote the use of such products to allow homeowners the ability to adapt the spaces within their homes The suggested adaptability method will be further developed and designed.

PAGE 81

81 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 82

82

PAGE 83

83

PAGE 84

84

PAGE 85

85

PAGE 86

86 Housing Inventory for Single Story Homes Table A 1. Housing i nventory Parcel # QTY North Row to Loop1 ID Floor Plan Year Built # of Beds # of Baths Heated Space Distributed Survey Survey Response NOTES 1 1540 GH 1946 Model 1946 2008 4 2 1946 0 2 600 Ox Oxford 2006 3 2 1836 0 For Sale/Vacant 3 590 F Floridian 2006 3 2 2058 0 For Sale/Vacant 4 580 C Cervantes 2006 4 2 2269 0 For Sale/Vacant 5 570 Ox Oxford 2006 3 2 1836 1 1 6 560 C Cervantes 2006 4 2 2269 0 Foreclosed/ Vacant 7 550 U UNKNOWN 2006 3 2 1952 0 8 540 Ce Cervia 2006 3 2 1910 1 1 9 530 V Viscaya 2006 4 3 2738 0 Foreclosed/ Vacant 10 520 V Viscaya 2006 4 3 2734 1 11 510 F Floridian 2006 3 2 2057 1 12 500 Ox Oxford 2006 3 2 1756 1 13 490 C Cervantes 2006 4 2 2268 0 Foreclosed/ Vacant 14 470 U UNKNOWN 2006 3 2 2327 0 15 460 A Alderbrooke 2007 3 2 1428 1 16 450 O Oakhill 2006 3 2 1448 1 17 440 U UNKNOWN 2006 3 2 1913 1 18 420 O Oakhill 2006 3 2 1454 1 19 400 A Alderbrooke 2007 3 2 1428 1 1 20 390 O Oakhill 2006 3 2 1454 1 21 380 O Oakhill 2006 3 2 1454 1

PAGE 87

87 Table A 1. Continued. QTY Loop 1 to Loop2 ID Floor Plan Year Built # of Beds # of Baths Heated Space Distributed Survey Survey Response NOTES 1 350 S St. Andrews 2006 4 2 1532 0 2 330 O Oakhill 2006 3 2 1454 1 3 310 S St. Andrews 2006 4 2 1532 0 Foreclosed/ Vacant 4 300 U UNKNOWN 2006 4 2 1890 1 5 290 U UNKNOWN 2006 3 2 1938 1 6 270 S St. Andrews 2006 4 2 1521 0 F oreclosed/ Vacant 7 260 S St. Andrews 2006 4 2 1530 1 8 240 O Oakhill 2006 3 2 1454 0 Foreclosed/ Vacant 9 220 S St. Andrews 2006 4 2 1532 1 10 210 O Oakhill 2006 3 2 1454 1 QTY Loop 2 to Loop3 ID Floor Plan Year Built # of Beds # of Baths Heat ed Space Distributed Survey Survey Response NOTES 1 180 A Alderbrooke 2007 3 2 1428 1 2 170 A Alderbrooke 2007 3 2 1428 0 "NO solicitors" 3 130 A Alderbrooke 2007 3 2 1428 1 4 120 S St. Andrews 2006 4 2 1532 0 5 80 O Oakhill 2006 3 2 1454 1 6 60 A Alderbrooke 2008 3 2 1423 1 QTY Loop 3 to Loop 4 ID Floor Plan Year Built # of Beds # of Baths Heated Space Distributed Survey Survey Response NOTES 1 50 S St. Andrews 2006 4 2 1532 0 2 20 S St. Andrews 2006 4 2 1532 1 3 10 O Oakhill 2006 3 2 1454 1 4 1530 S St. Andrews 2006 4 2 1533 1 1 Renter QTY Loop 4 to Loop 5 ID Floor Plan Year Built # of Beds # of Baths Heated Space Distributed Survey Survey Response NOTES 1 1440 S St. Andrews 2006 4 2 1532 1 1 2 1430 GH 1438 1438 2009 3 2 1438 1 1 3 1420 A Alderbrooke 2007 3 2 1428 1 1 4 1400 U UNKNOWN 2006 3 2 1993 0

PAGE 88

88 Table A 1. Continued. QTY Loop 5 to Loop 6 ID Floor Plan Year Built # of Beds # of Baths Heated Space Distributed Survey Survey Response NOTES 1 1380 A Alderbrooke 2007 3 2 1428 1 1 2 1330 A Alderbrooke Cops house 3 2 1428 1 3 1300 UNKNOWN plan 2006 3 2 1770 1 1 4 1230 A Alderbrooke 2007 3 2 1428 1 1 5 1210 A Alderbrooke 2008 3 2 1423 1 6 1190 GH 1260 1260 2009 3 2 1260 0 Under Construction 7 1180 A Alderbrooke 2007 3 2 1428 1 8 1130 A Alderbrooke 2007 3 2 1428 1 QTY Loop 6 to Loop 7 ID Floor Plan Year Built # of Beds # of Baths Heated Space Distributed Survey Survey Response NOTES 1 1100 A Alderbrooke 2007 3 2 1428 1 2 1080 A Alderbrooke 2007 3 2 1428 0 For RENT/ Vacant 3 1070 Ox Oxford 2007 3 2 1836 1 1 4 1060 F Floridian 2006 3 2 2079 1 5 1040 V Viscaya 2006 4 3 2734 1 6 990 Ce Cervia 2006 3 2 1910 1 7 970 Ce Cervia 2006 3 2 1910 1 8 950 C4 Casetello IV 2006 4 2 2015 0 9 940 Ce Cervia 2006 3 2 1910 1 10 920 U UNKNOWN plan 2006 3 2 2133 0 Like 900 11 910 U UNKNOWN plan No Match on Appraiser's Website 0 12 900 U UNKNOWN plan 2006 3 2 2133 0 Like 920 13 880 F Floridian 2007 3 2 2057 1 14 860 M Maaria 2006 3 3 2 703 0 QTY Loop 7 West to End ID Floor Plan Year Built # of Beds # of Baths Heated Space Distributed Survey Survey Response NOTES 1 830 V Viscaya 2006 4 3 2726 0 DECLINED 2 820 V Viscaya 2006 4 3 2734 0 Foreclosed/ Vacant 3 800 F Floridian 2006 3 2 2057 1 4 770 F Floridian 2006 3 2 2057 1 1 5 1720 C Cervantes 2008 4 2 2266 1 6 1730 GH 1528 1528 2008 3 2 1528 1

PAGE 89

89 Table A 1. Continued. QTY Dbl. Row (B) BtR. ID Floor Plan Year Built # of Beds # of Baths Heated Space Distributed Survey Survey Response NOTES 1 1840 F Floridian 2007 3 2 2019 1 2 1860 M Maaria 2007 3 3 2641 0 QTY Dbl. Row (A) BtR ID Floor Plan Year Built # of Beds # of Baths Heated Space Distributed Survey Survey Response NOTES 1 720 U UNKNOWN plan 2007 4 2 2022 0 Forecl osed/ Vacant 2 710 U UNKNOWN plan 2007 4 2 2022 0 Like 700 3 700 C Cervantes 2007 4 2 2274 1 4 670 C Cervantes 2006 4 2 2269 1 QTY Dbl. Row C TL. start ID Floor Plan Year Built # of Beds # of Baths Heated Space Distributed Survey Survey Response N OTES 1 1550 GH 2289 2289 2009 4 3 2289 0 Under Construction 2 620 V Viscaya 2006 4 3 2738 0 Foreclosed/ Vacant 3 630 V Viscaya 2006 4 3 2734 0 For sale/Vacant 4 650 V Viscaya 2006 4 3 2734 1 5 1590 Ox Oxford 2008 3 2 1840 1 6 1580 V Viscaya 2008 4 2 2648 0 For sale/Vacant QTY West Row (NS) ID Floor Plan Year Built # of Beds # of Baths Heated Space Distributed Survey Survey Response NOTES 1 2040 C Cervantes 2007 4 2 2297 1 For sale 2 2030 GH 1528 1528 2008 3 2 1528 1 1 3 2000 GH 1862 1862 2008 4 2 1862 1 4 1990 C Cervantes 2007 4 2 2276 1 5 1970 V Viscaya 2007 4 3 2702 1 90 TOTALS FOR ONE STORY HOMES 302 190 167639 57 13

PAGE 90

90 APPENDIX B SURVEY SCORING RUBRI C Use Scoring Guide Maximum Points for Various Conditions Every da y (Dining Room) = 5 points Every day (Breakfast Nook) = 5 points Every day (Family Room) = 5 points Every day (Living Rom) = 5 points Bedroom Use Score Guide 1 2 people (occupancy) + Everyday (Bedroom) = 2 points + 5 points = 7 Total Points per bedr oom. 3+ people (occupancy) + Everyday (Bedroom) = 1 point + 5 points = 6 points Total points per bedroom. 0 (occupancy) + (Yes (Q: 15)) (Office (Q: 16)) (Everyday (Office)) = 0 points + (1) (1) (5) = 5 Total Points per bedroom. *IF (Q:16) is something other than Office then by default assign 3 points for use 0 (occupancy) + (No(Q:15) = 0 points + 1 points = 1 Total Point Maximum Bedroom Score = 7 points x (Number of Bedrooms ) Spatial Efficiencies Use of Space Dependent upon: Who, Quantity, Need 1 WHO is using the space? Demographics of Users o Ages and Number of Members Q:5 = Number of Household Members Q: 6 = Age of residents o Gender Q:1 = Male or Female Respondents o Culture Q:3 = Indicates financial situation of resident Q:8 = Ethnic Background Q: 25 = Social aspects of inhabitant, importance of public spaces in the home.

PAGE 91

91 2 QUANTITY of spaces Demographics of Space o Q:13 = Number of Bedrooms o Q:14 = Number of Members per Bedroom 3 NEED for space: Actual USE and Preferred Use o Actual USE Q:9 = How ofte n the spaces are used weekly Q: 15= Are there spare bedrooms? Q:16 = How Spare Bedrooms are Used Q:24 = Time Spent in Bedroom o Preference for USE: Q:12 = Required vs. Supplementary Q:23 = Preference for Bedroom USE Q:26 = Preference for more or less space Q :33 = Importance of Bedroom identifies a need Length of Occupancy Dependent upon: Time, Change, and Level of Satisfaction 1 TIME Past, Present and Future Considerations o Past Q:4 = Time already spent in the home o Present Q:3 = Homeowner vs. Renting (Cons ider for future moving) Q:6 = Ages of Household Members (Consider for future change possibility) o Future Q:7 = Foreseeable Changes to Household Members Q:30 = Projected Length of Habitation 2 CHANGE Preference of Desire for Change o Preference for Change Q:2 8 = Redecorating Preference (Agreement identified likeness for Change) Q:31 = Renovate or Upgrade Home (Preference for HOW to change, agreement identifies importance of flexibility and adaptive strategies) o Desire for Change

PAGE 92

92 Q:29 = Rearranging Furniture (Ag reement identifies ACT and desire for spatial change) Q:30 = Projected Length of Habitation (Disagreement identifies a foreseeable change or desire to change) 3 SATISFACTION Comfort, Security, Privacy, Natural Lighting o Reasons for Selecting Home : How and Why= Q: 10 Q:11 o Comfort Q:26 = More or Less Space (Identifies perceived comfort) Q:27 = Overall Satisfaction o Security Q:20 = Perception of Safety in the Home ( Agreement promotes longevity) Q:21 = Perception of Safety in Community ( Agreement promotes l ongevity, Disagreement may promote Bunkering Down" typically resulting in lack of opening shades and therefore lack of natural light unsatisfied) o Privacy Q:19 = Identifies residents perception of privacy ( Strong Agreement indicates a need for window coverage control, which may also indicate frequency of day lighting to the space) Q:22 = Preference for Privacy (Relative to Household Members age and quantity) Q:23= Act of locating Privacy in the home Q:24 = Bedroom Privacy ( Strong Agreement stresses importance of Bedroom, Disagreement identifies other areas of privacy in the home exist) Q: 33 = Importance of Barriers in the Home for Privacy (Identifies the residents perception and preference to privacy cultural influence or situational?) o Natural Lighting Q:17 = Preference for Natural Light Q:18 = View Satisfaction (Strong Agreement indicates satisfaction, resident may open windows more frequently than others because they took notice to the question) Q: 32 = Indicates ACT of obtaining Natural Light and use of adaptable features.

PAGE 93

93 LIST OF REFERENCES Associated Press (2008). New home sales fell by record amount in 2007." Real estate, < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22880294/ > ( Oct 10, 2009) Andersen, K and Gronau, N. (2005). An Approach to Increase Adaptability in ERP Systems. Proceedings Managing Modern Organizations with Information Technology Baraona Pohl, E. (2009). Remodeled homes: 39 residential remodeling projects from around the world, Beve rly, Mass Bell, J. (2006). 21st century house New York Bendimerad, A. (2007). A Long Term Outlook for Homeowner Remodeling Activ ity: Results and Implications. Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, < http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/remodeling/w076.pdf > (Oct. 28, 2009). Clark, T. (2007 ). Flexible Space Management System and Method : United States 7228664. United States Patents, Janesville, Wisconsin < http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7228664.html > (Sept. 3, 2009). Coy, P. (2008). Housing Meltdown : Why Home Prices Could Drop 25% More on Average Before the Market Finally Hits Bottom. Business Week < http://www.businesswe ek.com/magazine/content/08_06/b4070040767516.htm?c han=rss_topStories_ssi_5 > (Oct.10, 2009). Corrodi, M., Spechtenhauser, K., and Auer, G. (2008). Illuminating: Natural light in residential architecture London. Dal Co, F. (1990). Figures of Architecture and Thought: German Architecture Culture, 18801920. New York Deal, J., and Nall C. (1972). Modular Wall and Ceiling System: United States 3683100. United States Patents < http://www.freepate ntsonline.com/3683100.html > ( Sept. 9, 2009). Economist.com (2008) A Helping Hand to Homeowners." < http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12470547 > (Oct. 10, 2009). Grayson, P (1997). Technology and Home Adaptations Staying Put: Adapting the places instead of the people Amityville, New York. Marsh, W. (2009). U.S. Home Vacancy Rate Fell to 2.5 pct in 2nd quarter. Thompson Reuters < http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA Housing/i dUSTRE56N3EX200907 24 > (Oct. 28, 2009).

PAGE 94

94 Myregion.org (2007). How Shall We Grow? A Shared Vision for Central Florida, < http://www.myregion.org/Portals/0/HSWG/HSWG_final.pdf > (Sept. 15, 2009) Myregion.org (2009). Where Are We Now? 2009 Progr ess Report for the Central Florida Region, < http://www.myregion.org/Portals/0/CFL%20PROG%20REP%20BOOK%20 %20LO%20RES.pdf > ( Sept.15, 2009). NAHB (2007). Study of Life Expectancy of Home Components. NAHB Report < http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?contentID=72475 > (Oct. 28, 2009). Office of the Press Secretary (2008). President A ddress to the Nation on September 24, 2008. < http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/09/2008092410.html > (Oct. 10, 2009). Papsco, W. (1976). Portable Wall System and Met hod of Installing Same: United States 3967420. United States Patents, Sunnyvale, California. < http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3967420.html > (Sept. 9, 2009). Shepherd, S. (2007). PATH Concept Home Demonstrates Flexible Floor plan Construction. Professional Builders < http://www.housingzone.com/probuilder/article/CA6506075.html > ( Sept. 9, 2009). Space (2009). Space. Encyclopedia Britannica Online, < http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/557313/space> (Sept. 16, 2009). Standard and Poors. (2009). S&P/Case S hiller Home Price Indices. < http://www2.standardandpoors.coml Steele, B. D. (2006). Negotiate my boundary : Mass customisation and responsive environments London. > (Oct. 10, 2009). Volusia County/Departme nt of Economic Development (2009). 2009 Volusia County Economic Development Second Quarter 2009 Update, Daytona Beach, Florida. Willis, G. (2006). Home Renovation Checklist. CNNMoney.com, < http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/17/real_estate/tips/willis_tips/index.htm > (Oct. 28, 2009).

PAGE 95

95 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH In May 2008, Michelle Updike earned her Bachelors of Design in Architecture, whereupon her entrance to the M.E. Rinker Sr. School of Building Construction has further enhanced her knowledge of the construction industry. This study helped her along the path to earning a Master of Sc ience in Building Construction in December 2009. Michelle is also a LEED Accredited Professional and hopes to be a part of many sustainable building and design projects. Having obtained an education in design and construction, Michelle will be pursuing a career with a Design/Build company focusing on sustainable methods.