Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-xlmdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-09T22:32:57.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing Ostrom's design principles to Habraken's open-building framework: disentangling a polycentric built environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2024

John B. Horowitz
John B. Horowitz*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article compares Habraken's Open-Building framework to Ostrom's design principles. While both frameworks aim to create adaptable and self-governing environments, Ostrom focuses on long-lasting commons governance, while Habraken focuses on designing for change. Unlike Ostrom, Habraken focuses on excludability, implying that private spaces include private and club goods, and public spaces combine public goods and common-pool resources. For Habraken, space is public to people from lower levels who have the right to enter but is private to people from higher levels who can only enter as guests. Habraken also focuses on separating design tasks, such as putting utilities in public spaces accessible from apartment building corridors, to reduce maintenance and repair costs. Utility access from public areas also reduces the need for temporary management and access rights from neighbouring territories, changing many repair and maintenance decisions from collective to private choices. Separating the infill level from the base building gives agents on the lower levels greater ability to adapt and control their own environments. Habraken views the built environment as a self-organizing polycentric system, and an important part of self-organization is appropriately applying themes, patterns, types, and systems. Unlike Ostrom, Habraken doesn't think there are focal action situations.

Keywords

commonsenvironmentgovernanceHabrakenOstromprivate spacepublic spaceB3: History of thought: individualsB5-Current Heterodox ApproachesD7-Analysis of Collective Decision-MakingH4-Publicly Provided GoodsQ2-Environmental Management
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 20 , 2024 , e39
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Millennium Economics Ltd.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, C. (1979). The Timeless way of Building, Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aligica, P.D. and Tarko, V. (2012) Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond. Governance 25(2), 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertaud, A. (2018). Order Without Design: How Markets Shape Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowker, G.C. and Star, S.L. (1999). Sorting Things out: Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breit, W. and Horowitz, J.B. (1995) Discrimination and diversity: Market and non-market settings. Public Choice 84(1/2), 63–75. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30027003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J. and Tullock, G. (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Franke, C. (2022). Open building in Finland. In Kendall, S.H. (ed.), Residential Architecture as Infrastructure. London: Routledge, pp. 64–89.Google Scholar
Habraken, N.J. (1998). The Structure of the Ordinary: Form and Control in the Built Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habraken, N.J. (2021a). Open building – a professional challenge. In Eberle, D. and Troger, E. (eds.), Baumschlager Eberle Architekten 2010–2020. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser, pp. 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habraken, N.J. (2021b). Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, J.B. (2013) How to create an externality. Journal of Economic and Social Policy 15(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
Horowitz, J.B. (2021) Habraken, Jacobs, and Ostrom on governing the built environment: The case of common interest developments. Journal of Institutional Economics 17(4), 625–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J. (1994). Systems of Survival: A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Kendall, S.H. (2019). An infrastructure model of the building stock. In Kendall, S.H. (ed.), Healthcare Architecture as Infrastructure: Open Building in Practice. London and New York: Routledge: Routledge, pp. 1–12..Google Scholar
Kendall, S.H. (2022). Basic principles of an infrastructure model of the building stock. In Kendall, S.H. (ed.), Residential Architecture as Infrastructure: Open Building in Practice. New York; Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
Koreneva, N. (2022). Open building in Russia. In Kendall, S.H. (ed.), Residential Architecture as Infrastructure: Open Building in Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 113–135.Google Scholar
Krier, L. (2009). The Architecture of Community (with D. A. Thadani). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Macchi, G. (2019). System separation: a strategy for preventive building design. In Kendall, S.H. (ed.), Healthcare Architecture as Infrastructure. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 13–31.Google Scholar
Morita, Y. and Kim, Y. (2022). How housing renovation in meeting the challenge of oversupply of dwelling units in Japan. In Kendall, S.H. (ed.), Residential Architecture as Infrastructure: Open Building in Practice. New York; Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 279–296.Google Scholar
Musgrave, R.A. (1959) The Theory of Public Finance. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M.C. (2013). Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2003) How types of goods and property rights jointly affect collective action. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15(3), 239–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692803015003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010) Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. The American Economic Review 100(3), 641–672. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27871226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1999). Commodities and Capabilities. OUP Catalogue. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shepard, C. (2023). Mass support. Places Journal, April 2023. Accessed 04 Nov 2024. https://doi.org/10.22269/230411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarko, V. (2016). Elinor Ostrom: An Intellectual Biography. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.Google Scholar
Van der Werf, F. (2020). “Valuable environments” In the light of Open Building. Paper presented at the Open Building NOW! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pisjv-wEKM4Google Scholar
Wilson, D.S., Ostrom, E. and Cox, M.E. (2013) Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 90(Supplement), S21–S32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar