ABSTRACT
Introduction The battle lines are clear. On the one side, with Owen Hatherley, are Shelter,1 the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment,2 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation,3 and the left in general who argue that space is a social good, and therefore minimum standards for housing should be set to ensure that people have sufficient room to carry out normal daily activities, socialize with their family and friends, work from home or study in private, and provide storage for general household goods and personal belongings. For the other side, predominantly the house building industry, economists and central government, the market provides the best mechanism for rationing space. The DCLG consultation on Housing Standards (August 2013) points, for instance, to complexity in the operation of space standards and the implications in terms of construction costs, affordability for new
home buyers and the potential need for larger areas of land to deliver a given number of homes.4 What is at stake is ideological and quintessentially urban: in an era of hyper-urbanization, should urban law protect people from the consequences of an increasingly competitive and global market for housing space or is the market the best (and perhaps the only) place for individuals to flourish?
