This page demonstrates an algorithm for the distribution of furniture in a given bedroom, based on an outline of fixed area (12m²), the position of door and radiator, and a given set of furniture. It is based on the requirements of the London Housing Design Guide, but is flexible to adapt to any set of rules, and output compliant layouts.
The result is the best possible layout - given the input - and a score. The score is awarded based on compliance with the regulations, and the grading is out of 10. Only scores higher than a 5 are fully compliant.
By interacting with the floorplan to the left, you will be changing the shape of the target bedroom, and the position of its door and radiator. The result will be the value most similar to the precomputed bedrooms in the dataset, along with its score in the black bubble. Clicking it will morph the bedroom into its most similar, compliant, bedroom. Clicking on the other bubble will activate the debug view, providing more information on why the layout did or did not comply.
Regulations are a constant in architect's day to day work. The intention is laudable in establishing standards of living, particularly as the main opposition against market pressures. However, insofar as they are law and not merely guidelines (ie. Neufert's Architectural Standard), their minimum requirements are used as the target values to work towards. Just like everyone drives at the speed limit, everyone lives at minimum housing requirements.
As a proxy for creating a variety of livable spaces, they serve their purpose. However, this comes at the cost of flexibility, customisation and variety in design.
By automating the process, the effort of designing compliant layouts drops dramatically - not just speeding up the process, but allowing architects to try many more variations. If the concept of the "apartment type" ceases to make sense, how does that impact residential design? And from there, how does it impact the city?