Purpose: Despite being a common term in the literature, there is little agreement about what the word “adaptability” means in the context of the built environment and very little evidence regarding practitioners’ understanding of adaptability. This paper aims to examine what practitioners in the building industry mean when they talk about “adaptability”. Design/methodology/approach: This study adopted a qualitative approach, involving 82 unstructured face-to-face interviews with practitioners from a range of professional disciplines in the construction industry, including architects, engineers, facilities managers, property agents and planners. The interview transcripts were coded inductively to identify themes in the qualitative data. Findings: The interview data revealed a wide range of perspectives on adaptability, particularly regarding terminology, the meanings practitioners associate with adaptability and the way in which these meanings are communicated to others in the industry. The applied meaning of adaptability varied depending on context. Practical implications: Conflicting language, and different interpretations of adaptability, is a potential barrier to the development of adaptable buildings. A clearer articulation of the meaning of adaptability (particularly by clients) during briefing and design could give rise to a more appropriate level of adaptability in the built environment. Originality/value: This study has addressed a gap in the existing literature by foregrounding the voices of industry practitioners and exploring their (sometimes very different) interpretations of adaptability in buildings.

The literature on social resilience lacks a precise definition of this concept and a clear guideline on how to measure it. Particularly, social resilience at the neighbourhood scale has received remarkably little scholarly attention. This study contributes toward filling these gaps in the literature by developing and empirically testing the neighbourhood social resilience (NSR) model as a robust and reliable measurement instrument that integrates various aspects of this complex concept into one coherent and fine-grained psychometric model. The reliability and validity of the NSR model are empirically tested using questionnaire data collected from 234 respondents in five neighbourhoods of Dunedin city, New Zealand. Furthermore, a more nuanced definition for neighbourhood social resilience is provided. Results indicate that social resilience is a second-order and multidimensional concept incorporating eight dimensions. Each of these dimensions captures a distinct piece in the jigsaw of social resilience; therefore, failure to incorporate all dimensions may provide an incomplete picture of this complex phenomenon. Our research bridges the gap between top-down approach of stakeholders and policymakers and bottom-up perceptions and expectations of residents about social resilience of their urban neighbourhood.

Our paper addresses how building design elucidates the connection between two definitions of politics: ‘Big Politics’ and micropolitics. We will seek to examine how these two versions of politics are imbricated; how, in other words, codified ideologies and political institutions circulate within the everyday practices by which new actors and sites of contestation enter the social collective. The conceptual space for this argument has already been mapped out by various authors, including Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Bruno Latour and Michel Foucault. These authors have variously proposed how powerful totalities always travel along small, fragile conduits. Or, as Deleuze and Guattari put it, ‘the boss's office is as much at the end of the hall as on top of the tower’.

Design can be viewed as a complex and on-going social accomplishment, a product of everyday trajectories between a milieu of human and material registers. Seen in this way the design practice serves as an arena for these quotidian activities. We seek to construct a more dynamic picture of architecture by connecting process and product, supplementing a project narrative with one of practice, highlighting the context in which the outcome was created. We address the research question: how does practice culture become intertwined within the designed product? A research model emerged from the review of the literature and evolved as a loose framework to discuss the practices and projects at hand. The research focused on the particular design consideration of adaptability in an effort to direct and ground the study. The research was conducted in two stages –at first a set of interviews were conducted to gain broader insights into the everyday accounts of the practices and secondly, project case studies were selected to further investigate the topic. The narratives reveal the culture of each practice to stress a particular meaning in each context: for Make it is about a beautiful object; for ABA a piece of social infrastructure and; for CGL a business asset. Adaptability finds itself subdued, promoted, compromised and sold as part of the design process and the resultant architecture. Our contribution extends the argument that design is entangled within its socio-cultural surroundings and grounds the culture of practice in the designed artefacts - the way in which a practice handles decision-making contingencies, both endogenous and exogenous forces, will together shape a practice disposition towards design (adaptability). Design that is driven by a strong culture that embeds exogenous influences in the approach tends to provide more adaptable solutions as part of a quest to satisfy long-term, societal concerns.