The paper investigates the state of the South African residential sector and how the principles of Open Building are relevant and applicable to this field. This is done firstly through unpacking the concept of Open Building and related concepts; the catalytic potential of Open Building for design and technology, space and society, the public realm, as well as its relevance and potential for management, economics and industry are considered. Definitions of sustainable building transformation are articulated; it is an approach that is firmly rooted in theories of architecture which highlight the design of systems and the interface between systems. The approach draws heavily on Habraken’s concept of ‘supports’, Kendall and Van der Werf s Open Building ‘levels’, as well as ideas related to the way in which materials, building components and buildings themselves are re used or salvaged based on life cycle analysis. The paper distinguishes between superficial (cosmetic) change and functional/technical/spatial change, where the latter is believed to add value to the users’ experience and quality of life. Both are perceived to have positive social impact. Residential case studies are revisited to strengthen the argument for the need to accommodate the changing circumstances and preferences of users as well as enhance ‘change capacity’ in buildings. The issues that emerge from the case studies have assisted in the development of assessment tools, which enable measurement of ‘change capacity’ in new buildings and building refurbishments. This in turn allowed for the development of ‘design tools’ for the architect. To demonstrate the latter, a teaching experiment is presented, deeply rooted in the South African context – with its unique characteristics, idiosyncrasies and difficult histories. There are some obstacles to the adoption of an Open Building approach. Practice and education systems are rooted in convention, negative perceptions about change, and a lack of experimentation are seen to be some of the reasons why ‘change capacity’ is not fully considered in the built environment in general, and in the residential sector in particular. There is also an assumption that changing practice would increase costs. However, this is untested and it is argued that long-term capacity of the building stock would have immense, long-term, economic benefits. There is also a lack of collaboration across disciplines and countries, and a lack of uniform definitions, with the result that different groups pull in different directions.
