1 Introduction

Over the past 4 decades, in developed economies, there has been a significant increase in the construction of high-rise residential buildings due to urban consolidation through densification and intensification (Al-Kodmany, 2018; Je & Lee, 2010). Apartments are usually comparatively smaller and more compact than detached houses (Rosewall & Shoory, 2017), necessitating changes in household lifestyle, particularly in relation to food practices (such as meal planning, purchasing ingredients, preparation and cooking, eating, and socialising) (Thornton et al., 2022). In a recent study, Oostenbach et al., (2021, p. 2141) found that both “the total amount of dollars spent” and “the proportion of the total household food expenditure on meals out” were greater among residents of high-rise apartments compared with other dwelling types, concluding that the architectural design of apartments may have contributed to this practice. Given the health-promoting properties of home cooking/eating (Dallacker et al., 2018; Glanz et al., 2021; Kegler et al., 2021; Mills et al., 2020; Snuggs & Harvey, 2023; Wolfson et al., 2020), along with the long lifecycles of high-rise developments, it is crucial to ensure that they are designed to promote wellbeing and contribute positively to a high level of liveability now and in the future (Andrews et al., 2024; Holdsworth et al., 2019). Thus, an understanding of the barriers and facilitators to designing kitchens that foster healthy food practices is clearly warranted.

The home food environment can profoundly influence food choices and dietary behaviours, with its design spanning various scales from building layout and unit arrangement to furniture selection and atmospherics (Jones, 2018; Kegler et al., 2021; Martins et al., 2021; Rollings & Wells, 2017). Only in recent years have issues been investigated regarding functionality, accessibility, spatial use, and experience of kitchen and dining areas (Femenias & Geromel, 2020; Peace et al., 2018; Tani et al., 2021; Tervo & Hirvonen, 2020). For instance, Femenias and Geromel (2020) found that the original floor plans of the majority of Swedish apartments in multi-residential buildings limit general use, prompting residents to renovate their recently built apartments by refurbishing surfaces, replacing kitchen furniture, altering layouts through wall construction/demolition, and adjusting openings. Tervo and Hirvonen (2020) demonstrated that in Finland, residents desired an apartment layout type that prioritised greater floor plan allocation to the kitchen in order to accommodate a dining table. While Ollár et al. (2022) have developed a framework representing nine prominent spatial design characteristics of the kitchen that influence how it can be used, furnished, and experienced, namely “room organisation (room typology, open floorplan, and doors), built-in furniture (kitchen typologies and kitchen island), floor area of the kitchen and apartment, infrastructure, daylight and windows, and dining area”, the desired dwelling features reported by residents in the above studies suggest that apartment design fails to align with user needs and preferences. Research on apartment kitchens to date focuses on spatial layout to improve adaptability and promote a circular economy (Hagejärd et al., 2020; Ollár, 2021), or the impacts of kitchen environments in low-energy social housing (Cho & Lee, 2021; Foster & Poston, 2024), with limited explicit exploration of how apartment households use kitchens in their food practices. Furthermore, a recent study indicates a lack of congruence between apartment kitchen design and food practices (Andrews et al., 2024). This was supported by a recent scoping review, which sought to identify the interrelationships between different design features of domestic kitchen/dining areas and their impact on cooking/eating experiences (Sal Moslehian et al., 2023). The review revealed inappropriate kitchen size and layout, disconnection to other spaces, fixtures, and fittings (including spatial ergonomics, materiality, and texture), and poor indoor environmental qualities (lighting, ventilation, visual access, and window views) acted as barriers to home cooking. Studies specifically exploring the implications of kitchen design constraints from the perspective of families with children identified that limited food storage and bench-tops impacted the preparation of meals and family dining compromising family cooking and eating experiences (Carroll et al., 201; Dunn et al., 2021). The review concluded that research to date has not been successful in addressing “the detail of how home cooking/eating can be facilitated in the design of spaces within residential apartment buildings” (Sal Moslehian et al., 2023, p. 14).

The limited research means that there is sparse evidence and guidance for architects and policymakers to design family-friendly residential apartments (Andrews et al., 2022, 2024) and particularly those that facilitate healthy food practices for families with children. Architects are key stakeholders in the apartment design process, and previous research (Tucker et al., 2022) indicates a desire for an evidence base to inform the design of healthy, family-friendly apartments. Despite the growing number of families raising children in apartments in Australia (households with children make up approximately 20% of apartment dwellers in the last census (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2021), this form of housing is typically designed with young professionals and empty nesters rather than families with children in mind (Whitzman & Mizrachi, 2009, 2012; Woolcock et al., 2010). Consequently, current kitchen and dining spatial design valued by architects and developers does not necessarily meet the needs and desires of families with children (Andrews et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2022, 2024). This paper expands on this work and seeks to explore the barriers and facilitators to family-friendly apartment kitchen design from the perspective of architects in Melbourne, Australia, a city transitioning to increased apartment living.

We position our research within notions of affordances. According to Gibson (1979, p. 127), “the affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good or ill”. In housing studies, the study of affordances highlights the significance of housing spatial design and human–environment relationships that allow residents’ everyday activities and experiences (Coolen, 2015; Kuoppa et al., 2020; Marco et al., 2022; Norman Donald, 2002). Hence, unexpected behaviours arise when the affordances of designed structures are misunderstood or when structures foster an environment conducive to novel behaviours (Maier et al., 2009), causing residents to interact with the building in ways the designers either did not, or could not, anticipate. Here, affordance theory can be used as a conceptual lens to improve the architectural design process and outcome, capturing the relationship between the design intent and function (Maier et al., 2009; Willems et al., 2020). Within this view it is understood that architects design opportunities for occupant behaviours, in other words, they design affordances for action. For example, a kitchen bench may or may not afford preparing food with children depending upon its width and proximity to hot surfaces (Dunn et al., 2021).

Applying this theoretical perspective, our study explores the prime constraints on functional apartment kitchen design from the perspective of architects, providing opportunities and suggestions for further improvement in the outcome of kitchen design for families with children. This knowledge of constraints in the design process and opportunities to improve upon poor design outcomes has the potential for progressing healthy apartment kitchen design and mitigating common design failures.

1.1 Study aim and objectives

Our research aims to inform the development of health-promoting apartment design through exploring existing design issues and opportunities to further support home cooking/eating for families with children. In so doing, specific research objectives of this study were to:

  1. 1.

    Audit kitchen design layouts and features that hinder, or support, family meal preparation and dining, across three different suburbs in Melbourne, Australia, through a descriptive analysis of real estate advertisements; and

  2. 2.

    Identify constraints and facilitators to improving future kitchen design practice, through key informant interviews with architects.

2 Study context and method

This paper focuses on research carried out in Melbourne, the capital city of the state of Victoria in Australia. In line with all of Australia’s major cities over the past 2 decades, Melbourne has experienced a growth in apartment development, with nearly one-third of all new residential dwelling approvals for apartments, and about 90% being four or more storeys (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2019). In response to this transition to apartment living, the Victorian Government introduced Better Apartment Design Standards (BADS). Apartments built since 2017 are assessed against BADS to improve the liveability of apartments and neighbourhoods. However, BADS, alongside the accompanying document Apartment Design Guidelines for Victoria, provide very limited guidance on kitchen design.

In this study, a mixed methods approach was used to address the two research objectives. This research involved two stages: (1) a kitchen design audit; and (2) interviews with architects. The following subsections explain the methodological strategies.

2.1 Kitchen design audit

To gain an understanding of available cooking and eating spaces in residential apartment buildings in Melbourne, an audit was undertaken of apartments listed on realestate.com.au over a 12-month period, between 01 Jan 2021 and 31 Dec 2021. When conducting the audit, the method was based on Ewen (2022). The audit was employed to provide a descriptive analysis of kitchen design features and exemplar photographs for later use in the architect interviews. Listings of two-bedroom apartments within buildings over four storeys high which included photographs of kitchens and a floorplan were collected from three suburbs experiencing growth in apartment development across Melbourne (namely Footscray, Richmond and Box Hill). The audit was limited to apartment buildings over four storeys as we wanted to assess the more recently built apartments in these suburbs, e.g. those constructed from the 1990s onwards. Apartment blocks constructed prior to the 1990s are generally three story or lower in these suburbs. One-bedroom apartments were excluded, as two-bedroom apartments are more commonly chosen by families (Andrews et al., 2019). Further, three-bedroom apartments and lower-rise complexes were excluded, as they often include larger, expensive, niche designs.

Online listings that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed in terms of kitchen layout and features/affordances identified as important to families (Andrews et al., 2019; Dunn et al., 2021). These design features included kitchen layout, as well as the provision, position and size of pantry/storage, bench space, and dining space for family members to share a meal (see Table 1 for details).

Table 1 Kitchen audit assessment requirements and criteria
Full size table

Assessment of design features was subjective. Initially, authors met and discussed the assessment criteria for the design features (see Table 1) and Author 3 developed a scoring system. A randomised sample of 20% of the kitchens was then identified for assessment by Authors 1, 3, 4 and 5 who then met to discuss any differences to reach a consensus on ratings. Author 3 then completed the audit. Following completion of the audit exemplar photographs and plans were downloaded for use in interviews with architects.

2.2 Interview with architects

Architects from firms involved in apartment complex design were recruited to explore their perspectives on apartment kitchen design practice in Melbourne. Relevant ethics approval from the authors’ university was obtained prior to participant recruitment with approval number: HEAG-H 72_2022. Data was collected by photo-elicitation interviewing (PEI) over Zoom. Online images collected from the audit guided discussions on salient kitchen design affordances for families with children, including layout, storage options, food preparation areas, and dining space. Participants were asked questions based on the SHOWED framework (Wang, 1999) but specific to this project: What design issues do you See here? Why does this situation exist? What can we Do about it?

Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and returned to participants for member-checking to ensure accurate representation and credibility. Identifying information was then replaced to maintain confidentiality. Architects were recruited until noticeable repetition of responses and themes, resulting in nine interviews that were deemed sufficient to justify data saturation (Hennink & Kaiser, 2022). The data from interviews were synthesised to identify recurring patterns that represent perspectives on current apartment design practice. The six-step thematic analysis proposed by Braun et al. (2018) was employed to systematically identify, organise and offer insight into themes (patterns of meaning) across the interview data. Authors 1 and 5 reviewed the transcripts to become familiar with the data, assign inductive codes, with codes then compared to identify commonalities and differences across the transcripts. Codes formed the categories, which were then reviewed and refined until there was a clear set of themes.

3 Results

3.1 Audit

One hundred and fifteen kitchens from two-bedroom-apartments across the three suburbs were found to match the inclusion criteria outlined in the methods; 17 were from Box Hill, 33 from Footscray and 65 from Richmond. These ranged in sale price from $373,000 to $1,150,500, with a median price of $598,000. Apartments were located in buildings that ranged in height from 5 to 17 storeys, built between 1997 and 2021. A summary of the findings relating to design features is presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Summary of assessment of kitchen design features
Full size table

Only 18 (16%) kitchens had adequate design for families with children across all five features assessed. This included 24% of apartments in Box Hill, 24% of apartments in Footscray and only 9% of apartments in Richmond. Of the 18 apartments with adequate kitchen designs, almost 40% were apartments in the less expensive range, e.g. sold for under $600,000. The adequate kitchen designs were not associated with a particular age of apartment.

3.2 Architect interviews

Four themes emerged from the data on architects’ interviews that sought to identify barriers and facilitators to improving future kitchen design practice: “Limited policy standards”; “Architects’ assumptions align with market-let preferences”; “Built environment and apartment typology constraints”; and “Small scale design opportunities”.

3.2.1 Limited policy standards

The first theme reflected the limited policy standards, with architects interviewed demonstrating an astute knowledge of the Better Apartment Design Standards (BADS). Architects observed that some of the apartment design features evident in the photographs reflected previous environments and were no longer admissible. For example, when architects viewed apartments with small windowless rooms, borrowed light or a "saddleback" layout, where a window to a room is located at the end of a corridor known as the “snorkel”, they explained that these designs are now banned, as the following response illustrates:

This example you’re showing me now is no longer admissible. It’s no longer able to be designed with the new regulations … with the new apartment design regulations. So this sort of apartment will not happen in the future. Well, hopefully. (20.9)

However, architects also discussed current deficits in policy that lacked guidance on available dining space. One noted:

The fact that the dining room is in darkness off the left-hand side is a compromise that had been made because the depth of the apartment is not enough. One of the outcomes from the BADS, is that BADS recognises living rooms and gives minimum dimensions for living rooms. It gives a minimum dimension from the light source to the back wall of the kitchen, but it doesn’t recognise dining spaces. This apartment doesn’t actually – legally doesn’t need the dining space. And it doesn’t need to have daylight to it, legally. (31.8)

Another argued:

I think also that in BADS … it doesn't really require any size or minimum requirement for your table. So you could have a tiny table with two tiny chairs, and that'd be considered fine. (14.9)

The interviewer shared photographs of two apartments with entryway kitchens (Fig. 1). Several architects explained that in studio and one-bedroom apartments this was a suitable space saving design solution, however, not for larger apartments, recognising the challenges of this design for families preparing food with young children. For example, one architect explained:

You can still design this kind of kitchen, which is off an entry point. I don’t think the regulations prohibit that ... But it’s not a reasonable outcome in a family situation, because … it’s an entry point, and so, working in a kitchen like this where there could be things being taken out of the oven, or cupboard doors and what not open for various reasons, it’s not really a passageway. It’s not compatible with a main entry into a space, which is what this is. (20.9)

Fig. 1
figure 1

Entryway kitchen design (image included with permission from C. Toomey, Creative Director, SpaceCraft Media)

Full size image

Furthermore, several architects commented on the policy on cabinetry. They explained that the minimum requirement for cabinetry was often diverted to the bedrooms where the installation costs are lower:

BADS have a lot of requirements such as storage and things like that, which in this case, probably would have been achieved with either those big robes and then external storage … but there is no standard for - yeah, no standard exists at the moment for bench space, or kitchen storage space or any particular storage. So it’s just as long as you have storage within the apartment to that degree, it doesn't actually matter where it is exactly. (14.9)

Several architects suggested that further kitchen-specific guidelines would improve kitchen design and assist them in the creation of family-friendly kitchen design. One explained:

I thought maybe there does need to be some guidelines in place or standards of minimum requirements for kitchen designs in apartments depending on the size of the apartment. (22.10)

In summary, architect responses illuminate limited policy guidelines on kitchen and dining room design in terms of minimum requirements for cabinetry, bench space, and dining space.

3.2.2 Architects’ assumptions align with market-led preferences

The interviews with architects highlighted their own assumptions about families raising children in apartments. For example, one architect stated:

Currently two-bedroom apartments, you don’t think of a family living here, and certainly in my experience the families that I know wouldn’t be looking for two-bedroom apartments, they’d be looking for three minimum. (26.9)

There was also an expectation that apartment dwellers prefer to eat out than cook at home:

People will actually more often than not, get that option and then realise that they rarely use – they rarely eat at a dining table … This gets back to the other issue, is that people will be – a lot of people are preparing food less. So the kitchen is simply a piece of joinery in the background that they heat up meals on. (31.8).

Architects mentioned how, to keep costs down, assumptions were made that owners/renters would be able to both afford and be permitted to modify kitchen design to suit their needs. For example, that kitchens such as that depicted in Fig. 2 could be furnished with additional cabinetry and an island bench:

What we're generally finding is that developers don't like to pay for joinery because it's expensive … We're always looking for spots in the plan where it will be reasonable for the owner to put additional joinery, making sure there's space in the plan for them to add because the storage is just never enough. (17.10)

Fig. 2
figure 2

Assumption that resident will add required cabinetry

Full size image

It became evident that assumptions on resident behaviour often aligned and supported market preferences, as evidenced by the following response:

We also need to acknowledge the market arrangements and no developer is going to overextend themselves and provide an extra bit of joinery because they're feeling good about that. They will provide it if they think the market requires that for sale or if other regulation requires it. (17.10)

Architects often spoke of kitchen design aesthetics. They explained that kitchens were not necessarily designed with the end user in mind, but rather in response to the preferences of developers and investors. Several mentioned design features that were stylistic rather than functional, including symmetry, open shelving, sunken sinks, and awkwardly designed island benches, as one architect explained:

More space between the stove and the sink would improve the functionality of this kitchen a lot … But they were looking at the aesthetic of what it looks like from the living/dining, looking back into the kitchen. They were looking at making a symmetrical plan with two storage areas and a bench in the middle. (20.9)

These responses demonstrate that the outcome of kitchen design is influenced by market-led design decisions. These are often supported by architects’ assumptions on the needs of families living in apartments, the market expectations defined by developers and investors, and cost restraints and desired profit margins.

3.2.3 Built environment and apartment typology constraints

Several architects discussed the importance of considering the wider built environment context and structural typology of apartment buildings in relation to kitchen design. They explained that site conditions, building orientation, structural design, spatial layout and circulation of an apartment building can impact kitchen design opportunities and constraints. Design outcomes that determine the location, floor area, and spatial proportions of a kitchen often emerge from broader apartment design considerations. Here an architect explains the site conditions:

It might be a particularly narrow site. The site, the condition or parcel, land parcel often impacts quite heavily on these things as well (17.10)

And, another captures the relational nature of the apartment living space and kitchen in the plan layout:

It’s mostly driven by that living space width, which would drive the width of the kitchen at the back. So that was going to be already predetermined by this condition. So those are set widths, and then it determines what your dining width will be and what your kitchen space will be as a result … leaving very little for the kitchen (14.9)

Apartment planning and layout choices impacted the quality of kitchen design and function. Preference given to bedroom size, walk-in robes, and number of bathrooms had a flow-on effect on available kitchen storage, food preparation area, and dining space (Fig. 3). One architect explained the preference for bathroom over kitchen space:

They really should have been able to resolve this plan so that less space is going to two bathrooms and more space is given to a dining table. But it won't happen because developers are responding to the market, which is calling for the second bathroom as opposed to the kitchen table. (7.09)

Fig. 3
figure 3

Limited space for a dining table

Full size image

Another captured the disproportionate relationship between apartment size and available kitchen space:

God, it’s a big apartment for a little kitchen. That’s my first impression, is that the ratio of kitchen to apartment space is out of whack. There’s a [lack of] balance of all of these elements together … The rooms are all quite good, and yet their kitchen should really be another metre across the back wall in that vertical dimension to be proportionally closer to what this apartment looks like it should be. (31.08)

Thus, the quality and function of the kitchen design was constrained by several broader built environment contextual factors and selected apartment typologies sustained by real (or imaged) market trends. Site and structural build environment conditions were often fixed and could not be easily overcome, yet some apartment layouts could potentially be resolved with design interventions.

3.2.4 Small-scale design opportunities

Architects identified a range of possible design solutions to improve the quality of kitchen design and affordances for families living in apartments. There were several recommendations that sought to improve storage options. These included floor-to-ceiling storage, avoiding gaps, utilising small spaces for storage, reducing dishwasher size, and avoiding open shelving as these responses articulate. For example:

And every single location should be an opportunity for storage. Above the fridge, that's blanked out, although that might be a lift-up cupboard, actually … I know that not everyone is able to access high storage but I think it's always better to give people the option to have it, then they can choose whether they can use it or not. (7.9)

That open shelving never gets used properly. And all storage should be covered, particularly in apartments, because everything is on display all the time. (12.10)

Architects discussed several design considerations that could increase food preparation areas and opportunities for children’s involvement in response to Fig. 4. They mentioned the value of increasing bench space, integrating an island bench, considering children in the design (e.g. pull-out stepping stool), and using an induction stove top, as explained by the following architect:

There’s not a lot of usable space in terms of a bench. That's because it’s got a gas hob. If you try and do induction these days because obviously from a sustainability but you can then use the bench on top of the induction as well so that helps. (29.8)

Fig. 4
figure 4

Limited bench space

Full size image

It was noted that the type of floor surface was an indication as to whether a space was intended to be used as a dining area. Hard floor surfacing (e.g. timber/laminate) accommodated dining space, whereas soft surfacing (e.g. carpet) suggested living space. Some architects proposed that more consistent flooring across kitchen, dining and living areas might provide greater user flexibility:

They could have just made this impermeable part of the floor across here and all the way across. So they would have been able to do all of – the more trafficked areas of the house tiled or something, so that in fact, it would have been a better result, anyway. (29.8)

Further design details were mentioned that could enhance the outcome of dining spaces and included recommendations that architects should always furnish the floor plan, consider round versus rectangular tables for circulation efficiency, and harness natural light.

Architects’ descriptions of possible design solutions demonstrate their creative insights into the possibilities of family-friendly kitchen design options. Ultimately, they also noted the reciprocal relationship between the kitchen function, occupant behaviours and apartment kitchen design on healthy food practices:

I believe that a kitchen needs to be enjoyable otherwise people do lose motivation to even cook, they might think, “Oh, I really can’t be bothered cooking, I’m just going to order takeaways.” So they end up getting takeaway or they go out and they hardly use it which is not good. So yeah, I believe a kitchen needs to be bright and it needs to be open, and it needs to be light, and it needs to be integrated with the living and the dining area properly. (22.10)

4 Discussion

Our research provides a unique insight into the kitchen design barriers to home cooking for families with children in a cross section of Melbourne apartments, and architects’ perspectives on the reasons for these barriers, plus opportunities for solutions. Affordance theory provided a conceptual lens to view architectural design processes and outcomes as they relate to design intent and function. In a recent study, Willems et al. (2020) adopt an affordance approach to capture the relationship between indoor environments and user experience and how these interactions in turn produce places of salience, meaning and value (p. 139). Similarly, we argue that poor kitchen design (i.e. limited affordances) could negatively affect families’ cooking and eating experiences and subsequently impact the value of healthy food practices. Our findings from the kitchen design audit of 115 two-bedroom-apartments in the suburbs of Box Hill, Footscray, and Richmond in Melbourne revealed that less than one-sixth of kitchens had adequate affordances for storing food, preparing, and cooking food, and dining. Interestingly, this was not directly a result of the cost of the apartment, with 40% of apartments in the cheaper range having adequate kitchen design, nor was it related to age of the apartment. These observations justified the interviews with architects from firms involved in apartment design to ascertain their perspectives on the reasons for inadequate affordances and how to progress healthy apartment kitchen design in Melbourne.

The ‘limited policy standard’ theme that emerged from the architect interviews demonstrated that architects follow current apartment design guidelines and standards outlined in Better Apartment Design Standards (BADS), but as in previous research (Thornton et al., 2022; Tucker et al., 2022), current policy provides limited guidance with regard to kitchen design. Architects recognised the problem of lacking policy requirements for kitchens, explaining that developers will abide by minimum standards such as providing entryway kitchens, transferring storage requirements from kitchen cabinetry to low-cost linen and bedroom cupboards, and apartment design that prioritises bathrooms over kitchen and dining space. Yet, research suggests that when it comes to apartment living, the kitchen in open-plan layouts, enable family interactions and child supervision (Cho & Lee, 2021; Dunn et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2024) and is a favoured place for its multifunctionality (i.e. multiple affordances) (Lasiewicz-Sych & Lewicka, 2024). Design priorities and decisions that are incongruent with the needs of families with children, impact healthy food practices through a lack adequate food storage, meal preparation, and family dining opportunities (Dunn et al., 2021; Holdsworth et al., 2019). It thus appears that more nuanced policy standards and guidelines for kitchen and dining space are required for architects to improve quality kitchen design for families living in apartments and contribute more broadly to global design benchmarks in terms of the quality of life and liveability for apartment dwellers (Foster et al., 2020; Holdsworth et al., 2019).

Architects revealed that apartment design choices and trade-offs adhere to a range of human motivations, expectations, and assumptions. Architects explained that developers promote apartment design that aligns with investor-purchasers’ expectations as opposed to the needs and desires of families with children, as is also evidenced in the literature (Yang et al., 2024). Yet, architects’ own assumptions appeared to align with market-led preferences, thereby highlighting the fact that architects themselves do not approach design with empty minds (Hawkes, 1996). In line with previous research, this involved assumptions of end-user profiles that target child-free households (Andrews et al., 2022; Fincher, 2007; Nethercote & Horne, 2016) and aesthetic considerations in kitchen design that follow current stylistic market trends versus resident preferences and behaviours (Femenias & Geromel, 2020). Design motivations did not respond to kitchen function, often limiting bench space, functional food storage, and family dining opportunities—affordances that promote healthy food practices in the kitchen (Sal Moslehian et al., 2023). Research conducted by Tarpio et al. (2022) in Finland and Denmark revealed that housing developers’ desire for cost-optimisation and disinterest in functionality and liveability is a major barrier to apartment design and internal transformability. Acknowledging these barriers to good kitchen design is important because when architects look to cut costs in adhering to budget constraints, these market-led preferences and assumptions about occupant behaviour and experience will motivate and emphasise certain kitchen design decisions over others.

Further themes revealed the ways in which kitchen design was often constrained by the wider built environment context and structural typology of apartment buildings in relation to kitchen design. In many cases, insufficient kitchen layout typologies and design features could be resolved with design interventions. Apartment layout is directly linked to opportunities for family dining (Quirke et al., 2023; Sal Moslehian et al., 2023) and architects themselves acknowledged the disincentives to home cooking afforded by poorly designed kitchens. Here they were able to offer alternative design solutions that sought to improve kitchen design and dining opportunities for families living in apartments with children. These design insights are important as they shed light on the affordance possibilities of retrofitting existing apartments for improved food storage, meal preparation, and family dining (Femenias & Geromel, 2020; Tarpio et al., 2022). Of course, some fundamental design limitations remain for entryway kitchens with significantly diminished kitchen areas and apartment layouts that were fixed to broader physical constraints (e.g. structural, spatial, and circulation layout of the apartment building), thus offering limited flexibility and often lacking in the provision of a dining space, the importance of which is illustrated in the literature (Tervo & Hirvonen, 2020). As such, these apartment layouts remain a concern given the health benefits of home cooking (Fulkerson et al., 2014; Tani et al., 2019; Wolfson et al., 2020), long lifecycles of high-rise residential developments, and future predictions of more families being priced into apartment living (Holdsworth et al., 2019).

5 Conclusions and future directions

The current study builds on previous research that demonstrates the positive impacts of quality kitchen design and communal dining on modifiable lifestyle factors, dietary behaviours, and the promotion of wellbeing. Specifically, our research deepens understandings of health-promoting apartment design, through exploring existing design issues; and identifying barriers and facilitators to improving future kitchen design practice, from the perspective of architects. The results presented here are specific to this study context and limited to two-bedroom apartments, however they indicate the importance of concise policy standards to mitigate, alleviate kitchen design constraints, and support the provision of the dining space. Seen from an international perspective, the Australian study illustrates the importance of measurable minimum policy standards that direct minimum storage requirements to the kitchen, define sufficient dining space areas, indicate minimum bench space requirements, and potentially prohibit entryway kitchens for two or more bedroom apartments. Further research is needed to investigate how the policy standards and guidelines shapes apartment kitchen design for families with children in other countries and settings to develop opportunities for best practice.