In recent years, housing research has spurred a growing interest from architectural historians, theorists and practitioners alike. However, housing studies are still developed mostly outside the field of architecture. The discourse on housing is nowadays taken over mainly by developers, social activists, policy makers and administrators, who reason mostly under the pressure of immediate practicality. Housing is often seen as real estate, and short-term thinking overwhelms reflection that could lead to better alternatives for the environment of habitation.

About thirty years ago, Jim Kemeny noticed the loss of conceptual content in housing studies, in spite of the many disciplinary fields involved. He deplored the "epistemic drift," the tendency towards thinking at "lowest common interdisciplinary denominators." He argued that housing research should go back into the depth of each discipline's insights and develop specific concepts and ideas, which in the long run would also enrich interdisciplinary thinking. Following Kemeny's argument, disciplinary progress has been made in social sciences, but not so much in architecture. This issue of sITA calls for such in-depth explorations of specific notions in the field of housing architecture.

Architecture conceptualizes the inhabited space in a way that cannot be replaced by any other disciplinary perspective. It has its own knowledge-building processes and can provide valuable answers to most of the fundamental questions of housing. With their problem-centered insights and concrete explanatory power, architectural concepts are valuable critical and analytical tools for the knowledge on housing. Housing needs architecture. And the other way around, housing is crucial to architecture. Modern architecture was invented through housing; our built environments are mostly made of housing.

We call for articles addressing housing-related concepts, ideas, and terms, relevant for housing architecture and for its theoretical reflection.