I'm no architect, but surely the precise details of the exterior walls are decided based on the floor plan, not the other way around? Seems odd to assume the walls are fixed before the floor plan has been determined.
Of course, the shape of the lot and other physical factors put general limitations on the bounds of the house, but filling the entire lot isn't usually the primary goal.
I’m not sure why you’d assume that rather than the inverse. The house is set to fit a certain number of square feet based on economic concerns (heating and cooling costs primarily), then the ordinances on setback and separation come into play, then the very clear rectangle that results is your starting point for interior planning.
Both are used. Hence, any good design should explicitly state what the goals are (ie. what we are optimizing for) before embarking on the design process.
Commercial real estate generally optimizes for profit, which means, floor space, however this may be subject to regulation and particularly significant cost constraints (eg. maximum height before alternate structural features required, maximum height of available raw materials, HVAC/insulation, site aspect, site topography).
High end residential real estate is perhaps the most interesting, because good residential architecture facilitates aesthetic concern and draws from the full palette of commercial architecture in addition to traditional methods while not being constrained by finance. Hence, very interesting results can sometimes be obtained from good architects who will consider factors such as foliage, natural audio, etc. which are often ~ignored or afterthoughts in commercial/industrial.
IMHO good and original design in adequately resourced contexts tends to be iterative and to consider all paths toward a solution, not only a preconceived approach and a waterfall solution.
In my experience in the arch industry this type of space planning is more used in large buildings with a lot of different spaces (think college buildings). Usually the building is already built but being "renovated". A residential house doesn't really have the need for this type of algorithmic design for < 10 rooms.
I was thinking the same thing, albeit if someone is remodeling a residential house that has a main floor with a limited space, but the family would like a bigger kitchen, or a smaller living room? I'm wondering if it could be applicable in that scenario, or would be way more overkill than necessary? Taking into account of course of external walls, headers and other necessary limitations that might rule out using something like this?
I kind of feel like its overkill, but I'm curious what it would come up with if given a pretty strict boundaries in terms of space and dimensions even on a very large, multi-million dollar house. What's the threshold for when it could be applicable, versus "Yeah, we don't need something this insane to do this."
I do agree, it would be completely applicable in large sprawling buildings are being renovated, but are looking at how they can utilize existing space better.
With typical brick and concrete structures there are many fixed, nonnegotiable walls and pillars: load-bearing ones that must be present at a precise location and aligned with their counterparts on higher and lower floors, or external ones that must respect layout limits (e.g. far enough from the street, leaving a sidewalk of suitable width, global limits of the area of the whole building) and aesthetic considerations (e.g. straight without random recesses, symmetrical repeated units). Flexible internal wall are a minority.
Of course, the shape of the lot and other physical factors put general limitations on the bounds of the house, but filling the entire lot isn't usually the primary goal.
Maybe it's more useful for a renovation?