Support and Infill vs flexibility?

Habraken’s distinction between support and infill is one that after all this time has not lost its importance in today’s architecture. I do however think it is manifested in a different version: flexibility. On the one hand, I think Habraken advocates for designing the ‘support’ and allowing the users to change the layout over time. What I find interesting about this is what he means by support: collective spaces, stairs, and social spaces. He does not mean for the architects to just design the core and shell of a building and let the users decide what happens and the aesthetics of the building. I like that he advocates for structural creativity and architectural thinking while allowing for user choice in the layout of their future dwelling unit. However, this then poses the question of who has control: the architect or the users? 

While I know that it is hard for Habraken’s theories to be applied in the ‘real world’, I do think that the closest we are to this theory of the idea of flexibility in the built environment. That is the idea that designers are factoring in the role that time will play in the building in commercial buildings. They design the core and shell of the building to be more or less fixed while allowing the inside to be flexible and changeable over time.  I can’t help but think that this loses the creative aspect of design when we adopt more of a one size fits all approach (even though it is being very efficient).