Back in the 1960s, we played the social housing numbers game. Successive governments outdid each other on how many units they could build. Hooray – a halcyon time of yesteryear!

But how did we deliver these ever increasing numbers? Too often, we chased building the maximum number of units with the funding available, including building smaller and to lower standards. Chickens came home to roost over subsequent decades as (expensive) management and maintenance problems became apparent.

Nowadays, we are all desperate to build as many new homes as possible – not least to help the maximum number of households living in intolerable housing conditions. But we must remember the past – and build to quality as well as scale.

All the time, I hear fellow development professionals talk about building units. We don’t build units – we build homes. We should be building new homes that are big enough to live in, especially bearing in mind that under the bedroom tax most new social housing will be packed to maximum occupancy. Homes with adequate storage space. Homes that allow a good standard of family life. And we must build to the highest possible standards of energy efficiency to ensure our homes are genuinely affordable.

Rather than solely looking at build costs as the measure of good value, let’s consider whole life costings. This includes the value to individual households of living in a decent home. Too often, new build discussions are focused on how many units we can fit on a site – what will funding allow, or what can we squeeze on this site and still get past the planners?

If we shift the conversation to talking about homes rather than units, we will adopt a different mindset. Rather than looking at the numbers on a spreadsheet, we will focus more about what is going to be best for the people who will be living there, and what is going to create the best homely environment for them. This will provide the best financial and social value for many generations into the future.

I have been involved in discussions where fellow development colleagues have sought to reduce property sizes…just a teeny amount, 4sqm here and there – surely no one could possibly even notice such a modest reduction? But 4sqm is more than just a number. It’s the equivalent of a single bed, a bedside table and a dressing table. Thinking in these terms changes nature of the discussion. That 4sqm is the space that allows you to work at home at the computer in the day and have a sofa when you’ve got friends round in the evening. It might not sound much but it could make everyday life a lot more comfortable.

It’s no secret that some developers use smaller-sized furniture in their show homes to give the impression of more spacious rooms. The social housing sector is better than that. Let’s build homes that real-sized people can live in.

We are in the legacy business. What we build now will still be around in 100 years’ time. Will we be measured on the number of units? Or whether we have created homes and places where people want to live?

Let’s build homes, and drop the word 'units' from our housing vocabulary.

• Read more about the Great Places Commission's visit to the East Midlands