The different architects working in the plan were asked to use the different lifestyles and living environments as basis for the designs of the building blocks. However, the post-evaluation of the realized designs showed that less diversity was achived than initially planned. The reasons for this, area explained by the authors of Spacemate:
"With this example we underline the fact that predefined guidelines that have been agreed upon by all involved parties in the very first steps of the planning process, and consequently abided to, are necessary to achieve planning goals. In the Parkstad case, the Quality Team15 was responsible for the evaluation of the different local plans and their qualitative consistency. The team was, however, not familiar with the Spacemate method and most probably felt a certain discomfort with a method that attempts to quantify spatial qualities. In addition,
the different living environments were defined in Spacemate with bandwidths that overlapped one another. This was done deliberately as the workshops demonstrated that some references were difficult to characterize as one type or another. The decision was therefore to characterize them as both. Further, certain inconsistencies were related to the lack of clear agreements on how to define the scale at which the Spacemate guidelines were to be
assessed and the precise demarcation of the plan area to which the guidelines were to be applied." (Berghauser Pont, M. & Haupt, P. 2010)
A revision of the plan reduced the ten categories to three in order to make it clearer for architects working on the area to differenciate the three living environments (see image). "After a year of working with these new definitions, the areas of the garden city type demonstrated a substantial variation in fabric type."