5 ms·
This is a lie that I think is told in every IKEA showroom. 300 square feet is rather functional given the space is well laid out i.e. long and narrow without mu
by kaiuhl 16y ago
This is a lie that I think is told in every IKEA showroom. 300 square feet is rather functional given the space is well laid out i.e. long and narrow without much obstructing the walls.
The trouble is, it's difficult to find an ideal small space. I've lived in under 300 square feet for over two years in the past, half of the time with a roommate. A single misplaced pipe or radiator can screw up the possibility of a space entirely, and too square an area can produce too much walkway and less "effective" square footage.
- tibbon 16y agoExactly. I've often thought at Ikea that I wish I could just live in one of their showrooms. The real irony here is that half of these poor layouts were architects/builders/remodelers trying to be smart and fit as many people into a space as possible and make it so that people would fit into less space. However, due to them doing a really poor job at this when these places were built (or redone) then you end up needing more square footage to live than you would if it was properly laid out. I'm totally happy living in less than 350sq/ft, yet I end up looking at apartments closer to 600sq/ft generally due to poor layouts.
- wisty 16y agoBuilding cost is (partly) dependent on the size of the walls. A long narrow apartment costs a bit more to build, because you need more walls. People buy based on raw "floor space" measurements, and that's what they get. Optimal "floor space", but a bad layout.
- adnam 16y agoI don't think architects necessarily want to play 'room tetris', it's just what happens when you have property developers on one side, and building regulations on the other.
- oldgregg 16y agoI know IKEA has been doing some experimental housing developments, I wonder if they have factored this into their design?