5 ms·

I am not a fan of narrowly-proportioned, single-aspect micro-apartments. I understand that space is at a premium but should we really consider 220 square feet a

I am not a fan of narrowly-proportioned, single-aspect micro-apartments. I understand that space is at a premium but should we really consider 220 square feet as acceptable? The size of homes (be they apartments or houses) can have a profound effect on the quality of life for their occupants. Is this type of housing really a long-term solution? I live in the UK where the design of new build housing is generally poor. England and Wales have no minimum space standards for housing and we are very much the worse off for it. This is in contrast to many European countries that do have minimum space standards. (The exception in England is London which has recently adopted minimum space standards for any homes built with Government money.) I completely agree that it's not just the size of an apartment that is important but the quality of the space. There's much that can be done to make better use of space in homes: it all comes down to design. Housing is a topic that's very close to my heart. I write a blog about housing in the UK and wrote some thoughts a while ago about the size of a dwelling and the quality of the space: http://homesdesign.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/space-standards-and-housing-design/ http://homesdesign.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/space-standards-...

MichaelSalib 14y ago
should we really consider 220 square feet as acceptable? Yes. If you don't make much money but want to work in SF/NYC/Boston/etc, your only option is to spend a lot of time driving/commuting from somewhere with cheaper housing. For some people, the choice to waste three hours of their life driving in traffic every day is worthwhile because they get a big house with a yard. But others would be happy to sacrifice lots of living space if it meant that they didn't have to blow 3 hours of stressful commuting. When cities declare "you can't sell a 220 sq ft apartment", they force that choice on everyone, even people who wouldn't choose it for themselves. Minimum area standards basically impose a floor on the cost of living. In some American suburbs, this is often explicitly used to keep out the undesirables; you require that each house have at least an acre of land and that the structure take up less than X% of the lot so that prices rise to the point that low income folk or recent immigrants can't afford to live in your town.
snogglethorpe 14y ago
Of course it's acceptable. Many people (myself included) have happily lived in such small apartments. Artificial constraints based on illusory and/or narrow-minded premises are far more damaging. You're not going to want to live in such a place with 4 kids, the grandparents, and a dog, but for many people it's fine. It gives people the ability to make a tradeoff between, say, size and location, so one can live in a more interesting area without being a billionaire.

MichaelSalib 14y ago

should we really consider 220 square feet as acceptable? Yes. If you don't make much money but want to work in SF/NYC/Boston/etc, your only option is to spend a lot of time driving/commuting from somewhere with cheaper housing. For some people, the choice to waste three hours of their life driving in traffic every day is worthwhile because they get a big house with a yard. But others would be happy to sacrifice lots of living space if it meant that they didn't have to blow 3 hours of stressful commuting. When cities declare "you can't sell a 220 sq ft apartment", they force that choice on everyone, even people who wouldn't choose it for themselves. Minimum area standards basically impose a floor on the cost of living. In some American suburbs, this is often explicitly used to keep out the undesirables; you require that each house have at least an acre of land and that the structure take up less than X% of the lot so that prices rise to the point that low income folk or recent immigrants can't afford to live in your town.

snogglethorpe 14y ago

Of course it's acceptable. Many people (myself included) have happily lived in such small apartments. Artificial constraints based on illusory and/or narrow-minded premises are far more damaging. You're not going to want to live in such a place with 4 kids, the grandparents, and a dog, but for many people it's fine. It gives people the ability to make a tradeoff between, say, size and location, so one can live in a more interesting area without being a billionaire.