I think my fascination with these things is an outlier of my general fetish for efficiency.
Besides that, it's a hugely needed solution, in almost all cities in the world, people have problems finding decent, affordable apartments. (And this is after the housing bubble supposedly burst. I think it only burst half-way, if that.) It's just ridiculous that people are using over half their earnings just to have a roof over their head.
I'm in the UK. I used to live in a purpose built bedsit that comprised of 280 square feet, a little smaller than the 300 square feet of the apartments in the article.
ReplyDeleteEverything I did was made more difficult by the lack of space. The kitchen was too small to have a washing machine; the communal laundry next door had closed years before I lived there.
I had no private space because my bedroom and living room were one, and I had no room to put a dining table.
I kept my bicycle in the bath because then it never got in my way more than once a day, instead of all the time. I built bookshelves almost out of reach above the door in the three foot square hall, because storage was so poor.
I hated it.
The apartments being built have the beds in the same space as the kitchen area. There is no getting away from cooking smells unless you go into the bathroom, which is windowless, something I hate. What if you are a couple and one of you is ill and just needs to be left in peace? You can't do anything that takes up any amount of room unless it's all cleared away at the end of every day.
I am all for efficiency; I like minimalist design. These apartments are efficient only in the same way that public services are made more 'efficient', where the money available is cut (usually not for the first time) and it only appears to be the same service if you don't actually use it.
The high price of houses is caused by a shortage which seems to be a long term policy of government, at least in this country. I know these apartments are in the US, but expecting people to live in shoeboxes is not the answer.
Thank you for your take on these, Roger. They look like they would be cool...for one person (I appreciate the fact that you are someone who thinks of "the other party," if there is one! Kudos! :-) and...ewww...good point re: the smell of cooking; that would be miserable!!
ReplyDeleteAnd...to have to store a bicycle in a bathtub that I would have to clean out, every time I wanted to use it...what a DRAG! No thanks! You bring up some very valid points to consider. I think that there is something that looks "efficient" and...then, there is "reasonably practical." And...you're right: nobody should be expected to live in a shoebox...unless they really want to; leaves more room for the rest of us who DON'T want to live like that! :-)
(Damn, these verifiers! I have a lousy picture of what looks like a wooden block that has ink spewing out of it and...NO...I CAN'T SEE WTF the DAMN letter/number is!!!!!)
Indeed for decades I've been wondering why so many more office buildings are built than apartment buildings.
ReplyDeleteThe first 17 years of my adult life I lived in small rented room, and it never bothered me. The last one had a tiny kitchenette in a closet like a hotel suite's.
Sure, you couldn't entertain more than two people, and for no more than tea, but then I've never made dinner parties anyway.
In response to Roger B.: Micro apartments are meant to house one person in what's usually a temporary setting. The mayor of New York City wants to experiment with these apartments because so many people come there to work, have decent paying jobs, but have to live with roommates. This solution would help them a lot: they're at work most of the time and just need a place to sleep and eat the basics, then they move to another state/country for another job. It can be miserable, for sure-- if you spend a significant amount of time at home. New Yorkers don't stay home. Ever. :)
ReplyDelete