Read on Twitter
Co-living | there’s a cheaper, better & more sustainable alternative to 16.2msq bedrooms with shared kitchens 1/
5 x 16.2msq rooms ≈ 80msq; this is a 75msq apartment with 4 rooms, an eat-in kitchen & a balcony. It’s suitable for 4-6 sharers (4 separate rooms) 2/
it’s also suitable for a family with children, or a down-sizer couple with a student, or an elderly person with a carer/visitors, or a couple who work from home; so its future-proofed sustainable 100-yr housing stock 3/
it’s high quality housing, dual aspect for light & ventilation, private outdoor space for amenity, laundry space in-apartment for convenience, flexible rooms for different uses, adequate secure storage etc. 4/
it’s cheaper to build than co-living accommodation (no need for 40-person kitchens, cinema rooms & lounges) ...& it’s a nicer place to live 5/
the *only* way to prevent sprawl is to provide quality, affordable flexible apartments for families in new neighbourhoods; six(ish) floors is cost optimal & most livable, particularly at this northerly latitude 6/
filling a city with co-living rooms, student rooms & small 1/2 bed apartments will cause sprawl; ‘minimum’ apartments are not ‘optimal’ for most, they’re inflexible, unsuitable for families & contrary to principles of sustainable urban development /end https://www.architecture.com/-/media/gathercontent/space-standards-for-homes/additional-documents/ribacaseforspace2011pdf.pdf
(finally) this type of apartment could be built as public housing or co-operative housing for ‘all in’ cost <€250k (which equates to affordable rent or mortgage in range €1,000-1,200/month)
