I should also add that I viewed an apartment that was 85 square feet (total), also in the heart of London. It was literally a converted broom closet, and the toilet was in the shower, which was in the"kitchen" (basically only a sink), which had no door of any sort separating it from the "main" room. We should not aspire to build homes like that when we actually have a choice not to...
AJ - 11 years ago
I'm from Canada and I live in the heart of London (UK) in an apartment that small. I've lived in it for over 5 years. My apartment is better than most because it has a decent layout (kitchen and bathroom have doors, and bathroom has a bathtub), so my suits don't smell like dinner, as they would in an open concept unit, and I can soak in the tub after a tough workout at the gym. Most studios don't have that advantage, so I consider myself lucky.
Personally, I think it should be illegal/against code to build new units that small. People in North America are talking about it like it's the trendiest thing ever, but when land is taken to build new units that small, it's a bad decision - the units are only really big enough for one person (even when it comes to inviting friends for dinner). They are only good for young, single people who can put up with living in a shoebox, which means that it skews the demographics in areas they're built in massively - just the sorts of arguments being had in Toronto, where downtown is being turned into single-town because there are no homes big enough for families, let alone couples.
The argument that small units = affordable housing for young professionals is BS...many of the affordable units are bought up by foreign investors or domestic ones who have no intention of ever living in the unit, but whip them all off the market before the locals get a shot at something they can actually afford and want to live in.
Toronto is not Tokyo. Vancouver is not Beijing. I like the idea of studios, but there should be a limit to how small they are allowed to go. If there were more mechanisms in place to allow local people to purchase units, we probably wouldn't be in a situation in Canada where people felt forced to build units that small.
Andy - 11 years ago
It's no smaller than a trailer. Look how many people live in one off those. Our country has been hooked on the American standard that bigger is better for to long. We live in a contracting economy, get used to less.
Putoto - 11 years ago
Surprisingly, that micro unit, looks like it has everything that I need! + It doesn't have time-consuming walls and doors between rooms and the programs.
It will be a perfect resting place in my downtown life. But, I don't see any problem with living with another person if I can find a good soul mate or partner. And the $$ is gotta be reasonable.
Paul Volenik - 11 years ago
If humans are to survive sustainably on this planet beyond the next century we must solve the global problems of pollution, resource depletion, climate change, overpopulation and mal-distribution of assets and income. I choose to live in the woods without electricity. You must have the freedom to choose your ways of solving these problems as governments seem to be paralyzed into inactivity by their corporate handlers. You may wish to live in less than 200 square feet of living space. You may choose to grow your own food or give up products made with fossil fuels and transported about the planet with fossil foods. Best of all you might choose to run for political office and be a voice of sanity in the halls of decision-making.
Stephen Austin - 11 years ago
I'm a Canadian living in China, and I've seen apartments that are half that size. Some of my co-worker's apartments don't even come with a kitchen, just a "closet" sized bathroom. the rest of the house is a small square.
I should also add that I viewed an apartment that was 85 square feet (total), also in the heart of London. It was literally a converted broom closet, and the toilet was in the shower, which was in the"kitchen" (basically only a sink), which had no door of any sort separating it from the "main" room. We should not aspire to build homes like that when we actually have a choice not to...
I'm from Canada and I live in the heart of London (UK) in an apartment that small. I've lived in it for over 5 years. My apartment is better than most because it has a decent layout (kitchen and bathroom have doors, and bathroom has a bathtub), so my suits don't smell like dinner, as they would in an open concept unit, and I can soak in the tub after a tough workout at the gym. Most studios don't have that advantage, so I consider myself lucky.
Personally, I think it should be illegal/against code to build new units that small. People in North America are talking about it like it's the trendiest thing ever, but when land is taken to build new units that small, it's a bad decision - the units are only really big enough for one person (even when it comes to inviting friends for dinner). They are only good for young, single people who can put up with living in a shoebox, which means that it skews the demographics in areas they're built in massively - just the sorts of arguments being had in Toronto, where downtown is being turned into single-town because there are no homes big enough for families, let alone couples.
The argument that small units = affordable housing for young professionals is BS...many of the affordable units are bought up by foreign investors or domestic ones who have no intention of ever living in the unit, but whip them all off the market before the locals get a shot at something they can actually afford and want to live in.
Toronto is not Tokyo. Vancouver is not Beijing. I like the idea of studios, but there should be a limit to how small they are allowed to go. If there were more mechanisms in place to allow local people to purchase units, we probably wouldn't be in a situation in Canada where people felt forced to build units that small.
It's no smaller than a trailer. Look how many people live in one off those. Our country has been hooked on the American standard that bigger is better for to long. We live in a contracting economy, get used to less.
Surprisingly, that micro unit, looks like it has everything that I need! + It doesn't have time-consuming walls and doors between rooms and the programs.
It will be a perfect resting place in my downtown life. But, I don't see any problem with living with another person if I can find a good soul mate or partner. And the $$ is gotta be reasonable.
If humans are to survive sustainably on this planet beyond the next century we must solve the global problems of pollution, resource depletion, climate change, overpopulation and mal-distribution of assets and income. I choose to live in the woods without electricity. You must have the freedom to choose your ways of solving these problems as governments seem to be paralyzed into inactivity by their corporate handlers. You may wish to live in less than 200 square feet of living space. You may choose to grow your own food or give up products made with fossil fuels and transported about the planet with fossil foods. Best of all you might choose to run for political office and be a voice of sanity in the halls of decision-making.
I'm a Canadian living in China, and I've seen apartments that are half that size. Some of my co-worker's apartments don't even come with a kitchen, just a "closet" sized bathroom. the rest of the house is a small square.