Sensational-Adelaide.com

Nice post Prince George.

I'll respond fully to Prince George's well-reasoned post when I have more time, but to deal with the first few paragraphs:

I'm not sure that I am guilty of a logical fallacy.

In arguing against a minimum size per se you appear to be implying a 'performance based' regime instead, something like what is evolving in relation to building codes - eg instead of requiring a window of x dimensions, an 'adequate level of natural light' might be required, or instead of '20mm of plasterboard' a '2 hour burn capability' might be required, with the onus on the applicant to prove the achievement of the performance required. If that is your argument, I suggest that performance based design works for construction, but is not appropriate for substantiating dwelling sizes, because there will always be people prepared to live in dwellings of a size that are not good practice in the longer term. Now that is begging the question, but I maintain that there is a sound case for regulating minimum dwelling sizes.

Your description of being caught between two unacceptable alternatives is interesting. One way out could be to look art what works elsewhere.

I think you did nail me on an inconsistency re minimum sizes in London. More later.

AtD wrote: Omicron: Things to do with slums

Not me, dear.

Prince George wrote:I hope that makes it clear that I do not want "buildings full of tiny, identical dwellings" that are "built as cheaply as possible", which was an inappropriate conclusion to draw from the fact that I do not believe that the size of the apartments alone is an appropriate regulatory control, much in the same way that I also oppose parking minimums or simple height limits (rather than, say, floor-area-ratios).

My contention is that the regulations that we have are the wrong regulations. At some point we gave up on regulating the outcomes that we actually want and decided that we could only regulate various artifacts of the designs: heights, setbacks, parking spaces, and (it seems) dwelling sizes. These regulations aren't providing us with the city and buildings that we want, indeed in many cases they are actively preventing it.

Wise words, Your Highness.

Will wrote: I think it is superficial to say there is a market for these tiny apartments.

The concept of a market implies that people have a choice. The people that will buy these apartments would do so, not because they want to live there but because that is the only choice they have. If people had a choice, they would prefer to live in something bigger.

I am uncomfortable with the idea of living in a society which shoves its lower income people into human filling cabinets. Australia is better than that.

Of course choice is limited by money. But that's the same for everything. Some buyers of small cars would probably like to have something bigger; buyers of old cars would like something newer and safer; but that doesn't mean everyone in old small cars is entitled to have a new, large one or that there's no-one who likes small cars.

In any case, I'm not seeing this forced shoving of poor people into shoeboxes. At the absolute bottom-end of the metro Adelaide market, you can have an old 2-bed maisonette miles and miles out of town surrounded by much of the same, or you can have a little apartment in the CBD opposite the Central Market. To me, the mix of cheap, middling and pricey property that is available in the CBD offers a much, much better outcome for low-income people than whole suburbs of low-income housing replicated over and over again - the services and infrastructure have to cater for everyone instead of setting the bar way down at the lowest common denominator.

If increased home ownership is desired under the $150k-ish floor that the smallest of existing apartments currently sell for (or more choice offered to buyers in this range), then size has to go down. The location is so good that trade-offs have to be made somewhere, and in my view, the fact that these apartments are larger than most of the hotel rooms in the Currie St proposal means that the apparent size sacrifice isn't as horrendous as it sounds - that is, if we'd happily pay good money to stay in something smaller, it's not at all impossible to envisage that people wouldn't mind paying a low entry price to live nearby, too.

Here's a floor-plan of part of the second floor, including the smallest of the proposed apartments:



I'm not seeing anything overly disastrous here. Definitely small, and I probably wouldn't have bothered with the walls to the bedroom, but the balconies make a big difference. For a single, I simply do not see why this cannot be offered to market.

Omicron wrote:Not me, dear.

Yeah, sorry. Should have been aimed at Wayno.

I feel it is important to take a stand against these small apartments, because if we let these through it establishes a precedent from which future developers may exploit to build something even smaller. Minimum sizes are one of the few things I think the ACC development plan has right. If left to its own devices, the market would do what it does best and unleash the 2 cent race to the bottom. There are aspects of society which the market cannot solve. Health, education and the provision of dignified accomodation for lower-income earners are things better left to the government. There are things which need to be done because they are the right thing to do, not because there is a profit to be made.

It is also important to take into account some psychology. Australians like to live in big houses. Even though I agree that from a societal point of view it is best to have lower income people living in the CBD, the problem is that if the only option offered to such people is a tiny 30sqm2 apartment or a 3 bedroom house in Andrews Farm, the vast majority are going to choose the house, even if it means living away from jobs and services. If Australian's are going to accept apartment living, they need to be presented with something palatable.

AtD wrote:Yeah, sorry. Should have been aimed at Wayno.

guilty as charged.

Will wrote:I feel it is important to take a stand against these small apartments

It really just comes down to the simple facts of demand. If buyers are willing to buy then developers are more than willing to build due to profits. Our Asian immigrant friends are more than willing to live in places such as this because they are used to living in smaller appartments and high density. Australians are building bigger and bigger houses on smaller and smaller blocks and there are now less peolple living in each house (household formation rate) and we whinge about urban sprawl. We basically need to get over the concept that we need a minimum of 50sqm to live comfortably, we dont, and Im guessing that many people on here that are kicking up a fuss have not lived in a small appartment before. Having lived in Amsterdam and London smaller appartments are easier to look after and can be very, very comfy and homey. Australians need to recognise this position is untenable and that with density comes smaller and smaller appartments, The one thing I will say is that with this increase in density, provisions of good urban design principlals such as access to open space, amenities and transport is a premium, this is not an issue in the CBD but will be very important in TOD developments.

Having a kitchen/pantry as part of the living room is terrible. It must also be a fire hazard.
Certainly most of those one bedroom appartments would not suit anyone other than a single person that mostly eats out or a student.
They are certainly not couple friendly and forget about kids.

ozisnowman wrote:Having a kitchen/pantry as part of the living room is terrible. It must also be a fire hazard.
Certainly most of those one bedroom appartments would not suit anyone other than a single person that mostly eats out or a student.
They are certainly not couple friendly and forget about kids.

They would also probably not suit anyone with even a small bookcase, or have any storage needs at all beyond what would fit in the small wardrobe.

mattblack wrote:

Will wrote:I feel it is important to take a stand against these small apartments

It really just comes down to the simple facts of demand. If buyers are willing to buy then developers are more than willing to build due to profits. Our Asian immigrant friends are more than willing to live in places such as this because they are used to living in smaller appartments and high density. Australians are building bigger and bigger houses on smaller and smaller blocks and there are now less peolple living in each house (household formation rate) and we whinge about urban sprawl. We basically need to get over the concept that we need a minimum of 50sqm to live comfortably, we dont, and Im guessing that many people on here that are kicking up a fuss have not lived in a small appartment before. Having lived in Amsterdam and London smaller appartments are easier to look after and can be very, very comfy and homey. Australians need to recognise this position is untenable and that with density comes smaller and smaller appartments, The one thing I will say is that with this increase in density, provisions of good urban design principlals such as access to open space, amenities and transport is a premium, this is not an issue in the CBD but will be very important in TOD developments.

But this is exactly what I'm talking about when I talk of the 2 cent race to the bottom. The fact that our Asian friends find it normal to live in such small spaces is not something good or something we should emulate. Our Asian friends come from countries which have standards of life much lower than Australia.

Will wrote:But this is exactly what I'm talking about when I talk of the 2 cent race to the bottom. The fact that our Asian friends find it normal to live in such small spaces is not something good or something we should emulate. Our Asian friends come from countries which have standards of life much lower than Australia.

Last I checked, the Japanese were enjoying a standard of living rather better than our own, so let's be careful about what we say about the area vs standard of living in Asia.

Prince George wrote:

Will wrote:But this is exactly what I'm talking about when I talk of the 2 cent race to the bottom. The fact that our Asian friends find it normal to live in such small spaces is not something good or something we should emulate. Our Asian friends come from countries which have standards of life much lower than Australia.

Last I checked, the Japanese were enjoying a standard of living rather better than our own, so let's be careful about what we say about the area vs standard of living in Asia.

Sorry mate, but you are wrong. Japan is the Asian country with the best standard of life in Asia, but even Japan is significantly behind Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ment_Index

Can you guys please keep this on topic. This thread is about this development and not a debate on living standards or room sizes. Please start a thread in the pub if you wish to debate this. Cheers

Ben wrote:Can you guys please keep this on topic. This thread is about this development and not a debate on living standards or room sizes. Please start a thread in the pub if you wish to debate this. Cheers

The development was rejected because of room sizes. What else are we going to talk about?

ozisnowman wrote:Having a kitchen/pantry as part of the living room is terrible. It must also be a fire hazard.

What? Every studio apartment has the kitchen as part of the living room. There are plenty of apartments at Glenelg where the kitchen forms part of a small living room - Liberty Towers is a notable example. Like this:

Certainly most of those one bedroom appartments would not suit anyone other than a single person that mostly eats out or a student.
They are certainly not couple friendly and forget about kids.

And students or singles who eat out a lot are exactly the sort of buyers who would be attracted by the location and entry price. Not everything is designed to suit everyone. I'd certainly consider one of the little studios at Glenelg if the entry price left me with savings that enabled me to eat out more often.

And look - if the DAP and DAC disagree with me and the minimum size requirement is maintained, I won't lose any sleep. People would probably prefer a little bit more breathing room and if the developers in this case can add an extra square metre here or there, I'd like to think that the DAP/C would be accommodating with respect to height to allow for the same number of apartments (I.e. the development remains viable). From an ideological perspective, however, I feel more comfortable advocating a relaxation of height limits or design constraints if I'm willing to relax other limits too - size limits, carparking limits and the like. It seems to me like that sort of 'we'll let you go up a storey or two if you make these apartments a bit bigger' negotiation just isn't happening - in other words, there's too much focus on the strictest interpretation of this rule and that rule and no consideration for the outcomes we want, as Prince George wisely pointed out.

Our kitchen and lounge are together in our place here in Canberra, and it's not even a studio or anything. I think it's great, if you're entertaining guests you don't have to hide in the kitchen and be anti-social.

Maybe tiny appartments do have their place, but what is annoying is the amount these developers want for such appartments.
Its time their became a standard price per sq/m for low grade fittings, medium grade fittings and high grade fittings etc.
At least that way people would be getting what they pay for and not getting conned.