daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Skyscrapers > Skyscraper Living

Skyscraper Living For all skydwellers, metropolitans and urbanites with a happy view!



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 3rd, 2013, 10:57 PM   #1
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,400
Likes (Received): 21016

How much space would do need, ideally, for a high-rise life?

If you were able to design an apartment for yourself (the floor plan), how much space (floor area) do you consider a minimum for having a residential life defined as "comfortable"?

Notice, here, I'm not talking about what is in your apartment, just the minimum space you need so that you don't define your residence as crowded, cramped etc.

Mention how many people would be living with you to give an idea.
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 3rd, 2013, 11:04 PM   #2
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,400
Likes (Received): 21016

If I were to live alone (as I am right now), 55mē is the threshold of spaciousness. Less than that I consider myself living in a small place and feel cramped.

If I had a wife, I think at least another 15mē would be needed for a third room/small office or else it would feel too crowded.

If I had a child, I think he/she some 20mē of additional space for individual bedrooms and a bathroom to be shared among them. A second kid would need a bit less, 15mē for an extra bedroom.

I'm not keen on stuffing the house with things I don't need, and I don't need the fanciest furniture/appliances, but I need some space.
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 12:07 AM   #3
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

For 1 person in a 1 bedroom apartment, 1000 sq feet (93 sq meters) is requisite. PLUS, a storage cage of 1000 cubic feet (28 cubic meters) should be provided with the unit.

Furniture coverage (excluding carpets) should not exceed 40% of the total area -- 30% is fine. And yes, I am NOT a minimalist. I love material culture!
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 10:06 AM   #4
Ribarca
Registered User
 
Ribarca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 6,600
Likes (Received): 3257

93 sqm for 1 person is unaffordable in most cities. I'm more in agreement with suburbanist's numbers. Those numbers match how average people live in cities better.
__________________
Drive away these people, Who are so conceited and so contemptuous.


Hong Kong by Xavibarca, www.xavibarca.com

sursena liked this post
Ribarca no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 11:05 AM   #5
Jan
High there, what's up!
 
Jan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SkyscraperCity
Posts: 27,327
Likes (Received): 15804

My number would be 70 m2 as I don't need more but I wouldn't want less, mainly because I'd like to have a separate bedroom, or better put, two rooms with a different atmosphere. Most 45 m2 apartments usually come as a studio. I do think there is a good market for the latter though, especially for those who have outgrown a dorm room and want to live independently in a city center, but not spend a fortune on it.

Marina City's studio apartments are quite allright:



...although I would probably take out the wall between the kitchen and the living room.

When I was at Ikea the other day they had a mockup of a 35 m2 apartment that had a separate bedroom- living- and kitchen section. These are obviously small spaces (couldn't take good shots of those) but knowing that Ikea is good at furniture for the compact spaces, overall it looked quite decent. Having a place like this in a great location for decent money could be a good option to some. Here is the floor plan of that. (note that the main entrance is in the top right corner. The openings in this plan are windows.)



I think there is a real clever market out there for well designed, compact apartments. For me the cleverness is not really into double usage (such as using the living room as a bed room at night) but in minimizing hallway space and the way spaces are connected.
Jan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 02:55 PM   #6
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Personally, I am a firm believer that living space should be measured in CUBIC feet/meter, instead of SQUARE. The ceiling height of the rooms is important. I can go down to 80 sq meters or even 75 sq meters, depending on the ceiling height. But admittedly, it does little when it comes to the proper deployment of furniture throughout the floor space. Nonetheless, the SCALE of the furnishings must be proportional to overall volume.

Furnishing an apartment is important in defining comfort in a living space, unless you don't mind living like a student in a dorm room the rest of your life.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 04:05 PM   #7
Jan
High there, what's up!
 
Jan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SkyscraperCity
Posts: 27,327
Likes (Received): 15804

I agree ceiling height is an important number when it comes to living experience. It's just a pity that besides a few penthouses, developers here rarely venture outside the minimum requirement (as often these minimum requirements become the standard in the construction industry) while adding a bit more height can add a lot of luxury feeling. The minimum height set in the Dutch building code is 2.6 meters. It was raised 20 cm in 2002 on the back of a growing population. Us Dutchies rank amongst the tallest people in the world on average.
Jan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 05:32 PM   #8
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan View Post
I agree ceiling height is an important number when it comes to living experience. It's just a pity that besides a few penthouses, developers here rarely venture outside the minimum requirement (as often these minimum requirements become the standard in the construction industry) while adding a bit more height can add a lot of luxury feeling. The minimum height set in the Dutch building code is 2.6 meters. It was raised 20 cm in 2002 on the back of a growing population. Us Dutchies rank amongst the tallest people in the world on average.
I guess a minimum of 2.6 m is not bad, considering how many apartments in the USA have the boxy 8 ft figure. My ideal minimum would be 10 ft (3.048 m), but one can go higher, depending on how big the floorspace of the apartment is...
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 06:08 PM   #9
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,400
Likes (Received): 21016

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
Personally, I am a firm believer that living space should be measured in CUBIC feet/meter, instead of SQUARE. The ceiling height of the rooms is important. I can go down to 80 sq meters or even 75 sq meters, depending on the ceiling height. But admittedly, it does little when it comes to the proper deployment of furniture throughout the floor space. Nonetheless, the SCALE of the furnishings must be proportional to overall volume.

Furnishing an apartment is important in defining comfort in a living space, unless you don't mind living like a student in a dorm room the rest of your life.
Here in The Netherlands it is common, at least for detached houses/rowhouses to have volume mentioned, as it is very common to have non-hexaedronic rooms using spaces beneath tilted roofs. So you might find something like 88mē/261mģ on a realtor's listing for instance.
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 06:12 PM   #10
Jan
High there, what's up!
 
Jan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SkyscraperCity
Posts: 27,327
Likes (Received): 15804

Hoge Heren in Rotterdam is famous for it's low perceived ceilings. They filed for construction right before they raised minimum height (I'm sure that's why they did it), but since the design incorporates some heavy horizontal elements, it feel lower then the 2.4 meters that it is:

Jan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 06:15 PM   #11
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,400
Likes (Received): 21016

Low ceiling can be partially offset with indirect lighting. But there is only so much indirect lighting can do.
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 06:19 PM   #12
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

I wonder if low ceilings would be offset (at least phychologically) by having floor to ceiling windows in most of the rooms? But room area should not be too disproportionate to room height, no matter what.

Also, low ceiling height could also be offset by choosing furniture that is not too big for the available volume.

In many low ceiling apartments in the US, the feeling is aggravated by having very deep apartments and having windows only on one side of the building. The effect can be very depressing.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 06:42 PM   #13
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,400
Likes (Received): 21016

You mean like those narrow-and-deep apartments with just a couple normal windows in the living room?
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 08:24 PM   #14
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
You mean like those narrow-and-deep apartments with just a couple normal windows in the living room?
And perhaps a bedroom. But yes: a lot of apartments just have windows in the living room.

I have a co-worker who lives in one of the residential highrises on Wall Street (recent conversions) and he has a 1000 sq ft rental apartment like this. The apartment is technically a "studio", but has a very large recess or alcove space for the bedroom. He pays around 3,300 USD a month for it. This is actually a great bargain. But it can be so depressing, IMO.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 08:48 PM   #15
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,400
Likes (Received): 21016

Some studios indeed "push the envelope" (or the box, more appropriately) too much. I personally like big, floor-to-ceiling panel windows and natural light incidence.

Maybe the culprit is/was the trendy loft conversions of the 1990s which pushed this idea that you could make up for a bad floor plan by just removing as many walls as possible.
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 08:52 PM   #16
Jonesy55
Mooderator
 
Jonesy55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Floreat Salopia
Posts: 14,201
Likes (Received): 20010

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
If I were to live alone (as I am right now), 55mē is the threshold of spaciousness. Less than that I consider myself living in a small place and feel cramped.

If I had a wife, I think at least another 15mē would be needed for a third room/small office or else it would feel too crowded.

If I had a child, I think he/she some 20mē of additional space for individual bedrooms and a bathroom to be shared among them. A second kid would need a bit less, 15mē for an extra bedroom.
Those figures pretty much replicate my living arrangements, 2 adults + 2 children, 110m2. It isn't a skyscraper but in terms of living space it doesn't make much difference I think. For me it is fine, but much less would feel cramped I think.

In properties with additional outdoor space or even a secure public or communal space nearby for kids to be able to independently escape the walls of the home it may relieve that somewhat.

If none of that is available nearby such as in an urban highrise building then I'd maybe want 20-30% more indoor space to make up for that. But I'm not sure an extreme urban environment like a 30th-50th floor skyscraper apartment Is where I would choose to raise a family regardless of floor area.
Jonesy55 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 09:24 PM   #17
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Maybe the culprit is/was the trendy loft conversions of the 1990s which pushed this idea that you could make up for a bad floor plan by just removing as many walls as possible.
I agree.

It's also possible that they started out with a gigantic open space, and partitioned it as best as they could, leaving some units with an awkward layout.
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 4th, 2013, 11:28 PM   #18
Eric Offereins
The only way is up
 
Eric Offereins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Rotterdam
Posts: 68,573
Likes (Received): 28124

70m2 would be the minimum for me. My floor plan has relatively square rooms, so none of them looks like a tunnel.
Eric Offereins no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2013, 07:13 PM   #19
Ribarca
Registered User
 
Ribarca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 6,600
Likes (Received): 3257

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburbanist View Post
Here in The Netherlands it is common, at least for detached houses/rowhouses to have volume mentioned, as it is very common to have non-hexaedronic rooms using spaces beneath tilted roofs. So you might find something like 88mē/261mģ on a realtor's listing for instance.
In Asian cities you have to be careful with those measurements. They will include balconies and sometimes use the outer wall even to do the measurements. They sometimes also include part of the shared space.
__________________
Drive away these people, Who are so conceited and so contemptuous.


Hong Kong by Xavibarca, www.xavibarca.com
Ribarca no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2013, 10:02 PM   #20
ikops
Supermoderator
 
ikops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Den Haag
Posts: 8,962
Likes (Received): 2661

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpe View Post
I guess a minimum of 2.6 m is not bad, considering how many apartments in the USA have the boxy 8 ft figure. My ideal minimum would be 10 ft (3.048 m), but one can go higher, depending on how big the floorspace of the apartment is...
My apartment is 3.80. A hobbit would not feel at home at all, I am afraid.
ikops no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu