Why are apartments so small?

luckat

I've been looking at ads for apartments, and am puzzled by the fact that they seem to average from 500 to 700 square feet.

This means tiny little apartments with mean little rooms. Why aren't there 900 and 1,200 square foot apartments? Or am I looking at the wrong sites? (None of the sites I'm using offer size as a parameter I can set, as far as I can see.)

godtabh

The higher the desnity the higher the price the developer can make. Thats seems to be their policy

whizzbang

It will be interesting to see what happens to these inhumane appartments if the market turns!

FillSpectre

I would say because the size you are asking for is a 3 bed house size in Ireland for years.

http://www3.myhome.ie/search/property.asp?id=269069&np=&rt=search&searchlist=

I know they are small houses but aren't the a huge section of the property in Ireland.

How many rooms are you expecting in an appartment for the size you mentioned?

I would say 1200 sq foot is a good sized house in Dublin. What countries have bigger appartments with the same amount of bedrooms?

Moonbeam

There are apartments that size normally penthouses and hugely expensive.

iguana

How many rooms are you looking for in the apartment? My last apartment was about 350sq ft and it was very spacious. Granted it was just a 1 bed, and a bit of manouvering with the internal walls would have given better use of space. But 500sq ft seems like a perfectly acceptable 2 bed.

luckat

I'm not really *looking for* as such, just mooching around *looking*.

In Paris, say, it's possible to get a house-sized apartment - but an apartment with the space of a house is actually much more spacious because it doesn't have all those stairs and hallways gobbling up living space.

My ideal would be a big apartment over water, with a good balcony. Well, not ideal, because ideally it would have to have a nice garden, which by definition apartments don't have!

FillSpectre

Can you provide some evidence for this. I have friends in Paris and the only people I can imagine living in appartments the size you mention are very very very rich. If you are that rich here you can afford appartments that size and they exist over water.
The point about people mentioning houses was the space you are talking about is huge for an appartment around the world IMHO.
As asked how many bed rooms are you talking about?

I think you should mention the kind of money you would like to pay for such a place.

I really don't think appartments here are small compared to other western cities.

iguana

FillSpectre wrote:

The point about people mentioning houses was the space you are talking about is huge for an appartment around the world IMHO............
.............I really don't think apartments here are small compared to other western cities.

Agreed. The kind of apartment the OP is talking about would cost an absolute fortune. They are the kind of thing you'd see on tv shows like Friends or Will and Grace that the characters could never actually afford.

Although on a side note, ime in London ex-local authority flats tend to be quite a bit bigger than private apartments of the same price range.

luckat

Maybe I'm being dense, but why should an apartment with 1,200 feet be more expensive than a semi-d with 1,200 feet? Surely it should be cheaper?

No garden, economies of scale in building, in terms of plumbing and wiring and so on, and cheaper site price. I can't understand why it should be dearer.

FillSpectre

iguana wrote:

Agreed. The kind of apartment the OP is talking about would cost an absolute fortune. They are the kind of thing you'd see on tv shows like Friends or Will and Grace that the characters could never actually afford.

Although on a side note, ime in London ex-local authority flats tend to be quite a bit bigger than private apartments of the same price range.

Friends is hyterical, so far from reality. Sienfeld is closer as you can Jerry who is meant to make good money lives in a small place it may actually be a bit too big for New York. I used to think appartments were huge untill I went to NY and met my friends. Rent control is actually a bad thing as people live in place unfit for human life as the owner charge no rent as it isn't worth doing the building up for the rent they can charge so they let it free.

Most of the council places in the UK were built a while ago so it tends to be the age of the property more so than the who made them. THe UK really tried some radicle designs some worked and others don't. In Ireland council housing was more or less the same design.

Saruman

Location!!! Apartments will always be closer to city ammenities than a house out in the burbs!!
I would not live in an apartment.. my first house i moved in to less than a year ago is 1080 sq feet detactched bungalow in westmeath. I have a garden (needs serious work before i can call it that ) and not sharing walls with neighbours so can be as loud as i like. €190k

i71jskz5xu42pb

luckat wrote:

I've been looking at ads for apartments, and am puzzled by the fact that they seem to average from 500 to 700 square feet.

This means tiny little apartments with mean little rooms. Why aren't there 900 and 1,200 square foot apartments? Or am I looking at the wrong sites? (None of the sites I'm using offer size as a parameter I can set, as far as I can see.)

http://www.premiersquare.ie/factfile.htm
70 – 80 sq m (734 – 861 sq ft) two-bedroom units from €270,000
90 – 110 sq m (969 – 1,185 sq ft) three bedroom units from €320.000

FillSpectre

luckat wrote:

Maybe I'm being dense, but why should an apartment with 1,200 feet be more expensive than a semi-d with 1,200 feet? Surely it should be cheaper?

No garden, economies of scale in building, in terms of plumbing and wiring and so on, and cheaper site price. I can't understand why it should be dearer.

Why do you keep avoiding the questions asked of why you think they are too small? People are trying to understand why you think they are bigger else where because I personally have different experience as most other people would too.

Appartments are normally built on expensive land (not cheaper sites) so it is partially to do with land value. 2 people can build a house a lot more required to built bigger building. Multi stores require more design,engineering etc... There is alot more to building appartments. They don't really build such large apparentments as there isn't any room. Simply supply and demand there are less 1200sq ft appartments becasue there isn't the room or suitable loactions.

Still don't get why you think there are bigger appartments elsewhere can you explain with examples?

galah

In Germany, large flats/apartments are quite common! I'm talking 80 m2 - 120 m2 (roughly the square feet size the OP mentioned).

FillSpectre

galah wrote:

In Germany, large flats/apartments are quite common! I'm talking 80 m2 - 120 m2 (roughly the square feet size the OP mentioned).

yes but that is a family dwelling in a place that had to be extensively rebuilt after the war. the Bahuse (sp) movement and a policy of business provided state housing with rent control. Germany is a big exception for these reasons as is Russia but they have exceptionally small housing.

I am no expert I just happened to see a show on the modernist movement and how it helped Germany after the war.

Ballymun had appartments of the size mentioned with underfloor heating too built in a modular design. Bad mangement was its failing

Local climate and lifestyle effect housing too. Small place easier to heat hence russia. In Norway however lots of space and abundence of trees means big place with good insulation when people can live on their own and communial living.

Victor

luckat wrote:

I've been looking at ads for apartments, and am puzzled by the fact that they seem to average from 500 to 700 square feet.

500 sq.ft = 46m2 would probably not get planning permission these days.

But remember we are moving from a situation 100 years ago where ordinary families of 8 lived in 2-3 rooms (rooms, no bedrooms). Now, young childless couples are seeking 3-4 bedroom houses. :rolleyes:

luckat

Hmm. Where I live - about three miles from Dublin city centre, there are lots of apartments and lots of houses.

(And a crappy transport service. It takes me 10 minutes to cycle into town, but because I work nights I don't fancy cycling home. So I took a bus today and it took over three-quarters of an hour. And there's no plan for a Luas. Mind you, if I were planning it, I'd simply build a proper underground rail system like a civilised country.)

Anyway, all these pleas for examples from FillSpectre - no, I can't give examples! I went to look at apartments with friends in Paris and they were the same size as my house. They weren't immense prices, either.

FillSpectre

Luckrat, cailm down I wasn't the only one who asked for reference points.
I still have no idea what you are comparing as you never really said. Is it a 3 bed family home you are talking about or a 1 bed open plan place etc... I am genuinly curious to how you came to your point when I have a differnt experience. I have been to a few European cities and places are so cramped is my experience mostly becuse they are older. Paris from my memory is considerably more expensive and smaller than Dublin city appartments. It could be local knowledge. I have family who I say live in London but they actually live in Kent there is a huge difference in price between Kent and London. An example of a reasonable priced large appartment was given but it isn't in the city and I would guess people would call thae area close to Glasnevin is Finglas which might also effect the price. Somebody with out local knowledge might think it is a good price but others might avoid it with local knowledge. Don't foreget we do have the Hilton Darndale close to a traveler seatlement which is a great sales mand and/or somebody with out local knowledge making the decision.:D

lomb

Victor wrote:

500 sq.ft = 46m2 would probably not get planning permission these days.

But remember we are moving from a situation 100 years ago where ordinary families of 8 lived in 2-3 rooms (rooms, no bedrooms). Now, young childless couples are seeking 3-4 bedroom houses. :rolleyes:

not true, certainly north facing 2 bed would be refused planning for sure, a one bed shouldnt be much problem at 500sq ft.

in any case, the buyers money is the buyers money. personally i want a large house and im single. does that make me crazy? no just ambitious. theres nothing wrong with that tbh.

at the end of the day people will buy what they can afford, u can increase space by compromising location and vice versa, im willing to compromise location slightly to get what i want. different strokes for different folks..

Idleater

Victor wrote:

But remember we are moving from a situation 100 years ago where ordinary families of 8 lived in 2-3 rooms (rooms, no bedrooms).

Tis true, I met a man who grew up in my house back in the day. Then there were 11 children. The house is currently 59m^2 and when he was living in it, it would have been ~47 + outside toilet...

L.

Noelie

I don't think the problem is the size it's the layout that seems to be the problem, I was viewing a 2 bed apartment a while back, I don't think the problem is the size it's the layout that seems to be the problem, I was viewing a 2 bed appartment a while back, it was only about 650 foot, but it was badly layed out the sitting room was very narrow and there was a hallway that ran the length of the partment taking up valuable space, if the hallway was removed and all rooms lead from it( Kitchen, Bedrooms and Bathrooms) the whole apartment would have look far more spacious. as the Show Appartment was layed out there was no room for a TV

IMO 2 bed's dont need a hallway as the space could much better be used for storage, extended living or bedroom area.

Whats more worrying is the lack of green areas in appartment complexes, they only seem to be putting in flower beds and water fountains, they look great but where can kids kick a football or play? look at estates built years before there is nearly always a big central field where you could have a 11 a side football match, newer areas aren't doing this.

Peter Collins

luckat wrote:

I'm not really *looking for* as such, just mooching around *looking*.

In Paris, say, it's possible to get a house-sized apartment - but an apartment with the space of a house is actually much more spacious because it doesn't have all those stairs and hallways gobbling up living space.

Go to Paris then

I'm sick of this crapóla

FillSpectre

lomb wrote:

in any case, the buyers money is the buyers money. personally i want a large house and im single. does that make me crazy? no just ambitious. theres nothing wrong with that tbh.

Actually I would say yes it makes you crazy;) Why would you put yourself in debt for something you don't need? When your hungry do you buy three meals or one, the same logic would apply. THere was an interest Show on channel 4 last night where they recorded how somebody used their home. effectively they didn't use 70% of it so they might as well have bought a smaller place.

What is the purpose of the ambition? Will you have lavish dinner parties a huge family etc...

There is a social impact of people taking up more space than they need or demanding 3 bed houses so it could be said there is something wrong with it.

Don't get me wrong I am not suggesting you should live your life a particular way I just don't understand what is driving this. People drive 4X4s to drive on streets becasue it is a status symbol as much as anything else. Owning houses is a satus symbol and seen as an ambition by some I get that but do you really want to get into your biggest debt to show off?

If you were able to design your home from scatch for your needs would it really be a 3 bed house? I know there is limited property types but what is the ideal for you and your needs(including reasonable future needs).

THe house we bought is too big for us but it fits our needs very close with the exception of the number of bedrooms being more than we need. It was simply not possible to find what we wanted in the housing stock and we didn't want to build.

Sarn

luckat wrote:

I've been looking at ads for apartments, and am puzzled by the fact that they seem to average from 500 to 700 square feet.

If you check myhome.ie you'll see they start from 400 (only set you back €250 - 300k). The best one at the moment is 301 sq feet (28 sq m) for €325k.

The more they squeeze in the more cash they get.

Edit: The apartments I'm referring to are old builds not new ones. By the way the 28 sq m has sold. http://www2.myhome.ie/search/property.asp?np=1&nsa=1&p=1&id=265569&rt=search&searchlist=

godtabh

Sarn wrote:

If you check myhome.ie you'll see they start from 400 (only set you back €250 - 300k). The best one at the moment is 301 sq feet (28 sq m) for €325k.

The more they squeeze in the more cash they get.

Could you like me to the 28m2 place?

Apartments are built to reach demand. A developer wouldn’t build a 125 ^2 apartments block (i.e. each size of apartment) in Ballymum for example because there wouldn’t be a market it for it. But for example they fine looking town houses/ apartments beside the Burlington people would pay (allot!) of very good money for them.

It all comes down to economics.

As for layouts blame the architect’s.

ambro25

FillSpectre wrote:

I have been to a few European cities and places are so cramped is my experience mostly becuse they are older. Paris from my memory is considerably more expensive

Yes, to an extent. But the gap is narrowing (with prices coming down in Paris, not going up in Dublin).

FillSpectre wrote:

and smaller than Dublin city appartments.

No, modern apts in Dublin are much smaller than older apts typically rented in Paris (unless you're looking at 70s towers in the periphery of Paris, e.g. Neuilly)

Real life example: modern triplex apt in north-east France (that's very provincial, by FR standards btw, so to be contrasted with prices in Paris which would easily triple), in a main city near Luxembourg border, 130 sq. meters on 3 floors (last floor is more for storage, as ceiling v.low, but let's count as 1 bed, so - 4 double beds which are each bigger than the master in our late 60s or early 70s-built 'standard' 3-bed semi in Dublin, kitchen, dining, lounge, 2 baths + 3rd toilet + walk-in ward.) + 2 good-sized parking spots in underground secured car park, 2 terraces, on the water overlooking restored watermill & cathedral.

€1300 pm. Same in Dublin would easily top €3k, maybe as high as €4k if the location parameters existed.

Same city, top floor apt in an 1870s-built town house, recent refit of everything, 3 beds + lounge + dining + kitchen, about 110 sq. meter south facing, single garage.

€710 pm. Same in Dublin will be at least double that, if not more.

FillSpectre

ambro25 wrote:

Yes, to an extent. But the gap is narrowing (with prices coming down in Paris, not going up in Dublin).

Again not my experience everything says prices are going up here.

ambro25 wrote:

No, modern apts in Dublin are much smaller than older apts typically rented in Paris (unless you're looking at 70s towers in the periphery of Paris, e.g. Neuilly)

[/QUOTE]

Again not my experience and as much of the appartments in Ireland are 1 nad 2 bed places compared with aan appartment designed for family use yest they would be smaller. THey are smaller becasue they are for different needs. People in Ireland don't want to raise families in appartments hence we don't have family sized appartements.

I think people are seriously confusing size, time of build and purpose. There are more samller appartments in Ireland becasue there is more need for single and small dwellings. They are built most recently becasue there is a boom inn the need as the demographics change. The appartments built here are not for families.

This is why the scope of what was being looked for is so important. A 3 bed appartment is bigger than a 1 bed that is accepted. An appartment built for one is smaller becasue it is built for one which is what a lot of appartments are built for in Ireland seems to be a problem people won't accept.

ambro25

Quite true.

I must admit that I was looking for family-sized apts not so long back and have come to a same conclusion, which is that for a capital city, there aren't very many 'large' apts (as in 110-120 sqm with decent-sized rooms) at all.

That in itself would be conductive of inflated prices in that particular segment.

iguana

FillSpectre wrote:

THere was an interest Show on channel 4 last night where they recorded how somebody used their home. effectively they didn't use 70% of it so they might as well have bought a smaller place.

In fairness the guy on that C4 show was pretty odd. He spent £25k, 10 years ago to convert a 1800sq ft apt, into a horrible nightmare of a studio. When the designer suggested changeing the layout and actually placing a bedroom where he had the kitchen he got upset that he would have to sleep in the kitchen from now on. And then when he did move things he wanted a tiny kitchen that he could hide in a cupboard.

Although watching it did make me think about this thread. The guy had a 1800sq ft and it never seemed to occur to anyone that a 2nd bedroom/office might be a good idea, rather than a £2k inflatable office . Or to put in a 2nd toilet so guests wouldn't have to go through the bedroom to use the toilet. Because in London it is quite common to have friends stay with you overnight if you live on opposite ends of the city, or even more often if your friends actually live in Surrey or Kent. Then again I don't think either of the couple mentioned having friends, so it may not be a problem for them.

Victor

lomb wrote:

not true, certainly north facing 2 bed would be refused planning for sure, a one bed shouldnt be much problem at 500sq ft.

That would be the bottom limit for a one bed.

Section 15.9.2-15.9.3 here, absolute minimum for a 1-bed is 45m2 = 484 ft2

http://www.dublincity.ie/shaping_the_city/future_planning/development_plan/15.pdf

lomb

FillSpectre wrote:

Actually I would say yes it makes you crazy;) Why would you put yourself in debt for something you don't need? When your hungry do you buy three meals or one, the same logic would apply. THere was an interest Show on channel 4 last night where they recorded how somebody used their home. effectively they didn't use 70% of it so they might as well have bought a smaller place.

What is the purpose of the ambition? Will you have lavish dinner parties a huge family etc...

There is a social impact of people taking up more space than they need or demanding 3 bed houses so it could be said there is something wrong with it.

Don't get me wrong I am not suggesting you should live your life a particular way I just don't understand what is driving this. People drive 4X4s to drive on streets becasue it is a status symbol as much as anything else. Owning houses is a satus symbol and seen as an ambition by some I get that but do you really want to get into your biggest debt to show off?

If you were able to design your home from scatch for your needs would it really be a 3 bed house? I know there is limited property types but what is the ideal for you and your needs(including reasonable future needs).

THe house we bought is too big for us but it fits our needs very close with the exception of the number of bedrooms being more than we need. It was simply not possible to find what we wanted in the housing stock and we didn't want to build.

nothing says more about a man than the house he lives in followed by the wife followed by the car followed by the shoes. a mans home is his castle. the fact that i want a 4000 sq foot period house in d6 doesnt make me a bad person just someonw with a dream. it doesnt mean il fullfill that dream ever but thats what i want...
u cant swing a cat in some of the places ive seen. but the developers are doing business, that how theyve become rich. if people buy it/rent it then thats there problem.
property is dog eat dog, theres no social element to it that ive seen other than some half assed polital aspect to it to get votes. sad but true.

FillSpectre

lomb wrote:

nothing says more about a man than the house he lives in followed by the wife followed by the car followed by the shoes. a mans home is his castle. the fact that i want a 4000 sq foot period house in d6 doesnt make me a bad person just someonw with a dream. it doesnt mean il fullfill that dream ever but thats what i want...

I would say people are judged on their actions and what they say before all else and after all else. The fact you want and judge your success on such trivial things genuinely sounds sad to me. It doesn't make you bad but it just sounds like happiness to you is having other people think you are successful in a conventional way rather than you being happy and succesful in what you want to do. A dream doesn't have to be acievable but a goal should be