Build a tiny house competition

Thoie

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/families-offered-prime-dublin-site-for-150-000-1.1872721

A prime vacant site in Dublin’s south city centre with capacity for a six-storey apartment building is to be sold for just €150,000, but only to “citizen developers”.
Dublin City Council is seeking owner-occupiers to design and build their own family- sized homes on a council-owed site at Fishamble Street close to Christ Church Cathedral.

They're looking for groups of 2-4 families to come together and spend €1.2m on building desirable city centre homes on the site. The building can be up to 6 storeys, and 400sqm.


That's about 66.6sq m per floor, of which about 10 would need to go on communal stairs/lifts. It can include a commercial unit (owned and managed by one of the families living there), but can't include parking.

The idea behind the project was to promote owner-occupied family-living in the city and try to reverse the aversion of families to apartment living by allowing people to build the homes they wanted

So, excluding the idea of the commercial unit, if you have 4 families (which doesn't need to include children), that's about 85sq m of floor space each (which would have to be divided between floors, and therefore you lose some of that space to stairs, as well as the outer walls). That's an average sized 2 bed apartment with a small kitchen - hardly encouraging the family lifestyle they're hoping for, particularly as you're expected to live there for at least 10 years.



In my opinion to make the homes suitable for the family ideal they're looking for, you'd really need to split it between only 2-3 families, bringing the cost to approx €400k-€600k each. At that size you could build in proper storage (a big problem in most Irish apartments) and have a decent size kitchen/diner and a separate sitting room.


For that amount of money you could buy a large house in D1 (that would probably need some work done to it) or an existing apartment with parking. http://www.daft.ie/dublin-city/houses-for-sale/dublin-city-centre/?s[mnp]=400000&s[mxp]=600000


Would you be interested in a scheme like this? Do you think DCC should do more of this sort of thing?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Good idea in theory. There needs to be private/communal outside space to make apartment living appealing to families though.

sydthebeat

Ha ha, Phil hogans building control regs from last year has all but outlawed self builds... it will be interesting to see if this falls at that hurdle.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

66 sq. metres is about 1,000 sq. feet, about the size of a 3 bed semi. Seems big enough for an apartment to me. People seem to think anything less that 1,500 sq. ft. is small these days.

Thoie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Maybe the places I've seen on the continent are all just unusually big, but I've never seen family apartments there as small as the ones that are marketed here. Having seen a variety of family apartments in Switzerland, Germany, France and Spain they all have storage, mostly have "proper" size kitchens, and I've never seen a kitchen/dining/sitting room combo which seems to be the norm over here.

What size are you saying would be luxurious in other countries?

Thoie

K-9 wrote: »

66 sq. metres is about 1,000 sq. feet, about the size of a 3 bed semi. Seems big enough for an apartment to me. People seem to think anything less that 1,500 sq. ft. is small these days.

66 sq m is 710 square feet - about a third smaller than a 3 bed semi. As the bedrooms aren't a third of the house each you're not just losing a bedroom, you're losing space off everywhere else as well. The hall needs to stay the same size, so what you invariably lose out on is storage and kitchen space, and having a separate kitchen. 93 sq m is 1,000 sq ft. 140 sq m is 1,500.

K-9

Thoie wrote: »

66 sq m is 710 square feet - about a third smaller than a 3 bed semi. As the bedrooms aren't a third of the house each you're not just losing a bedroom, you're losing space off everywhere else as well. The hall needs to stay the same size, so what you invariably lose out on is storage and kitchen space, and having a separate kitchen. 93 sq m is 1,000 sq ft. 140 sq m is 1,500.

I was going on the 85 sq. metres you mentioned in the OP. 3 bed semis aren't very efficient space wise for me, usually a big enough kitchen and separate sitting room, 2 doubles and a box room. Storage space isn't just an apartment issue, tends to be poor in any 3 beds I've seen. I don't really see a separate kitchen as a major issue, more a choice thing.

For me there shouldn't be a problem raising 1 or 2 children in an apartment that size, especially when they are younger. It seems more a cultural block than anything else to me. As the children get older I can see why a family would need somewhere bigger.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The UK have the smallest sized homes in the EU and Ireland isn't much better off then them. Considering Ireland is one of the least densely populated countries in Europe there should be no lack of space available for bigger sized family homes.

Where space is at a premium like in Dublin good sized apartments with private/communal outside areas suitable for family living should be the ideal. Having people commute into Dublin's city centre from Kildare everyday should be actively planned against imo.

Thoie

K-9 wrote: »

I was going on the 85 sq. metres you mentioned in the OP. 3 bed semis aren't very efficient space wise for me, usually a big enough kitchen and separate sitting room, 2 doubles and a box room. Storage space isn't just an apartment issue, tends to be poor in any 3 beds I've seen. I don't really see a separate kitchen as a major issue, more a choice thing.

Most 3 bed houses will have an attic where the "rarely used, but want to keep" things can go - Christmas decorations being a prime example. A DIY box (with power tools, other tools nails, etc) is another. A separate kitchen is mostly a choice thing, but most (not all) houses have a kitchen/diner which can be separated off from the sitting room. If you have friends over one person can sit in the kitchen and have a cup of tea with a friend, while another can watch something in the other room, for example.

K-9 wrote: »

For me there shouldn't be a problem raising 1 or 2 children in an apartment that size, especially when they are younger. It seems more a cultural block than anything else to me. As the children get older I can see why a family would need somewhere bigger.

Younger children (up to about 3/4) take up a lot more room than older kids in some ways. Buggies, prams, tricycles, piles and piles of nappies take up more room than an older kids normal bicycle. Babies clothes, while small, often end up taking as much room as an adult's nearly, as you have 5million baby grows just to keep them cleanish, and that's before you get into the ridiculous outfits all your friends/family buy for the child. Add in anything to do with bottles/breast pumps/formula/nappy wipes/other wipes/muslin cloths and there's another chunk of space gone. At least with older kids you can put a toy box under their bed, and limit things to whatever fits in the toybox.

Again, the continental apartments I've seen often have a place for buggies/bikes either in the communal area or in a basement storage unit. The continent also appears (to me - again, maybe I just see fancy places) better set up in terms of play grounds and things like that - looking at where that site is, if there isn't a garden or something out the back, I'm not sure where kids could play - it's not so quiet a street that you could let them out the front door.

With all my mentions of children, it does specifically state that families don't need to have children to apply, but given that people have to live there for ten years, it's not unreasonable to think that at least one family out of 3/4 will have kids during that time.

Thoie

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Most of that article is spent saying that new houses are too small, and a couple interviewed regret moving because they don't have room to swing a cat. The one person defending them is a designer of micro homes, which from the pictures involves things like climbing a ladder to get to your mezzanine bed (not bedroom, just bed). That may be fine when you're a nimble 20-something year old, less fine if you suffer from mobility issues, or break your leg, or your knees/hips start to go as you get older.

We already have micro-apartments in Ireland - we normally call them bedsits/studios. I've lived in them myself. Again, they're just about adequate at a certain stage in life, but they're not somewhere I'd want to spend the rest of my days, and I honestly don't know how you'd raise a family in one.

Using design tricks such as higher ceilings, larger windows to give the illusion of space still doesn't let you get a 3 seater sofa into a room that's too small. If you're happy with ladders, then yes, you can use the extra height to put in high cupboards, but if that's the only place to keep your coffee mug, it's a PITA to climb up and down every time you want a cup of coffee.

Pete_Cavan

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Where space is at a premium like in Dublin good sized apartments with private/communal outside areas suitable for family living should be the ideal. Having people commute into Dublin's city centre from Kildare everyday should be actively planned against imo.

I agree with most of that but space isn’t really at a premium in Dublin. There are a lot of buildings/sites in need of redevelopment and that isn’t happening for various reasons. Local and national policy should be to unlock these sites, especially at a time when there is a shortage of accommodation in the city. We should also be looking to increase density in the city centre.

One thing I like about the project in the OP is that it is an infill development. Looking at the site in google maps, it certainly looks big enough for 4 apartments. I am sure the buildings on either side of the site contain that many if not more apartment with smaller road frontage.

Storage has been a recurring theme here already, in my experience most apartments on the continent have storage rooms in the ground floor/basement. Having a storage room for each apartment, bins area and plant room at ground level, where most people don’t want to live anyway, would leave space for a good sized apartment on each level above.

sydthebeat

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/FileDownLoad,1979,en.pdf

see page 49

the suggested size of a 7 person 4 bed apartment for a 'social housing' unit is 105 sq m
for 6 person, 94 and for 5 person 86.

you wont get many "families" in the 56.6 sq m suggested in the OP

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I guess we need to make a distinction between Dublin and the rest of the country. If people in Dublin were offered family friendly apartments in the city centre there would be less urban sprawl. Many people have picked the long commute/nice house option over the short commute/small apartment option. Bigger city centre apartments with plenty of green space would probably be a more attractive option for many of those Kildare based/Dublin employed people.
I have an issue with the amount of one off housing built around the rest of the country but I don't think commute times are a major issue for anyone based outside Dublin, apart from people who make a clear choice to live in a rural area while working in an urban one.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think 1950's America/Ireland would need less family home living space. In Ireland at least most wouldn't have had a tv/fridge/washing machine ect. or obviously not any technology and the like either. I also think Irish people had a bigger communal living space then, where kids could actually play on the street, where everyone knew their neighbour and the parents/uncle/aunt of said neighbour. I think in many respects people have less 'home living space' now than then.
Apartment living is a sort of nomadic way for people to live in Ireland today, at least if you move out to Kildare you can put down roots, have a green space for your children to play on and build up a relationship and trust with the other people who live there.

ash23

I live in a small house with my child. Two bedrooms, one wet room, open plan kitchen and sitting room. Small garden. Nice communal areas at the front.

Built in wardrobes plus a large hot press and clever furniture means it's more than sufficient for us both. Her room is a single room so it'd be a squeeze if I had two kids but bunkbeds would do the trick.

It's a simple matter of decluttering on a regular basis and using the space in a clever way (minimising bulky furniture).

It's very doable and the cheap rent and bills more than make up for any downside. Not that I can find any really. I've lived in larger houses with three and four bedrooms and I found we tended to live in the same 3 rooms all the time. 2 bedrooms and sitting room. So I don't miss having a bigger place at all.

Cookie_Monster

66m2? Thats tiny. We've just finished building a 242m2 house, I can't imagine living in something quarter the size of it, especially if more than 2 people!

ash23

Just checked the plans for my house and it's 62 sq m. Perfectly fine for myself and my child. Most likely my boyfriend will move in at some future stage. Really, I can't say enough how quickly we've adapted to living in a small house.

I was very clever with the furniture, making sure to buy everything with storage. The headboards have storage so no need for lockers, the beds have drawers for extra storage and the sofa has a pull out bed and storage.

It's what was available and we've worked our lives into it. I think that a lot of people, if offered a home of their own in a location they want, will happily take it once the price is right.

My rent has halved and my bills are down massively aswell.
Living small has big advantages!

Hold the Cheez Whiz

I think part of the problem with a lot of new 'micro'-development is that there isn't a lot of thought into using smaller spaces efficiently. Developers used to building large 4-bedroom homes probably aren't going to transition well into making small urban units that need to be designed very, very thoughtfully to maximize space and light. Instead of starting from scratch, why not learn from designers in Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York, and other places who have a lot of experience with this kind of thing?

Another other issue is, in places I've lived or visited where it was normal to live in small spaces (or even decent-sized apartments in multi-unit buildings) there is also more of a 'street culture': people eat out more, there are green grocers everywhere so you don't need to stockpile food in your house, there are lots of cafes and other semi-public spaces for people to congregate or read or just get out of the house, and public spaces are well maintained and heavily used by people of all ages. So I don't think it is enough to 'shift small' in terms of houses, you really have to think about how scaling down at home pushes you to interact differently with the people and the space outside of your home.

Finally, the build costs for a well-designed tiny home can get expensive (unless you totally DIY the thing). But I think spending the money up front for a well-designed place that is also energy efficient (passive heating, well insulated, etc.) can really save money in the long run. You also save money in smaller spaces because they cost less to heat and cool, and they force you to think about how you spend your money - you definitely have to cut down on the impulse buying when you don't have much space. It may not be for everyone, but I don't think that the long car commute in order to have a 4-bedroom house with a yard is terribly sustainable for both ecological and personal reasons.

nesf

We live in a three bed terraced house with a living space of 790 sq ft (73 sq m) and an attic office/storage of 191 sq ft (18 sq m). This is with two adults and two kids and honestly we find this to be plenty space for living. The attic space is nice as we can be lazier about storage but if we didn't have the conversion it really wouldn't be an issue, it's more needed as a quiet room to get work done in than as space. We've lived in much smaller with the kids, it just means being smarter about storage rather than anything else.

66 sq m would be fine if you had a couple with one or two kids. I think people are being utterly unreasonable about floor space here, you can't expect 100+ sq m houses in the middle of cities. I grew up in a large 200 sq m four bed detached house but that was in the middle of a rural area where land is cheap and population density very low. I don't expect to find anything similarly sized in Cork city centre at a price I'd ever pay, never mind Dublin.

SeanW

Thoie wrote: »

They're looking for groups of 2-4 families to come together and spend €1.2m on building desirable city centre homes on the site. The building can be up to 6 storeys, and 400sqm.

That's about 66.6sq m per floor, of which about 10 would need to go on communal stairs/lifts. It can include a commercial unit (owned and managed by one of the families living there), but can't include parking.

Who on Earth do they plan to attract with this? In Germany I think a single Harz IV recipient is entitled to a 45 SQ/M apartment.

And where are these families supposed to park their cars?

Would you be interested in a scheme like this? Do you think DCC should do more of this sort of thing?

I for one would have no interest in spending vast sums of money on a place that's just about big enough for a couple with nowhere on-site for my car.

In addition to being people-hostile it's also bad planning in my opinion, it would be more in DCCs line to zone the central area for commercial use and advocate for things like the Dart Underground and the Dublin Metro North, the latter in particular would make cheaper and better property more desirable by "shrinking" the city, offering liveable places ~20 minutes from town by rapid transit. Seriously. Build MN to Lissenhall and let people build quality places there.

nesf

SeanW wrote: »

And where are these families supposed to park their cars?

Why would you need a car living right in the centre of Dublin? If you have a car and are happy to drive you can live further out no?

SeanW

nesf wrote: »

Why would you need a car living right in the centre of Dublin? If you have a car and are happy to drive you can live further out no?

To go somewhere that isn't covered by public transport? To travel at odd hours? When you need to carry lots of stuff over long distances? Being in the city you would need a car only rarely, but it shouldn't be problematic to simply own one.

whomitconcerns

K-9 wrote: »

66 sq. metres is about 1,000 sq. feet, about the size of a 3 bed semi. .

more like 700 sq feet....

nesf

SeanW wrote: »

To go somewhere that isn't covered by public transport? To travel at odd hours? When you need to carry lots of stuff over long distances? Being in the city you would need a car only rarely, but it shouldn't be problematic to simply own one.

I don't accept this argument to be honest. If you need a car you can live somewhat further out than right in the city centre as you have your own means of transport. If you don't have or want a car then you need to live close to public transport which is exactly what city centre living provides. If these houses were being built out in CityWest I'd agree totally with you but they're not, they're being built just off the Quays. It's the shoebox apartments without parking out in the suburbs that have always confused me, not small apartments in the middle of the city.

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

To go somewhere that isn't covered by public transport? To travel at odd hours? When you need to carry lots of stuff over long distances? Being in the city you would need a car only rarely, but it shouldn't be problematic to simply own one.

It's vastly cheaper and more sensible to simply rent a car the odd time you need one in the CC rather than spend thousands on ownership costs and have it sit there most of the time.

nesf

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It's vastly cheaper and more sensible to simply rent a car the odd time you need one in the CC rather than spend thousands on ownership costs and have it sit there most of the time.

I've often marveled why people don't do this more. For an infrequent user it makes a huge amount of sense.

Thoie

Life suddenly got in the way, so haven't been back to this fully.

In terms of the car question - I agree that people living that centrally don't need to own a car, and can rent from time to time, but even if you've rented a car for the weekend to go away somewhere, you still want to be able to park the car near your house, get kids, buggies, suitcases into the car.

There are currently about 3 on street parking spaces around there, but I'd imagine the chances of getting a space when you want it is rarer than hen's teeth. And for all DCC's high minded ideals, take careful note of the fact that they've built themselves a private underground car park for their employees almost directly opposite the site. If it's OK for them, why not OK for people living there? Those DCC offices are fantastically well served by public transport. The arguments against the residents needing a parking space could be turned around against DCC as well.

If DCC people live further out, and need their cars to get into the city, then maybe our new imaginary residents need to get to a workplace further out? If the DCC people need a carpark because sometimes they may have to come into the office outside public transport hours, why can't we use the same argument on behalf of the residents.

Nesf - you've made my point about space for me. You start by saying there's 4 of you in a 73sq m house, but you actually live in a 91sq m house. That extra space where you can get some work done/store things is exactly what's missing from most apartments today. Without having an entire separate "quiet room", you can achieve something similar by having a separate kitchen and sitting room - a place where you can close the door between rooms that isn't a bedroom or bathroom.

Realistically I think for this to be successful, you're looking at a max of 3 families, with 2 storeys each, giving them a total floor space of approx 102sqm each at a minimum spend of €400k. The floor space is, strictly speaking, slightly more than necessary, but ends up being used more efficiently than trying to give people 1.5 storeys each.

If they could include a nice, proper roof garden (as opposed to a single large pot plant plonked on a tar paper roof), that could provide somewhere for kids to play/adults to sit out, though it probably would increase the cost.

nesf

Thoie wrote: »

Life suddenly got in the way, so haven't been back to this fully.

In terms of the car question - I agree that people living that centrally don't need to own a car, and can rent from time to time, but even if you've rented a car for the weekend to go away somewhere, you still want to be able to park the car near your house, get kids, buggies, suitcases into the car.

There are currently about 3 on street parking spaces around there, but I'd imagine the chances of getting a space when you want it is rarer than hen's teeth. And for all DCC's high minded ideals, take careful note of the fact that they've built themselves a private underground car park for their employees almost directly opposite the site. If it's OK for them, why not OK for people living there? Those DCC offices are fantastically well served by public transport. The arguments against the residents needing a parking space could be turned around against DCC as well.

If DCC people live further out, and need their cars to get into the city, then maybe our new imaginary residents need to get to a workplace further out? If the DCC people need a carpark because sometimes they may have to come into the office outside public transport hours, why can't we use the same argument on behalf of the residents.

Nesf - you've made my point about space for me. You start by saying there's 4 of you in a 73sq m house, but you actually live in a 91sq m house. That extra space where you can get some work done/store things is exactly what's missing from most apartments today. Without having an entire separate "quiet room", you can achieve something similar by having a separate kitchen and sitting room - a place where you can close the door between rooms that isn't a bedroom or bathroom.

Realistically I think for this to be successful, you're looking at a max of 3 families, with 2 storeys each, giving them a total floor space of approx 102sqm each at a minimum spend of €400k. The floor space is, strictly speaking, slightly more than necessary, but ends up being used more efficiently than trying to give people 1.5 storeys each.

If they could include a nice, proper roof garden (as opposed to a single large pot plant plonked on a tar paper roof), that could provide somewhere for kids to play/adults to sit out, though it probably would increase the cost.

It's not really a 91sqm house, almost all of that extra space is just an empty floor that's never used as a living space. We could easily have "the office" in our living room, it's a pure luxury for us. The storage space could be done in an extra 5 or so square meters rather than the 19sqm and we'd have loads.

Having lived in a 55sqm apartment with one child I think people are overestimating space needs based on what they are used to rather than what they need. We were honestly doing fine, the only reason to move on was having the second child and wanting separate bedrooms for them. I'm not arguing 66 sqm is luxurious but really it's far from too small except we're conditioned from having grown up in far, far larger dwellings and gotten used to wasting tons of space.

Thoie

nesf wrote: »

It's not really a 91sqm house, almost all of that extra space is just an empty floor that's never used as a living space. We could easily have "the office" in our living room, it's a pure luxury for us. The storage space could be done in an extra 5 or so square meters rather than the 19sqm and we'd have loads.

Having lived in a 55sqm apartment with one child I think people are overestimating space needs based on what they are used to rather than what they need. We were honestly doing fine, the only reason to move on was having the second child and wanting separate bedrooms for them. I'm not arguing 66 sqm is luxurious but really it's far from too small except we're conditioned from having grown up in far, far larger dwellings and gotten used to wasting tons of space.

I've seen first hand what 2 adults and 3 children are like in a 70sqm 2 bed apartment. The double buggy, the tricycles for the oldest two, plus the bikes for the parents alone made the place a fire hazard (IMO) - all those things were in the hallway as they physically wouldn't fit anywhere else. They had the option of either having a proper table where all of them could sit down to eat together, or comfortable armchairs/sofas, as they couldn't have both.

This isn't just a problem of "we're used to too much space" (though I will admit my personal space bubble is about 10km in diameter). There are limits to what clever storage solutions will do for you.