Toronto Bisha Hotel and Residences | 146.91m | 44s | Lifetime | Wallman Architects

[KA1]

For a closet perhaps. But not as a principal residence.

Out of curiosity... how tiny would the place have to be before you said it was "too small"??

About 120 sq. ft.

In early 60's, I lived in London, England. In central London -- equal to downtown Toronto -- all what you could afford to rent was a room, with a sink and a gas burner in one corner. A cabinet under the burner was your kitchen pantry. You share bathroom with a few other individuals. There was no central heating or fridge. You go to the corner store and buy frozen food items when and as much as you need for that particular day/evening. Bed was along one wall.

By that standard, we Canadians are spoiled brats.

 

[UCL kc]

About 120 sq. ft.

In early 60's, I lived in London, England. In central London -- equal to downtown Toronto -- all what you could afford to rent was a room, with a sink and a gas burner in one corner. A cabinet under the burner was your kitchen pantry. You share bathroom with a few other individuals. There was no central heating or fridge. You go to the corner store and buy frozen food items when and as much as you need for that particular day/evening. Bed was along one wall.

By that standard, we Canadians are spoiled brats.

That standard no longer exists legally so comparing it to 2010 Toronto isnt really fair; housing regulations in London have changed significantly since 50 years ago. I lived in central London as a student for 4 years and I would have to say you would be hard pressed to find a place like you have described. Although I did live in a "three" bedroom flat that was 650 sqft, our tall flatmate had to bend to walk down the hall and for some reason our bathroom had a peep hole that only looked INTO the bathroom. Maybe regulations haven't improved that much... I digress. Either way 379 sqft is fine for a studio as long as you know what you're getting.

 

[Condo George]

I owned a 345 sq ft bachelor at London on Scott St, it was small but the layout space wise was very well utilized, there was no bowling alley for a foyer or no irregularities in the space, nice square and wide not long and narrow, this is what I look for when investing in bachelors. So 379 sq ft is not bad in terms of space , but look at the layout, if you waste 50 sq ft to get into the living area or its a train layout, you may want to re consider my 2 cts

 

[UCL kc]

345sqft isnt that unusual these days in major cities. I have spent a great deal of time in asia as well and 345sqft is actually not too bad. However, to be fair, this stuff:

[video=youtube;dAa6bOWB8qY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAa6bOWB8qY[/video]

is very popular and readily available in that part of the world.

 

[carturo15]

I had a bachelor in Spire-33 Lombard, it was 350 sq ft. the space was not that bad, it's all about layout and design

 

[grey]

Since the liveability of small apartments has been called into question yet again, I believe it is an appropriate time to drop this paradigm-shifting link.

 

[gei]

We criticize suburban houses for being 'excessive' and unnecessarily large. The size of units you people are describing is the exact opposite... unnecessarily small.

Is it possible to live in a 150 sqft unit? Sure. Should anyone be subjected to that? I would say no.

About 120 sq. ft.

In early 60's, I lived in London, England. In central London -- equal to downtown Toronto -- all what you could afford to rent was a room, with a sink and a gas burner in one corner. A cabinet under the burner was your kitchen pantry. You share bathroom with a few other individuals. There was no central heating or fridge. You go to the corner store and buy frozen food items when and as much as you need for that particular day/evening. Bed was along one wall.

By that standard, we Canadians are spoiled brats.

We are also spoiled brats compared to people living in jail. But there's no sensibility in comparing our living standards to inhumane conditions.... it proves nothing...

 

[KA1]

Video about resource furniture was excellent. Any store in Toronto/Canada where this type of furniture could be bought?

And for gei.

I survived 3.5 years in "inhumane conditions". It is just what, under the circumstances, you have to get used to or you can afford. As a politician in UK said, yesterday's luxuries are today's necessities. In the 19th century, individuals lived in conditions that we would describe today as horrible. Yet they survied.

 

[urbandreamer]

I enjoyed living in my 150SF suite I had at the Ivanhoe, SRO hotel, DES Vancouver. Only downside was sharing the bathroom with drug addicts etc. But 150SF can easily handle a nice bathroom, kitchen, bedroom etc. It comes down to imagination. I love small spaces designed to look spacious.

 

[Mongo]

Several decades ago, I spent 3+ years living in a single room (plus bath) on the third floor of an old Victorian in Parkdale. It contained a sink, a mini-fridge and a counter with a hot plate. I never measured the total area but going by memory it must have been around 100-120 square feet, including the bathroom. Space was tight, but I managed just fine.

 

[KA1]

Ever since I made my post about living in appx 120 sq.ft of space ( # 211 above) during my youth-- now long gone-- , a few other individuals have also made posts about living in small space during their youth.

Folks, the thread is NOT about our youth, now long gone, and how we lived during that time, but about Bisha Hotel & Residence.

In post # 206, Caturo15 has stated a studio apartment is going for $ 783.00 sq. ft.

Do you think this project is headed for a disaster?

And a note for UCL kc or for anybody else. If and when you can find a store for resource furniture ( post # 214), please make a post here.

 

[neuhaus]

345sqft isnt that unusual these days in major cities. I have spent a great deal of time in asia as well and 345sqft is actually not too bad. However, to be fair, this stuff:
[video=youtube;dAa6bOWB8qY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAa6bOWB8qY[/video]
is very popular and readily available in that part of the world.

That's so cool. I so want that!
Anyone knows if this will be available in Toronto?

 

[Parkdalian]

That 369 square foot residence is well-designed, so I don't really think it would feel horribly small. As taal pointed out, the price is wrong, not the size.

Up until the 1950s, the average amount of living space people had was less than 300 square feet per person:

http://inexpensivehomebuilding.blogspot.com/2009/05/house-square-feet-per-person.html

If we are going to fight sprawl, we need to get beyond the thinking that small = bad, because the inverse means that unnecessary space = good. In other words, don't be a snob about size, be a snob about design - like the Europeans are. Maybe then we'll raise the general level of design in the city.

 

[Big Daddy]

In the 19th century, individuals lived in conditions that we would describe today as horrible. Yet they survied.

So survival is all that is required? Paints a pretty glum picture about the future.

"Come and get a new condo in downtown Toronto, its....efficient and....and close to work and play..and...did I mention efficient?..and........we are willing to bet you will survive!"

Sounds exciting, but dont spend too much time looking for work in marketing.

 

[interested]

I believe in all this talk about small spaces one is failing to recognize one important factor. Canada has a cold climate for many months of the year. Hence, a fair amount of time is spent indoors. In a warmer climate, perhaps one is out more and hence inside space less important.

Recall as well that there is common space in a condo and perhaps this provides additional uncounted space in these 300 sq. ft. or thereabout spaces.

That said, I believe we are talking about 2 extremes. 300 sq. ft is small and while can one can exist and even become accustomed, this is hardly the ideal nor the choice I believe of most individuals.

Those who question why the need for 2000 sq. ft+ may also be correct but again, once one has had room, it is difficult to accomodate to a certain "lack of space".

Environmentally, clearly this is latter scenario is more demanding.

I would hazard that the majority of individuals fall in the middle, can cope with very small, aspire but will not miss very large, and will live in something in the middle quite comfortably.