Isn’t it a shame that developers can get away with this flagrant production of low quality, anti-social housing simply by giving it the label of being contempory.
Housing is for people not for profit.
Lets hope our fate is better than that of a battery hen, and that we have living spaces that allow us to move around and to express ourselves.
What makes it low quality? Certainly not the architecture.
What makes it anti-social? If anything, it’s more social because it allows more people to live close together.
This is housing for everyday people. Do you realize how expensive real estate is in London? Developments like this allow average income people to be able to live in the city.
..Still nice after years…but it had bigger success three years ago..when me and my colleague were graduaded with actually the same project. We won competition of living in space of modular systems with this idea..
Yes, I’m sure modular living spaces are nothing new though. This is a proposal by a firm, which doesn’t have the constraints of “originality” that often encumbrs thesis projects.
I actually find the idea of low-cost, small spaces with real form and function extremely interesting and MUCH more pertinent than extravagant design exercises, contrary to what Kaye said above. Low-income housing in a necessity now more than ever in today’s world for obvious reasons. Let’s green it up and make it well-designed, not preach idealistic and trite design mantras.
This is a great idea with such a good use of space. I do not see anything antisocial about this and what is all the talk about development for profit or not being able to express oneself…so people can only express themselves in spaces the size of mansions?
This is a very smart use of space with so much light exposure
EddieStarr on 01 Dec 2007 at 3:37 am #
Great Concept, how green is it for real?
Yusuf C on 01 Dec 2007 at 4:34 am #
If its Real ! then its really Gr8 and Innovative, and Creative too !
TSL on 03 Dec 2007 at 11:04 am #
Any interior views available? How “micro” is “micro”?
TSL on 03 Dec 2007 at 11:07 am #
http://www.themicroflatcompany.com/HTML/main_fset.htm
Nevermind… Found it!
Kaye on 04 Dec 2007 at 8:01 am #
Isn’t it a shame that developers can get away with this flagrant production of low quality, anti-social housing simply by giving it the label of being contempory.
Housing is for people not for profit.
Lets hope our fate is better than that of a battery hen, and that we have living spaces that allow us to move around and to express ourselves.
Dave on 04 Dec 2007 at 9:43 am #
I think it’s excellent.
What makes it low quality? Certainly not the architecture.
What makes it anti-social? If anything, it’s more social because it allows more people to live close together.
This is housing for everyday people. Do you realize how expensive real estate is in London? Developments like this allow average income people to be able to live in the city.
sv?tlana milotová on 07 Dec 2007 at 2:34 am #
..Still nice after years…but it had bigger success three years ago..when me and my colleague were graduaded with actually the same project. We won competition of living in space of modular systems with this idea..
With best regards
Sv?tlana Milotová
swjetla@seznam.cz
Thomas Bata University in Zlín
Faculty of Multimedia Communications
Department Of Product Design
3D design
Czech republic
tony on 12 Dec 2007 at 5:50 pm #
Yes, I’m sure modular living spaces are nothing new though. This is a proposal by a firm, which doesn’t have the constraints of “originality” that often encumbrs thesis projects.
I actually find the idea of low-cost, small spaces with real form and function extremely interesting and MUCH more pertinent than extravagant design exercises, contrary to what Kaye said above. Low-income housing in a necessity now more than ever in today’s world for obvious reasons. Let’s green it up and make it well-designed, not preach idealistic and trite design mantras.
alisa on 24 Dec 2007 at 12:02 pm #
This is a great idea with such a good use of space. I do not see anything antisocial about this and what is all the talk about development for profit or not being able to express oneself…so people can only express themselves in spaces the size of mansions?
This is a very smart use of space with so much light exposure