Millennials don't need living rooms, says leading architect

[fru-gal]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/25/millennials-dont-need-living-rooms-says-leading-architect-says/

Quote

"Those who are now making the hard choice between paying 80 per cent of their income on a central flat versus commuting from afar, will in the liberalized future appreciate new options and perhaps choose to pay only 60 per cent for a smaller but more central flat. 

Lol. Sometimes I can't tell if what I am reading is real or parody...😡.

Edited April 26, 2018 by fru-gal

[winkie]

Prehaps they want people to live at work....to pay for the bed at night?

[Riedquat]

12 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

Lol. Sometimes I can't tell if what I am reading is real or parody...😡.

It does look rather like the Daily Mash.

[Riedquat]

[fru-gal]

When I was a growing up I remember Tomorrow's World saying that in the future, everyone would have a lot more free time and quality of life would be better. Instead we have this liberalised dystopian future where people will have to work 24 hours a day to pay all their income for a room the size of a cardboard box, so basically the return of slavery. Ironically the West is becoming more like Asia (all the bad aspects) whilst Asia gets more like the West.

[Philby1]

Hope the Telegraph are going to run a story on how leading architects don't need living rooms. How long do we have to endure this rubbish until the pendulum swings the other way. 

[Si1]

42 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

When I was a growing up I remember Tomorrow's World saying that in the future, everyone would have a lot more free time and quality of life would be better. 

It is, for the adults of the time who were watching tomorrow's world.

[Si1]

 

 

It actually goes on to say about 3 minutes in that the internet will lead people waste all their money on gadgets and not afford houses like them savvy boomers.

[fru-gal]

9 minutes ago, Si1 said:

 

 

It actually goes on to say about 3 minutes in that the internet will lead people waste all their money on gadgets and not afford houses like them savvy boomers.

I feel sad watching this. 1994...good times.

[zugzwang]

1 hour ago, Philby1 said:

Hope the Telegraph are going to run a story on how leading architects don't need living rooms. How long do we have to endure this rubbish until the pendulum swings the other way. 

How many houses complete with living rooms does this ***** own?

[Bear Hug]

80% of income for a small flat or 60% for a very small flat.  Wonderful options.  Would you like to be run over by a bus or a train?  Do you prefer getting cancer or AIDs?

Agree with other posters, everything reads like Daily Mash these days.

[doomed]

They probably don,t need electricity or hot water but it would sure be nice.

[jackwhiteisgod]

To be fair to Patrick, he's a free market libertarian. He's also advocated scrapping all planning laws and allowing construction where it's needed (including on Hyde park). As he says, we don't have a crisis in cars, because there is a functional market. Also he doesn't think his staff who probably commute in from zone whatever or even outside the city, should be subsidising "unproductive" people living in the middle of the city. And tbh I have a modicum of sympathy with that view. 

The fact is that people are more productive when they are well connected, so, shouldn't shouldn't the most productive people get a chance to be more connected? 

[winkie]

21 minutes ago, jackwhiteisgod said:

To be fair to Patrick, he's a free market libertarian. He's also advocated scrapping all planning laws and allowing construction where it's needed (including on Hyde park). As he says, we don't have a crisis in cars, because there is a functional market. Also he doesn't think his staff who probably commute in from zone whatever or even outside the city, should be subsidising "unproductive" people living in the middle of the city. And tbh I have a modicum of sympathy with that view. 

The fact is that people are more productive when they are well connected, so, shouldn't shouldn't the most productive people get a chance to be more connected? 

Define 'productive'.........is someone only productive if they do a job they are paid money for......would someone paid more necessarily be more productive.....are some of the most productive paid the least?....

Would whole areas of so called 'productive people' be gettoised......a place few would wish to enter, a very unhealthy place to be.....

Off to finish painting my picture.

Edited April 26, 2018 by winkie

[Ah-so]

It sounds like he has described a studio flat. Far better than a 7-bed HMO.

[zugzwang]

22 minutes ago, jackwhiteisgod said:

To be fair to Patrick, he's a free market libertarian. He's also advocated scrapping all planning laws and allowing construction where it's needed (including on Hyde park). As he says, we don't have a crisis in cars, because there is a functional market. Also he doesn't think his staff who probably commute in from zone whatever or even outside the city, should be subsidising "unproductive" people living in the middle of the city. And tbh I have a modicum of sympathy with that view. 

The fact is that people are more productive when they are well connected, so, shouldn't shouldn't the most productive people get a chance to be more connected? 

We tried free market capitalism already. It failed catastrophically in 2008 and the economy's been on life-support ever since.

Surely, even halfwit architects must be aware of this?

[jackwhiteisgod]

5 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

We tried free market capitalism already. It failed catastrophically in 2008 and the economy's been on life-support ever since.

Surely, even halfwit architects must be aware of this?

Hmmm, not really. We've tried crony capitalism. When private banks can issue currency, that is not free market. Somewhere on this forum there's a list of all the government schemes in housing, mostly making it worse, and it's like a hundred things 

[jackwhiteisgod]

17 minutes ago, winkie said:

Define 'productive'.........is someone only productive if they do a job they are paid money for......would someone paid more necessarily be more productive.....are some of the most productive paid the least?....

Would whole areas of so called 'productive people' be gettoised......a place few would wish to enter, a very unhealthy place to be.....

Off to finish painting my picture.

Well it's a good question but I suppose the point is, shouldn't we organise society to be more productive? That would mean removing the barriers to people being more connected and so, more productive. More product = more wealth. The tax and benefit system can be used to spread the wealth around which is a different matter 

[Scunnered]

I'd be very interested to see what his house looks like. I'm guessing it's not a bedsit.

[winkie]

28 minutes ago, jackwhiteisgod said:

Well it's a good question but I suppose the point is, shouldn't we organise society to be more productive? That would mean removing the barriers to people being more connected and so, more productive. More product = more wealth. The tax and benefit system can be used to spread the wealth around which is a different matter 

You still haven't said what beng productive is?......more product, is that making a cake? I suppose by making or doing something saves money, saving money means more wealth, looking after your own children instead of paying others to do it, very productive.......removing barriers, being more connected is a good thing, but at the moment more barriers seem to be put in place, for example protectionism. Many things could be made to be easier to do, but barriers have been put in place, like certain expensive qualifications required when many jobs could be done without them, a test or a short training course enough.....it is the competency of the people that counts not a piece of useless expensive unecessary paper......anyway there are not enough jobs or companies to pay all people to do meaningful work....big business is trying to cut down on their most expensive costs, their people......profits not people, therefore people have no means to buy their products.

The people with the money to spend often do not spend it, they already have a bed to sleep in and a chair to sit on......are they being productive?

Edited April 26, 2018 by winkie

[Noallegiance]

40 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

We tried free market capitalism already.

You must be having an off day.

[cashinmattress]

Patrik Schumacher is the Katie Hopkins of architecture. Best to ignore him.

[Wayward]

3 hours ago, Philby1 said:

Hope the Telegraph are going to run a story on how leading architects don't need living rooms. How long do we have to endure this rubbish until the pendulum swings the other way. 

Exactly...this architect will be comfortably housed with adequate parking and living space...all the things he denies those saps that have no option but to live in his miserable designs. How does he feel knowing his work creates so much misery. 

[Ah-so]

1 hour ago, Wayward said:

Exactly...this architect will be comfortably housed with adequate parking and living space...all the things he denies those saps that have no option but to live in his miserable designs. How does he feel knowing his work creates so much misery. 

But he probably didn't in his 20s. He might well have lived in a bedsit in central London. 

[guest_northshore]

More smaller homes = higher density = increased agglomeration effects = higher rental values = higher land rents = higher land prices = higher home prices = More smaller homes...

But as an architect I'm sure he knows this. Unless he's from the ASI school of special-interest-free-market-libertarianism.