aetheplace

joined 2 years ago
[โ€“] aetheplace@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Hugely subjective and you're right on cultural differences coming into play, as well as access to/existence of common areas. Are bathrooms communal? Are patios/balconies/outdoor spaces? Are there areas to congregate/socialize/eat nearby? This affects how much internal space is needed.

It becomes more of an urban planning, zoning, and building code exercise than one to be solved by developers, who will try to maximize revenue on any given plot when given the chance. The problem for developers (and accessible housing) is margin: unless gov heavily subsidizes low end residential, they will prefer to build more lucrative luxury apartments.

For contentedness, area per occupant would be the best bet. I'd expect an attempt to target median family sizes and working from there. Global household average is around 3.5 people.

Somewhere in the 20-55 square meter range per occupant is likely the sweet spot, depending on the above factors. You can get away with less space with more amenities nearby.

Mexico has "mini-casas" of ~325 square feet to provide housing for their working poor which residents had challenges with. Paris and Hong Kong have tiny apartments around 10 square meters, where residents spend a significant amount of time outside the home. But these were developer limitations, mostly, to cram as many units into a footprint as possible - not taking occupant satisfaction into account...

[โ€“] aetheplace@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The reality is these firms are scared after what happened to Perkins Coie (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/).

They were effectively banned from court houses and federal facilities. What use is a law firm that cannot appear in court? Even if they fight it, the revenue lost until something like this is overturned could destroy the firm.

Partners at big law firms have chosen to protect their businesses as is their responsibility. Associates would be also correct to quit.

Some big law firms have made clear that if associates do not want to be involved on a Trump related matter they will be removed from it and will not be forced to. These partners know this is not good for their firms and will cripple future recruitment, but it's this or be out of business due to retaliation.

Until citizens can pressure those in government to uphold the rule of law and create/enforce consequences for unlawful actions, this sort of thing will unfortunately continue.