The wife and I were expecting a response from the "pro-shoebox" camp and surely enough, there is a rebuttal letter in today's Sunday Times.
Reference: "Cosy shoebox flats foster togetherness"- The Sunday Times, 15th April 2012
While we concede that nobody should judge or dictate someone else's dwelling for child-bearing purposes, we feel that Ms Lo has missed the point somewhat - by "livability" Mr Yap was actually referring to population growth and family (which generally refers to a fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children) bonding.
The counter-argument will be more compelling (in our humble opinion as always) if it comes from a family of 4 people (parents + 2 kids) living in a 463sqft apartment. Then again, we do know of some married couples who call their pets "kids" (and probably treat them better too)...
But for the rest of us who are sitting on the fence with regard to the "livability" debate, below is another opinion piece on why shoebox apartments may not be the "affordable alternative" that many buyers think they are.
.jpg)
Have a great week ahead!
.
2 comments:
Ermmm, I think you have missed her point too. She mentioned there's less housework to do and they do it together happily over the weekend. We are a society of people who lives on the excess but never for sufficiency. If a 463 sq ft place is what a couple needs and they find it livable, no one should be their critique. Of course, everyone has their opinions and if your need is a 1300 sq ft apartment, so be it. There are people who truly want a shoebox apartment for a host of reasons besides investment or the 'prestige' of living in a condo.
Hi Happy shoeboxer,
The wife and I appreciate that there will always be people such as Ms Lo who truly desires to live in a shoebox apartment with her better half and pets. Whether a married couple want to remain childless or decide to raise a big family is also a matter of personal choice.
But if her letter was in response to Mr Yap's question on "livability" of shoebox units (which is how we read it), then we fail to see how her own example goes to debunk Mr Yap's notion that shoeboxes "negate the efforts of government bodies in promoting population growth (which we take it to mean more child births) and family bonding (as opposed to couple bonding)".
Then again, our "England is no that good" so pardon us if we have really missed the point.
Cheers! :)
Post a Comment