The dilemma of oversized urban houses.
Please visit my web page "Urban Tenets" at https://urbantenets.nl/
************************************************
Yes, they live in oversized houses, as they gradually
reached there, as they wanted to, as they needed it, and as they could afford
it at one point in time. They still continue to live in oversized houses even
if they don’t want to as it becomes unmanageable with age and weakening
abilities, even if they don’t need it as they become empty nesters, and even if
they can’t afford it at another point in time, with drying wherewithal and
acclivitous expenses.
Yes, it’s not that easy to reconfigure something made of
brick and mortar, at the unit scale and at the neighborhood scale. It’s
difficult with architectural rigidity that doesn’t consider modularity in its
inception. It’s harder still with
binding urban design regulations that don’t consider such future
reconfiguration requirements and possibilities in the first place. Even more
difficult with land use restrictions, that don’t consider real-time land-usage
convertibility, and are nearly impossible amidst stringent building bylaws that
are dictated by the idea of dimensions.
Having a choice is fundamental. We are discussing
reconfiguration, from a house to a neighborhood scale, not with the
conventional idea of accommodating more people per unit or per acre, not with
the sole idea of co-location or sharing; but to offer inhabitants a choice that
they deserve, the choice to sequester their operations in the humble Sqft of
area, carved out of their own house, that is still respectable for a home, that
is manageable, and affordable with growing age. If we end up gaining room for more
inhabitants per acre through the reconfiguration of houses and neighborhoods
that is a byproduct.
In any part of the world, it’s counterintuitive even from a
policy perspective, surrounding this phenomenon of living in oversized houses
at a growing age, with household size considerably reduced, when many of them
may not require it or want it but still live there in the absence of choices.
Counterintuitive, as administrations may choose to offer money as a social
welfare gesture only to take some of it back unintentionally in the form of
higher energy bills generated and associated higher property taxes due to those
additional sqft of area which many residents might not require.
While the discussion around retrofitting and circular built
environments is gaining traction, we should further move beyond the idea of
material trade-offs, and, design, plan, and strategies to consider the matter
of mutating requirements and choices and focus on this much-ignored immutable
fact that human spatial needs drastically change with time. Technologically,
reconfiguration and retraction of the buildings and larger built environment is
not impossible, possibly focus has to be on statutory reconfiguration and
policy reengineering.
Author: Anoop Jha
Image: Author
************************************************
[Recent update
Starting 2024, launching urban management, interior design, home decor and commissioned artwork services in the Netherlands, serving local as well as international remote clients.
Please Note, that I am also conducting a FREE 45-minute online individual consultation on your interior design and home decor needs and aspirations if you are in the Netherlands or even internationally. Drop me an email at anoop.jha@gmail.com
Please visit my web page "Urban Tenets" at https://urbantenets.nl/
Instagram interior design page @urbantenets
Instagram fine art and illustration page @urbanoregional
************************************************
#urbanmanagement #urbanplanning #urbandesign #smartcities
#circulareconomy #Rotterdam #Amsterdam #Utrecht #Netherlands #EU #Europe
