As small as 13 sq metres: are these the worst new flats in Britain?

theguardian.com

12 points·jrwan··6 comments

London is not entirely new to this kind of - let's call it - microhousing, an old article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210436/Is-smallest-...

In Italy since at least 1975 the minimum surface of anything that can be called "flat" (i.e. that can be registered as a place to live in, and for a single person) is 28 sq. meters, and nowadays in most cities the minimum has been set to more.

Surprised no mention of fire safety after Grenfell Tower disaster, in such a small living space it seems inevitable that a few residents would make an error or mistake that would cause a fire.

I think the number of people is a very minor aspect of fire safety compared to the actual construction of the building. At least if they aren't sharing living areas.

Well that wasn't the issue. The issue was unsafe cladding and inadequate fire safety systems.

The fire should have been contained within the flat. Instead, the flammable cladding encasing exterior for "aesthetic reasons" went up like a wick and burnt the whole building into a shell.

Given the same conditions but larger apartments, the cladding could have still ignited and destroyed the whole building.

The insult to the tragedy was that the safer, non-flammable cladding cost more. It was a social (or housing association) building.

this article reeks of entitlement

Because it says living in a 12 ft by 12 ft apartment is almost inhumane? Take 5 medium steps, that as much as you can walk in your "home" before hitting the wall.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com