The wife and I have been accused of being (quote) "a frog in a well to say that any space below 600sqft is unlivable or not conducive for family living" (unquote).
We still find the "accusation" somewhat puzzling (absurd is probably the better word but we try to be nice). While the wife and I have openly acknowledged that we are no fan of shoeboxes, the whole livability/condusiveness debate actually stamped from a letter sent to the ST Forum page, which we had picked up and posted on our blog for discussion purposes. If only Mr/Ms Anonymous 21/5/2012, 1:02AM had bothered to REALLY READ our blog, he/she may not be so quick to credit us with bigotry.
And now that we have the head honcho of one of the largest public-listed property developer (i.e. he should know what he's talking about, especially to the media) making similar comments about shoebox units, we wonder if he will also be deemed as another (paraphrasing) "frog in a well"....
Going back to the facts of the matter, the wife and I feel that in addition to possibly setting a minimum size for apartments, the government should probably legislate on what developers can include as part of the overall size of the apartment. Can one really "live" in spaces dedicated to planter boxes and aircon ledges, which can take up a fair amount of real-estate especially in smaller apartments and which one currently have to pay the same $psf for?
For those who bother to see the whole picture rather than jumping to conclusion:
Reference: "Shoebox units inhuman: CapitaLand CEO" - The Business Times, 26th May 2012