Quote:
Originally Posted by Ned.B
I've always found that prewar building are much better at proportioning bedrooms versus living space than a lot of current residential buildings. Part of this is being driven by the increased depth of many of the buildings that are being built: longer, narrower units are causing more space to be wasted on corridor space. Part of this seems to be a trend, that in luxury developments is favoring very large bedrooms and bathrooms at the expense of living space. I've seen so many unit plans where you could almost ballroom dance in the bathroom, but you are lucky if you can fit a sofa, coffee table, and TV console in the living space...and forget about having a dining table.
That said, with the two units pianowizard posted, I think they are being a bit disingenuous showing queen beds in some of those bedrooms. In the bedroom with the massive column in the 2 bed unit 11, someone would have to basically climb over the bed to get to the nightstand or the closet. I am all for thoughtful efficient living, but here are several places in the plans where an additional 6" or so here and there would make the units significantly more usable.
|
Which post-war?
Post-WWI units tend to have shoeboxes for bedrooms, barely holding a full bed and perhaps a nightstand (forget about larger beds and the possibility of a dresser!), while units built a bit before to a little after WWII tend to have fairly reasonably-sized bedrooms. I will agree that nowadays the trend is towards big bedrooms and tiny living rooms, which IMO is absurd.
Of course a lot of the differences I've seen in Chicago might be tenement vs. non-tenement buildings in terms of their original purpose.
Aaron (Glowrock)