If you had to pick one, would you say that it's more important for new housing to be affordable or to be beautiful? Many of you are probably thinking that it should be both. And while it is true that good and thoughtful design doesn't always need to be more expensive, nice things do often cost money. And sometimes, doing as little as humanly possible costs even more money.

Let's consider two development scenarios. In scenario A, the developer has well-oiled machine that delivers relatively affordable, but identical rental housing all across the country. The buildings are functional and there's virtually no vacancy, but the architecture is undoubtedly bland and it certainly doesn't respond to its local context. Standardization and efficiency trumps all, including aesthetics.

In scenario B, the developer is similarly building new rental housing, but she instead invests heavily in custom designs. Each building is unique. And each building goes through a "design review panel", after which extensive changes are made in order to ensure that the design is truly beautiful and that it responds to its local context. As a result, there is a real price premium to these homes.

These are perhaps extreme examples. Usually, the goal is some sort of balance between affordability and beauty. But I do think it speaks to some of the tensions that our industry faces. So if you had to choose one, which one would it be? What kind of new homes do our cities really need more of? And if your answer is scenario B, does it change after a certain premium?

This afternoon my friend Gabriel, of Gabriel Fain Architects, sent me the work of APOLLO Architects & Associates. They are based in Japan and South Korea. Here is a preview of some of their “private houses”:

There is a lot that I love about these homes. 

I love their simplicity. Look at this handrail detail. Nothing more than what is absolutely necessary.

I love their modesty. Many of the above homes hover around 150 square meters and many of them are much much smaller. 

I love that each project’s description starts by talking about the owners and the site conditions, signaling that each home represents an individual response tailored to both the occupants and the context.

And I love that many of these homes have been built on unthinkably small parcels of land in dense urban settings; parcels that would be dismissed as entirely useless in other parts of the world. 

The site area for this home is 46.53 square meters and the building’s footprint is 36.93 square meters.

Of course the Japanese housing market is a unique place. It’s worth pointing that out. 

But as I browsed through what are effectively custom single family homes, I couldn’t help but be reminded that there’s a fine line between need and want.

Small can be very beautiful. But small is also subjective.

If you had to pick one, would you say that it's more important for new housing to be affordable or to be beautiful? Many of you are probably thinking that it should be both. And while it is true that good and thoughtful design doesn't always need to be more expensive, nice things do often cost money. And sometimes, doing as little as humanly possible costs even more money.

Let's consider two development scenarios. In scenario A, the developer has well-oiled machine that delivers relatively affordable, but identical rental housing all across the country. The buildings are functional and there's virtually no vacancy, but the architecture is undoubtedly bland and it certainly doesn't respond to its local context. Standardization and efficiency trumps all, including aesthetics.

In scenario B, the developer is similarly building new rental housing, but she instead invests heavily in custom designs. Each building is unique. And each building goes through a "design review panel", after which extensive changes are made in order to ensure that the design is truly beautiful and that it responds to its local context. As a result, there is a real price premium to these homes.

These are perhaps extreme examples. Usually, the goal is some sort of balance between affordability and beauty. But I do think it speaks to some of the tensions that our industry faces. So if you had to choose one, which one would it be? What kind of new homes do our cities really need more of? And if your answer is scenario B, does it change after a certain premium?

This afternoon my friend Gabriel, of Gabriel Fain Architects, sent me the work of APOLLO Architects & Associates. They are based in Japan and South Korea. Here is a preview of some of their “private houses”:

There is a lot that I love about these homes. 

I love their simplicity. Look at this handrail detail. Nothing more than what is absolutely necessary.

I love their modesty. Many of the above homes hover around 150 square meters and many of them are much much smaller. 

I love that each project’s description starts by talking about the owners and the site conditions, signaling that each home represents an individual response tailored to both the occupants and the context.

And I love that many of these homes have been built on unthinkably small parcels of land in dense urban settings; parcels that would be dismissed as entirely useless in other parts of the world. 

The site area for this home is 46.53 square meters and the building’s footprint is 36.93 square meters.

Of course the Japanese housing market is a unique place. It’s worth pointing that out. 

But as I browsed through what are effectively custom single family homes, I couldn’t help but be reminded that there’s a fine line between need and want.

Small can be very beautiful. But small is also subjective.