Hi, I wish you and the "project" designers all the best. My years of experience and training have lead me to my opinion. As an idea, ask rental owners their experience with renters. I know this is an ownership situation.

I do hope that this a new model that works. If the design includes experienced housing professionals, I think it might have better chance of success.

Sometimes people without experience handling money don't make the best choices. But, I'm sure there will be a hands on training course in construction and money management. So, maybe my concerns will help you in decision making; just ignore me.

"As an idea, ask rental owners their experience with renters. I know this is an ownership situation."

These proposals focus primarily on home ownership not rentals.

"If the design includes experienced housing professionals, I think it might have better chance of success."

I would say Mies van der Rohe award winners NLArchitects and Pritzker prize winner Aravena among others are experienced enough and their projects already are a huge success.

"Sometimes people without experience handling money don't make the best choices."

And sometimes all they need is a little encouragement ;-)

Maybe look into the work of Habraken.

This is a really poor idea. If you can't afford a regular house, let's see, let's build you a brand new slum. It's been done, in most countries, and has failed over the centuries. I don't believe the answer is to spend huge amounts of money on huge projects. That has failed too.

You could ask the potential tenants what they want, and then give them the opportunity to work toward it. Each person has to have a private space. Each home needs basic kitchen, basic bathroom, some outdoor space, electricity or gas, sunshine, clean safe water. And security against invasion.And there needs to be some beauty to the place. A place to gather for a few. Please nothing with the word "mega" in it.

Thanks, M

"This is a really poor idea."

No it's not :)

"If you can't afford a regular house, let's see, let's build you a brand new slum. It's been done, in most countries, and has failed over the centuries."

It's not a brand new slum, it's about building homes that future residents can finish by themselves or with experts to their liking, making that their future home is really their home and not some poor housing estate with the most horrible finishings that you're stuck with for eternity.

"I don't believe the answer is to spend huge amounts of money on huge projects. That has failed too."

This is cheaper than traditional building, making it available for people with less money to spend.

"You could ask the potential tenants what they want, and then give them the opportunity to work toward it. Each person has to have a private space. Each home needs basic kitchen, basic bathroom, some outdoor space, electricity or gas, sunshine, clean safe water. And security against invasion."

That's exactly what these projects are about, the people are not moving in in unfinished homes without running water, bathrooms or kitchens but are simply able to choose or to build the bathrooms and kitchens that they want before they move in.

"And there needs to be some beauty to the place. A place to gather for a few. Please nothing with the word "mega" in it."

And the people are able to decide for themselves what they want and consider beautiful and not what some social housing corporation thinks is beautiful within a very limited budget which simply means repetition-repetition-repetition. If anything, it's bringing the personal back from the mega that was and it should be applauded!

And in Belgium we call this strategy 'Design for Change'. It is based on 23 architectural criteria including material, building and neighborhood characteristics and validated by life cycle cost and environmental assessments. Check them in our project summary at www.vub.be/arch/ae-lab/proj....

I am sceptical this concept significantly reduces costs. As most people want to have walls or a tiled bathroom they end up paying a similar amount of money than before. Diminishing property speculation and making incentives for not-for-profit housing schemes is very likely more successful in bringing prices down.

But the idea is that people who don't want walls or tiled bathrooms don't have to pay for them and later get rid of them, they save money. And the people that do want walls and tiles can have exactly the walls and tiles they want and don't have to settle for something that they didn't want but can't afford to change any more or they don't have to pay to demolish the wrong walls and tiles first before installing what they do want. And when people can have exactly the house they envisioned for themselves (without walls or tiles or with the perfect walls and tiles) they are much more likely to keep on happily living where they live and don't speculate etc.

Regarding your last argument, you largely underestimate people's ability to become greedy and opportunistic. Even fully tailor-made homes get "flipped" whenever people see a chance of making a quick buck.

I don't blame them for doing so, but it has economic consequences on a larger scale that most people simply blend out or don't understand. To avoid bubbles and huge private debts tackling speculation is in my opinion necessary. Concepts as described in the article are really just make up.

But there is no real profit to be made then when those flippers will have to buy a normal house that's been fitted to someone else's particular needs or is a generically laid out home, their potential profit margin on the flip will vanish with their new home because it doesnt fit their needs and will have to be altered. People don't sell the house they particularly built for themselves that easily or quickly because they don't see it as a temporary investment but as a home.

Maybe I am wrong; seems like a part of the problem is that we don't see housing as a solvable problem. Airbnb has a proven model that I wish would extend itself to the growing plight of huge older population without the money, strength, or knowledge to remedy their situation.

They often live in large homes when they only need tiny ones. Large families live in tiny homes. If it were possible to match houses with families; both would benefit. Life estate, home stays in elder's name, elder lives out life in same home and there is a growing family for company, shares expenses, shared chores, meals, etc. and eventually large family gets large home.

Of course there are lots of concerns and questions to be answered. If older homes could be maintained over time, saves the home, saves the neighbourhood, saves history, saves cost of destructing in order to build new. It's a thought.

I have an aunt and uncle who live in the same house with their son and his wife and 2 children. This came about following business difficulties for the young family but has been working pretty well and probably will go on, as the grandparents are in their 70s.

These are all professional, educated people, not strictly a situation driven by money, though a minor crisis did get it started. Interesting and fortuitous when a thousands of years old way of living works today.

Same as in China. Interestingly, people in China actually grew tired of it and wanted a bit of pre-fub. The other advantage of pre-fub is that you minimise amount of work a new apartment owner carries out, which can be disturbing to existing owner.

Developers have been doing this in Poland for decades. Nothing new..sorry.