There is a symbolic example of your “nano-apartment,” called Goshitel. It is the cheapest form of rent, with about the area of 3.3 meter squared. The term “Goshi” is attached because it has been used by people who decided to spend every minute studying for the Goshi exam and become the public governor, the most sustainable job in the country.
Therefore the first reason people need the nano apartment is to have the longest possible time while not working for their reasons: people who refused work. Well, the second reason is to just save some money: people who work. The third reason is that they don’t have money to escape: people who can’t work, like the homeless.
I’ve seen some documentaries about these Goshitels and I think you can easily find one with that term. As Goshitel has a poor image, those are more focused on the difficulties of one and people inside. But as I described, it has a diverse demographic and the documentaries only show portions of it. Things to note is that it has an overall negative image of dirty facilities and depressed people. That can be why nano apartment was not spread outside Korea to America.
Back to your question, I suspect some reasons that nano-apartments does not exist in the US while more frequent in Korea:
Korea has much smaller land, compared to the US.The common housing form of Korean is an apartment(or “advanced apartment” with at least 10 floors. It is not exactly the one of America), while Americans usually live in detached houses. The degree of viewing a nano-apartment can differ a lot. -Counterargument: Both have extremely populous cities, where the land is always in shortage.
The US has more restrictions on the housing structures. …but I know nothing
The group of “Goshi” students would have been the obvious demand for such nano apartments in Korea. It would have brought proper development over decades. In the US, there are no exams that can be comparable to Goshi—that can guarantee the rest of one’s life, even during economic depressions. The exam also required students to attend prep classes, mostly in the expansive and populous Seoul area.
Maybe the lifestyles of homeless people are different in America and Korea.
One more:
I just sparked some thoughts here and it may be insufficient to bring a complete concept. I realized explaining Korean stuff to America and bringing American stuff to Korea are extra time consuming, as you don’t know “Goshi″ and I don’t know housing in New York. But I enjoyed comparing cultural differences and hope you ask more for confusing parts.
Thanks for your answer! I had an idea that there’s more very small housing in Asia, but never got such a clear exposition to a clear example. I’m not from the US, but from Europe, but they’re fairly similar culturally (although I suspect Europe might have even stronger housing regulations than the US).
After some of the comments here, I’ve settled on a mixture of “it’s the regulations” and “not *that* many people want it, but it’s still available for the ones who do”. I think that’s because the need for dense housing during the industrial revolution was a long time ago, and the majority of people don’t need/want nano-apartments, so they don’t care/think about the possibility of very dense housing.
My guess would be that it’s different in Asia because there industrial development is much younger, and the population is more used to “poor” and less luxurious living conditions.
My guess would be that it’s different in Asia because there industrial development is much younger, and the population is more used to “poor” and less luxurious living conditions.
You suspects there is an association between “industrial development” and “living conditions.” I can start from here.
By the way, thanks for reply! My comment below contains mainly American evidences, so I hope this can fit to the situation of Europe.
For people who want to live in city, but are poor, you brought up nano-apartment to fulfill the needs and wondered why it is not frequent. I thought about this again, and thought “wait, isn’t that why slums exist?” The existence of slums may explain why there was no demand for nano-apartment. So I started from it, then I looked back at the progressive era(1896-1916) and how Jacob Riis wrote “how the other half lives” to reveal the poor situation of tenements. These tenements are the actual example of a nano-apartment in New York city, with the overpopulation and shortage of housing. Basic history of tenements are well described in Wikipedia, but it doesn’t describe the current situation of tenements except the tenement museum part. Wikipedia also says tenements are not necessarily slums and By this time I don’t think any more people will choose to live in slums. According to this blog, I learned slum is not a thing anymore. Oh.
I tried to look up tenement development over time, and at history.com, I found FDR’s First House project, which included slum-clearing and building public housing. I looked up a New York public housing site and it seemed like a good replacement for tenements.
I’ve settled on a mixture of “it’s the regulations” and “not *that* many people want it, but it’s still available for the ones who do”.
So I can credit government efforts to replace nano-apartment and this reasonably explains why it is not popular, even in populous cities. There are options to choose other than a nano-apartment. It is important to point out that there is no necessity, distinctive from just preference.
In Korea, I have another interpretation. It is true Industrial development was recent, starting from the 60s. But that brought urbanization late, too. When my mom was young, she lived in a detached house in Gangnam-gu, now the most populous and expensive area in entire Korea. Therefore by the time the “K-tenement” was developing, I guess Modern technology and mindset did not make it too inferior to make the government intervene. Even in the final stage of industrialization, I don’t think Goshitel will go away.
But I think Korean population is obviously used to small apartments, for another reason. Again, Korea is small. South Korea is even smaller. That’s why high/low rise buildings are the default in Korea. I hope you can see it is not necessarily “‘poor’ and less luxurious living conditions” but just small and dense. People can have ideal housing after suburbanization, but urban houses will still be small and become old.
Lastly, I want to caution you about generalizing to Asia, because it is really large and developments are still vigorous in many countries. I think the situation of Korea differs a lot from those of even China and Japan, as they went through industrialization in different time periods. Southeastern Asia? I have no clue. Media has portrayed Southeastern Asia as underdeveloped countries for a long time but haven’t updated their developments and improvements.
p.s. Last Sunday I wanted to write history essays to prepare for my exam, but in a less wrong-way. I did not want to write just a summary of contents, so I appreciate you asking this question. I feel I wrote something not a summary:)
Well, I know it exists. At least in Korea.
There is a symbolic example of your “nano-apartment,” called Goshitel. It is the cheapest form of rent, with about the area of 3.3 meter squared. The term “Goshi” is attached because it has been used by people who decided to spend every minute studying for the Goshi exam and become the public governor, the most sustainable job in the country.
Therefore the first reason people need the nano apartment is to have the longest possible time while not working for their reasons: people who refused work. Well, the second reason is to just save some money: people who work. The third reason is that they don’t have money to escape: people who can’t work, like the homeless.
I’ve seen some documentaries about these Goshitels and I think you can easily find one with that term. As Goshitel has a poor image, those are more focused on the difficulties of one and people inside. But as I described, it has a diverse demographic and the documentaries only show portions of it. Things to note is that it has an overall negative image of dirty facilities and depressed people. That can be why nano apartment was not spread outside Korea to America.
Back to your question, I suspect some reasons that nano-apartments does not exist in the US while more frequent in Korea:
Korea has much smaller land, compared to the US.The common housing form of Korean is an apartment(or “advanced apartment” with at least 10 floors. It is not exactly the one of America), while Americans usually live in detached houses. The degree of viewing a nano-apartment can differ a lot. -Counterargument: Both have extremely populous cities, where the land is always in shortage.
The US has more restrictions on the housing structures. …but I know nothing
The group of “Goshi” students would have been the obvious demand for such nano apartments in Korea. It would have brought proper development over decades. In the US, there are no exams that can be comparable to Goshi—that can guarantee the rest of one’s life, even during economic depressions. The exam also required students to attend prep classes, mostly in the expansive and populous Seoul area.
Maybe the lifestyles of homeless people are different in America and Korea.
One more:
I just sparked some thoughts here and it may be insufficient to bring a complete concept. I realized explaining Korean stuff to America and bringing American stuff to Korea are extra time consuming, as you don’t know “Goshi″ and I don’t know housing in New York. But I enjoyed comparing cultural differences and hope you ask more for confusing parts.
Thanks for your answer! I had an idea that there’s more very small housing in Asia, but never got such a clear exposition to a clear example. I’m not from the US, but from Europe, but they’re fairly similar culturally (although I suspect Europe might have even stronger housing regulations than the US).
After some of the comments here, I’ve settled on a mixture of “it’s the regulations” and “not *that* many people want it, but it’s still available for the ones who do”. I think that’s because the need for dense housing during the industrial revolution was a long time ago, and the majority of people don’t need/want nano-apartments, so they don’t care/think about the possibility of very dense housing.
My guess would be that it’s different in Asia because there industrial development is much younger, and the population is more used to “poor” and less luxurious living conditions.
Do you think that’s getting at the truth?
You suspects there is an association between “industrial development” and “living conditions.” I can start from here.
By the way, thanks for reply! My comment below contains mainly American evidences, so I hope this can fit to the situation of Europe.
For people who want to live in city, but are poor, you brought up nano-apartment to fulfill the needs and wondered why it is not frequent. I thought about this again, and thought “wait, isn’t that why slums exist?” The existence of slums may explain why there was no demand for nano-apartment. So I started from it, then I looked back at the progressive era(1896-1916) and how Jacob Riis wrote “how the other half lives” to reveal the poor situation of tenements. These tenements are the actual example of a nano-apartment in New York city, with the overpopulation and shortage of housing. Basic history of tenements are well described in Wikipedia, but it doesn’t describe the current situation of tenements except the tenement museum part. Wikipedia also says tenements are not necessarily slums and By this time I don’t think any more people will choose to live in slums. According to this blog, I learned slum is not a thing anymore. Oh.
I tried to look up tenement development over time, and at history.com, I found FDR’s First House project, which included slum-clearing and building public housing. I looked up a New York public housing site and it seemed like a good replacement for tenements.
So I can credit government efforts to replace nano-apartment and this reasonably explains why it is not popular, even in populous cities. There are options to choose other than a nano-apartment. It is important to point out that there is no necessity, distinctive from just preference.
In Korea, I have another interpretation. It is true Industrial development was recent, starting from the 60s. But that brought urbanization late, too. When my mom was young, she lived in a detached house in Gangnam-gu, now the most populous and expensive area in entire Korea. Therefore by the time the “K-tenement” was developing, I guess Modern technology and mindset did not make it too inferior to make the government intervene. Even in the final stage of industrialization, I don’t think Goshitel will go away.
But I think Korean population is obviously used to small apartments, for another reason. Again, Korea is small. South Korea is even smaller. That’s why high/low rise buildings are the default in Korea. I hope you can see it is not necessarily “‘poor’ and less luxurious living conditions” but just small and dense. People can have ideal housing after suburbanization, but urban houses will still be small and become old.
Lastly, I want to caution you about generalizing to Asia, because it is really large and developments are still vigorous in many countries. I think the situation of Korea differs a lot from those of even China and Japan, as they went through industrialization in different time periods. Southeastern Asia? I have no clue. Media has portrayed Southeastern Asia as underdeveloped countries for a long time but haven’t updated their developments and improvements.
p.s. Last Sunday I wanted to write history essays to prepare for my exam, but in a less wrong-way. I did not want to write just a summary of contents, so I appreciate you asking this question. I feel I wrote something not a summary:)