This week, we continue to explore the results of our Better Apartments Design Standards study.
One of the factors that had a very high pass rate was maximum room depth. However, given that this standard simply measured whether the depth of habitable space was less than a fixed value (1.5 times the ceiling height, or 9.7m if there is a rear kitchen, see Figure 1), this may not necessarily be a good thing. Smaller apartments are more likely to pass simply because if room dimensions are smaller, apartment depth will naturally be smaller too.
Table 1 categorises apartments by number of bedrooms, whether a rear kitchen was present and if it met the room depth standard. The average indoor area of compliant apartments was then compared to non-compliant ones.
For one bedroom apartments, whether the apartment met the maximum room depth standard or not made little to no difference to the size of habitable space in the apartment. The same applies for two bedroom apartments with a rear kitchen, where average habitable area (bedrooms and living rooms) were on average around 30sqm.
However, two and three bedroom apartments that did not have a rear kitchen and did not meet the maximum room depth standard were on average larger than those that did, by 23.62% (6.14sqm) and 45.49% (18.9sqm).
All three bedroom apartments with a rear kitchen passed the standard, so no comparison can be made.