In the UK, the term ‘shoebox apartment’ has negative connotations, evoking the small flats that filled the high-density apartment schemes built in volume prior to the housing market downturn of 2008. Indeed, the Royal Institute of British Architects recently termed speculative housebuilder output ‘shameful shoeboxes’.

There is no direct equivalent in London to the Hong Kong or Singapore shoebox model, however a developer called Pocket Living has pioneered the small-apartment market, with a view to providing affordable homes to first-time buyers wishing to own property in a central location.

Pocket Living units are spacious by the standards of shoebox units in Hong Kong and Singapore, offering one-bedroom apartments of between 380 sq ft and 480 sq ft, while their studio flats are nearer the 250-sq ft to 300-sq ft mark. Pocket Living has advocated smaller sized apartments for childless singles and couples as an affordable solution to London’s housing shortage and won planning permissions in this way. Their solution is one firmly rooted in the market (it is not allocated) and relies on appealing to prospective buyers. They therefore focus on an extremely high level of design, storage and specification which vastly ameliorates the lack of square footage. It is no accident that one of their architects is Japanese and brings the design and space efficiency principles learnt in the more mature Far East markets.

Pocket Living targets occupiers who are priced-out of centrally-located private housing of larger sizes, and who are not eligible for social housing. Schemes are in locations within a 30-minute commute from central London, and within a ten-minute walk of a train or tube station. Buyers are typically singles and couples working in both the public and private sector. There are income thresholds in place at the time of purchase, and restrictions are sometime placed on sale and sub-lettings. In Pocket Living’s Westminster scheme, for example, all sales (and future sales) of flats must be approved by the Council, and sold to a qualified buyer, at not more than 80% of market value.

While these developments have proved extremely popular with buyers, this type of scheme remains a niche in London. Pocket Living has completed around 200 units across half a dozen schemes to date, and remains the only player in its field. Developments of single-tenure, small-unit, high-density blocks of flats are not favoured by UK planning authorities. To work, these schemes need local authority buy-in, and usually achieve this by being promoted as a form of intermediate housing with associated restrictions on ownership and sale.

Pocket Living’s shoebox product is a rare one in London and a response to the need for affordable, intermediate housing, not an open market housing. While well-designed, it is not a prime product as it is in Asia. In central London, it is larger units that command a £ per square foot premium so London’s ‘pockets’ are located further from the city centre (and further from public transport hubs) than shoeboxes in Asia. The Pocket Living model cannot be replicated in prime areas of London, where studios and small flats sell at a discount to larger units on a square foot basis, unless they are part of an affordable housing strategy for planning purposes.

Our analysis of housing supply in London suggests that the biggest shortfalls are in the ‘mainstream’ markets which are more affordable to ordinary working Londoners. There is enough demand, particularly from young, childless, working people to more than justify a substantial increase in the supply of small units, alongside more substantial ones. The ‘shoebox’ epithet has the potential to be reclaimed in London. It is an historic legacy to see small apartments as unhealthily cramped and cynically produced for maximum profit; some pioneer developers have shown that they can be both desirably exquisite – and affordable.

Taken from
Spotlight: Shoebox units - Is smaller smart or is bigger better?