I’m not entirely convinced that all the present supermarket proposals are going to come off. We’re going to go from the current situation of 1 large supermarket (Chaffers New World) in the city, and 2 smaller metro style stores (NW Willis and Railway); to several stores (4 Square Tory St announced, Basin Reserve and John St proposed, others also rumoured to be on their way. I know that Progressive and FoodStuffs like to keep their war on each other under firm control – but they’ll not be likely to open so many stores that they lose control and lose profit margin.

Yes, but they’re not turning small one-person flats into large one-person flats. The demographics for social housing has changed: in the 60s they were aimed at single, male workers; now they have to house whole families. Thus, some bedsits are being combined into multi-bedroom family units where feasible, but a lot of bedsits and one-bedders will remain, but they will be upgraded without necessarily getting larger.

“I don’t think you can really confabulate two completely different things: houses for living in and hotel rooms for staying a night or two in.”

Currently, the District Plan has no distinction. Also, it’s very hard to stop a building owner converting hotel rooms to flats, and there’s a whole range of “serviced apartments”, “hostels”, “boarding houses” and “medium-term accommodation” that blurs the line.

It’s worth pointing out that there are no doubt thousands of adults in Wellington living in bedrooms much smaller than the proposed London “minimum”. Traditional city-fringe villas had plenty of small bedrooms for children (or sometimes servants), and now that they’ve become flats, there are students and young professionals living in those little rooms. Would they prefer bigger rooms? No doubt. Would they pay the extra $30 or so a week for the privilege? Probably not.

But I don’t live in a few square metres: I live in several square kilometers. It was interesting to read about Brian Eno’s concept of “the Big Here”: to some people, “here” is defined by their own four walls, but for others, “here” encompasses their whole neighbourhood or the whole city.

Homes used to be very small, and “public houses” provided shared living spaces that enabled people to gather outside the narrow boundaries of their “home”. Post-war affluence, suburban sprawl and the emphasis on the nuclear family helped kill that, but now there are a range of pubs, cafes and other spaces where people can gather, and a greater diversity of household types that don’t feel the need for a full kitchen, a bath, a dining table or a place to store family heirlooms. You don’t need 50 sq m for a studio with a queen sized bed, and people in other cultures have been living in much smaller places for generations. Attitude and expectations have a lot to do with it, and they can change.

Having said that, design has a lot to do with it too. I wouldn’t like to see minimum sizes, but I would like to see thresholds for apartment size, below which it is a Restricted (Discretionary) activity with a design guide. It’s pretty hard to screw up a 50 sq m 1 bedroom apartment (though of course, some manage to). But a 20 sq m studio needs good light, outlook, storage, ceiling height, space planning and shared amenities if it’s going to be liveable.

- These are proposed guidelines for “all homes developed with public funding”, not for all housing. That implies they are for social housing, and thus for people with little choice about where they live, who deserve some protection from being shoved into places too small for their particular needs. Should people who have some choice be told that a small place is bad for them, even if they don’t think so themselves?

- The smallest option is for “1 bedroom 2 people”. Should people who live alone be able to choose a smaller flat if they want? Going from 50 sq m to a 25 sq m bedsit will obviously reduce one’s amenity, but if one saves $100 or so a week in rent, would that make up for it?

- Currently, Wellington’s rules for “residential” amenity cover owner/occupiers, private renters, social housing renters, student hostels, backpackers, apartment hotels and hotels. I’ve stayed in hotel rooms of 12 sq m or so that feel perfectly roomy, and it would seem ridiculous to mandate 50 sq m as the minimum size for a hotel or hostel room. Are there examples of regulations that simply and enforceably maintain distinctions between different kinds of accommodation, to stop developers sneakily turning a “hotel” into aparments after the fact?