Designing affordable student homes around everyday life
A shared kitchen can sound like an attractive way to bring a building together. But what happens when everyone needs breakfast before a morning lecture? That question from one participant captured the value of Watkin Jones’ second Purpose Lab session: testing ideas for more affordable student accommodation against the routines of the people who would live there.
Working with the Purpose Coalition, Watkin Jones invited participants to consider proposals covering technology, bathrooms, kitchens and communal spaces. These were ideas under exploration. The discussion gave students an opportunity to explain where they saw benefits and where a design might make daily life harder.
A large communal kitchen prompted particularly detailed feedback. Participants raised peak-time demand, fridge and cupboard space, cleanliness and dietary requirements. Several preferred smaller kitchens for everyday use, with a larger communal kitchen available for events and social cooking. That arrangement could support community while allowing residents to make an ordinary meal without coordinating with an entire building.
Shared bathrooms produced a similarly practical debate. Some participants could see a place for them in a more affordable offer. Others valued an en suite or would only consider sharing with clear expectations around privacy, maintenance and cleaning. One participant described the frustration of becoming the person who cleaned a shared bathroom because other residents did not keep it to the same standard.
These contributions showed why the price and the living arrangements need to be considered together. Participants recognised that a lower-cost offer would involve choices. They wanted to understand what those choices meant in practice, including who would take responsibility when a shared space became difficult to use.
Technology was judged through the same everyday lens. Reliable connectivity and straightforward ways to report repairs or manage services had an obvious purpose. More sophisticated features raised questions about cost, ease of use and control. The useful test was whether a feature would solve a problem residents actually experienced.
The discussion also explored how shared spaces could support study, creative work and preparation for employment. Ideas included places to practise presentations or interviews, alongside room for social life and relaxation. Participants highlighted the importance of considering how different activities would work together, including the need for quiet space. A flexible room could have value, provided its uses did not constantly compete.
The session gave Watkin Jones detailed feedback on the relationship between affordability, convenience and community. It also demonstrated how much a design conversation gains from small, ordinary questions. Where will someone store their food? Can they cook when they need to? Who keeps the bathroom clean? Those details help determine whether a student home works long after the first viewing.
