aetheplace

Hugely subjective and you're right on cultural differences coming into play, as well as access to/existence of common areas. Are bathrooms communal? Are patios/balconies/outdoor spaces? Are there areas to congregate/socialize/eat nearby? This affects how much internal space is needed.

It becomes more of an urban planning, zoning, and building code exercise than one to be solved by developers, who will try to maximize revenue on any given plot when given the chance. The problem for developers (and accessible housing) is margin: unless gov heavily subsidizes low end residential, they will prefer to build more lucrative luxury apartments.

For contentedness, area per occupant would be the best bet. I'd expect an attempt to target median family sizes and working from there. Global household average is around 3.5 people.

Somewhere in the 20-55 square meter range per occupant is likely the sweet spot, depending on the above factors. You can get away with less space with more amenities nearby.

Mexico has "mini-casas" of ~325 square feet to provide housing for their working poor which residents had challenges with. Paris and Hong Kong have tiny apartments around 10 square meters, where residents spend a significant amount of time outside the home. But these were developer limitations, mostly, to cram as many units into a footprint as possible - not taking occupant satisfaction into account...

I don't disagree. It's why I believe attorneys in these organizations should quit as I initially said. And why the populace must demonstrate that this behavior is unacceptable, also as I've said. Law firms aren't coming to save us though for reasons I've outlined above.

The people need to empower men and women of principle and in positions of authority to enact positive change. Our country has a history of leaving activists out to dry with little meaningful public pushback. Right now, no one is rescuing those retaliated against and it's a growing list: https://www.axios.com/2025/03/21/trump-retaliation-revenge-biden-security-clearance

The law doesn't preclude them from representing a client unless they believe their services are being used to further a crime or harass others. The Supreme Court has provided broad coverage to the powers of a President acting in an official capacity.

It is up to each attorney individually to decide where their personal ethics do not align with their professional obligations but this is not an issue per the bar association's professional rules of conduct. However, feel free to read through them and provide counter arguments based on their actual professional code.

It may be, but none of that matters when the so-called "checks and balances" are not being applied expeditiously.

I'm not here to defend their behavior. It's important for anyone that chooses to think critically to try and understand motives. It's easy to armchair quarterback and harder to put yourself in their position and truly evaluate the choice in front of them.

What options are available to them to "fight for the rule of law"? The executive branch, responsible for enforcing laws, is the offending party. The judicial branch moves too slowly to mitigate the significant damages that would be incurred while that fight is taking place. And the legislative branch has implicitly endorsed this behavior by not serving as a check against overreach.

Even if the law firm wins the case, their clientele will have moved on and they will likely have laid off a significant portion of their workforce.

These partners have dedicated their lives to their firms. 3,000+ billable hours each year for their entire careers. I sincerely hope you never have to choose between not only your livelihood, but that of your entire workforce, and your principles because I guarantee you, it won't be an easy decision.

There is no relief in sight unless the populace demonstrates that this is all unacceptable. Why would they choose otherwise?

The reality is these firms are scared after what happened to Perkins Coie (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/).

They were effectively banned from court houses and federal facilities. What use is a law firm that cannot appear in court? Even if they fight it, the revenue lost until something like this is overturned could destroy the firm.

Partners at big law firms have chosen to protect their businesses as is their responsibility. Associates would be also correct to quit.

Some big law firms have made clear that if associates do not want to be involved on a Trump related matter they will be removed from it and will not be forced to. These partners know this is not good for their firms and will cripple future recruitment, but it's this or be out of business due to retaliation.

Until citizens can pressure those in government to uphold the rule of law and create/enforce consequences for unlawful actions, this sort of thing will unfortunately continue.