157 differently sized apartments?

Here's a short post (with interesting comments) on an attractive apartment building in Holland which has, we are told, "....157 apartments, each different in size..."

Everyone is different in size? What an odd and it seems to me needlessly expensive way to build. I can see a range of sizes -- from some very small studios to even 3-4 bedrooms, in response to market demand -- but surely 157 different sizes seems a bit excessive? Just a typo?

The comments to the linked post are interesting if one is curious about what people like and why. The building is a simple box and people really respond. It must illustrate some point about breaking up large planes etc. The immediate environment appears quite sterile and it's over-water which is a no-no in Seattle for a host of sound environmental reasons.

UPDATE: There are only 15 different apartment types, which is still quite a few. More data.

UPDATE 2, a comment for the author of the linked-to post, Charles Mudede:

You write: "The building is one of the best architectural expressions (and resolutions) of the philosophical puzzle of the one and the many, the individual and the whole. Silodam achieves an absolute that does not negate the singular."

Could you please expand on what that means? It sounds great (I am trying to be polite and positive) but when I re-read the sentences I wonder whether I get it. Or whether it's just a fancy way to say something simple.

Buildings are not supposed to solve "philosophical puzzles." To go in that direction is to end up with fatuous sterility such as most startchitecture. Buildings such as this one are supposed to provide shelter in a graceful, sustainable and comfortable manner. (This one seems to fail on several counts, as pretty as it is as a precious object.)

But maybe "the one and the many" the same as "the individual and the group?" If you are trying to get at the question of individual identity in a multi-family structure, that's a good and real problem; but it is not a "philosophical puzzle." And how does this facade -- that's all we are given to see -- express and resolve that tension? By having the facade broken up? Is that really a convincing resolution? We don't know enough of the interior layout, the balance of private and group space etc etc. to be able to say how well it succeeds. Most of the comments over at SLOG focussed on the exterior but we both know that that is just a start. Don't get me wrong. It's an attractive enough facade and I like it. But a building is and should must be judged on far more than its surface treatment. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on how this building resolves this puzzle as it is one which, as Seattle becomes more urban, we need to solve as well.

Builders and designers have a hard enough time simply providing good shelter and now you seem to want to have them solve philosophical puzzles, too!

Comments

[Brian Miller]

I know that there are no classical columns or baroque ornamentation or vernacular design cues, which means these apartments MUST be awful and even evil.....

But, I've always LOVED the photographs of this project. What a jazzy idea.