Balcony Space in Phnom Penh Apartment Plans

The comparison below uses seven balconies across three Phnom Penh projects where the published drawing provides enough geometry to reproduce the measurement rather than estimate it from furniture graphics. Urban Village Phase II supplies dimension strings on the plans, UC88 shows dimensions on the individual layout, and the G.A.T.O Tower rows combine a labelled balcony area with the labelled continuous side of the rectangular strip; the resulting depth is therefore marked “≈”. These are plan dimensions, not an as-built survey. Urban Village’s own sheets expressly describe the drawings as design suggestions that may not represent the handover standard.

The furniture stays unchanged from one plan to the next. IKEA lists the SUNDSÖ table at 65 × 65 cm and each open folding chair at 43 × 46 cm. For this test the two chairs sit on adjacent sides of the table, producing a 1.11 × 1.11 m outer object footprint. The complete arrangement may be rotated by 90 degrees, but the chairs are not folded, moved to different sides or exchanged for a smaller model. That makes the exercise consistent; it does not turn the furniture into an ergonomic rule.

Six of the seven balconies can contain that footprint within the drawn balcony boundary. Urban Village Phase II E/1B-A is the exception: its balcony is about 3.30 m long but only 0.95 m deep, so a 1.11 m square footprint cannot fit even though the balcony is visually long. The main balcony on Type A1 in the same development measures about 3.60 × 1.20 m and clears the same test. The change in outcome comes from a dimension on the drawing, not from a judgement about which layout “looks” more spacious.

Area and depth can also move in different directions. G.A.T.O 2BR G/N publishes a 9.30 sqm balcony whose rectangular strip works out to roughly 1.20 m deep, while Urban Village A2’s main balcony is much smaller at about 4.80 sqm but around 1.50 m deep. Both pass the object-footprint test, yet they leave different kinds of residual space around it. A larger number of square metres can be created by extending a balcony sideways rather than making it deeper.

A pass should therefore be read narrowly: the fixed objects fit inside the geometry shown on the plan. The 1.11 × 1.11 m footprint does not include room to pull a chair back, walk behind a seated person or clear a door whose movement is not drawn. A plan can answer an object-placement question without answering the more important lived question of whether two people will actually enjoy using the balcony. That requires the next checks: door operation, fixed obstructions, as-built dimensions and the building’s rules.

Fixed benchmark: a 65 × 65 cm table with two open 43 × 46 cm chairs on adjacent sides, giving a 1.11 × 1.11 m outer footprint. No extra clearance for circulation or pulling a chair back is included.

Balcony area is a two-dimensional total, while most real objects impose limits in two separate directions. That distinction sounds obvious until two plans both advertise several square metres of outdoor space. A long strip can accumulate area quickly, yet a table-and-chair arrangement still needs enough depth as well as enough length. For a buying decision, the useful question is not whether every square metre can be assigned a score, but whether the continuous piece of floor supports the thing you intend to put there.

Across the seven measured balcony examples, area runs from roughly 3.14 to 9.30 sqm and depth from 0.95 to 1.50 m. Those numbers are not a Phnom Penh market average and should not be presented as one. Their value is comparative: G.A.T.O 2BR G/N offers nearly twice the balcony area of Urban Village A2, yet the rectangular balcony strip is about 30 cm shallower. More area and more depth are clearly not the same variable.

The 1.11 m dimension used in this page is also not a recommended minimum. It comes directly from one fixed arrangement: a 65 cm table plus the 46 cm chair depth on adjacent sides. Choose a different table, put the chairs opposite one another, or require a circulation lane and the result changes. The method matters because it holds the object constant, not because 1.11 m has any special architectural status.

Irregular shapes make the distinction sharper. An L-shaped balcony, a taper or a recess can contain plenty of floor area while offering a much smaller uninterrupted rectangle. A column may occupy little area in absolute terms but still break the only place where a table can sit. The same logic applies to a technical projection shown on the drawing: its effect depends on where it is, not simply on how many square centimetres it covers.

When reading a plan, depth at the intended furniture zone is therefore more informative than a balcony label on its own. The next questions are the length of uninterrupted floor and any fixed element cutting into that zone; total area comes after those. If the broader issue is whether a corner or internal condo unit in Phnom Penh makes better use of its interior, that belongs to the apartment-layout comparison, not this balcony test. Here, geometry is useful precisely because it stays tied to a defined use, not a generic “bigger is better” claim.

Cambodian law answers one part of the question quite clearly. Article 9 of Sub-Decree No. 126 says that a balcony directly related to a private unit and privately used is treated as integrated into that private unit, provided it does not affect another private unit or a common area. That is a rule about the boundary of a private unit in a co-owned building. It is not a universal measurement standard for every developer’s advertised “unit size,” net area, gross area or price-per-square-metre denominator.

The same sub-decree helps explain why the project documents matter. The registration procedure refers to a detailed architectural plan, and the private-unit register and ownership certificate record the unit’s size. Legal boundary, architectural documentation and a marketing number are therefore connected but distinct. Article 9 does not support the shortcut of subtracting a measured balcony from an advertised area and calling the remainder “interior area.”

Live Phnom Penh listings show how easily the terminology can blur. IPS currently lists a four-bedroom Picasso City Garden unit at 175.43 sqm net and 233.15 sqm gross while separately describing a large balcony. Its Urban Village Phase II listing gives 56 sqm net, 74 sqm gross and a private balcony. These examples establish that more than one area figure is routinely published for balcony apartments; they do not define what either label includes in every project.

A project document from Odom Living is more instructive because it actually states a measurement convention. The 1A fact sheet says its net calculation follows the perimeter red line, while individual room areas are approximate usable-space figures excluding walls and extrusions, so the room figures add up to less than the net total. It also directs the buyer to the unit dimensions or drawings supplied with the SPA. That should not be generalised into a Cambodian definition of “net.” It shows why the definition has to travel with the specific number.

This becomes material as soon as price per sqm enters the comparison. Two apartments can both be advertised as 100 sqm while using different measurement boundaries, treatment of walls or treatment of balcony space. Dividing price by the headline number may then compare unlike denominators. Unless the underlying area definition is known, there is no defensible automatic conversion from one project’s net or gross figure to another’s.

At reservation and contract stage, the useful evidence is the area schedule, dimensioned plan and SPA language that states what the quoted area means. Those documents can establish which boundary is being sold and which number controls the commercial calculation. A privately owned balcony may legally sit within the private unit and still have a very different practical value from enclosed living space. Ownership status and measurement basis answer different questions, and keeping them separate prevents a surprisingly common pricing mistake.

A rectangular balcony stops behaving like a clean rectangle once a door path, column or technical projection cuts into the only useful zone. The important quantity is not simply the obstruction’s area. Location matters more: a narrow column at the far edge may be irrelevant to the furniture footprint, while the same column in the middle of a shallow balcony can split the usable rectangle into two pieces that are each too small.

Doors require an especially strict reading of the drawing. If a plan clearly shows a hinged leaf and its swing, that swept zone can be treated as an interference. If the drawing shows only an opening or a glazed line without an unambiguous movement path, the swing should not be invented. That is why the comparison table does not manufacture door conflicts for plans that do not document one; a missing swing symbol is not evidence that the real door needs no space.

The same rule applies to outdoor AC equipment and service elements. Some layouts identify a dedicated equipment platform, while others show no external unit on the balcony at all. Assuming a “usual” position and subtracting a standard fraction of a square metre would add precision the source does not contain. Only a fixed element that is actually located on the relevant plan should change the geometric result.

This is where the largest uninterrupted rectangle becomes more useful than total area. A 1.30 m-deep balcony clears the 1.11 m object footprint in isolation, but a central column or a documented door swing can change that without altering the advertised balcony area by very much. The plan must therefore be read spatially, not as a list of totals.

No generic circulation width is added in this page. Doing so would turn a controlled object-placement exercise into an implied ergonomic standard and would make the result look more authoritative than the evidence allows. First establish whether the objects physically fit without a documented collision; then judge chair movement and everyday circulation separately. Questions about whether a corner or internal condo unit in Phnom Penh uses its interior more efficiently belong to the wider apartment-layout analysis, not to this balcony measurement.

A dimensioned plan is strongest when the question has a line, a number and a fixed boundary. It can establish balcony shape and depth, the position of an opening, and a column or equipment platform when those elements are actually drawn. A full plan set may also establish façade orientation. It cannot turn that geometry into a reliable forecast of how the balcony will feel.

Wind and noise depend on height, neighbouring buildings, open corridors between towers, roads, façade form and the exact side of the building. Those variables are why the separate guide on how to choose a condo floor in Phnom Penh is a better place to assess height-related trade-offs. Two balconies with identical dimensions can experience very different exposure.

Sun and wind-driven rain need orientation, surrounding massing and the real façade as well. Extra depth can create shade, but a floor plan alone cannot tell you how many hours of direct sun a particular unit will receive after nearby construction changes. The guide to the best window orientation for a Phnom Penh condo deals with that question directly. Balcony geometry can sharpen the question without supplying the missing climate evidence.

House rules form another boundary. A physically large balcony does not automatically permit drying laundry, long-term storage, exterior AC equipment, safety netting, glazing, façade fixings, certain planting arrangements or cooking. Sub-Decree No. 126 provides for internal regulations in co-owned buildings, but the operative restrictions have to come from the actual building’s rules, not assumptions carried over from another condominium.

The plan is therefore an early filter, not a final comfort verdict. It can eliminate a layout that plainly cannot support your fixed use and it can make the next questions more precise. Noise, wind, heat, rain exposure, privacy, smells and permitted use require different evidence: the relevant floor and façade in real conditions, plus the current building-management documents.