Micro-apartments next for S.F.?(sfgate.com)
sfgate.com
Micro-apartments next for S.F.?
http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Micro-apartments-next-for-S-F-3706648.php
96 comments
The more I read about the housing market in SF the more it looks like a disaster
Because it is. I submitted this article a while back: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... and it generated this discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4032046 , but the issue is simple economics: supply for a place is being held constant through political rules (as Matt Yglesias, the author of the linked article, likes to say, housing costs can be kept down through complex technologies like steel and elevators) while demand soars because the place is a highly desirable one.
The result is higher prices.
Because it is. I submitted this article a while back: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... and it generated this discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4032046 , but the issue is simple economics: supply for a place is being held constant through political rules (as Matt Yglesias, the author of the linked article, likes to say, housing costs can be kept down through complex technologies like steel and elevators) while demand soars because the place is a highly desirable one.
The result is higher prices.
It seems like the absurdity of the local public transit forces a lot of the high density construction downtown. When MUNI isn't halted (it regularly is) it often takes me 25 minutes to get to SOMA (Ballpark) from the Mission on MUNI even though straight line distance is less than one mile. Each MUNI ticket are is $2. The total system cost is $750MM and fare revenue is $150M which makes the real value of a MUNI fare $10. $10 to go less than one mile for half an hour!
There are a few points not appreciated about transit systems. Not that Muni doesn't offer significant room for improvement.
- Net effective speeds are low ... but so are other modes of transport through dense regions. Downtown SF to Stonestown is 21 minutes driving (31 in traffic), 30 minutes by Muni. That's an 18 MPH average driving speed, including significant segments on i280. The Muni route is shorter (about 6.5 miles), and reflects a slower net speed but over a more direct route).
- Positive externalities are high. Riders save on, at a minimum, parking, and at a maximum, auto ownership expenses (about $7,500/year, probably higher given garaging/ticketing expenses in SF). Merchants benefit by shoppers. Employers benefit from more convenience to employees. Drivers benefit by reduced congestion. It makes sense for transit to be partially offset by taxes or other fees, as it is in San Francisco.
- Density matters. As dense as it is (for a Western US city), SF is just barely at the density for which transit is effective. While the microunits suggested are one possible alternative, towers are more likely the solution (much of SF is zoned for 40' maximum height -- roughly 3-story construction).
- Other factors. Muni relies on tracked vehicles (Muni Metro/streetcars, cable cars), and trolley buses which are supplied electrical power from overhead wires. All provide for minimal bypass capability when a vehicle is disabled -- there's no way to route around such vehicles. A single disabled vehicle may cause extensive single-route or systemwide conjestion.
Bikes are a reasonably viable alternative, though hills are somewhat challenging. Rain too, but less frequently.
- Net effective speeds are low ... but so are other modes of transport through dense regions. Downtown SF to Stonestown is 21 minutes driving (31 in traffic), 30 minutes by Muni. That's an 18 MPH average driving speed, including significant segments on i280. The Muni route is shorter (about 6.5 miles), and reflects a slower net speed but over a more direct route).
- Positive externalities are high. Riders save on, at a minimum, parking, and at a maximum, auto ownership expenses (about $7,500/year, probably higher given garaging/ticketing expenses in SF). Merchants benefit by shoppers. Employers benefit from more convenience to employees. Drivers benefit by reduced congestion. It makes sense for transit to be partially offset by taxes or other fees, as it is in San Francisco.
- Density matters. As dense as it is (for a Western US city), SF is just barely at the density for which transit is effective. While the microunits suggested are one possible alternative, towers are more likely the solution (much of SF is zoned for 40' maximum height -- roughly 3-story construction).
- Other factors. Muni relies on tracked vehicles (Muni Metro/streetcars, cable cars), and trolley buses which are supplied electrical power from overhead wires. All provide for minimal bypass capability when a vehicle is disabled -- there's no way to route around such vehicles. A single disabled vehicle may cause extensive single-route or systemwide conjestion.
Bikes are a reasonably viable alternative, though hills are somewhat challenging. Rain too, but less frequently.
I think the problem of Bay Area transit can be summed up in this convenient guide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_San_Franc...
There are too many agencies, each one too myopic and embroiled in local politics to make good decisions - successful large projects seem to be more an accident than anything else.
This is a nice article on what a "utopian" transit strategy might look like:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/03/fantasy-tran...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_San_Franc...
There are too many agencies, each one too myopic and embroiled in local politics to make good decisions - successful large projects seem to be more an accident than anything else.
This is a nice article on what a "utopian" transit strategy might look like:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/03/fantasy-tran...
good points, but new construction in SF wouldnt be a good thing. New buildings stick out like sore thumbs in SF, as they arent made of wood. People want to live in the old, creaky wood buildings with the over the top bay windows. Not in plaster boxes, they can get that anywhere else in the bay area.
I'm living in SF in an old Victorian with a toddler as are many of my friends. We would all love to move into a new unit to avoid the lead paint that lingers in older units. It's a serious issue for families with young kids. There is a premium on new units.
Then removal the legal barriers to building larger buildings and see what people do. If people in the aggregate "want to live in the old, creaky wood buildings," then they can pay for them.
Well that's not true for everyone. I live in a nice loft in the Dogpatch and have a nice BayView. I would never trait that for a shitty Victorian. I would be happy if 90% of victorians were to be torn down to build some nice bright lofts with up-to-date amenities.
That being said. There is A LOT of construction happening in the Mission Bay and Dogpatch area.
The problem isn't that SF is running out of square footage for luxuriously spacious apartments. The problem is that SF doesn't allow the construction of high-density housing, or much new housing of any kind. They gained all of 50-something market-rate housing units in 2011.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/09/19/zoning-law... http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/san_franciscos_to...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/09/19/zoning-law... http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/san_franciscos_to...
This is probably the biggest factor. So much of SF is covered very low density housing.
I am in two minds about this: One hand, it does preserve the historic beauty of the house. While personally, I wouldn't want to live in a Victorian/Edwardian house because I like central heating, tiled floors too much, they are beautiful and so many people enjoy living there. I guess one possible solution is to attempt a urban renewal project of one of the more shadier neighborhoods (Hunter's point e.g.) and build high density buildings there. Of course, this would have to be coupled with enough percentage of the units being available for low cost housing so that it doesn't become the usual act of gentrification.
To put this in a European perspective: the legal minimum floor area to rent out an apartment in France is 9 square meters, or slightly less than 97 sq feet.
Even better (or worse, depending on your perspective): the absolute minimum is a volume of 20 cubic meters [1].
Therefore in cities like Paris where flats with high ceilings abound, you find owners of big, old apartments with 3m high ceilings breaking them up in 7 sq meters (75 sq feet) "studios"...
250 sq feet is aplenty.
[1] http://www.adil75.org/pdf/av12.pdf (in French)
Even better (or worse, depending on your perspective): the absolute minimum is a volume of 20 cubic meters [1].
Therefore in cities like Paris where flats with high ceilings abound, you find owners of big, old apartments with 3m high ceilings breaking them up in 7 sq meters (75 sq feet) "studios"...
250 sq feet is aplenty.
[1] http://www.adil75.org/pdf/av12.pdf (in French)
> the absolute minimum is a volume of 20 cubic meters
Well, this is fiction, but I'm imagining just how much worse it could get:
In "Futurama" set in the year 3000, Fry and Bender are living together in Bender's closet-sized apartment, and Fry complains that it's too small.
Bender: "Not enough room? My place is 2 cubic meters and we only take up 1.5 cubic meters. We've got room for a whole nother 2/3rds of a person."
Well, this is fiction, but I'm imagining just how much worse it could get:
In "Futurama" set in the year 3000, Fry and Bender are living together in Bender's closet-sized apartment, and Fry complains that it's too small.
Bender: "Not enough room? My place is 2 cubic meters and we only take up 1.5 cubic meters. We've got room for a whole nother 2/3rds of a person."
"That demographic cohort wants to continue their collegiate experience for an indefinite amount of time," Kennedy said. "I envision this as a launching space as they get established."
The "collegiate experience" Kennedy seems to be going for with this is dormitory-style living (the article even touts the common areas that will be available to tenants, just like some of the pitches when I was shopping around for colleges!), but the first goal for many students at my university and others I've visited has always been "get out of the dorms and into a real apartment".
The "collegiate experience" Kennedy seems to be going for with this is dormitory-style living (the article even touts the common areas that will be available to tenants, just like some of the pitches when I was shopping around for colleges!), but the first goal for many students at my university and others I've visited has always been "get out of the dorms and into a real apartment".
Interesting that someone should say this out loud. I've been thinking this for a long time - I've just been having so much fun as a student, I can't really imagine any other way of living. Cool roommates and always something interesting to do.
When not starting a family or living with a partner, this seems like the best way to live. The alternative would be to live on my own in a nice apartment - this would entail a higher - "standard of living", but be much more expensive and lonely.
When not starting a family or living with a partner, this seems like the best way to live. The alternative would be to live on my own in a nice apartment - this would entail a higher - "standard of living", but be much more expensive and lonely.
Students want to get out of dorms and into an apartment typically because dorms cost about the same thing as an apartment, but with far less space/amenities.
If dorms weren't overpriced, more students would probably want to stay in them.
If dorms weren't overpriced, more students would probably want to stay in them.
Good point about the dorm resemblance.
Depending on a person's college experience though, more flexibility in moving to "the big city" might provide sufficient transition for many college grads and other on tight budgets. Especially when the alternative in a very expensive city is a cramped tiny space with multiple roommates.
Depending on a person's college experience though, more flexibility in moving to "the big city" might provide sufficient transition for many college grads and other on tight budgets. Especially when the alternative in a very expensive city is a cramped tiny space with multiple roommates.
I don't think you and Kennedy necessarily conflict. It's very possible for 60% of college students to want to get out of dorms and into a real (large) apartment, while the other 40% still making the post-college demographics unusually high in its preference for micro apartments.
I think that's often a desire to get away from the people and culture in the dorms, not necessarily the lifestyle. A college dorm with people in their mid 20s working 9-5 jobs would be a fun experiment
(Well, I suppose that unlike a dorm, there's no communal kitchen/restroom, but to me, this still seems like it would be a step backwards for someone fresh out of college.)
The idea of sharing a kitchen counter and computer desk just makes me think crumbs in the keyboard. However, minimizing the kitchen and having really high end shared kitchen facilities would be great. Between the ages of 24 and 28 I didn't eat at home even once.
One of the underlying sources for 'smaller is better' is Christopher Alexander's "A Pattern Language". It also is the source that inspired the pattern movement in software. A pattern language is second in the series, and is a 1000+ page book with strong opinions on everything from City planning down to interior decorating. It is very much worth the read.
One of the underlying sources for 'smaller is better' is Christopher Alexander's "A Pattern Language". It also is the source that inspired the pattern movement in software. A pattern language is second in the series, and is a 1000+ page book with strong opinions on everything from City planning down to interior decorating. It is very much worth the read.
I think most people would just use either the dining table or the one by the window instead.
I was just talking with a friend yesterday about living in Tokyo. A big part of what makes it reasonable is that everything is smaller. The containers of food I buy at the store are smaller and fit in my smaller refrigerator. There's a laundry place right next door and they give you hangars that are half width (folding the shirts back on themselves like when you buy them) so they can fit in a shallow closet. As an American, it's hard to get used to not buying in bulk but it really helps you make the most of your space.
I've spent lots of time in Seoul, at one point crashing in the walk-in closet of a friend for a few weeks. The apartment was pretty small by American standards, the hallway between the front door and the bathroom was a little wide, with the extra space taken up by a counter, fridge, sink and two burners as the kitchen. On the other wall of the hall was the door into the closet. Down the hall next to the closet was a very sparse bathroom that was effectively a powder room (toilet + sink) with a shower hose on the wall. And at the end of the hall was a small bedroom that fit a queen size bed and a small desk and not much else.
In the U.S. I live in a fairly large house and was pretty concerned about the small living area. But it worked! Everything is kind of geared to support that kind of living arrangement. If you sleep on the floor, by rolling up your bedding in the morning you suddenly have a living room. Fold out tables and eating while sitting on the floor and you have a dining room that can fit (not a typo) 8 people reasonably comfortably. The floor of the closet had room for me and my wife. And since the floors are heated in Korea, even in the winter we were incredibly warm.
To eat you buy what you need for that day, or even that meal at the grocery next door, and your frequent trips in and out of the apartment give you plenty of time to bring out trash and other things.
Feel cooped up or want to do some kind of activity like play video games or drink and chat with your friends (but don't want to disturb the neighbors)? There's literally an entire city full of services designed for the apartment dweller, everything from cheap Internet Cafes (something like a dollar an hour), to cheap bars with private rooms for your friends at no extra cost!
Other than sleeping and a few meals, we really didn't spend much time there, instead spending almost all of our time out and about. It really is just an entirely different way of living - not better or worse, just different.
In the U.S. I live in a fairly large house and was pretty concerned about the small living area. But it worked! Everything is kind of geared to support that kind of living arrangement. If you sleep on the floor, by rolling up your bedding in the morning you suddenly have a living room. Fold out tables and eating while sitting on the floor and you have a dining room that can fit (not a typo) 8 people reasonably comfortably. The floor of the closet had room for me and my wife. And since the floors are heated in Korea, even in the winter we were incredibly warm.
To eat you buy what you need for that day, or even that meal at the grocery next door, and your frequent trips in and out of the apartment give you plenty of time to bring out trash and other things.
Feel cooped up or want to do some kind of activity like play video games or drink and chat with your friends (but don't want to disturb the neighbors)? There's literally an entire city full of services designed for the apartment dweller, everything from cheap Internet Cafes (something like a dollar an hour), to cheap bars with private rooms for your friends at no extra cost!
Other than sleeping and a few meals, we really didn't spend much time there, instead spending almost all of our time out and about. It really is just an entirely different way of living - not better or worse, just different.
As an American currently living in Hong Kong I can verify what your friend was saying. Everything is smaller, but everything you may need is also easy to get. Forget the milk? Just go downstairs. No need for a big refrigerator since you are steps away from the grocery store.
Everybody also goes vertical with their storage. There are plenty of clever storage solutions that may be unique to Americans but are fairly ubiquitous over here.
That said, it's easy to get a cluttered looking space real quick. I've become more of a minimalist because of that.
Everybody also goes vertical with their storage. There are plenty of clever storage solutions that may be unique to Americans but are fairly ubiquitous over here.
That said, it's easy to get a cluttered looking space real quick. I've become more of a minimalist because of that.
It's sort of silly that a minimum apartment size is even legislated in the first place. Somebody who chooses to live in a small apartment does so because it's their best available option.
Crazier: when you find a place you like, apply, then they say you can't have it because your salary is too high.
Each apartment complex (by law) has a percentage of units leased only to people making less than a certain amount.
Each apartment complex (by law) has a percentage of units leased only to people making less than a certain amount.
I'm guessing they're prioritizing the low wage earners first?
It's not even prioritizing, it's a form of market voodoo discrimination.
"[California] State law requires that 15% of residential development occurring in Redevelopment Project Areas adopted after January 1, 1976 be subject to long-term affordability restrictions, to be fulfilled on a cumulative basis every 10 years."
That doesn't mean they just make units available at $1200/month anybody can lease -- it means the $1200/month units are only available to people making under a percentage-off-median wage for the area.
"[California] State law requires that 15% of residential development occurring in Redevelopment Project Areas adopted after January 1, 1976 be subject to long-term affordability restrictions, to be fulfilled on a cumulative basis every 10 years."
That doesn't mean they just make units available at $1200/month anybody can lease -- it means the $1200/month units are only available to people making under a percentage-off-median wage for the area.
Sure. And why do we have codes that demand working heating? People should be able to choose to buy lots of blankets instead.
Just curious, what do you believe is the justification for laws demanding minimum apt sizes/minimum heating requirements? The ordinary arguments about externalities certainly don't seem to apply...
As an anecdote, while I was poor, I didn't turn the heat on because I couldn't afford it. Do you believe the law should have forced me to turn the heat on? If not, why not?
As an anecdote, while I was poor, I didn't turn the heat on because I couldn't afford it. Do you believe the law should have forced me to turn the heat on? If not, why not?
First off: I'm not arguing that micro-apartments should be illegal; just that "the government should just let private parties come to whatever agreement they want regarding housing" is an untenable position. One obvious cost of regulating housing is the need to revisit and recalibrate those regs, and I agree in advance that our state governments suck at that. So then:
I think this is a discussion that would quickly devolve into a debate over the tenement reform movement. I'd just say that the codes and statutes covering apartments were a reaction to a time where housing was so cramped and substandard that it caused cholera outbreaks, riots, and a 10% infant mortality rate among tenement dwellers.
So then the idea behind the codes is simply: it's good that people buy property and convert into rental dwellings, because a huge number of people need rental housing. But nobody should be allowed to profit from housing that falls below a minimum standard. Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom, and while some renters clearly would benefit from the increased choice in living expenses, many more renters would be harmed either by (a) being locked by the market into substandard housing, (b) being dragged by their parents or spouses into substandard housing, (c) losing their homes when property ownership changed hands and more profit was wrung out of their current houses.
As for you and your heat: you had the choice not to turn on the heat. If your landlord wasn't required to provide heat, you might not have.
I think this is a discussion that would quickly devolve into a debate over the tenement reform movement. I'd just say that the codes and statutes covering apartments were a reaction to a time where housing was so cramped and substandard that it caused cholera outbreaks, riots, and a 10% infant mortality rate among tenement dwellers.
So then the idea behind the codes is simply: it's good that people buy property and convert into rental dwellings, because a huge number of people need rental housing. But nobody should be allowed to profit from housing that falls below a minimum standard. Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom, and while some renters clearly would benefit from the increased choice in living expenses, many more renters would be harmed either by (a) being locked by the market into substandard housing, (b) being dragged by their parents or spouses into substandard housing, (c) losing their homes when property ownership changed hands and more profit was wrung out of their current houses.
As for you and your heat: you had the choice not to turn on the heat. If your landlord wasn't required to provide heat, you might not have.
...just that "the government should just let private parties come to whatever agreement they want regarding housing" is an untenable position...cholera outbreaks, riots...
You'll note that I asked specifically about cases like heating/min size requirements which have nothing to do with externalities (such as disease outbreaks or fire spreading). So why bring them up?
Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom, and while some renters clearly would benefit from the increased choice in living expenses, many more renters would be harmed either by (a) being locked by the market into substandard housing,
This claim is not observed in reality. In virtually every market segment including housing, you see a race to meet demand in all market segments, from the top to the bottom.
The only way there would be a race to the bottom is if virtually everyone wanted something cheaper than what is currently available and were willing to sacrifice quality to get it. I.e., if the minimum size requirements are hurting almost everyone. Do you believe this is the case?
(b) being dragged by their parents or spouses into substandard housing
This seems like an extremely roundabout way of imposing minimum parenting standards. An extremely obvious way and far simpler way would simply be to forbid parents to bring their children into dorm-sized apartments.
(c) losing their homes when property ownership changed hands and more profit was wrung out of their current houses.
Um, this usually happens when landlords want to turn cheaper housing into more expensive housing. I.e., upgrade the projects to luxury apts. Should we also impose quality ceilings on housing? If not, why not?
You'll note that I asked specifically about cases like heating/min size requirements which have nothing to do with externalities (such as disease outbreaks or fire spreading). So why bring them up?
Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom, and while some renters clearly would benefit from the increased choice in living expenses, many more renters would be harmed either by (a) being locked by the market into substandard housing,
This claim is not observed in reality. In virtually every market segment including housing, you see a race to meet demand in all market segments, from the top to the bottom.
The only way there would be a race to the bottom is if virtually everyone wanted something cheaper than what is currently available and were willing to sacrifice quality to get it. I.e., if the minimum size requirements are hurting almost everyone. Do you believe this is the case?
(b) being dragged by their parents or spouses into substandard housing
This seems like an extremely roundabout way of imposing minimum parenting standards. An extremely obvious way and far simpler way would simply be to forbid parents to bring their children into dorm-sized apartments.
(c) losing their homes when property ownership changed hands and more profit was wrung out of their current houses.
Um, this usually happens when landlords want to turn cheaper housing into more expensive housing. I.e., upgrade the projects to luxury apts. Should we also impose quality ceilings on housing? If not, why not?
I don't personally think we should impose quality ceilings, but I wouldn't frame the discussion in terms of that being the bottom of a slippery slope, because gentrification is a serious issue in many major metro areas --- particularly SF!
The rest, I think we're getting ourselves mixed up. I understand your question: absent externalities, which perhaps could be addressed more effectively with targeted regulations rather than market-restricting housing codes, what's the purpose of having housing codes?
I tried to make two points in my response: first, the reason we have housing codes to begin with --- the observation that the externalities you alluded to in fact were a major social problem around the turn of the last century --- and second, that the reason absent "cholera outbreaks" to impose a minimum standard on urban housing is that a minimum standard for urban housing is an intrinsic good thing that will improve welfare more than greater choice in housing will.
Regarding forbidding children in dorm-sized apartments: sure. Of course, we're countering what you see as an overly broad and market-harming set of laws with a far more intrusive set of laws. Also, if we relax minimum standard housing and that sets off a race to the bottom, we can be in an unattractive position later on of having to recognize that while we don't want kids raised in dorm apartments, the market is such that we no longer have the option to forbid it.
As you know, we're very unlikely to come to agreement here, you and I having polar opposite worldviews on subjects like this, but I do appreciate the challenge. :)
The rest, I think we're getting ourselves mixed up. I understand your question: absent externalities, which perhaps could be addressed more effectively with targeted regulations rather than market-restricting housing codes, what's the purpose of having housing codes?
I tried to make two points in my response: first, the reason we have housing codes to begin with --- the observation that the externalities you alluded to in fact were a major social problem around the turn of the last century --- and second, that the reason absent "cholera outbreaks" to impose a minimum standard on urban housing is that a minimum standard for urban housing is an intrinsic good thing that will improve welfare more than greater choice in housing will.
Regarding forbidding children in dorm-sized apartments: sure. Of course, we're countering what you see as an overly broad and market-harming set of laws with a far more intrusive set of laws. Also, if we relax minimum standard housing and that sets off a race to the bottom, we can be in an unattractive position later on of having to recognize that while we don't want kids raised in dorm apartments, the market is such that we no longer have the option to forbid it.
As you know, we're very unlikely to come to agreement here, you and I having polar opposite worldviews on subjects like this, but I do appreciate the challenge. :)
In what sense is gentrification a serious (by which I presume you mean "bad") issue?
As far as I can tell, "gentrification" means people like me--who make a decent white collar living and don't cause trouble--moving into poor neighborhoods, often crime-filled ones. Why should I be unhappy about having a nice place to live?
As far as I can tell, "gentrification" means people like me--who make a decent white collar living and don't cause trouble--moving into poor neighborhoods, often crime-filled ones. Why should I be unhappy about having a nice place to live?
It dislocates lower/lower-middle class urban families.
And hey: I lived in a loft in SOMA. I'm not an anti-gentrification crusader.
And hey: I lived in a loft in SOMA. I'm not an anti-gentrification crusader.
Can you provide data for that claim?
Example: I have a friend who lives at Divisadero & Hayes, and passed on an article that attacked him (personally, but anonymously) as a gentrifier: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020412420457715...
The writer complains about the loss of the "culture"...but the only meaningful change we can see here was the disappearance of drug dealers and violence.
Example: I have a friend who lives at Divisadero & Hayes, and passed on an article that attacked him (personally, but anonymously) as a gentrifier: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020412420457715...
The writer complains about the loss of the "culture"...but the only meaningful change we can see here was the disappearance of drug dealers and violence.
Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom
Counterexample: I moved from Houston, where almost every apartment has good air conditioning, but it's not required by law (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/consumer&...). Market forces are sufficient to prevent landlords from offering units without AC, because nobody would pay for them.
Counterexample: I moved from Houston, where almost every apartment has good air conditioning, but it's not required by law (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/consumer&...). Market forces are sufficient to prevent landlords from offering units without AC, because nobody would pay for them.
'yummyfajitas made the same point upthread; my response to both of you is, if a market race to the bottom isn't a real concern, why did we need a tenement rights movement from 1880 on through the New Deal just to get people windows and plumbing?
Perhaps the market quality floor for housing is in part a product of the minimum standard housing allowed by the state. Perhaps there's low marginal cost of adding an AC if you're required by law to keep apartments at some minimum level of quality; you might as well spend a small amount of money to compete on quality, because you can't compete on price.
Perhaps the market quality floor for housing is in part a product of the minimum standard housing allowed by the state. Perhaps there's low marginal cost of adding an AC if you're required by law to keep apartments at some minimum level of quality; you might as well spend a small amount of money to compete on quality, because you can't compete on price.
In New York City, heat isn't something individual units control. All heat in every apartment I have ever lived in or visited is generated by a boiler controlled by the landlord. Consequently, the laws in New York City aren't mandating what individual homeowners must do, they are mandating what landlords must do, namely, that when the temperatures drop below a certain point, they must provide heat to their tenants.
In NY it strongly depends on the building. Big buildings typically have central heating, small ones often have individual boilers.
In any case, a law mandating the minimum a person can sell is economically equivalent to a law mandating the minimum a person can buy. If I'd rather have more money but wear sweaters (at one point in my life this was my preference), I'm not allowed to make that choice.
In any case, a law mandating the minimum a person can sell is economically equivalent to a law mandating the minimum a person can buy. If I'd rather have more money but wear sweaters (at one point in my life this was my preference), I'm not allowed to make that choice.
Do you realize how stingy landlords are allowed to be with the heat? The actual (nighttime) rule is:
* Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, if the temperature outside falls below 40 degrees, the inside temperature is required to be at least 55 degrees Fahrenheit.
55 degrees! Do you honestly want an apartment which is 45, 40, 35 degrees at night? Hell, it's probably not even sane to keep an apartment under 55 degrees in the winter, for fear of the pipes freezing.
* Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, if the temperature outside falls below 40 degrees, the inside temperature is required to be at least 55 degrees Fahrenheit.
55 degrees! Do you honestly want an apartment which is 45, 40, 35 degrees at night? Hell, it's probably not even sane to keep an apartment under 55 degrees in the winter, for fear of the pipes freezing.
Recently we got to this in Paris: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s720x720/396654_...
Quick translation: it's a 3.16 square meters (34 square feet) flat on sale in the 10th district in Paris.
Quick translation: it's a 3.16 square meters (34 square feet) flat on sale in the 10th district in Paris.
The only thing I found weird about the article was the developers product development decisions based on a single female MIT student as opposed to talking to lots of people who are the target for a product like this, especially since he plans on putting it in SoMa and targeting the tech crowd which is largely male. This isn't sexism, it's just knowing the audience.
For example, the pull out bed in this apartment seems far more practical than a Murphy bed that really only works if you make your bed properly so it's not subject to the perils of gravity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juWaO5TJS00
The other decision was the move to a tub style shower. The only people I know that that really take baths are women. Why? Because they fit in tubs comfortably. I can't think of any men who habitually take baths but know many women that do. Tub-size is probably a big contributing factor as to why.
TBH, if someone is living in apartment like this, they value practicality over everything else. If that is the case, a bathroom space optimized for cleaning and maintenance is more ideal, such as the bathroom in this micro-apt, where the toilet, sink area and shower all share the same tiled floor http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/12/21/micro-living-canadas...
Anyways, really shortsighted product management in my view given the location and target market. If I were a single woman, SoMa is not a neighborhood I would live in. There is not enough foot-traffic and decent lighting at night to feel really safe.
For example, the pull out bed in this apartment seems far more practical than a Murphy bed that really only works if you make your bed properly so it's not subject to the perils of gravity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juWaO5TJS00
The other decision was the move to a tub style shower. The only people I know that that really take baths are women. Why? Because they fit in tubs comfortably. I can't think of any men who habitually take baths but know many women that do. Tub-size is probably a big contributing factor as to why.
TBH, if someone is living in apartment like this, they value practicality over everything else. If that is the case, a bathroom space optimized for cleaning and maintenance is more ideal, such as the bathroom in this micro-apt, where the toilet, sink area and shower all share the same tiled floor http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/12/21/micro-living-canadas...
Anyways, really shortsighted product management in my view given the location and target market. If I were a single woman, SoMa is not a neighborhood I would live in. There is not enough foot-traffic and decent lighting at night to feel really safe.
My wife and I live in a ~300 square foot apartment in NYC, although we don't feel like we've got plenty of room, we never feel cramped either. Moreover, we often have people sleep over in our "living room". A lot of it is about light and how high your ceilings are.
I guess what I am saying is that the absolute minimum square footage you think you need is a malleable concept.
I guess what I am saying is that the absolute minimum square footage you think you need is a malleable concept.
This is a great TED talk about how this guy maximized the space in a tiny apartment and found he was happier than when he had a large apartment with lots of "stuff" http://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hill_less_stuff_more_happine...
I've downsized a few times over the years. 1080 > 920 > 720 > 660. How much have I missed having a bigger space? None. I could probably drop down to about 550 tomorrow and still have tons of room.
The first thing is "usable square footage". In the larger units (> 720) I had things like hallways. Closets for a water heater or furnace. Etc. When I dropped down to 720, I actually had more usable square footage than when I had 1080 square feet. This is because the smaller spaces were better designed for their intended activities, and other things were inlined or made more efficient (in-line electric water heaters, in-wall thermal pump) as a result of the space constraints.
Additionally space isn't to store stuff, it's the support the activities within the space. When I had 1080 square feet, the kitchen was larger than the bedroom I grew up in. It meant a lot of unnecessary walking around to get anything done. When the work triangle shrunk to about 20 square feet, everything was in reach, and I still had tons of room for all the prep work, and an excess of space to store everything. A 160 square foot kitchen was excessively large when 50 works just as well. Just like a 50 square foot "laundry room" is worthless when there wasn't any room to put an ironing board -- now I have a laundry closet (9 square feet?) with some stacked Bosch units that allow me to get just as much done (with a fold-out ironing board on the door). The bedroom went from having a 90-square foot walk in closet, to 14 square feet of reach-ins -- of which I use one of them. I guess if I had a live-in girlfriend she'd use the other. Bathroom? Also shrunk. However the bedroom got larger, as did the main living area. Big wins.
As for stuff… I've gotten rid of tons of it. Every year, clean things out. Every year, be baffled at home much gets tossed out. I've zero clutter now, yet I still have everything I care about. I still have a home-office built into a 15square foot reach-in closet with two 27" displays and a laser printer that's very comfortable to work in. I still have some collectibles stashed in a storage bench at the bottom of the bedroom closet. However if it doesn't have sentimental, monetary, or immediate value, it's gotten tossed at one point. It forces you to think hard about what you value, and stick to it if you don't want to live in clutter or with a giant stack of boxes somewhere.
Coworkers always seem to "feel sorry for me". "How do you live without being able to stock up on toilet paper at Costco?" I guess I don't need nearly as much TP in the bathroom as you do. "How do you live with such a small car?" Yeah, a 2-seat roadster is really roughing it, but y'know, I soldier on. I have everything I want, nothing that wastes my time or attention, less to clean, less space to heat/cool, and a car I drive very sideways. 220 square feet I probably couldn't immediately shift to, but I'm pretty certain I could go to 350 very hastily if I had to. 220 would just require a lot of thought, and giving up activities such being able to host thanksgiving, etc.
The first thing is "usable square footage". In the larger units (> 720) I had things like hallways. Closets for a water heater or furnace. Etc. When I dropped down to 720, I actually had more usable square footage than when I had 1080 square feet. This is because the smaller spaces were better designed for their intended activities, and other things were inlined or made more efficient (in-line electric water heaters, in-wall thermal pump) as a result of the space constraints.
Additionally space isn't to store stuff, it's the support the activities within the space. When I had 1080 square feet, the kitchen was larger than the bedroom I grew up in. It meant a lot of unnecessary walking around to get anything done. When the work triangle shrunk to about 20 square feet, everything was in reach, and I still had tons of room for all the prep work, and an excess of space to store everything. A 160 square foot kitchen was excessively large when 50 works just as well. Just like a 50 square foot "laundry room" is worthless when there wasn't any room to put an ironing board -- now I have a laundry closet (9 square feet?) with some stacked Bosch units that allow me to get just as much done (with a fold-out ironing board on the door). The bedroom went from having a 90-square foot walk in closet, to 14 square feet of reach-ins -- of which I use one of them. I guess if I had a live-in girlfriend she'd use the other. Bathroom? Also shrunk. However the bedroom got larger, as did the main living area. Big wins.
As for stuff… I've gotten rid of tons of it. Every year, clean things out. Every year, be baffled at home much gets tossed out. I've zero clutter now, yet I still have everything I care about. I still have a home-office built into a 15square foot reach-in closet with two 27" displays and a laser printer that's very comfortable to work in. I still have some collectibles stashed in a storage bench at the bottom of the bedroom closet. However if it doesn't have sentimental, monetary, or immediate value, it's gotten tossed at one point. It forces you to think hard about what you value, and stick to it if you don't want to live in clutter or with a giant stack of boxes somewhere.
Coworkers always seem to "feel sorry for me". "How do you live without being able to stock up on toilet paper at Costco?" I guess I don't need nearly as much TP in the bathroom as you do. "How do you live with such a small car?" Yeah, a 2-seat roadster is really roughing it, but y'know, I soldier on. I have everything I want, nothing that wastes my time or attention, less to clean, less space to heat/cool, and a car I drive very sideways. 220 square feet I probably couldn't immediately shift to, but I'm pretty certain I could go to 350 very hastily if I had to. 220 would just require a lot of thought, and giving up activities such being able to host thanksgiving, etc.
> I've downsized a few times over the years. 1080 > 920 > 720 > 660. How much have I missed having a bigger space? None.
I used to live in a 480 square foot garage apartment in Houston. I loved the place. Unfortunately, it had lots of storage space. Yes, unfortunately, because I literally accumulated a ton of stuff I didn't need. (Yes, literally = actually.)
I'm moving to the bay area tomorrow, and I'll have reduced my worldly belongings to one 7x7x8 foot POD, plus a suitcase.
> I have everything I want, nothing that wastes my time or attention, less to clean, less space to heat/cool, and a car I drive very sideways.
I'll take all but the last, unless it's on a track and I know what I'm doing.
Shelter Kit makes homes just about our size. The whole kit can be had for under $30k and includes the entire makings for the outer shell and fasteners. Two people are supposed to be able to construct one in a matter of a few weeks. I hope they're still around when I retire.
I have everything I want, nothing that wastes my time or attention, less to clean, less space to heat/cool, and a car I drive very sideways.
http://www.shelter-kit.com/kits.php?kit=barnhouse
I used to live in a 480 square foot garage apartment in Houston. I loved the place. Unfortunately, it had lots of storage space. Yes, unfortunately, because I literally accumulated a ton of stuff I didn't need. (Yes, literally = actually.)
I'm moving to the bay area tomorrow, and I'll have reduced my worldly belongings to one 7x7x8 foot POD, plus a suitcase.
> I have everything I want, nothing that wastes my time or attention, less to clean, less space to heat/cool, and a car I drive very sideways.
I'll take all but the last, unless it's on a track and I know what I'm doing.
Shelter Kit makes homes just about our size. The whole kit can be had for under $30k and includes the entire makings for the outer shell and fasteners. Two people are supposed to be able to construct one in a matter of a few weeks. I hope they're still around when I retire.
I have everything I want, nothing that wastes my time or attention, less to clean, less space to heat/cool, and a car I drive very sideways.
http://www.shelter-kit.com/kits.php?kit=barnhouse
> I've downsized a few times over the years. 1080 > 920 > 720 > 660.
For five years I lived in a unit that was 384 square feet. And then my wife moved in with me. And shortly thereafter, two cats. We all lived in this space for about 18 months. It wasn't bad at all; we fondly refer to it as The Cave. The only reason we left is because we moved overseas.
A lot of prospective renters weren't interested with the unit because of how small it was. But those who were interested wanted it precisely because they would be forced to get rid of stuff--and would not be able to mindlessly accumulate.
When we move back to the US, we're looking at country acreage (to start a small farm) and living in a converted shipping container. One of the biggest drivers for a larger living space is to have some run-around area for the cats.
For five years I lived in a unit that was 384 square feet. And then my wife moved in with me. And shortly thereafter, two cats. We all lived in this space for about 18 months. It wasn't bad at all; we fondly refer to it as The Cave. The only reason we left is because we moved overseas.
A lot of prospective renters weren't interested with the unit because of how small it was. But those who were interested wanted it precisely because they would be forced to get rid of stuff--and would not be able to mindlessly accumulate.
When we move back to the US, we're looking at country acreage (to start a small farm) and living in a converted shipping container. One of the biggest drivers for a larger living space is to have some run-around area for the cats.
Congrats on the move; I hope you have a blast.
I'm jaundiced towards SF in general, but it's unquestionably an upgrade from Houston (land of my in-laws).
I'm jaundiced towards SF in general, but it's unquestionably an upgrade from Houston (land of my in-laws).
Weird place to put this, but I've really enjoyed reading about your experiences on HN, and I'd love to grab a drink with you when you make it out here. [email protected]
And yes, one of the biggest problems of having a big living space is feeling an obligation to fill it.
And yes, one of the biggest problems of having a big living space is feeling an obligation to fill it.
I can relate to the friends "who feel sorry" bit. They don't seem to understand that different people value stuff in different ways.
If you want inspiration to make the best of limited spaces, google images for Japanese appartments. Lots of inspiration like using the steps of stairs as drawers, sliding furniture, efficient bookcases,... Here's an extreme example: http://unclutterer.com/2010/04/26/video-incredibly-efficient...
If you want inspiration to make the best of limited spaces, google images for Japanese appartments. Lots of inspiration like using the steps of stairs as drawers, sliding furniture, efficient bookcases,... Here's an extreme example: http://unclutterer.com/2010/04/26/video-incredibly-efficient...
Do you think you'll ever have kids?
I grew up with my sister, grandfather (for 10 years), dog, and two parents in a 960 square foot single-story ranch in a heavily subsidized subdivision (with an armed forces stipend both my grandfather and father qualified for). We did fine. A lot nicer of a result than the trailer home we would've otherwise lived in.
I had friends that lived in small tenements. I had friends that grew up in the projects. 4-5 people, less space. Did fine.
I had friends that lived in small tenements. I had friends that grew up in the projects. 4-5 people, less space. Did fine.
A huge fraction of kids who grow up in the projects do not do fine. If the projects were an automatic sentence of lifetime poverty, we'd do away with them; the fact that some people escape them blurs the issue just enough so that our brain files it away as a grey area. But it's not: the projects are bad.
One good book: _American Project_, by Sudhir Venkatesh.
One good book: _American Project_, by Sudhir Venkatesh.
>A huge fraction of kids who grow up in the projects do not do fine
I don't think anyone would debate this, however, I doubt success was ever really limited by the amount of living space they had growing up. Having lived in the "bad part" of a "rough city", square footage had no bearing on future success.
I don't think anyone would debate this, however, I doubt success was ever really limited by the amount of living space they had growing up. Having lived in the "bad part" of a "rough city", square footage had no bearing on future success.
Square footage may or may not play a part in outcomes, but it's less debatable that "substandard housing" does. It's entirely possible that micro-apartments are a fine addition to the housing market. But that doesn't mean the entire idea of regulating housing is bankrupt.
[deleted]
I grew up in an apartment with 600 square footage. We did fine.
Now, we are family of five with a dog. We live very comfortably in 1400 square foot house. That is less than 300 square foot per person.
Square footage is overrated. It is all about maximizing your usable space. As added bonus, we spend less time in clean up and have less clutter to keep up.
Now, we are family of five with a dog. We live very comfortably in 1400 square foot house. That is less than 300 square foot per person.
Square footage is overrated. It is all about maximizing your usable space. As added bonus, we spend less time in clean up and have less clutter to keep up.
I agree. But as an aside, if your water heater's closet floorspace was counted in your square footage I believe you were ripped off. Square-footage figures aren't supposed to include that. I would love to be corrected if I'm wrong.
>Square-footage figures aren't supposed to include that.
Keywords: Aren't supposed to. Square footage is often a wee bit inflated in listings. Sometimes it's considerably inflated (including stairwells, outdoor balconies, closets, hallways, etc.). I don't go as far as bring a measuring tape, but when I look at a space I try to figure out of the areas I care about are as big as I need them to be. Much easier and simpler way to assess.
Keywords: Aren't supposed to. Square footage is often a wee bit inflated in listings. Sometimes it's considerably inflated (including stairwells, outdoor balconies, closets, hallways, etc.). I don't go as far as bring a measuring tape, but when I look at a space I try to figure out of the areas I care about are as big as I need them to be. Much easier and simpler way to assess.
The square footage for my apartment is measured from the exterior facing of the building to the corridor side of the walls adjoining the hallway to the centerline of walls shared with neighboring apartments, and includes the support pillar in the middle room which is keeping the building from falling down.
It's not even space I could use if I hypothetically tore out all of the interior walls and had one big empty room.
It's not even space I could use if I hypothetically tore out all of the interior walls and had one big empty room.
[deleted]
"It's disingenuous to say it creates affordable housing, it's just that you get significantly less space," said Sara Shortt, executive director of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco. "This doesn't create affordable housing, it simply creates another lifestyle option."
How does this make sense? The other lifestyle option it creates is a more affordable one. If a city has nothing but million dollar mansions, I'm pretty sure creating some smaller homes would be considered affortable housing even though they have less space. Is she somehow expecting that the apartments should stay the same size, in the same area, with the same amenities, and somehow still be cheaper?
How does this make sense? The other lifestyle option it creates is a more affordable one. If a city has nothing but million dollar mansions, I'm pretty sure creating some smaller homes would be considered affortable housing even though they have less space. Is she somehow expecting that the apartments should stay the same size, in the same area, with the same amenities, and somehow still be cheaper?
Totally agree.
I would say it creates a more affordable option if the developer had to offer them at equivalent rates on a square footage basis. The fact that the units are earning a 1-2 premium per square foot is completely artificial and simply a by-product of having no housing that size.
In São Paulo, Brazil, one bedroom apartments often cost as much as two bedroom apartments for the simple fact that there is a lack of one bedrooms available in the market because historically people haven't lived alone (they usually lived with the 'rents until marriage.)
I would say it creates a more affordable option if the developer had to offer them at equivalent rates on a square footage basis. The fact that the units are earning a 1-2 premium per square foot is completely artificial and simply a by-product of having no housing that size.
In São Paulo, Brazil, one bedroom apartments often cost as much as two bedroom apartments for the simple fact that there is a lack of one bedrooms available in the market because historically people haven't lived alone (they usually lived with the 'rents until marriage.)
Interesting. This might change the nightlife culture of SF to be more similar to bigger cities. I did a lot of hanging out in friend's houses, cooking, playing games, or having house parties in SF. In NYC, where the apartments are much much smaller, there's a lot less of that—people go out on the town all night and buy $15 drinks instead, and that supports the bars and restaurants than stay open late.
I'm also curious what safety measure they have on those vertical storage units. In an earthquake, all your stuff falling down in front of the door could trap you in your apartment.
I'm also curious what safety measure they have on those vertical storage units. In an earthquake, all your stuff falling down in front of the door could trap you in your apartment.
There was something similar to this in New Zealand called Living Space. It had roughly the same floor plan for the apartments and incorporated many common areas. They had two TV rooms, library, communal kitchen, billiards room, and a roof garden for the residents. This worked great and the place was always at capacity. It was like a combined dorm and co-working space. It was a renovated historic structure with a great location in Christchurch.
I think this concept would be great for SF. Just be sure to add the common areas.
I think this concept would be great for SF. Just be sure to add the common areas.
290 sq ft is about 27 sq m, which is about normal for a studio here in Lyon, France.
http://seloger.com has 2700+ apartments in central Paris alone which are smaller than 27 sq m.
I have no opinion on whether it would be good for SF.
Smallest I can find on seloger in Paris is 86 sq ft, which does seem a bit on the small side...
http://seloger.com has 2700+ apartments in central Paris alone which are smaller than 27 sq m.
I have no opinion on whether it would be good for SF.
Smallest I can find on seloger in Paris is 86 sq ft, which does seem a bit on the small side...
I'm concerned about house pets (like dogs and cats) in such a small apartment. Are these micro apartments fit for dwelling in for long periods of time? I don't think so. Cats and dogs need space too, and they don't have the freedom to come and go whenever they please.
I suspect pet owners are not the target market for this type of living space.
Sure, although it's common for single people to have a pet.
I don't know about the US, but in Canada I think it's illegal for renters to discriminate against pet owners. Many still do however.
I don't know about the US, but in Canada I think it's illegal for renters to discriminate against pet owners. Many still do however.
In the US, it's very common to discriminate against pet owners, either by not renting to them or by requiring extra deposit against pet-induced damage -- or even worse, just demanding extra "pet rent".
In the province of Quebec you can specify a "no pet" rule in a lease. You can even be more specific and allow for a certain number and type of animal (e.g. max 2 cats, no dogs).
There's a lot of stuff you can't discriminate on, but animal ownership isn't a fundamental right.
There's a lot of stuff you can't discriminate on, but animal ownership isn't a fundamental right.
In Ontario, the law stipulates that a land owner may not restrict leasers from owning a pet, unless the pet runs afoul of other stuff (like if they somehow interfere with another leaser's ability to live a reasonable life). But everyone still puts the 'no-pet' clause in the contracts.
I lived in a smaller apartment than the one described.
Pets were strictly banned, and rightfully so (it would be torture for them).
People do live in those apartments for long periods (in my case, I had some neighbors that were pensioners on small funds that couldn't afford something better, they've been living on those apartments for 15+ years)
Pets were strictly banned, and rightfully so (it would be torture for them).
People do live in those apartments for long periods (in my case, I had some neighbors that were pensioners on small funds that couldn't afford something better, they've been living on those apartments for 15+ years)
Thats ridiculous. If you had a big apartment and a big dog, wouldnt it be just as bad on the dog? 700 sq ft with no yard and a 50 lb dog would be miserable. Your argument doesnt scale at all.
My comment was to bring attention to the humane treatment of animals.
I'm an apartment renter and I've lived near many dog owners. I make it a point to introduce myself and offer to walk their dog(s). Without fail, the dogs are beside themselves with excitement when I get them.
Dogs especially need lots of space and exercise. What a pet owner may think is a big enough apartment may not be.
I'm an apartment renter and I've lived near many dog owners. I make it a point to introduce myself and offer to walk their dog(s). Without fail, the dogs are beside themselves with excitement when I get them.
Dogs especially need lots of space and exercise. What a pet owner may think is a big enough apartment may not be.
ok, that makes sense. I don't want to get off topic, but imo, this is a larger, society wide problem and it doesnt really matter whether the apt is 250 ft or 1000 ft. Dogs are under-excercised in the US, (which is probably why theres so many 'how to fix your dog' shows on tv). The way to keep dogs happy and normal is hours and hours of excercise and attention, which the vast majority of city-dwellers cant provide
Weird timing, I just watched this today: We The Tiny House People Small Homes, Tiny Flats & Wee Shelters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDcVrVA4bSQ
There is a legal apartment size? Seriously?
So any sense of how much these new micro apartments in SF are going to cost?
From the article: "The ultra-efficient efficiencies will go for $1,300 to $1,500 a month, he said. Per city regulations, 15 percent of the units will be allocated as below market rate for low-income residents; he thinks those would rent for around $900 a month."
The new proposed minimum is about the same size as my flat here in the UK, and I know plenty of people living in smaller places than mine.
The UK has such small apartments, I guess it's down to how small the country is. I think a lot of American people would have a hard time visiting some apartment buildings here and understanding the small sizes. The apartment I live in right now is one of the largest I could find in my current location (Brighton) and I wasn't being cheap (I'm paying $2500/m) and it's only about 450 square feet[1]. I've found that it's quite literally impossible to get an apartment here at 1k square feet unless the cost is >$10k/m, but in America a lot of people consider 1k square feet to be small.
Here's an interesting chart about average sizes in a couple of different countries, the difference between the UK and the US is huge: http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-th... (this is houses, but most apartments I've visited in the UK are about the same size as the upstairs of a house, so splitting the figure it half seems a good estimate for apartments)
I would theorise that the majority of people living in small apartments are the sort of people that are young and still finding their path in life (career, education) and so don't spend much time in their apartment (most young people that have their own place don't have the luxury of spending 8 hours a day at home, excluding sleep) so they're not that bothered by living in a small space. It's where they sleep and eat and that's about it. If you're a 40 year old that has a career and family living in 200 square feet would seem insane.
[1] http://www.godfreyinv.com/portfolio/17-the-upper-drive/apart...
Here's an interesting chart about average sizes in a couple of different countries, the difference between the UK and the US is huge: http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-th... (this is houses, but most apartments I've visited in the UK are about the same size as the upstairs of a house, so splitting the figure it half seems a good estimate for apartments)
I would theorise that the majority of people living in small apartments are the sort of people that are young and still finding their path in life (career, education) and so don't spend much time in their apartment (most young people that have their own place don't have the luxury of spending 8 hours a day at home, excluding sleep) so they're not that bothered by living in a small space. It's where they sleep and eat and that's about it. If you're a 40 year old that has a career and family living in 200 square feet would seem insane.
[1] http://www.godfreyinv.com/portfolio/17-the-upper-drive/apart...
I used to live in 170 square feet (16 square meters) here in Montevideo, Uruguay, under the proposed SF minimum.
It was enough for a single student/worker like I was at the time - though I did wish for slightly more space, 220 square feet sounds like about right.
Over here, there's a boom of construction of "studios", they sell for 40.000 dollars and rent for about 400/month.
One thing I hope is that they don't cave on the need for natural lighting, I had a view to a wall and it was depressing. But overall I think it's very reasonable of SF to allow these.
It was enough for a single student/worker like I was at the time - though I did wish for slightly more space, 220 square feet sounds like about right.
Over here, there's a boom of construction of "studios", they sell for 40.000 dollars and rent for about 400/month.
One thing I hope is that they don't cave on the need for natural lighting, I had a view to a wall and it was depressing. But overall I think it's very reasonable of SF to allow these.
Same in Hong Kong. Related: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/01/15/garden/20090115_...
1. No new rent control leases since 1973 (IIRC) although you can inherit a rent control apartment if you've lived there for two years. I'm sure this system is abused but the SF equivalent is a huge number of units being left vacant largely due to rent control;
2. Exit clauses on rent stabilised apartments for the rent getting too high or the occupant earning too much. The rent part is abused since between tenants you're allowed to raise the rent by 1/40th or 1/50th (I forget which) of the cost of capital improvements, which leads to renovating the kitchen/bathroom and probably overstating the cost; and
3. Most importantly, NYC has new construction, even in Manhattan.
What SF really needs more than micro-apartments is:
1. A gradual phase-out of rent control including income-based assessments; and
2. More importantly, some kind of plan that allows for new construction.
As much as I like the weather in the Bay Area, between this and public transport (NYC subways and comparatively cheap taxis > BART+Caltrain+munibus) I'm glad I live in NYC. In lots of ways I think it's got a lot going for it in terms of doing a startup here too.