> The standard “luxury” high-rise studio is 500 square feet. A one bedroom is maybe 700-900. Is that really unreasonable? first, just finding high rise studios

> The standard “luxury” high-rise studio is 500 square feet. A one bedroom is maybe 700-900. Is that really unreasonable? first, just finding high rise studios built in the last two decades is really rough. Like I can't find any in silicon valley that aren't giant "lofts" that approach 1000sqft. Hell, the smallest studio I can find looking around now is the place I lived in redwood city; it was shit, built in the '60s, with a giant single pane window facing a major street near an intersection, so you could listen to all the people who have managed to disable the noise dampening capabilities of their vehicles. 600sqft. And it felt huge. I mean, not that I mind the extra space, but I totally would have given up a couple hundred square feet just for some decent noise insulation. But... as to the actual question? if you made it proportionally cheaper? I'd totally buy or rent a 300sqft space with a shower and bathroom, if it were priced proportionally. Ideally, you setup the shower and commode in the same enclosure, japanese style, and then have the sink in the apartment. The problem right now is that usually if you want to pay for less than 600sqft of space, you end up sharing some wreak of a single family home with five other people. or you live in a smaller studio built before double pane windows, with no thought given to isolating you from your neighbors. I kinda like having public places; I'm a member of a few clubs, including 'the hacker dojo' in mountain view, and I do move some of my life there. I enjoy interacting with other people, but I need some private space, even if it's a small private space. I've lived in shared houses, and with the right people, it's okay, but it's really nice to have your own adytum to withdraw into, where you don't have to see or hear anyone. >Most “luxury” multi family buildings use that word because the historical norm is that apartments only exist to cheaply house the poor. It just means they’re comparable in quality to suburban middle class houses (or are pretending to be). I don't think that's true in silicon valley; most single family homes around here were built to working class standards in the '60s and '70s and are all around pretty terrible. For someone as soft as I am, they'd be intolerable if the climate was not such that you could sleep in a tent, and they are intolerable if you live in the flight path of the local airport or otherwise have significant noise outside. (I'm in a somewhat more modern place right now, on the approach to SJC, with triple pane windows. It's super loud if you open the windows, but if you button up, it's nice and quiet.)