4 ms·

They are unnecessarily restrictive in my opinion. Why can't developers build 100 sqft bedrooms with shared bathroom/kitchen areas? Or more communal living areas

They are unnecessarily restrictive in my opinion. Why can't developers build 100 sqft bedrooms with shared bathroom/kitchen areas? Or more communal living areas? I can assure you that if you built something like that anywhere between SF and San Jose, there is a price at which those places would have full occupancy, and it's almost certainly over $800/mo, probably even $1k/mo. I agree that height restrictions are a much bigger contributor to the lack of housing, but preventing dorm-style living seems to have little utility aside from preventing poorer people from living in your area.

badfrog 7y ago
I agree 150 square feet is a bit high for a minimum. Where does that apply? In NYC, the minimum is 80 square feet. Edit: according to this article, the regulations used by 90 percent of US communities allow 70 sq ft. https://www.hunker.com/13711464/building-code-requirements-for-bedrooms https://www.hunker.com/13711464/building-code-requirements-f...
foobar1962 7y ago
> Why can't developers build 100 sqft bedrooms with shared bathroom/kitchen areas? They have in the past. They were tenements, projects etc. Most have been torn down and a vow made to never do this again. Look at places like Hong Kong and other big Asian cities today, to see what high density living looks like. It can be good but often isn't.
- cardiffspaceman 7y ago
  I grew up in a tract of suburban houses which typically had two 9x10 bedrooms plus a larger bedroom. Two twin beds could be stacked in one of those rooms. These totally-not-exploited people shared the rest of the 1300 sq. ft. house. So I think that small bedrooms in one place do not equate to small bedrooms in another place. I respect the folks who try out tiny houses. It’s hard for me to picture them having a happy time or if they do maybe when they accurately document their experiences I will have a better idea of what I really need, which might still be a 2500 sq. ft. McMansion, but maybe not.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pjlegato 7y ago
  Most historic small roomed dwellings were not dismal "never again" tenements. Until zoned into illegality in the mid 20th century, tiny room SRO hotels and boardinghouses for middle and upper class people were common: https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6j49p0wf&brand=ucpress https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6j49... Many people don't want to cook or clean. Many people don't want or need a living room or a private bathroom. This does not necessarily imply that these people must live in horrid squalor.
- dagw 7y ago
  My 'apartment' when I was at university was 100 sq ft with 3 apartments sharing a bathroom and kitchen area. Sure I wouldn't have wanted to live there forever, but for the 2.5 years I was there it offered everything i needed, and it was 5 minute walk from campus and a ~20 minute walk to downtown. I also had the choice of a real 500+ sq ft apartment 30 minutes by bus from the campus, but I never even seriously considered swapping.

badfrog 7y ago

I agree 150 square feet is a bit high for a minimum. Where does that apply? In NYC, the minimum is 80 square feet. Edit: according to this article, the regulations used by 90 percent of US communities allow 70 sq ft. https://www.hunker.com/13711464/building-code-requirements-for-bedrooms https://www.hunker.com/13711464/building-code-requirements-f...

foobar1962 7y ago

> Why can't developers build 100 sqft bedrooms with shared bathroom/kitchen areas? They have in the past. They were tenements, projects etc. Most have been torn down and a vow made to never do this again. Look at places like Hong Kong and other big Asian cities today, to see what high density living looks like. It can be good but often isn't.

cardiffspaceman 7y ago
I grew up in a tract of suburban houses which typically had two 9x10 bedrooms plus a larger bedroom. Two twin beds could be stacked in one of those rooms. These totally-not-exploited people shared the rest of the 1300 sq. ft. house. So I think that small bedrooms in one place do not equate to small bedrooms in another place. I respect the folks who try out tiny houses. It’s hard for me to picture them having a happy time or if they do maybe when they accurately document their experiences I will have a better idea of what I really need, which might still be a 2500 sq. ft. McMansion, but maybe not.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pjlegato 7y ago
Most historic small roomed dwellings were not dismal "never again" tenements. Until zoned into illegality in the mid 20th century, tiny room SRO hotels and boardinghouses for middle and upper class people were common: https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6j49p0wf&brand=ucpress https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6j49... Many people don't want to cook or clean. Many people don't want or need a living room or a private bathroom. This does not necessarily imply that these people must live in horrid squalor.
dagw 7y ago
My 'apartment' when I was at university was 100 sq ft with 3 apartments sharing a bathroom and kitchen area. Sure I wouldn't have wanted to live there forever, but for the 2.5 years I was there it offered everything i needed, and it was 5 minute walk from campus and a ~20 minute walk to downtown. I also had the choice of a real 500+ sq ft apartment 30 minutes by bus from the campus, but I never even seriously considered swapping.