8 ms·

Micro-apartments next for S.F.?

62 points by iProject 14y ago

ktizo 14y ago
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.
- olalonde 14y ago
  Same in Hong Kong. Related: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/01/15/garden/20090115_HONGKONG_index.html http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/01/15/garden/20090115_...
- citricsquid 14y ago
  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-the-151738 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/apartment-6/ http://www.godfreyinv.com/portfolio/17-the-upper-drive/apart...
- GFischer 14y ago
  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.
mdanger 14y ago
"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".
- mdanger 14y ago
  (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.)
- theorique 14y ago
  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.
- marvin 14y ago
  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.
- jessriedel 14y ago
  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.
olalonde 14y ago
There is a legal apartment size? Seriously?
othello 14y ago
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 http://www.adil75.org/pdf/av12.pdf (in French)
- alister 14y ago
  > 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."
wslh 14y ago
Does this sound interesting for investing? it can start a new real state bubble based on micro apartments.
- GFischer 14y ago
  It did start one here in Uruguay, they're popping up like mushrooms, since as long as you can get a renter they pay for themselves in less than 10 years.
MrFoof 14y ago
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.
ibagrak 14y ago
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.
po 14y ago
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.
- coecoventures 14y ago
  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.
- bane 14y ago
  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.
vipervpn 14y ago
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.
- axefrog 14y ago
  I suspect pet owners are not the target market for this type of living space.
  - vipervpn 14y ago
    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.
    - mmagin 14y ago
      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".
    - xyome 14y ago
      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.
      - icegreentea 14y ago
        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.
slaundy 14y ago
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.
SteveJS 14y ago
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.
- pixelcort 14y ago
  I think most people would just use either the dining table or the one by the window instead.
fiatmoney 14y ago
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-laws-are-strangling-silicon-valley/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/09/19/zoning-law... http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/san_franciscos_total_housing_inventory_and_pipeline_rep.html http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/san_franciscos_to...
- mmagin 14y ago
  This is probably the biggest factor. So much of SF is covered very low density housing.
  - eshvk 14y ago
    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.
CPops 14y ago
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.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Sure. And why do we have codes that demand working heating? People should be able to choose to buy lots of blankets instead.
  - yummyfajitas 14y ago
    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?
    - saalweachter 14y ago
      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.
      - yummyfajitas 14y ago
        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.
firefoxman1 14y ago
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_happiness.html http://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hill_less_stuff_more_happine...
cletus 14y ago
The more I read about the housing market in SF the more it looks like a disaster. Compared to SF, NYC has done a number of things better: 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.
- Androsynth 14y ago
  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.
  - jseliger 14y ago
    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.
  - amurmann 14y ago
    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.
rabble 14y ago
So any sense of how much these new micro apartments in SF are going to cost?
- michael_michael 14y ago
  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."
acavailhez 14y ago
Recently we got to this in Paris: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s720x720/396654_10151261448218219_1005419078_n.jpg 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.
coecoventures 14y ago
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.
coecoventures 14y ago
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.
radio4fan 14y ago
290 sq ft is about 27 sq m, which is about normal for a studio here in Lyon, France. http://seloger.com 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...
n1c 14y ago
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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDcVrVA4bSQ
malandrew 14y ago
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 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-smallest-apartment-the-size-of-a-walk-in-closet/ 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.
grannyg00se 14y ago
"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?
- malandrew 14y ago
  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.)

62 points by iProject 14y ago

ktizo 14y ago

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.

olalonde 14y ago
Same in Hong Kong. Related: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/01/15/garden/20090115_HONGKONG_index.html http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/01/15/garden/20090115_...
citricsquid 14y ago
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-the-151738 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/apartment-6/ http://www.godfreyinv.com/portfolio/17-the-upper-drive/apart...
GFischer 14y ago
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.

mdanger 14y ago

"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".

mdanger 14y ago
(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.)
theorique 14y ago
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.
marvin 14y ago
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.
jessriedel 14y ago
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.

olalonde 14y ago

There is a legal apartment size? Seriously?

othello 14y ago

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 http://www.adil75.org/pdf/av12.pdf (in French)

alister 14y ago
> 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."

wslh 14y ago

Does this sound interesting for investing? it can start a new real state bubble based on micro apartments.

GFischer 14y ago
It did start one here in Uruguay, they're popping up like mushrooms, since as long as you can get a renter they pay for themselves in less than 10 years.

MrFoof 14y ago

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.

ibagrak 14y ago

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.

po 14y ago

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.

coecoventures 14y ago
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.
bane 14y ago
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.

vipervpn 14y ago

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.

axefrog 14y ago
I suspect pet owners are not the target market for this type of living space.
- vipervpn 14y ago
  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.
  - mmagin 14y ago
    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".
  - xyome 14y ago
    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.
    - icegreentea 14y ago
      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.

slaundy 14y ago

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.

SteveJS 14y ago

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.

pixelcort 14y ago
I think most people would just use either the dining table or the one by the window instead.

fiatmoney 14y ago

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-laws-are-strangling-silicon-valley/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/09/19/zoning-law... http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/san_franciscos_total_housing_inventory_and_pipeline_rep.html http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/san_franciscos_to...

mmagin 14y ago
This is probably the biggest factor. So much of SF is covered very low density housing.
- eshvk 14y ago
  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.

CPops 14y ago

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.

tptacek 14y ago
Sure. And why do we have codes that demand working heating? People should be able to choose to buy lots of blankets instead.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  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?
  - saalweachter 14y ago
    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.
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      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.

firefoxman1 14y ago

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_happiness.html http://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hill_less_stuff_more_happine...

cletus 14y ago

The more I read about the housing market in SF the more it looks like a disaster. Compared to SF, NYC has done a number of things better: 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.

Androsynth 14y ago
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.
- jseliger 14y ago
  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.
- amurmann 14y ago
  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.

rabble 14y ago

So any sense of how much these new micro apartments in SF are going to cost?

michael_michael 14y ago
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."

acavailhez 14y ago

Recently we got to this in Paris: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/s720x720/396654_10151261448218219_1005419078_n.jpg 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.

coecoventures 14y ago

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.

coecoventures 14y ago

radio4fan 14y ago

290 sq ft is about 27 sq m, which is about normal for a studio here in Lyon, France. http://seloger.com 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...

n1c 14y ago

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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDcVrVA4bSQ

malandrew 14y ago

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 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-smallest-apartment-the-size-of-a-walk-in-closet/ 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.

grannyg00se 14y ago

"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?

malandrew 14y ago
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.)