4 ms·

That's nice and all, and I definitely don't mean to sound like the tough New Yorker I am not, but if that's a "micro-apartment" then I have seen several "nano-a

That's nice and all, and I definitely don't mean to sound like the tough New Yorker I am not, but if that's a "micro-apartment" then I have seen several "nano-apartments" in NYC that wouldn't fit a queen-size bed comfortably, let alone a nice kitchenette like the one in the article. They're still livable, mind you, for some value of 'livable'. In other words, if that is considered "micro" nowadays then my standards must be awfully skewed (which they probably are) and I'm looking forward to being pleasantly surprised when I move out of here.

chimeracoder 14y ago
I was going to say - that apartment is definitely larger than many in downtown Manhattan (if you live in one of the older buildings - particularly the old tenement buildings). That might be 'micro' for Queens or even Washington Heights, but that's certainly not 'micro' for Chelsea or the Village..... > I have seen several "nano-apartments" in NYC that wouldn't fit a queen-size bed comfortably My friend had a tough time figuring out how to fit his full-sized bed - ended up deciding that it wouldn't work, and opted for a futon instead.
notJim 14y ago
I live in lower Manhattan. I should measure, but I'm pretty sure my apartment is right around 200 square feet, and when I was looking, there were definitely smaller apartments available. One of my friends' apartments is probably closer to 150 square feet.
PeterBB 14y ago
Yeah, that's about the size of my current apartment in Chicago. We just call them "studio apartments", nothing especially "micro" about them.
lnanek2 14y ago
Haha, yeah. I used to pay $1500/month for something only a little longer than the one in the article in a basement in Chelsea. It was actually a really nice place in my mind because it was very cheap for the area and I wasn't stuck with a ton of roommates like most of my friends.
potatolicious 14y ago
FWIW this is actually smaller than many things you'd find in Manhattan (legally). NYC IIRC has minimum allowable size of 300 square feet for an apartment. I think the main issue with NYC "micro" apartments is that they're often carved out of older units/buildings and shaped very strangely, resulting in less useful space overall than the number you're actually getting.

chimeracoder 14y ago

I was going to say - that apartment is definitely larger than many in downtown Manhattan (if you live in one of the older buildings - particularly the old tenement buildings). That might be 'micro' for Queens or even Washington Heights, but that's certainly not 'micro' for Chelsea or the Village..... > I have seen several "nano-apartments" in NYC that wouldn't fit a queen-size bed comfortably My friend had a tough time figuring out how to fit his full-sized bed - ended up deciding that it wouldn't work, and opted for a futon instead.

notJim 14y ago

I live in lower Manhattan. I should measure, but I'm pretty sure my apartment is right around 200 square feet, and when I was looking, there were definitely smaller apartments available. One of my friends' apartments is probably closer to 150 square feet.

PeterBB 14y ago

Yeah, that's about the size of my current apartment in Chicago. We just call them "studio apartments", nothing especially "micro" about them.

lnanek2 14y ago

Haha, yeah. I used to pay $1500/month for something only a little longer than the one in the article in a basement in Chelsea. It was actually a really nice place in my mind because it was very cheap for the area and I wasn't stuck with a ton of roommates like most of my friends.

potatolicious 14y ago

FWIW this is actually smaller than many things you'd find in Manhattan (legally). NYC IIRC has minimum allowable size of 300 square feet for an apartment. I think the main issue with NYC "micro" apartments is that they're often carved out of older units/buildings and shaped very strangely, resulting in less useful space overall than the number you're actually getting.