Micro-apartments next for S.F.?

[TarHeelJ]

Wow, I wish I could live in 150 square feet. It's always been a dream of mine.

[mhays]

Seattle has a recurring controversy over "rooming houses." They're a sort of micro apartment, but permitted as group housing, an easier permitting process. Today's Seattle Times has this blog post about a five-unit project that could be called a 39-unit project and the NIMBYs that's stirring up: http://www.eastlakeave.com/2012/07/1...nt-on-franklin

I lived in a 250 square foot hotel room for several months while waiting for my current building to be built. It wasn't bad. Of course most of my stuff was in storage. You learn to live with the space you have.

[M II A II R II K]

This pretty much tops it off


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4yJGTPUR_0#t=79s

[fflint]

Someone linked to the SF micro-condo complex Cubix, but those condo units are a little bigger than the proposed apartments, maybe another 50 square feet--enough for full kitchens and bathrooms. They also have small balconies. Former forumer JChurch lives there and his unit is not terribly crowded at all.

SF apartments are already much smaller than what I've seen in other US cities, generally speaking, except for New York. I shared a 300 sq ft studio with my partner for two years before we upgraded to our current 700 sq ft apartment.

In terms of small-unit living, you're good as long as you don't collect a bunch of bulky crap. My partner and I have agreed to throw out something if we want to bring in something new (furniture, decor, etc.), which really helps. In terms of small unit design, efficient use of space is key. These proposed apartments appear to be pretty good on that score.

[M II A II R II K]

If it's part of a condominium complex which also has many common areas for the tenants they could also include storage rooms for tenants too to store equipment and unused things to not have to put in their apartment.

[fflint]

Weiner’s housing measures struggle before board

sfgate
John Wildermuth
Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Supervisor Scott Wiener’s “smaller is better” housing measures faced unexpectedly tough sledding before the Board of Supervisors Tuesday.

Weiner agreed to delay discussion on his plan to trim the minimum size of apartments in the city until Sept. 25 to allow more negotiations with other members of the board and then had to fight off an attempt to put his measure to change the rules on local student housing on the back burner.

While the second measure would ban the conversion of existing rental housing into college dorms, it also would promote construction of new student housing by allowing more units, fewer fees and less required open space for developments designed for students.

The plan, which has been in the works for two years, was approved by the Planning Commission last month after all the concerns appeared to have been solved. But Supervisor Jane Kim blindsided Wiener with a last-minute request to delay action on the plan so that more changes could be made.

Kim called for amendments that could grandfather in existing student housing and also require more reports about how any new student housing actually is being used.

But few board members wanted to see more delays to the housing plan, especially since the amendments would have sent Weiner’s measure back to the Planning Commission for the third time. They were also unhappy with the timing of the request.

“I feel there should have been some effort to reach out to (Wiener)” before the meeting, said Supervisor Eric Mar.

The measure passed on a 9-2 vote, with supervisors Kim and John Avalos opposed.

Weiner was resigned to the delay for his plan to allow 220-square-foot efficiency units in the city, compared to the current 290-square-foot minimum.

Admitting that the new apartments wouldn’t be for everyone, Wiener said the smaller units would be a boon for the 40 percent of San Francisco residents who live alone.
...

[Don B.]

Oy. I downsized from 2,000 square feet (per capita) to 840 square feet. *in best Scotty voice* I canna do anymore, Captain!

--don

[photoLith]

I live in a 420 square foot apartment, its plenty big for me, except I cant fit all my antique bottles in it, so most of my crap is in storage. I could feasibly live in a smaller space but not 150 square feet.

[mhays]

(never mind)

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by staff

250 square feet (~23 m²) is small but not extremely small. Pretty common way for singles to live even in medium sized European cities like Stockholm or Copenhagen. In London it's not unusual with even places smaller than that-- in Tokyo even more so I reckon.

Other than dorms where in Copenhagen do you find apartments under 30m2?

If such sub ~30m2 even exist it's CERTAINLY not in anyway common in Copenhagen!


Edit: tried a Home search - no apartments under 25m2 in the entire Kingdom..

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by rs913

Is this even true? I thought the north side of Chicago has its share of small studios and small 1BRs just like any other desirable prime big city neighborhood, maybe a little bigger than those in NYC and SF, but not "obscene"....

Huh? The Northside is dominated by tiny apartments.

My current apt is about 250 sq. feet. Previous was nearly identical. Previous to that was a 1 bedroom, about 700 sq feet.

My buddy's old apt was on the order of 150 sq. feet. It was insane. It was like my bedroom at my parents house, with a bathroom and a refrigerator. Hah.

Random side note: I lived in Dallas last year for about 6 months. In the central city, 1 bedroom, 950 sq. feet, $650 a month. I didn't know what to do with all that space! Haha.

[pesto]

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/...t-construction

In Silicon Valley, luxury apartment construction is at all-time highs, trying to catch up with the hiring boom. The relatively empty areas of North SJ and Milpitas are getting huge projects as is Mt. View, which is already fairly dense with older sfh's.

Most interesting: prices for luxury apartments are high (although not by SF standards) but there is no talk about building micro-units in South Bay. This seems to imply that couples and families looking for more space tend to move to the Peninsula and South Bay, and that micro-apartments for 1 tenant makes sense in SF.

[Gordo]

^It also has to do with zoning and building approval policies, I'm sure. A developer looking to build micro-apartments in Mountain View or Palo Alto or even San Jose would likely be laughed out of the approvals meeting. I'd be willing to bet that if Cupertino or Palo Alto, etc made some zoning changes to allow micro-units we'd likely see someone take a stab at it, but proposing something that is unprecedented in the area and would require massive zoning changes is pretty risky and not likely to be worth it to try. In SF there's a bit more precedence and a movement to actually make smaller apartments legal to build without one off zoning changes - gigantic difference.

But I agree, there's definitely more demand for small apartments for singles in SF than the South Bay.

[mhays]

I bet if suddenly 5,000 units of 200 or 250 sf each popped up in Silicon Valley they'd be gone as quickly as people could move in. For single people resigned to roommate + long commute it would be like nirvana. Particularly people used to working long hours, and whose social lives aren't centered on home.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by mhays

I bet if suddenly 5,000 units of 200 or 250 sf each popped up in Silicon Valley they'd be gone as quickly as people could move in. For single people resigned to roommate + long commute it would be like nirvana. Particularly people used to working long hours, and whose social lives aren't centered on home.

You and Gordo do make good points, but I think the main point is that there is little expressed demand to change the zoning rules in South Bay in spite of HUGE demand (all-time record building in SJ) and high prices. Plus it seems reasonable for a single person to prefer living in SF than in the South Bay, where there is a decent but not great nighlife scene and for couples or families to prefer living outside of the City.

[Troll]

that's pretty much what I live in right now and I vastly prefer it to my older, larger apartment that I shared with a roommate. if you live alone and have a small budget these sorts of apartments are great, though I can understand if many americans aren't used to such a small living space.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by pesto

You and Gordo do make good points, but I think the main point is that there is little expressed demand to change the zoning rules in South Bay in spite of HUGE demand (all-time record building in SJ) and high prices. Plus it seems reasonable for a single person to prefer living in SF than in the South Bay, where there is a decent but not great nighlife scene and for couples or families to prefer living outside of the City.

This is a niche market that much of the general public would never get behind (for stupid reasons in my opinion). So it's difficult to get any groundswell of public support.

Many single people want to live near work.

[Jasoncw]

If they want to make apartments that small I say go for it.

Personally though, the current minimum is 290 square feet, and the floor plan there is 220. Looking at it, adding 60 square feet would change it from being tiny to being comfortably small. So I don't know how worthwhile trimming those extra square feet is.

But in general I do think that architects are capable of designing comfortable homes that are smaller than most people would think possible.

[mhays]

The difference is they can be a lot cheaper, and therefore open to a lot more people.

As I've pointed out before, Seattle has units down to 150. They work. It's not experimental.

On the Silicon Valley thing, I should point out that the model is predicated on not having parking (otherwise you're paying a huge percentage of your rent just for your car), so it requires a fairly self-contained lifestyle.

[M II A II R II K]

Why Micro Apartments Are The Next Big Trend In City Living

Read More: http://www.businessinsider.com/micro...-trend-2012-10

.....

In New York City, 1.8 million one- and two-person households exist, but there are only 1 million studio and one-bedroom apartments in Manhattan, leaving a housing shortage.

- The surge of tech wizards descending on San Francisco and the Bay area has caused rent in the city to skyrocket 22 percent since 2008, according to The New York Times. London, too, is dealing with a housing crisis, where 1 in 10 people are on housing waiting lists, according to The Guardian. In China, the firm Dragonomics estimated nearly 50 million of China's 230 million urban households live in "substandard quarters often lacking their own toilet and kitchen." To combat this issue, China would have to build 10 million apartments a year until 2030.

- New York City's housing shortage prompted Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration to commission 80 300-square-foot apartments in Manhattan this past summer. These prospective apartments, which are expected to rent for $2,000 a month, are so small that Bloomberg will have to amend zoning laws, which currently states that all apartments must be at least 400 square feet. The apartments in New York City will be just four times the size of a standard prison cell. "People from all over the world want to live in New York City, and we must develop a new, scalable housing model that is safe, affordable and innovative to meet their needs," Bloomberg said in a statement announcing the apartments.

- The city of San Jose, California, has already built 220-square-foot micro-units, while other cities across the country, like Seattle, Chicago and Boston are also considering the idea, according to the New York Times. Similarly, several international cities like London, Warsaw, and cities in China have all adopted a micro-apartment model, where residents pay high prices to live in tiny, but optimally-located, living spaces. An 8' X 10' apartment in London was originally on sale for $145,000, but because of its prime location, next to Harrod's department store, more than 12 bids have been put on the apartment. The real estate agent selling the property guessed the place will sell closer to $500,000.

- But not everyone believes that these micro-apartments are the solution. Tenants rights advocates worry that this trend could set a bad precedent. “Are we saying it is acceptable to box people up in little tiny spaces?” Tommi Avicolli Mecca, director of counseling at the Housing Rights Committee, a nonprofit organization, told the New York Times. “What standard are we setting here?” These tiny apartments could also create a larger issue that divides classes. Will these new micro-units mean that only the super rich can afford to live in 800-square-foot plus apartments while the middle class settles for 300-square-foot closets?

.....

The transforming apartment created by Simon Woodroffe has the master bedroom descend from the ceiling.