The idea that every single adult needs a single-family zoned space for themselves is something of a historic anomaly. The only reason these aren't more common or affordable is because housing like this got zoned to death.
Guess we should give up on smartphones, air conditioning, personal computers, more than one pair of shoes, more than one TV, among many new historic anomalies.
Mind you, it beats lack of housing altogether as well as some other historic options (like say barracks). But I don't think we should consider this normal or desired when it's economically feasible to give everyone proper living space - which it is.
I get that not everyone would want to live this way their whole lives, but part of the issue with the US housing market is that there are no entry-level housing options. This makes housing not just expensive for young people or poor, but drives housing prices up across the entire inventory.
Most quality of life improvements, especially in urban areas, have been driven by efficiencies and economies of scale.
In England, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has established the Nationally Described Space Standard [1], which specifies that a one-bedroom, one-person flat should have a minimum gross internal floor area of 37 square meters if it includes a shower room, or 39 square meters if it has a bathroom.
I guess anything significantly below that can be called outright poverty.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technical-housing...
I only really see it justified for single young people, but even then $700 for this is insulting (even for a place like SF) unless I'm missing something. Why not just rent a communal house at that point?
I understand asking $700 for this feels icky, but the only reason they can do it is because of the insane scarcity of housing in SF. If we want this to not be a competitive option, the way forward is just to build more housing - like these people are doing.