Micro-apartments next for S.F.?
sfgate.com
sfgate.com
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.
Because it is. I submitted this article a while back: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... and it generated this discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4032046 , but the issue is simple economics: supply for a place is being held constant through political rules (as Matt Yglesias, the author of the linked article, likes to say, housing costs can be kept down through complex technologies like steel and elevators) while demand soars because the place is a highly desirable one.
The result is higher prices.
- Net effective speeds are low ... but so are other modes of transport through dense regions. Downtown SF to Stonestown is 21 minutes driving (31 in traffic), 30 minutes by Muni. That's an 18 MPH average driving speed, including significant segments on i280. The Muni route is shorter (about 6.5 miles), and reflects a slower net speed but over a more direct route).
- Positive externalities are high. Riders save on, at a minimum, parking, and at a maximum, auto ownership expenses (about $7,500/year, probably higher given garaging/ticketing expenses in SF). Merchants benefit by shoppers. Employers benefit from more convenience to employees. Drivers benefit by reduced congestion. It makes sense for transit to be partially offset by taxes or other fees, as it is in San Francisco.
- Density matters. As dense as it is (for a Western US city), SF is just barely at the density for which transit is effective. While the microunits suggested are one possible alternative, towers are more likely the solution (much of SF is zoned for 40' maximum height -- roughly 3-story construction).
- Other factors. Muni relies on tracked vehicles (Muni Metro/streetcars, cable cars), and trolley buses which are supplied electrical power from overhead wires. All provide for minimal bypass capability when a vehicle is disabled -- there's no way to route around such vehicles. A single disabled vehicle may cause extensive single-route or systemwide conjestion.
Bikes are a reasonably viable alternative, though hills are somewhat challenging. Rain too, but less frequently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_the_San_Franc...
There are too many agencies, each one too myopic and embroiled in local politics to make good decisions - successful large projects seem to be more an accident than anything else.
This is a nice article on what a "utopian" transit strategy might look like:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design/2012/03/fantasy-tran...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/09/19/zoning-law... http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/san_franciscos_to...
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 (in French)
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."
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".
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.
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.
If dorms weren't overpriced, more students would probably want to stay in them.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
* Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, if the temperature outside falls below 40 degrees, the inside temperature is required to be at least 55 degrees Fahrenheit.
55 degrees! Do you honestly want an apartment which is 45, 40, 35 degrees at night? Hell, it's probably not even sane to keep an apartment under 55 degrees in the winter, for fear of the pipes freezing.
I think this is a discussion that would quickly devolve into a debate over the tenement reform movement. I'd just say that the codes and statutes covering apartments were a reaction to a time where housing was so cramped and substandard that it caused cholera outbreaks, riots, and a 10% infant mortality rate among tenement dwellers.
So then the idea behind the codes is simply: it's good that people buy property and convert into rental dwellings, because a huge number of people need rental housing. But nobody should be allowed to profit from housing that falls below a minimum standard. Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom, and while some renters clearly would benefit from the increased choice in living expenses, many more renters would be harmed either by (a) being locked by the market into substandard housing, (b) being dragged by their parents or spouses into substandard housing, (c) losing their homes when property ownership changed hands and more profit was wrung out of their current houses.
As for you and your heat: you had the choice not to turn on the heat. If your landlord wasn't required to provide heat, you might not have.
Counterexample: I moved from Houston, where almost every apartment has good air conditioning, but it's not required by law (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/consumer&...). Market forces are sufficient to prevent landlords from offering units without AC, because nobody would pay for them.
Perhaps the market quality floor for housing is in part a product of the minimum standard housing allowed by the state. Perhaps there's low marginal cost of adding an AC if you're required by law to keep apartments at some minimum level of quality; you might as well spend a small amount of money to compete on quality, because you can't compete on price.
You'll note that I asked specifically about cases like heating/min size requirements which have nothing to do with externalities (such as disease outbreaks or fire spreading). So why bring them up?
Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom, and while some renters clearly would benefit from the increased choice in living expenses, many more renters would be harmed either by (a) being locked by the market into substandard housing,
This claim is not observed in reality. In virtually every market segment including housing, you see a race to meet demand in all market segments, from the top to the bottom.
The only way there would be a race to the bottom is if virtually everyone wanted something cheaper than what is currently available and were willing to sacrifice quality to get it. I.e., if the minimum size requirements are hurting almost everyone. Do you believe this is the case?
(b) being dragged by their parents or spouses into substandard housing
This seems like an extremely roundabout way of imposing minimum parenting standards. An extremely obvious way and far simpler way would simply be to forbid parents to bring their children into dorm-sized apartments.
(c) losing their homes when property ownership changed hands and more profit was wrung out of their current houses.
Um, this usually happens when landlords want to turn cheaper housing into more expensive housing. I.e., upgrade the projects to luxury apts. Should we also impose quality ceilings on housing? If not, why not?
The rest, I think we're getting ourselves mixed up. I understand your question: absent externalities, which perhaps could be addressed more effectively with targeted regulations rather than market-restricting housing codes, what's the purpose of having housing codes?
I tried to make two points in my response: first, the reason we have housing codes to begin with --- the observation that the externalities you alluded to in fact were a major social problem around the turn of the last century --- and second, that the reason absent "cholera outbreaks" to impose a minimum standard on urban housing is that a minimum standard for urban housing is an intrinsic good thing that will improve welfare more than greater choice in housing will.
Regarding forbidding children in dorm-sized apartments: sure. Of course, we're countering what you see as an overly broad and market-harming set of laws with a far more intrusive set of laws. Also, if we relax minimum standard housing and that sets off a race to the bottom, we can be in an unattractive position later on of having to recognize that while we don't want kids raised in dorm apartments, the market is such that we no longer have the option to forbid it.
As you know, we're very unlikely to come to agreement here, you and I having polar opposite worldviews on subjects like this, but I do appreciate the challenge. :)
As far as I can tell, "gentrification" means people like me--who make a decent white collar living and don't cause trouble--moving into poor neighborhoods, often crime-filled ones. Why should I be unhappy about having a nice place to live?
And hey: I lived in a loft in SOMA. I'm not an anti-gentrification crusader.
Example: I have a friend who lives at Divisadero & Hayes, and passed on an article that attacked him (personally, but anonymously) as a gentrifier: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020412420457715...
The writer complains about the loss of the "culture"...but the only meaningful change we can see here was the disappearance of drug dealers and violence.
Each apartment complex (by law) has a percentage of units leased only to people making less than a certain amount.
"[California] State law requires that 15% of residential development occurring in Redevelopment Project Areas adopted after January 1, 1976 be subject to long-term affordability restrictions, to be fulfilled on a cumulative basis every 10 years."
That doesn't mean they just make units available at $1200/month anybody can lease -- it means the $1200/month units are only available to people making under a percentage-off-median wage for the area.
Quick translation: it's a 3.16 square meters (34 square feet) flat on sale in the 10th district in Paris.
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
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...
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.
I guess what I am saying is that the absolute minimum square footage you think you need is a malleable concept.
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.
I had friends that lived in small tenements. I had friends that grew up in the projects. 4-5 people, less space. Did fine.
One good book: _American Project_, by Sudhir Venkatesh.
I don't think anyone would debate this, however, I doubt success was ever really limited by the amount of living space they had growing up. Having lived in the "bad part" of a "rough city", square footage had no bearing on future success.
Now, we are family of five with a dog. We live very comfortably in 1400 square foot house. That is less than 300 square foot per person.
Square footage is overrated. It is all about maximizing your usable space. As added bonus, we spend less time in clean up and have less clutter to keep up.
Keywords: Aren't supposed to. Square footage is often a wee bit inflated in listings. Sometimes it's considerably inflated (including stairwells, outdoor balconies, closets, hallways, etc.). I don't go as far as bring a measuring tape, but when I look at a space I try to figure out of the areas I care about are as big as I need them to be. Much easier and simpler way to assess.
It's not even space I could use if I hypothetically tore out all of the interior walls and had one big empty room.
I used to live in a 480 square foot garage apartment in Houston. I loved the place. Unfortunately, it had lots of storage space. Yes, unfortunately, because I literally accumulated a ton of stuff I didn't need. (Yes, literally = actually.)
I'm moving to the bay area tomorrow, and I'll have reduced my worldly belongings to one 7x7x8 foot POD, plus a suitcase.
> 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.
I'll take all but the last, unless it's on a track and I know what I'm doing.
Shelter Kit makes homes just about our size. The whole kit can be had for under $30k and includes the entire makings for the outer shell and fasteners. Two people are supposed to be able to construct one in a matter of a few weeks. I hope they're still around when I retire.
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.
And yes, one of the biggest problems of having a big living space is feeling an obligation to fill it.
I'm jaundiced towards SF in general, but it's unquestionably an upgrade from Houston (land of my in-laws).
For five years I lived in a unit that was 384 square feet. And then my wife moved in with me. And shortly thereafter, two cats. We all lived in this space for about 18 months. It wasn't bad at all; we fondly refer to it as The Cave. The only reason we left is because we moved overseas.
A lot of prospective renters weren't interested with the unit because of how small it was. But those who were interested wanted it precisely because they would be forced to get rid of stuff--and would not be able to mindlessly accumulate.
When we move back to the US, we're looking at country acreage (to start a small farm) and living in a converted shipping container. One of the biggest drivers for a larger living space is to have some run-around area for the cats.
If you want inspiration to make the best of limited spaces, google images for Japanese appartments. Lots of inspiration like using the steps of stairs as drawers, sliding furniture, efficient bookcases,... Here's an extreme example: http://unclutterer.com/2010/04/26/video-incredibly-efficient...
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?
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.)
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.
I think this concept would be great for SF. Just be sure to add the common areas.
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...
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.
There's a lot of stuff you can't discriminate on, but animal ownership isn't a fundamental right.
Pets were strictly banned, and rightfully so (it would be torture for them).
People do live in those apartments for long periods (in my case, I had some neighbors that were pensioners on small funds that couldn't afford something better, they've been living on those apartments for 15+ years)
I'm an apartment renter and I've lived near many dog owners. I make it a point to introduce myself and offer to walk their dog(s). Without fail, the dogs are beside themselves with excitement when I get them.
Dogs especially need lots of space and exercise. What a pet owner may think is a big enough apartment may not be.
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-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/apart...
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.