Micro-Apartments, Tiny Homes Prefabricated in Brooklyn

I don't know the regulations of California but where I live the city has prohibited the construction of smaller units (1 bedroom, less than 700 square feet) thru zoning regulation and the existing stock of smaller units has been converted to bigger units.

I think if you look for a general reason why we don't have cheaper housing thru smaller units more suitable for people living alone, you will find that it is the explicit policy of the bigger cities.

Or I could live 20 minutes away from SF and pay $700 a month for a small townhome with workshop space. Pass.

As someone who lives a few blocks from where this complex is going up, I don't know what these people are smoking. $3000 for 360 sq foot apartment is utterly absurd, even in NY. I pay far less than that for a nice apartment in a doorman building so I don't know who would in their right mind would pay for these. I could see _maybe_ paying if this complex were going up in a prime neighborhood like the West Village or Tribeca, but way over on 27th street which is a half mile (which is considered far in Manhattan) from the nearest subway station, no way.

After reading that they had to waive the regular zoning laws, I get the impression that this is a developer's approach to fulfilling an affordable housing requirement while actually trying to push median rents upward.

Are you talking about the section detail in which the perimeter beam creates a thermal break? I suppose that the modules are insulated on 5 sides (minus the floor) - if the floor had rigid insulation, then you'd effectively have each unit be an enclosed box.

40 square foot apartments!? Surely you jest.

A while ago a close friend lived with his wife and two maine coons in a studio apartment in the east village; this place was maybe 450 square feet. As you entered, the kitchen (5x5) was to the right. As you stood facing into the kitchen, the door to the bathroom (5x5) was to the left. Turn 180'. There is a bed with its long side perpendicular to you; its headboard is against the wall to the right, and there is maybe 3' of clearance between its foot and the wall on your left. Immediately in front of the bed is a loveseat with its back to the bed, facing the kitchen and the square cut-in of the bathroom; there is a TV hanging on the wall. There is maybe 5' of clearance between the loveseat and the TV. They had expertly put together storage spaces to keep the clutter down. They would regularly host gatherings of 6+ people (they had tiny stackable stools to pull out for company) in that tiny apartment. It was pretty cozy, but we all had fun.

If I remember correctly, they paid around $2,000 for the space. It's definitely not for everyone.

The article brings up the rent inflation caused by many people living with room-mates. That may be, but most of the people I know with room-mates can afford less than $1,500/mo in rent. A $3,000/mo micro studio would not attract them. Hell, it wouldn't attract me - I live in a true one bedroom / one bathroom. And don't pay nearly what these micro apartments will cost. Most of the two bedroom apartments in my neighborhood aren't attractive to room-mates or families: they are what's known as 'railroad' apartments - though they are technically 'shotgun' apartments, as they do not have a narrow hallway running the length. The only kind of person this is truly attractive to is the kind who wants an extra room for an office. 5 years ago they were renting at $1,250/mo. These days they are renting for $2,300/mo. Most are in sad states of disrepair. Example layout: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun_house#mediaviewer/File:... -- swap the bedroom and the living room, add another bedroom on the bottom, and two entrances on the left in the kitchen and the bottom bedroom.

It also brings up amenity buildings -- and they're novel, at first, but then you realize that nobody actually uses them: the laundry room is either packed or half the machines are broken; the gym is a graveyard of broken treadmills and old equipment; the "dog run" on the roof is a 20' patch of astroturf that never gets hosed off... and the tenants have no recourse with the management to get things fixed.

I suppose if you're living in a micro apartment they may be used quite a bit more.

I suppose my point is: at that price, many of the prospective tenants could rent a real one bedroom and add twenty minutes onto their commute for a lower cost. This won't reduce the number of people living with roomates, as they wouldn't be able to afford them anyhow. When I was just beginning my career here, I wouldn't have been able to afford one either. Typical financial requirements are 50x monthly rent, a security deposit of one month, and first month and last month. To move into a $3,000/mo apartment, then, you need to have $9,000 cash and make $150,000/yr. This is why so many live with room-mates in apartments to which they are not a lessee.

Hey! I'm a New Yorker who has definitely lived in apartments this small. I currently live in a studio that's 325 sq ft.

I also live pretty minimally, so it's actually not that bad. I have room for a bed, a small desk, a small dining table, some chairs, and a TV.

I might be able to fit a small couch in here, but it would be pretty tight at that point.

It's not as bad as you'd think. The biggest drawback is that you basically start using your bed as a couch, which can make things difficult if you're someone who needs really strict sleep hygiene.

If you're someone who collects a lot of stuff, it's definitely not for you. I can move my entire apartment (minus furniture) in 3-4 medium boxes, so it's perfect for me.

It also goes without saying that you don't entertain much at a place like that. You either go out somewhere, or have maybe a couple people over, but any more than 4 people (including yourself) starts to be totally unmanageable.

I lived for a while overseas for a while in a "micro" smaller than these. Bed, closet, small desk, almost room for a chair if it was a folding chair and I kept it folded up most of the time. Restrooms and kitchens were all common areas. I think the entire room was under 60 sq ft (under 5.5 m^2. I know some people put a bunk bed in their rooms and split the rent -- it worked better when the roomates worked different shifts.

When people talk about what you "need" as living space, it can't get too much smaller than this, but it's not a great existence.

I was working long days so I didn't really have time for much more, but it wasn't what I'd call a "great" living experience even then. You had to really be ultra-disciplined about editing stuff into the trash and keeping organized. Even if you were absolutely exhausted, you still had to go through certain "rituals" to keep the place livable on an item-by-item issue. I found it pretty stressful.

I had a chance to buy some great stuff at incredible discounts, but I didn't even have space to stash it before shipping it back to the U.S. so I lost out on all those opportunities. Not having space for a computer or TV meant I started losing track of current events and down-time was spent away from my place, only to come there to crash/sleep or change clothes. It wasn't really a place you could come back to and relax or unwind.

I remember it being really hard to clean because there simply wasn't anywhere to move things out of the way to clean under and around...where things were was where they were going to be. I didn't have place to even store an extra set of bedding, so I had to plan around taking my stuff to the laundry and making sure it got back to me and on the bed by night. Small things like that add up.

I'd say it was a little bit like a dorm room experience, but smaller.

If somebody really enjoyed the life they lived in their college dorm or in a prison cell (that you could leave when you wanted), I can guess this would appeal to them. Personally it got old pretty quick and I'd rather not live like that again.

These are positively spacious by comparison.

I have a friend in Seoul who lives in a place not much bigger than the 313sq ft one shown in the article. I've spent weeks there sleeping on the floor. It's much more reasonable by comparison. There's some oddities in the cramped bathroom, shared fixtures and the like, and the kitchen it a little cramped, but it's not a bad existence for a single person.

I lived in an apartment in Manhattan that was somewhere around 180-200sqft (it was originally larger, but the owner of the apartment decided to make a very large closet between the kitchen and 'living room', for whatever reason). It was surprisingly pleasant, when I was single. I had a queen-sized bed, a desk, and lots of shelves.

Once my then-girlfriend moved in with me, things got a bit more stressful. Not because we needed more space to live in -- we were surprisingly comfortable -- but because we weren't using the city as our living room anymore. When you're going out nearly every night, you don't tend to care about the size of your living quarters, but when you're spending your whole day there, it gets a bit tight.

I can't imagine going back to that now, but it was the perfect place from which to experience New York.

I'm pretty sure my microstudio in SF (Soma) is about 250-275 sq. feet. It feels slightly smaller than the picture of Kelli's 313 sq. foot apartment from the article. I don't feel like there's much interesting stuff to say about it. It's an apartment that's really small. I have no seats other than my computer chair and my bed, which is fine for me but obviously makes having guests essentially impossible. But hey, I have a place by myself in SF.

For a year, my wife and I lived in this floor plan, with our infant daughter: http://www.halsteadnewrochelle.com/redsimages/floorplan/unit.... It was a totally inefficient 420 square feet, with lots of unusable space in that hallway and giant bathroom. Comparable to a well-designed 350 square foot space I'd say.

Living-wise, it was great! These places aren't designed for people who like to hang around at home. We were out all day--my wife would wander around Manhattan while I was at work, and we'd spend all weekend shopping/traveling/etc.

The summer before that, before the baby, we lived for three months in an extended stay hotel room, which was 240 square feet. Enough space for a bed, small bathroom, kitchen, and table with two chairs. Cheaper finishings than I would prefer, but otherwise quite comfortable. The summer before that I lived in a 150 square foot bedroom/bath where I didn't have access to the rest of the house. If the UWS wasn't so filthy in the summer it would've been great.

I lived in a place about this size in Amsterdam for a year. I did not have a ton of 'stuff' at the time and for obvious reasons it's better if you can take a minimalist approach to physical possessions. I liked it OK; I had a bit of a view, it was quiet, I was single at the time so it was easy to keep tidy. Living in a similarly small space with my wife before we got married was stressful. We're both inclined to be cluttered but whereas it's easy to manage your own clutter it's trickier when you share. I live in a house now and it's full of stuff - it's like when you get a big hard disk and fall out of the habit of deleting things because you don't really need to manage the space any more XD

If I was single again and needed to be in a dense city I'd consider such a place - though not at these prices - I don't like dealing with roommates, so I'm willing to pay for solitude. But I'd give serious thought to whether I might be better off living in a more rural area and having more space to play with.

So in units the rest of the world actually understands this means apartments between 24 and 34 square meters?

That's supposed to be micro? I would say that this is about the regular size of "1 room apartment" in my area (Munich area, Germany). Which isn't the most densely populate one, no huge high-rises, tower blocks or anything like the public housing in British or American metro-zones. If you're converting an old house into rental flats, that's just what you usually get.

So, yes, I along with many singles, professionals and students lived (and live) in such "micro"-apartments. Kitchens tend to smaller than larger apartments (and definitely smaller than what you usually get in the US). And, well, you've got your bed next to your desk.

But otherwise I never considered this to be that much special. It's no Japanese coffin motel, you don't need complicated tricks to stow away things; no hidden floors, multi-function furniture, murphy or loft beds (the most common bed size here seems to be 1.4m x 2m -- no clue what's that in "royalty").

So around here it's certainly not the wave of the future, it seems to always have been that way. We don't tend to have that many shared apartments as they've got in the US. Once you're done with university, it's really, really rare to share accommodations (which to some would suggest an "alternative lifestyle").

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Types, we can see that the standard "20-foot" container which I assume is what you're thinking of is (internally, since we're comparing with other housing) 18.7 by 7.7 foot, so the total area is just 144 square feet.

Note: computing the above was horrible, how are you supposed to enter 18′ 8 13⁄16″ * 7′ 8 19⁄32″ (the dimensions as given in Wikipedia's table) into a calculator?