Live data from Hacker News

Micro-apartments next for S.F.?

sfgate.com

21–30 of 97 posts

Re: Micro-apartments next for S.F.?

#21
Interesting. This might change the nightlife culture of SF to be more similar to bigger cities. I did a lot of hanging out in friend's houses, cooking, playing games, or having house parties in SF. In NYC, where the apartments are much much smaller, there's a lot less of that—people go out on the town all night and buy $15 drinks instead, and that supports the bars and restaurants than stay open late.

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.

Re: Micro-apartments next for S.F.?

#22
post #3

"That demographic cohort wants to continue their collegiate experience for an indefinite amount of time," Kennedy said. "I envision this as a launching space as they get established." 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 colle…

I don't think you and Kennedy necessarily conflict. It's very possible for 60% of college students to want to get out of dorms and into a real (large) apartment, while the other 40% still making the post-college demographics unusually high in its preference for micro apartments.

Re: Micro-apartments next for S.F.?

#23
The idea of sharing a kitchen counter and computer desk just makes me think crumbs in the keyboard. However, minimizing the kitchen and having really high end shared kitchen facilities would be great. Between the ages of 24 and 28 I didn't eat at home even once.

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.

Re: Micro-apartments next for S.F.?

#24
The problem isn't that SF is running out of square footage for luxuriously spacious apartments. The problem is that SF doesn't allow the construction of high-density housing, or much new housing of any kind. They gained all of 50-something market-rate housing units in 2011.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/09/19/zoning-law... http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/san_franciscos_to...

Re: Micro-apartments next for S.F.?

#25
It's sort of silly that a minimum apartment size is even legislated in the first place. Somebody who chooses to live in a small apartment does so because it's their best available option.

Re: Micro-apartments next for S.F.?

#26
post #25

It's sort of silly that a minimum apartment size is even legislated in the first place. Somebody who chooses to live in a small apartment does so because it's their best available option.

Sure. And why do we have codes that demand working heating? People should be able to choose to buy lots of blankets instead.

Re: Micro-apartments next for S.F.?

#27
post #25

It's sort of silly that a minimum apartment size is even legislated in the first place. Somebody who chooses to live in a small apartment does so because it's their best available option.

Crazier: when you find a place you like, apply, then they say you can't have it because your salary is too high.

Each apartment complex (by law) has a percentage of units leased only to people making less than a certain amount.

Re: Micro-apartments next for S.F.?

#28
I've downsized a few times over the years. 1080 > 920 > 720 > 660. How much have I missed having a bigger space? None. I could probably drop down to about 550 tomorrow and still have tons of room.

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.

Re: Micro-apartments next for S.F.?

#30
The more I read about the housing market in SF the more it looks like a disaster. Compared to SF, NYC has done a number of things better:

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.

Post reply on HN