Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Micro-apartments next for S.F.?

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

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

#61

Post by notatoad »

bickfordb wrote: post #58
cletus wrote: post #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 re…

It seems like the absurdity of the local public transit forces a lot of the high density construction downtown. When MUNI isn't halted (it regularly is) it often takes me 25 minutes to get to SOMA (Ballpark) from the Mission on MUNI even though straight line distance is less than one mile. Each MUNI ticket are is $2. The total system cost is $750MM and fare revenue is $150M which makes the real value of a MUNI fare $…

Have you tried walking? From what you say it sounds like a cheaper, quicker, and more reliable alternative.

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

#62

Post by sgrove »

stcredzero wrote: post #39
MrFoof wrote: post #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've downsized a few times over the years. 1080 > 920 > 720 > 660. How much have I missed having a bigger space? None. 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…

Weird place to put this, but I've really enjoyed reading about your experiences on HN, and I'd love to grab a drink with you when you make it out here. sean@bushi.do

And yes, one of the biggest problems of having a big living space is feeling an obligation to fill it.

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

#63

Post by seiji »

hisyam wrote: post #59
seiji wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm guessing they're prioritizing the low wage earners first?

It's not even prioritizing, it's a form of market voodoo discrimination.

"[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.

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

#64

Post by yummyfajitas »

saalweachter wrote: post #53
yummyfajitas wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, what do you believe is the justification for laws demanding minimum apt sizes/minimum heating requirements? The ordinary arguments about externalities certainly don't seem to apply... 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 New York City, heat isn't something individual units control. All heat in every apartment I have ever lived in or visited is generated by a boiler controlled by the landlord. Consequently, the laws in New York City aren't mandating what individual homeowners must do, they are mandating what landlords must do, namely, that when the temperatures drop below a certain point, they must provide heat to their tenants.

In NY it strongly depends on the building. Big buildings typically have central heating, small ones often have individual boilers.

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.

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

#65

Post by tptacek »

tomjen3 wrote: post #50
tptacek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't see how that follows logically. Please enlighten me.

The same logic in the comment I responded to also suggests that people should be free to choose to pay less for apartments that don't provide heat. And yet they are not free to do so.

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

#66

Post by michael_michael »

rabble wrote: post #31

So any sense of how much these new micro apartments in SF are going to cost?

From the article: "The ultra-efficient efficiencies will go for $1,300 to $1,500 a month, he said. Per city regulations, 15 percent of the units will be allocated as below market rate for low-income residents; he thinks those would rent for around $900 a month."

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

#68

Post by tptacek »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #43
tptacek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Just curious, what do you believe is the justification for laws demanding minimum apt sizes/minimum heating requirements? The ordinary arguments about externalities certainly don't seem to apply... 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?

First off: I'm not arguing that micro-apartments should be illegal; just that "the government should just let private parties come to whatever agreement they want regarding housing" is an untenable position. One obvious cost of regulating housing is the need to revisit and recalibrate those regs, and I agree in advance that our state governments suck at that. So then:

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.

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

#69

Post by tptacek »

stcredzero wrote: post #39
MrFoof wrote: post #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've downsized a few times over the years. 1080 > 920 > 720 > 660. How much have I missed having a bigger space? None. 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…

Congrats on the move; I hope you have a blast.

I'm jaundiced towards SF in general, but it's unquestionably an upgrade from Houston (land of my in-laws).

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

#70

Post by icegreentea »

xyome wrote: post #55
vipervpn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, although it's common for single people to have a pet. 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.

In the province of Quebec you can specify a "no pet" rule in a lease. You can even be more specific and allow for a certain number and type of animal (e.g. max 2 cats, no dogs). There's a lot of stuff you can't discriminate on, but animal ownership isn't a fundamental right.

In Ontario, the law stipulates that a land owner may not restrict leasers from owning a pet, unless the pet runs afoul of other stuff (like if they somehow interfere with another leaser's ability to live a reasonable life). But everyone still puts the 'no-pet' clause in the contracts.
Post reply on HN