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

71–80 of 97 posts

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

#71

Post by tptacek »

MrFoof wrote: post #41
activepeanut wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think you'll ever have kids?

I grew up with my sister, grandfather (for 10 years), dog, and two parents in a 960 square foot single-story ranch in a heavily subsidized subdivision (with an armed forces stipend both my grandfather and father qualified for). We did fine. A lot nicer of a result than the trailer home we would've otherwise lived in. I had friends that lived in small tenements. I had friends that grew up in the projects. 4-5 people,…

A huge fraction of kids who grow up in the projects do not do fine. If the projects were an automatic sentence of lifetime poverty, we'd do away with them; the fact that some people escape them blurs the issue just enough so that our brain files it away as a grey area. But it's not: the projects are bad.

One good book: _American Project_, by Sudhir Venkatesh.

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

#72

Post by toemetoch »

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 can relate to the friends "who feel sorry" bit. They don't seem to understand that different people value stuff in different ways.

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...

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

#73

Post by jseliger »

Androsynth wrote: post #51
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…

good points, but new construction in SF wouldnt be a good thing. New buildings stick out like sore thumbs in SF, as they arent made of wood. People want to live in the old, creaky wood buildings with the over the top bay windows. Not in plaster boxes, they can get that anywhere else in the bay area.

Then removal the legal barriers to building larger buildings and see what people do. If people in the aggregate "want to live in the old, creaky wood buildings," then they can pay for them.

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

#74

Post by amurmann »

Androsynth wrote: post #51
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…

good points, but new construction in SF wouldnt be a good thing. New buildings stick out like sore thumbs in SF, as they arent made of wood. People want to live in the old, creaky wood buildings with the over the top bay windows. Not in plaster boxes, they can get that anywhere else in the bay area.

Well that's not true for everyone. I live in a nice loft in the Dogpatch and have a nice BayView. I would never trait that for a shitty Victorian. I would be happy if 90% of victorians were to be torn down to build some nice bright lofts with up-to-date amenities. That being said. There is A LOT of construction happening in the Mission Bay and Dogpatch area.

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

#75

Post by MrFoof »

tptacek wrote: post #71
MrFoof wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up with my sister, grandfather (for 10 years), dog, and two parents in a 960 square foot single-story ranch in a heavily subsidized subdivision (with an armed forces stipend both my grandfather and father qualified for). We did fine. A lot nicer of a result than the trailer home we would've otherwise lived in. I had friends that lived in small tenements. I had friends that grew up in the projects. 4-5 people,…

A huge fraction of kids who grow up in the projects do not do fine. If the projects were an automatic sentence of lifetime poverty, we'd do away with them; the fact that some people escape them blurs the issue just enough so that our brain files it away as a grey area. But it's not: the projects are bad. One good book: _American Project_, by Sudhir Venkatesh.

>A huge fraction of kids who grow up in the projects do not do fine

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.

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

#76

Post by tptacek »

MrFoof wrote: post #75
tptacek wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge fraction of kids who grow up in the projects do not do fine. If the projects were an automatic sentence of lifetime poverty, we'd do away with them; the fact that some people escape them blurs the issue just enough so that our brain files it away as a grey area. But it's not: the projects are bad. One good book: _American Project_, by Sudhir Venkatesh.

>A huge fraction of kids who grow up in the projects do not do fine 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.

Square footage may or may not play a part in outcomes, but it's less debatable that "substandard housing" does. It's entirely possible that micro-apartments are a fine addition to the housing market. But that doesn't mean the entire idea of regulating housing is bankrupt.

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

#77

Post by vipervpn »

Androsynth wrote: post #56
vipervpn wrote: post #14

I'm concerned about house pets (like dogs and cats) in such a small apartment. Are these micro apartments fit for dwelling in for long periods of time? I don't think so. Cats and dogs need space too, and they don't have the freedom to come and go whenever they please.

Thats ridiculous. If you had a big apartment and a big dog, wouldnt it be just as bad on the dog? 700 sq ft with no yard and a 50 lb dog would be miserable. Your argument doesnt scale at all.

My comment was to bring attention to the humane treatment of animals.

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.

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

#78

Post by orangecat »

tptacek wrote: post #68
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?

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 d…

Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom

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.

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

#79

Post by Androsynth »

vipervpn wrote: post #77
Androsynth wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats ridiculous. If you had a big apartment and a big dog, wouldnt it be just as bad on the dog? 700 sq ft with no yard and a 50 lb dog would be miserable. Your argument doesnt scale at all.

My comment was to bring attention to the humane treatment of animals. 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.

ok, that makes sense. I don't want to get off topic, but imo, this is a larger, society wide problem and it doesnt really matter whether the apt is 250 ft or 1000 ft. Dogs are under-excercised in the US, (which is probably why theres so many 'how to fix your dog' shows on tv). The way to keep dogs happy and normal is hours and hours of excercise and attention, which the vast majority of city-dwellers cant provide

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

#80

Post by grannyg00se »

"It's disingenuous to say it creates affordable housing, it's just that you get significantly less space," said Sara Shortt, executive director of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco. "This doesn't create affordable housing, it simply creates another lifestyle option."

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?

Post reply on HN