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

81–90 of 97 posts

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

#81

Post by yummyfajitas »

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…

...just that "the government should just let private parties come to whatever agreement they want regarding housing" is an untenable position...cholera outbreaks, riots...

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?

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

#82

Post by tptacek »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #81
tptacek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

...just that "the government should just let private parties come to whatever agreement they want regarding housing" is an untenable position...cholera outbreaks, riots... 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 incen…

I don't personally think we should impose quality ceilings, but I wouldn't frame the discussion in terms of that being the bottom of a slippery slope, because gentrification is a serious issue in many major metro areas --- particularly SF!

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. :)

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

#83

Post by tptacek »

orangecat wrote: post #78
tptacek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

'yummyfajitas made the same point upthread; my response to both of you is, if a market race to the bottom isn't a real concern, why did we need a tenement rights movement from 1880 on through the New Deal just to get people windows and plumbing?

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.

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

#84

Post by natgordon »

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.

I'm living in SF in an old Victorian with a toddler as are many of my friends. We would all love to move into a new unit to avoid the lead paint that lingers in older units. It's a serious issue for families with young kids. There is a premium on new units.

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

#85

Post by bickfordb »

notatoad wrote: post #61
bickfordb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I cycle usually but I would appreciate a reasonable public transit system. Yeah, it is often a similar amount of time walking places.

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

#86

Post by dredmorbius »

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 $…

There are a few points not appreciated about transit systems. Not that Muni doesn't offer significant room for improvement.

- 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.

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

#87

Post by chipsy »

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 $…

I think the problem of Bay Area transit can be summed up in this convenient guide:

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...

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

#88

Post by malandrew »

The only thing I found weird about the article was the developers product development decisions based on a single female MIT student as opposed to talking to lots of people who are the target for a product like this, especially since he plans on putting it in SoMa and targeting the tech crowd which is largely male. This isn't sexism, it's just knowing the audience.

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.

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

#89

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#90

Post by malandrew »

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.

Housing is orthogonal to the problem. The issues at hand for kids growing up in the projects are social network effects.
Post reply on HN