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

91–97 of 97 posts

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

#91

Post by malandrew »

grannyg00se wrote: post #80

"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,…

Totally agree.

I would say it creates a more affordable option if the developer had to offer them at equivalent rates on a square footage basis. The fact that the units are earning a 1-2 premium per square foot is completely artificial and simply a by-product of having no housing that size.

In São Paulo, Brazil, one bedroom apartments often cost as much as two bedroom apartments for the simple fact that there is a lack of one bedrooms available in the market because historically people haven't lived alone (they usually lived with the 'rents until marriage.)

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

#92

Post by ahh »

tptacek wrote: post #82
yummyfajitas wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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 ra…

In what sense is gentrification a serious (by which I presume you mean "bad") issue?

As far as I can tell, "gentrification" means people like me--who make a decent white collar living and don't cause trouble--moving into poor neighborhoods, often crime-filled ones. Why should I be unhappy about having a nice place to live?

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

#93

Post by saalweachter »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #64
saalweachter wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you realize how stingy landlords are allowed to be with the heat? The actual (nighttime) rule is:

* Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, if the temperature outside falls below 40 degrees, the inside temperature is required to be at least 55 degrees Fahrenheit.

55 degrees! Do you honestly want an apartment which is 45, 40, 35 degrees at night? Hell, it's probably not even sane to keep an apartment under 55 degrees in the winter, for fear of the pipes freezing.

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

#94

Post by syedkarim »

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…

> I've downsized a few times over the years. 1080 > 920 > 720 > 660.

For five years I lived in a unit that was 384 square feet. And then my wife moved in with me. And shortly thereafter, two cats. We all lived in this space for about 18 months. It wasn't bad at all; we fondly refer to it as The Cave. The only reason we left is because we moved overseas.

A lot of prospective renters weren't interested with the unit because of how small it was. But those who were interested wanted it precisely because they would be forced to get rid of stuff--and would not be able to mindlessly accumulate.

When we move back to the US, we're looking at country acreage (to start a small farm) and living in a converted shipping container. One of the biggest drivers for a larger living space is to have some run-around area for the cats.

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

#95

Post by tptacek »

ahh wrote: post #92
tptacek wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ra…

In what sense is gentrification a serious (by which I presume you mean "bad") issue? As far as I can tell, "gentrification" means people like me--who make a decent white collar living and don't cause trouble--moving into poor neighborhoods, often crime-filled ones. Why should I be unhappy about having a nice place to live?

It dislocates lower/lower-middle class urban families.

And hey: I lived in a loft in SOMA. I'm not an anti-gentrification crusader.

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

#96

Post by tomjen3 »

tptacek wrote: post #65
tomjen3 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IE 9 doesn't obey them.

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

#97

Post by ahh »

tptacek wrote: post #95
ahh wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense is gentrification a serious (by which I presume you mean "bad") issue? As far as I can tell, "gentrification" means people like me--who make a decent white collar living and don't cause trouble--moving into poor neighborhoods, often crime-filled ones. Why should I be unhappy about having a nice place to live?

It dislocates lower/lower-middle class urban families. And hey: I lived in a loft in SOMA. I'm not an anti-gentrification crusader.

Can you provide data for that claim?

Example: I have a friend who lives at Divisadero & Hayes, and passed on an article that attacked him (personally, but anonymously) as a gentrifier: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020412420457715...

The writer complains about the loss of the "culture"...but the only meaningful change we can see here was the disappearance of drug dealers and violence.

Post reply on HN