Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I fail to understand what eschaton is objecting to. If developers are building a lot of homes designed like this and there is no market for them, they will find out quickly, be sorry, and not do it again. If the OP is a buyer who disapproves of this design, he/she certainly has other options. There are plenty of houses that don't look like this. If this property is perfect in every way for the OP except for the two small bedrooms, make a bid on it that will allow you to knock out the wall between the two 10 X 10 bedrooms and have a big home office if that's the goal.
I lived in Pittsburgh for thirty years and there was (and still is) a glut of homes for sale there. Everything from 100+ years old to new builds. The range of styles and floor plans is mind-boggling. Contrary to the original article's contention that most urban homes are built for families, what a family wants/needs in a home today is not what is available in a huge number of houses in America's cities. I owned a house on Pittsburgh's South Side for 13 years on a street full of houses built in the late 1800s. All of those houses sheltered entire families at one time. Now, they are considered small for single people. The street was especially crowded because each homeowner also had at least one car and there were no garages on the street. Large urban homes lived in by the upper classes are often made into condominiums, which serve the need of single people and can be quite luxurious.
I currently live in a suburban house that is less than 15 years old. It has four bedrooms: a large master with bath, one that is 10 X 10, two that are is 12 X 12. I sleep in the master and use the smallest bedroom for guests (bed, dresser, comfy chair, reading lamp fit in). One 12 X 12 room is my home office and my elderly, disabled mother is currently living in the other one. (Those of us who are single homeowners in an urban area very often end up as caregiver to elderly family members.) We're not claustrophobic, but at 1,600 sq. ft., I am currently using all of my house.
Single urbanites are not all the same. The author of the article ignored that fact that many single urban dwellers have children — of all ages. Not to mention pets. We do not all want the same things in a home. Some of us are rarely at home, have no time for domesticity, and are happy with a small studio. Others entertain a lot and need big kitchens and a dining room. Some want to have a lawn and a garden and go crazy decorating for holidays. Some want to live within walking distance of restaurants and bars and others want to live within walking distance of the ex-spouse that shares custody of the kids. Others want peace and quiet. Older cities are especially able to accommodate those broad tastes because they have such a variety of home styles.
The suburbs might have homes with a lot of different looks, but they are mostly providing shelter for a different lifestyle than singles live.
Point. Set. Match.
The more of these nitwit articles that insist that everybody needs to live the same way, the more I begin to think of "urbanists" as "housing nazis". Seriously.
That's rather nitpicky. I thought it was obvious that "singles" in this context referred to people living alone, not single adults with children.
People living alone do not necessarily want to live in tiny spaces with minimal possessions and amenities like they were broke, transient twenty-somethings, and yet the article implies that the desire for tiny spaces, less than 400 square feet, is almost universal among singles whatever their ages and economic circumstances. AFAIK, there's never been any kind of random poll/survey that shows that singles of all ages are looking for smaller dwelling places.
Frankly, what the author of the article is advocating sounds like SROs -- single room occupancy spaces.
That's rather nitpicky. I thought it was obvious that "singles" in this context referred to people living alone, not single adults with children.
The author didn't make that clear, in fact, there's a lot she didn't make clear. For ex: "In New York, Austin and Denver, nearly 57 percent of adults were single in 2010 (although not necessarily living alone). In Washington, D.C., that figure is a whopping 71 percent.
But none of these cities have anywhere near enough small-sized housing to accommodate them. "
Now I don't know about ALL the singles in Denver. Many, though, are living with "partners". It seems common too for married couples to live w/roommates. And Linda_d is right; the author doesn't give any support to the idea that these cities don't have anywhere near enough small-sized housing. The Denver housing market is white-hot right now.
As I said earlier, the author references divorcees, yet many of them live with kids at least part of the time. (More like the kids live with them, but whatev.)
While I agree that 10 X 11 bedrooms are not large, 110 sf each, 220 altogether, the article in the OP link is proposing eliminating the square footage requirements for apartments altogether. The author states that 400 sf TOTAL is the minimum in parts of NYC, and thinks that's too large! Good grief, an apt. less than 400 sf would make most people claustrophobic. And what do you bet a tiny little rabbit warren in NYC would cost?
The author is nuts, too. She talks about divorces living alone, when in point of fact, many live with their kids, at least part time.
The author is an idiot.
Most singles do not want to live in studios and only do so because of costs.
Also, I know plenty of people who live in LEGAL rentals in NYC that are much smaller than 400hsf.
One of my stepdaughter's friends lives in 90hsf and it is pretty miserable (she shares a bathroom) but it is a very smart setup.
She doesn't want to live in a studio that small but it is very cheap. $1200 a month.
The author didn't make that clear, in fact, there's a lot she didn't make clear. For ex: "In New York, Austin and Denver, nearly 57 percent of adults were single in 2010 (although not necessarily living alone). In Washington, D.C., that figure is a whopping 71 percent.
But none of these cities have anywhere near enough small-sized housing to accommodate them. "
Now I don't know about ALL the singles in Denver. Many, though, are living with "partners". It seems common too for married couples to live w/roommates. And Linda_d is right; the author doesn't give any support to the idea that these cities don't have anywhere near enough small-sized housing. The Denver housing market is white-hot right now.
As I said earlier, the author references divorcees, yet many of them live with kids at least part of the time. (More like the kids live with them, but whatev.)
Also, I know plenty of people who live in LEGAL rentals in NYC that are much smaller than 400hsf.
400 is the minimum for new apartments in NYC (there are bills to try to reduce this to 300). There are many apartments built before that rule that are still legal.
I grew up in a large house in a small town and live in a fairly decent sized 2BR in a suburban area now, but I just can't see anyway I could fit a reasonable lifestyle into a 200-400 sq ft place.
It's amazing what you can do with less space when you have to/need to/want to. Mrs BATCAT and are in a one-bedroom that, if it's over 400 square feet, isn't by much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emigrations
I wouldn't want to go to less than a full size bed for a single, or a queen if you expect a partner to have some room. I have roughly a 12x12 master bedroom, and don't have room for a proper dresser with my queen bed and nightstand in the bed. I've got a chest of drawers squeezed into the walk-in closest. I have a second bedroom with my L-shaped computer desk, desktop, two monitors, printer, etc, in there, as well as using that closet for book and document storage. The rest of the floor space is used to for luggage and the vacuum. It's certainly not crowded, but nowhere near vacant.
We have a similar sized bedroom (probably more like 12x15) and the bed is a king. Small dressers on either side and additional clothes go in the closet.
Vacuum and luggage (we don't have much luggage; we travel super light) go in the hall closet with a small file cabinet (we've purged a LOT of paper documents) and some additional coat storage.
A second bedroom would be nice but we don't need it. We both have laptops; the "office" is the kitchen table, when needed. No printer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emigrations
I could take all of the stuff in the second bedroom and put it in the dining room and use the second bed for a guest bedroom. I just can't understand how someone could reliably live in such small quarters. Do they never have guests? Do they have next to no possessions?
We actually used to inhabit a two bed, two bath with large patio and three storage sheds, but got priced out. (Thanks, rising rents! : /) It was quite the downsize. We don't really have guests anymore but people understand that space in the city here just isn't as cheap as it was five years ago and an extra bedroom is a luxury for the wealthy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
