Developers pitch micro-apartments to city (Austin, El Paso: renter, houses, neighborhoods)

[OpenD]

The Micro-Apartment trend started in the trendy and expensive Capital Hill neighborhood of Seattle due to a quirk in the law... living units that did not have individual kitchens, but which shared communal kitchens, did not require a city plan review, merely a building permit.

The intent of the law was to facilitate low cost housing for students, apparently, but developers saw in this loophole a chance to offer a new kind of housing in a popular neighborhood that would appeal to young, hip, people without either large budgets or a lot of possessions. The small galley space had room for a microwave and a mini fridge, but serious cooking had to be done in the shared kitchen on a real stove with a real oven. And the rents were lower than traditional studio apartments.

And they were an immediate hit with a plentiful demographic in Seattle, so others began to copy the concept. I even tried to get some people interested in doing something like this in Hawai'i, where rental prices are sky high in many places, and wages are low... but I couldn't get any traction here.

But then San Francisco picked it up, and NYC, and the "low-cost" part of the concept got hijacked, and regular kitchens got shoehorned into the tiny space, and it just became... in many cases... a way to increase the revenues per square ft by creating smaller studio apartments than were previously permitted.

I personally think the original concept of a low cost minimalist micro-apartment building with communal kitchen space is still valid, if the greed of developers can just be corralled.

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by OpenD

The Micro-Apartment trend started in the trendy and expensive Capital Hill neighborhood of Seattle due to a quirk in the law... living units that did not have individual kitchens, but which shared communal kitchens, did not require a city plan review, merely a building permit.

The intent of the law was to facilitate low cost housing for students, apparently, but developers saw in this loophole a chance to offer a new kind of housing in a popular neighborhood that would appeal to young, hip, people without either large budgets or a lot of possessions. The small galley space had room for a microwave and a mini fridge, but serious cooking had to be done in the shared kitchen on a real stove with a real oven. And the rents were lower than traditional studio apartments.

And they were an immediate hit with a plentiful demographic in Seattle, so others began to copy the concept. I even tried to get some people interested in doing something like this in Hawai'i, where rental prices are sky high in many places, and wages are low... but I couldn't get any traction here.

But then San Francisco picked it up, and NYC, and the "low-cost" part of the concept got hijacked, and regular kitchens got shoehorned into the tiny space, and it just became... in many cases... a way to increase the revenues per square ft by creating smaller studio apartments than were previously permitted.

I personally think the original concept of a low cost minimalist micro-apartment building with communal kitchen space is still valid, if the greed of developers can just be corralled.

Imagine what the markups on PPSF on new micro-units are. Of course developers are licking their chops. Plenty of people standing in line with their $5K deposits in hand, sight unseen, ground unbroken, willing to overpay, just to have a DT address.

I'd envision a "low cost minimalist micro-apartment building" just outside of DT as a small MF, co-op style and philosophy, with a larger shared kitchen, dining hall, garden, minimal parking, etc for single professionals, willing to share. I could get behind that.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by OpenD

if the greed of developers can just be corralled.

Greed is good
Seriously, greed causes developers to actually pitch new(er) ideas like this. Otherwise, it's just left to the city council, who thinks they can create cheaper housing by raising taxes.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

I'd envision a "low cost minimalist micro-apartment building" just outside of DT as a small MF, co-op style and philosophy, with a larger shared kitchen, dining hall, garden, minimal parking, etc for single professionals, willing to share. I could get behind that.

Add a professional staff to the kitchen and you've got yourself a retirement home

[Cob1969]

The city needs to be working on containing the traffic problems, not trying to figure out how to cram more people in the city that is already over crowded.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Cob1969

The city needs to be working on containing the traffic problems, not trying to figure out how to cram more people in the city that is already over crowded.

This is a solution to the traffic problem - put people in close proximity to where they live/work/play means few cars and short car trips. The alternative is sprawl - many trips and long trips. Which do you think affects congestion more?

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by Komeht

This is a solution to the traffic problem - put people in close proximity to where they live/work/play means few cars and short car trips. The alternative is sprawl - many trips and long trips. Which do you think affects congestion more?

You'd think it was brain surgery.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

Add a professional staff to the kitchen and you've got yourself a retirement home

Possibly but it is also similar in format to many urban hostels.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Komeht

This is a solution to the traffic problem - put people in close proximity to where they live/work/play means few cars and short car trips. The alternative is sprawl - many trips and long trips. Which do you think affects congestion more?

It's astonishing how this is such an article of faith with you and is completely devoid of any empirical basis.

Here's a hint: people don't "live/work/play" in the same areas.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

It's astonishing how this is such an article of faith with you and is completely devoid of any empirical basis.

Here's a hint: people don't "live/work/play" in the same areas.

Here's a hint - they often do when it's a possibility (which I grant 90% of Austin is not).

The people who are attracted by such places will do so because they value location over space for an above ground pool or whatever the hell suburbanites think makes a life terrible commutes worth while.