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.
300 square feet? I don't even think I could fit my sewing/prop stuff in something that small - let alone have room for a bed.
Different people, different lifestyles. Most young people in Manhattan only sleep at home. Many would gladly rent a 100 square foot apartment if they were readily available.
Different people, different lifestyles. Most young people in Manhattan only sleep at home. Many would gladly rent a 100 square foot apartment if they were readily available.
300sqft is really all a person needs when they are single. We are unbelievably spoiled in modern day America.
The sheer outcry against this on this forum is a showcase on why so many people are in debt, or have not saved enough for retirement. Everyone DESERVES to live in what would have been considered a mansion 100 years ago.
Different people, different lifestyles. Most young people in Manhattan only sleep at home. Many would gladly rent a 100 square foot apartment if they were readily available.
10 feet by 10 feet? I can't even begin to picture living in that. Even with just a Full size bed, there'd be barely even room for a dresser and/or TV.
Is Bloomberg forcing people to live in these spaces? No. Are there people that will jump on the opportunity to live in Manhatttan and make the choice to live in these small units? Yes.
I see no problem here.
Last edited by sickofnyc; 07-11-2012 at 11:24 AM..
Yeah. There are some some available, and they rent quickly (they're cheap, and many young New Yorkers do nothing but sleep at home). I know several people who live in spaces with neither a kitchen or bathroom (shared hall bath):
Is Bloomberg forcing people to live in these spaces? No. Are ther people that will jump on the opportunity to live in Manhatttan and make the choice to live in these small units? Yes.
I see no problem here.
I agree. I first read about this proposal last week in The New Yorker magazine. It never occured to me to come here on CD and start a thread about it, and blast the mayor for being rich and having a big house.
A friend of mine lived in a London flat that was even smaller than 300 square feet. He liked it for being 'snug and cheap' (or, at least, cheap for London).
I bet, if all goes like planned, that this initial offering of these tiny apartments are snatched up quickly.
I will also note that building 'tiny houses' is a trend among certain people, due to, again, the cheap building costs (and some of these houses are truly 'tiny', with no room to "swing a cat; at least, without some discomfort to the cat" (Mark Twain)).
And I live in a 500 square foot apartment in Manhattan that I share with a roommate (and from Feb-June we had a 3rd roommate - his girlfriend).
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.
