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.
That's exactly what I was thinking. If you can't afford to live like regular people, then it's time to move or get a better job. This is nothing more than the usual suspects saying, "I want to live in this high COL city just like you do, but don't want to make the money to do so, so provide something for me because it JUST ISN'T FAIR!"
That's ridiculous, people move to places like San Francisco to be part of a vibrant city and all the amazing offerings of a place like that, those people generally have better things to do than sit around a big house or apartment, they are out enjoying their lives. Why should anyone else care if they want to live in small space because it's affordable. Saying someone doesn't want to make the money someone else does is just silly, some people chose jobs that have meaning for them even if they don't pay a fortune, or they are young and still building their career. I guess some people can't understand anything but dollars, and McMansions. I don't see how it's anyone else's business where someone chooses to live, if there is a market for it, build them, and other people can learn to mind their own business.
Why do people think they have the right to tell others how to live? If you don't want to live there, then don't, but leave the people who do alone. Why do people think everyone should value exactly what they value? We still live in FREE country right? People get to make their own choices?
Location: The Land Mass Between NOLA and Mobile, AL
1,796 posts, read 1,661,814 times
Reputation: 1411
Quote:
Originally Posted by pch1013
I think the point is that currently, the government says you can't build apartments that are smaller than a certain size. The proposal is to legalize smaller apartments, something to which some of our Tea Party friends are violently objecting -- which means they apparently favor government regulation, at least in this instance.
This is really what the issue is. If you visit the Tenement Museum in NYC, you will learn that ordinances were passed that made tiny, 350 sq. ft. family dwellings illegal because of fire safety and sanitation problems. Such apartments routinely housed from 4 to 10 people, and these cold-water three-room dwellings were fueled by coal (imagine the soot and heat) and had shared bathrooms on each floor. See Tenement Museum New York City - NYC Museum. I don't know of a similar history in SF, but I would imagine there is a similar story.
Now, with young people living alone if they choose to for much longer into their adulthood and with modern sanitation, electricity, heating, and cooling, there is no reason why singles shouldn't have such micro options available if they are so inclined. If I were 25, I'd jump at the chance to live in an affordable apartment in NY or SF. He!!, I lived in a 300 sq. ft. studio in Madison WI while an undergrad to save money and to avoid student loans that I would have otherwise needed to supplement scholarships. I could scrape up the rent by waiting tables without having to borrow a ton.
Would everyone want to live like that? Of course not. But no one is being forced to live in a studio, and, in contrast, you couldn't pay me enough to live in a tacky McMansion in some soulless suburb. As far as I can tell, this is a non issue.
Great idea - as long as the average cost of renting a 220 square foot apartment consistently remains at about 25% of what an 880 square foot apartment would be within similiar geographical areas in that city.
However, if over a period of time, these tiny apartments become the new normal and the same percentage of a person's income is generally expected to be used for rent (and the market will ultimately determine that) then this is just a way to temporarily make space available for renters with the ultimate end result being more units like this with a gradual increase of the rent towards what someone would have previously paid for a larger unit. Once again, if a 220 square foot unit will always cost 1/5th of what an 1,100 square foot unit would then it's a great idea. It would / or will give someone with a unit like that additional expendible income to either save or spend in the economy somewhere else other than having it go directly towards the real estate they require to have a place to live.
There are still some fixed costs on a per unit basis that will not change overall. Like an owner of a building having to pay insurance on the total number of units vs. total square footage, sewer, garbage, etc. Along with the fact that smaller units in a building that might normally contain 75% fewer tenants will require far more parking space due to the likely number of renters with at least one vehicle that are living in the building.
Great idea - as long as the average cost of renting a 220 square foot apartment consistently remains at about 25% of what an 880 square foot apartment would be within similiar geographical areas in that city.
However, if over a period of time, these tiny apartments become the new normal and the same percentage of a person's income is generally expected to be used for rent (and the market will ultimately determine that) then this is just a way to temporarily make space available for renters with the ultimate end result being more units like this with a gradual increase of the rent towards what someone would have previously paid for a larger unit. Once again, if a 220 square foot unit will always cost 1/5th of what an 1,100 square foot unit would then it's a great idea. It would / or will give someone with a unit like that additional expendible income to either save or spend in the economy somewhere else other than having it go directly towards the real estate they require to have a place to live.
There are still some fixed costs on a per unit basis that will not change overall. Like an owner of a building having to pay insurance on the total number of units vs. total square footage, sewer, garbage, etc. Along with the fact that smaller units in a building that might normally contain 75% fewer tenants will require far more parking space due to the likely number of renters with at least one vehicle that are living in the building.
I think the market for tiny apartments will always remain small, which will keep rents stable. People will likely want to move to a larger place as they make more money, get married, or just get sick of it. This will most likely attract people who just can't stand having roommates and are willing to give up space to have their own place. I highly doubt micro apartments will start taking over cities. Many of these renters won't have cars, in NYC they definitely won't, in SF these places may allow some to give up their cars. I lived in a tiny place for awhile when I was in grad school, I moved somewhere larger as soon as I could, you get used to it to a degree, especially if you are in school, working, and out all the time, but eventually most people want a place they can have guests over, and more space for the stuff people tend to acquire.
Is it going too far? Nah. They've got smaller than that in Tokyo.
Those Leopalaces can be tiny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
I would actually be in favor of something like this. Here is the question: Will it be cheaper? I'm only one person. I don't need THAT much room. However, will it be cheap?
You can bet that if given the option that they will soon be only a bit less than normal apartments.
It says in the article that the average rent for San Francisco is $2075 a month and that the new apartments would go for between $1200 and $1700 dollars a month. $375 for something much smaller is not enough, they are really driving up prices.
"The price per square foot of Kennedy's proposal, she and other skeptics said, was less affordable than current rentals."
You can bet that if given the option that they will soon be only a bit less than normal apartments.
It says in the article that the average rent for San Francisco is $2075 a month and that the new apartments would go for between $1200 and $1700 dollars a month. $375 for something much smaller is not enough, they are really driving up prices.
"The price per square foot of Kennedy's proposal, she and other skeptics said, was less affordable than current rentals."
If the rents are too high people won't rent them, and they will have to lower the rents. I know what's it's like to live in a tiny place, it's not for everyone and it's not long term for anyone, but the rarest loner, most will move on as they finish school, get the job/promotion they want, or find a mate to live with. High rents for spaces like that just won't work, even in highly desirable cities. The market will keep prices down, these won't take over.
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.
