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'm mystified by this complaint. I spent 10 years managing a building with half a dozen studio apartments that were 220sf and not only were all our tenants really, really happy with their spaces, we had a long waiting list to get in—always. What an odd thing to "debate."
I'm mystified by this complaint. I spent 10 years managing a building with half a dozen studio apartments that were 220sf and not only were all our tenants really, really happy with their spaces, we had a long waiting list to get in—always. What an odd thing to "debate."
I don't think it jives with the American dream of quantity. Some people want to spend their money on other stuff... No point paying for more than you need.
I'm mystified by this complaint. I spent 10 years managing a building with half a dozen studio apartments that were 220sf and not only were all our tenants really, really happy with their spaces, we had a long waiting list to get in—always. What an odd thing to "debate."
It's because a lot of ignorant people on here are brainwashed to always automatically bash San Francisco and California irrespective of context anytime they even just hear the words. Give them some creative space and they would happily find ways to bash San Francisco for everything else from diaper rash to gravity.
At least these places have kitchens and bathrooms. You do realize some people live in places that don't right? Communal baths and a hotplate maybe, people have been doing this for a long time. It's usually not a 'forever' home, but a 'fine for now' place.
This isn't a liberl v conservative issue so why do fools keep trying to make it one?
I find it quite silly. Take a look at San Francisco in the picture below. That is not a city where people need to live in 220 square feet apartments.
The population density in the city core is 6,632.9. The population density in other city cores like Kawloon, Hong Kong is 43000 and 27000 in Manhattan.
Maybe San Fransisco should look at why house prices are so high, and why there are no construction.
I find it quite silly. Take a look at San Francisco in the picture below. That is not a city where people need to live in 220 square feet apartments.
The population density in the city core is 6,632.9. The population density in other city cores like Kawloon, Hong Kong is 43000 and 27000 in Manhattan.
Maybe San Fransisco should look at why house prices are so high, and why there are no construction.
People don't need to, but if they want to be in a trendy part of the city with a modest income, that will be their choice to make.
My sister lives in SOMA (south of market), the rent on a 2 bedroom apartment in her complex is about 3,500 a month.
At least these places have kitchens and bathrooms. You do realize some people live in places that don't right? Communal baths and a hotplate maybe, people have been doing this for a long time. It's usually not a 'forever' home, but a 'fine for now' place.
This isn't a liberl v conservative issue so why do fools keep trying to make it one?
Because this is 'Merica and if you don't want to live in a giant house then you're not a PATRIOT!!! And..um...COMMUNISTS..SOCIALISM!! SMALL HOUSES ARE SOCIALIST!!!
Or, people care more about being outside of their homes and less about impressing others. If I could live in a tiny studio and buy a small plane I'd do it in a heartbeat. Then, I could go on mini vacations every weekend and would hardly spend time in my tiny house anyway!
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.