Posted on 09/24/2012 7:15:27 PM PDT by Steelfish
San Francisco To Vote On Apartments The Size Of Two Prison Cells
San Francisco may soon give new meaning to the word "downsizing." Supervisors are set to vote on Tuesday on a proposed change to the city's building code that would allow construction of among the tiniest apartments in the country.
Under the plan, new apartments could be as small as 220 square feet (a little more than double the size of some prison cells), including a kitchen, bathroom and closet, the Los Angeles Times reported. Current regulations require the living room alone to be that size.
Schematics for 300-square-foot units planned for San Francisco's South of Market neighborhood include window seats that turn into spare beds and beds that turn into tables.
Proponents say the smaller apartments would provide a cheaper option for the city's many single residents, who have been priced out of the rental market as the region experiences a resurgent technology industry.
San Francisco apartments rented for an average of $2,734 in June, up 13 percent from a year ago, according to the research firm, RealFacts. The micro-units, in contrast, are expected to rent for $1,200 to $1,700 a month, San Francisco Supervisor Scott Wiener told the Los Angeles Times. Wiener drafted the legislation for the smaller apartments.
It allows them to accommodate up to two people and requires an additional 100 square feet of space for each occupant above that number.
"Although in our fantasy world everyone would live in a single-family home or a huge spacious flat, the reality of life is that not everyone can afford that," Wiener said.
(Excerpt) Read more at bottomline.nbcnews.com ...
A few years back I paid a visit to a client in San Francisco. He told me that he had an opening for an entry level lab tech that had gone unfilled for years, The reason? No one could afford to live in the city on the salary that the position paid; and there simply wasn’t enough money in his budget to pay more.
my tokyo studio is shy of 220 spartan sq. ft. I chose it willingly.
“$1700 a month for 200 sq ft isn’t my definition of cheap rent.”
Nor is it mine. Used to pay $45.00 a month for those “crash pads”. My point was the tiny spaces as a seemingly new concept raising eyebrows is nothing new on this planet.
For a right-wing extremist web site (which is why it’s my favorite), this is one of the DUMBEST set of comments I have yet to see (other than the ones, the past, that supported Governor Perry and his toll road and Gardasil sell-outs).
First - if people think $1700 a month is too much for San Francisco, THEN FINE, don’t live there. But the fact is that there are A LOT of people in San Francisco and HUGE NUMBER of people in New York City that have that kind of money, particularly if they own a car. For you others that want to get your $1700 worth - as someone else pointed out, go rent a house in Stockton (as mentioned in one of the comments), and then deal with the 2 or 3 hour commute to San Fran. But understand that not everyone enjoys that lifestyle.
Second - there is NO LAW requiring the owners to charge $1700 a month. If you think it’s too high, THEN FINE, don’t live there. But there may be others that think it’s a decent deal, especially if they don’t have to deal with roommates bring in whores at all hours of the night.
Third - Now for some Capitalism 101. But if $1700 is too high, guess what, THE PRICE WILL DROP. And if the owners make a huge killing at $1700, also guess what, OTHERS WILL JOIN THEM and increase supply, and the price will again drop (or at least not rise as fast). One other comment - if you don’t like the price, THEN FINE, don’t live there.
Forth - Guess what happens now in New York City for someone wanting to pay $1700 in rent - they have to SHARE (larger) apartments. Yes, they get their own room (for that much money), but they still have to share a crappy bathroom and kitchen, probably with someone that carries half a dozen diseases (this is New York, by the way).
Dammit, this is a FREE(ish) country - they’re not using our tax money (as far as I know to build these damn things), let them try it out and see what happens.
True. But in the past they were hardly furnished with anything and maybe didn’t have a private bathroom. These will be furnished with rv-style dual purpose things and have a full private bath and kitchenettes.
IIRC the ones I had on the beach in Long Beach, California had kitchenette, pull down bed, private bath, closet, and an upholstered chair. Basically two rooms. A combination living room, and then that bathroom I mentioned with shower. That was back in the sixties. That one cost a bloody fortune ‘cause it was on the beach. It was $125.00 a month. The others were $45.00 a month, and basically the same setup, but NOT on the beach. A couple of blocks from the beach LOL.
Wow, that’s something I didn’t realize. Wonder if that was more the norm in that part of the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.