Coming to San Francisco…Tenement Sized Apartments!

This trend first broke onto the scene several months ago when it was reported that NYC was preparing to change its housing code to allow for “micro” apartments.  Basically very expensive jail cells.  I covered that story in my piece Back to 19th Century Living in NYC: Bloomberg Proposes “Tenement Sized” Apartments for $2K a Month.

Unsurprisingly, the trend is now coming to San Francisco and will soon emerge everywhere else in the country.  From The LA Times:

At a minimum 150 square feet of living space — 220 when you add the bathroom, kitchen and closet — the proposed residences are being hailed as a pivotal option for singles.

On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors will consider tweaking the city’s building code, which requires newly constructed units to be at least 290 square feet.

The micro-units will probably go for $1,200 to $1,700 a month, Wiener said. According to the real estate service RealFacts, an average studio apartment in San Francisco now goes for $2,075.

One Yelp reviewer dissed the condos as “no bigger than most hotel rooms” and only three times larger than “the average U.S. prison cell.”

So let me get this straight.  Three and a half years into the “recovery” we have record numbers on food stamps and two of the most prominent cities in the nation are changing their housing code to allow for apartments that in the past we found to be inhumane. That’s called poverty folks.  Just open up the FEMA camps already and get it over with.

Full LA Times article here.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

10 thoughts on “Coming to San Francisco…Tenement Sized Apartments!”

  1. I’ve always thought that those in charge would like a ‘1984’ type of situation, or to have us all living in work camps, living in barrack rooms and being fed in military style canteen’s, until we are no longer able to work that is, at which point we would be exterminated or thrown out into the ‘wild’ to die!

    Reply
  2. I beg to differ. There’s a big move on (heh) for ‘tiny houses’ and other forms of inexpensive housing. While these aren’t cheap, they’re in a notoriously overpriced part of the world. The size of the apartment isn’t that bad considering what you use it for, if you want to live in a world-class city; sleeping, showering, simple meals and a bit of down time, as well as some storage. None of that requires more than 200 SF per person. Given your location, you probably spend a lot of time out of the apartment, eating out, etc. That’s the point of a big city, isn’t it?

    Reply
    • I couldn’t disagree more with your comment. I was born in Manhattan and lived there on my own for 10 years after college. I am very familiar with living in the most densely populated area of the country. These sizes are not fit for human beings, hence the reason there are size restrictions in the housing code. You need to ask yourself why now? Why now must you live like a rodent to live in NYC and San Fran? The reason is the United States is sinking into poverty and that was the point.

  3. Dumb, that there are restrictions on how small a living space can be. Folks are not required to live there; if they want to choose ‘tiny’, so be it.

    I was stationed on a nuclear submarine for two years. We officers had it better than the troops. Three of us had our beds, storage, and desks in a space no larger than seven feet by 10 feet. We survived, perfectly fine, two months straight underwater.

    If folks want tiny, let ’em have at it. I agree with signalfire; some choose living space based on local amenities — restaurants, parks — that you may not need in your apartment or its backyard.

    Reply
    • Choice is good, but if you reduce the standards then it will be a race to the bottom, with a return to Dickensian standards as profit demands that space is utilised to its absolute maximum and you can’t compare military service with a civilian living in a city. I spent 8 years in the military and wouldn’t want to return to some of the spaces I had to exist in at this stage in my life. For those with a strong income, they have choice, for those on a low or with a weak income, there is no choice and it is those that need to be protected here.

  4. I don’t mind the simple lifestyle, and I think it’s actually nice that the option is available for those singles that are budget conscious or travel a lot for work.

    What is bad, though, is if this is a trend in housing indicating not a chosen, but a forced reduction in the standard of living against a young, already suppressed demographic.

    Reply
  5. In my youth I housed with roommates. Not for sex partners, but to be economical and save money. Many people I know don’t even consider that an option – maybe because they are afraid of whom they’d end up with. I almost never had a problem with a roommate. Guess it’s not the same today. Sad.

    Reply
  6. This is liberal equality at its finest. Everyone lives in equal misery, just look at every nation that follows the path of too much govt. In fact just look at cities that are run by liberals and their form of dysfunctional govt. Chicago, NY Baltimore etc come to mind. Sadly RINO repubs do nothing to change what liberal Democrats put in place. Ergo, two parties, same result.

    Elect conservatives who want smaller govt and govern based on our constitution.

    Reply

Leave a Reply