Discussion on:

In San Francisco, the high price of proximity

Wasn't that part of the problem a century ago in the area known as "Hell's Kitchen" in NYC? Those were the slums where people were packed in like sardines, creating all sorts of mental problems.
Looks like the "shrinks" and sociologists are going to be busy.

"Hell's Kitchen" and other slums of the time had entire families sharing a single room. There was NO "personal space". These "micro-apartments" will be limited to one or (at the most) two people, giving the occupants their own spaces.

BTW, when I read about these "micro-apartments",read people's commments about them, and see pictures of them, one thing always comes to mind: "Wow! That's a really big dorm room!"

The last sentence says it all. "Those laws were put in place to reduce overcrowding and stress on surrounding infrastructure, something that Singapore was forced to address when shoebox units took off there."

I hope the zoning changes to allow these micro apartments also change parking requirements and a host of related codes that impact quality of life. Otherwise they will exasperate existing parking space shortages by adding dozens if not hundreds of cars to a neighborhood as more people a stuffed into a smaller area.

Unless the make the drastic change of prohibiting vehicle ownership to people living in these packed units. If they do that they had better make sure the housing is near adequate public transportation.

In the glory days of Hells Kitchen and thousands of similar neighborhoods across the nation you could cram lots of people in a small area because everyone walked. Everyone did not have cars, or going back farther, horses, to worry about.

And cars are just one aspect of the puzzle.

Can the sewer system handle the increase? Can they provide enough municipal water? Electricity? Have they planned space for additional/larger food stores to handle the population increase? The list goes on, but you get the point.

If not properly managed this could spiral out of control very quickly into an urban overcrowding nightmare.

Your questions regarding the impact on local utilities is a good one. The tiny apts being considered for SF are near public transportation. Public transportation in SF is pretty good and runs 24x7.

There are pluses and minuses for small apartments. For singles, fresh out of collage and starting a job; then this can make working in a city more affordable. On the negative side, these tiny apartments would be too easy to outgrow as space for personal items (including clothes and seasonal items) is very small. Another negative is that the space is too small for a couple unless their relationship is strong; and it is definitely too small for one or more children.

I am hoping that these micro apartments are not allowed, it fixes a housing problem but only for a short time. The apartment design is not bad for young adults but would be a stressful lifestyle change for older adults. Since the SF apartment market has more demand than supply then this is a bandaid that is only good for near term.

As the article stated, housing can be built up vertically (apartments and condos), subdividing current housing or expect people to commute from nearby cities. One of the nearby cities, Oakland, is currently going through the same housing problems due to the demand for local housing.

San Francisco is a nice place to live; the weather is generally mild. It is a walkable city for a lot of places and it has good public transportation. It is a friendly multicultural city with events that are inclusive. The drawbacks are the congested streets, it is expensive for housing and less variety of jobs.

2 hours of pushin broom,
gets an 8x12 4 bit room.


BTW 4 bits used to be 50 cents.

The real problem re: abuse becomes enforcement and with cities all cutting back on services the eventuality of the micro units being shared becomes a problem no different than any other sized unit. Pricing of studios in NYC and D.C. as an example is high to where sharing a unit is common. Above and beyond growing vertically one must ask if limits to a city's capacity actually makes sense in order to preserve the quality of life that might be the city's key attribute. Looking forward in time is a San Francisco with double today's population still attractive? There are sommany other issues. Does adding 50 people via micro units to a city block, half with cars, change the parking convenience of a neighborhood?

..."Supply and demand: thats how the market works, more or less, when regulation doesnt come into play."

It still works, especially when regulation is in play. That's their problem.

And I am not against "regulation"; regulation is necessary for us to function efficiently and harmoniously as a society.

But you can't have development or density restrictions without a market reaction, which in this case is high rent.

And if infrastructure is inadequate to handle these units, perhaps the city need to re-price how they deliver such services, which might possibly make these units economically nonviable.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/first-look-inside-the-worlds-thinnest-house/3374?tag=nl.e660&s_cid=e660