What It's Like to Live Near a Micro-Unit Building

[mhays]

Are they not cheaper than other new buildings? If developers are making comfortable profits, the market will tend to get flooded and those profits will fall or even turn into losses. At least that's how it works in the US. Longer-term, profits tend to be around a median for that reason.

[Tom Servo]

I lived in a very small 150 sq ft studio in Lakeview when I first moved out of my parents house. It was pretty fucking tight. I've lived in the studio I'm in now since 2012. It's about 250 sq ft. I'm moving at the end of the month to a small 1 bedroom down the street. It's about probably between 6-700 sq ft. I haven't measured it yet. But man, it feels huge compared to the box I've been in.

This 'micro-living' thing is fine for a single person with a simple lifestyle. But as I get older, I desire more space. Definitely an early to mid 20s thing IMO.

I guess the micro-apartment could appeal to someone coming from a big house in the suburbs. I was raised in a small, inner-city house with no yard for much of my pre-high school years. And then in high school I moved in with my dad in his condo which was, I guess you could call it 'loft-style', so I'm accustom to a more consolidated style of living. Funny because, the older I get, the more I desire one of those big houses in Evanston! I guess the grass is always greener...

[Eightball]

NYC’s Hotly Anticipated Micro-Unit Project Plans March Delivery
http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blo..._delivery/9399

My Micro NY, the 55-unit building that won former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s competition in 2013 to build a multi-family micro-unit building in the city, is aiming for a March delivery.

n ARCHITECTS’ Ammr Vandal, the project manager for My Micro NY, gave UrbanTurf an update on the project this week.

My Micro NY is being constructed in modular units off-site that, once completed, should take two weeks to install on the project’s Kips Bay site — a minimum timeline Vandal called “absolutely crazy.” After that, all that’s left is putting on the building’s brick facade and installing the units’ last two components: flooring and the glass backsplash in the kitchens, which the architects worried wouldn’t survive installation...

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Eightball

Yep. Though I will say moving from a 3bd/2.5ba townhouse (1800 sq ft) to a 1200 sq ft 2/2 was quite the downsizing for us. I agree that it feels free-ing to own less stuff, tho.

Was your apt in Tokyo well designed? High ceilings?

When I went from my micro-unit (which to be fair was larger than what most single 20-somethings live in here) to my current place with my wife, I went from 310 sq feet to 1020 square feet. Had no idea what to do with all that space!

My old place was quite well designed, with high ceilings and storage built into every conceivable space. That felt like all 310 sq feet of space1/ was available to live in, as opposed to 1/4 used for closets and whatnot. You really can do a lot with innovative storage setups.

Needless to say, these units really are for single people. Or couples with zero personal space requirements and who prefer to literally live on top of each other and who share clothes - there's not enough room for two working adults' stuff.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I lived in a very small 150 sq ft studio in Lakeview when I first moved out of my parents house. It was pretty fucking tight. I've lived in the studio I'm in now since 2012. It's about 250 sq ft. I'm moving at the end of the month to a small 1 bedroom down the street. It's about probably between 6-700 sq ft. I haven't measured it yet. But man, it feels huge compared to the box I've been in.

This 'micro-living' thing is fine for a single person with a simple lifestyle. But as I get older, I desire more space. Definitely an early to mid 20s thing IMO.

I guess the micro-apartment could appeal to someone coming from a big house in the suburbs. I was raised in a small, inner-city house with no yard for much of my pre-high school years. And then in high school I moved in with my dad in his condo which was, I guess you could call it 'loft-style', so I'm accustom to a more consolidated style of living. Funny because, the older I get, the more I desire one of those big houses in Evanston! I guess the grass is always greener...

man, i tell ya, studios are great in your early 20s. i lived in one in a nice 1920s building for 300 a month. the refridgerator door wouldnt open all the way before it would hit the wall, but it was in a good location and all mine. i was working part time at a university and drinking and being young all of the time. it was great. i had plenty of spending money for roadtrips and drugs and bicycle shit or whatever i spent my money on back in the early 2000s as an early millineal.

i've graduated to unmanageable two-story 19th century nightmares that have shit-geysers in the basement.

i may be back in a studio, soon.

[mhays]

Seattle has a lot of hypocrites. Most people want affordability, but not at the expense of their free street parking, not if they own their own homes in many cases, and preferably through sticking it to developers rather than (a) the market finding solutions on its own or (b) anything that requires more from them than the current levy.

We like diversity in theory, but the anti-micro crowd isn't very subtle in wanting to keep the poor folks out, which sometimes seems like a cover for racism.

They mostly claim to be environmentalists but, for many who live in houses, don't put their free street parking at risk.

When I was working for a potential park on the edge of Downtown (which failed at two elections 19 years ago), sometimes the same person would accuse the proposal of being a park for the rich, which would be full of bums. Still haven't gotten that one.

[brickell]

I haven't followed this one too closely, but was wondering about the above from the start. AS Cent and Tom alluded to, I would think that these would be more catered to young (fresh out of college) professionals or divorcees. They may be cheap(er), but poor people want space too.

[Eightball]

^ ^ you know that's an interesting comment, but I don't think it's been proven. I haven't seen a large scale study on who lives in these size units. I will say this was an interesting interview with a development co. who did a micro unit building:

Big thoughts on small spaces
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/p....html?page=all

This spring, Charities Housing, in partnership with the city of San Jose Department of Housing, completed the development of 42 “micro-unit” apartments on 0.66 acres at the corner of Archer Street and Kerley Drive. Dubbed Archer Studios, the affordable-housing community is located along the North First Street VTA light-rail corridor.
San Diego-based Studio E Architects designed the project, and San Mateo’s Johnstone Moyer Inc. built it. The project is fully leased with a long waiting list and an average rent of $650 a month. The units are among the smallest that Studio E has designed and are made to maximize small living space. Johnstone Moyer President John Moyer and Charities Housing Executive Director Dan Wu talked about Archer Studios and what went into building it. The interview below was edited for length and clarity.
Q: What exactly is a micro-unit?
Wu: It’s an apartment unit that’s about 300 square feet or less. In this case, the apartments were 300 square feet (or about the size of two parking spaces) and include a full kitchen, bathroom and a living/sleeping area.
Q: What are the demographics of the tenants?
Wu: We were expecting it to be mostly young, male service workers, but that ended up not being the case. Out of 41 units (one is occupied by staff), we had 10 single parents. Also, out of the 41 units, 23 have female heads of households — compared to 18 male. The average head of household was 39, and the tenants came from a variety of industries. It’s a wide spectrum.
Q: Is this the first micro-unit project you’ve ever worked on?
Wu: No, we also developed San Antonio Place in Mountain View back in 2006. It had 120 units that were about 325 square feet each. Our first project of this kind — Pensione Esperanza — was completed in 1999 near downtown San Jose and has 110 units.
Moyer: We recently did a project in Redwood City for the Mental Health Association of San Mateo County. They were also studios but about 600 to 700 square feet. Archer Studios was the smallest in terms of size that we’ve ever worked on.
Q: Do you think there’s a growing demand for these types of smaller units?
Wu: We have always pushed for smaller units on a number of fronts. If you look at a household’s size in Santa Clara County, one or two persons is the dominant size...(more at the link)

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i've graduated to unmanageable two-story 19th century nightmares that have shit-geysers in the basement.

Been there - "What is that in the laundry room sink?"

Then it's $7K to make it go away.

I definitely missed renting that day.

[Eightball]

What its like to live in a micro unit

http://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blo...ence_mall/9851

[Eightball]

Any other SSPers living in a micro unit?

[mhays]

I lived in a <300 sf hotel room for four months between condos. It wasn't organized efficiently at all, like the bed in the middle of the room, but the size of the space was fine for the short term. I'd take that in a heartbeat compared to having a roommate, thinking of 20-something self.

[Eightball]

Out of the Box: 7 Transformer Micro-Lofts Around the World
http://hypebeast.com/2015/8/out-of-t...ound-the-world

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Eightball

I'm excited about the micro unit buildings going up across the country. Do any SSPers live in one or near one?

Originally Posted by Eightball

I think it is generally defined as less than 350 Sq ft tho I've seen some articles claim up to 375 or even less than 400 Sq ft

It wasn't a studio, but I did live in a small one bedroom for a year that was probably like 325-350 sq ft. It wasn't much, but it was perfect me. I actually almost moved back this year, but decided to pay more for a larger (or shall I say, "real") one bedroom.

A friend of mine did just move into a truly micro studio though. The building was formerly SRO units, but it's since been gut rehabbed and it's modern everything. I don't think I could ever live in a unit like he's in right now because there's literally room for his bed and his bookcase, and that's it. His bed is either a queen or a full btw. There's decent closet space, a kitchenette off the main room, and a bathroom with a full size tub and shower, but that main room is so small.

All of these places have been in Lakeview in Chicago, btw. They've turned quite a few old SRO buildings into micro studios like his. Personally I'd just go for an older building with a slightly bigger studio/small one bedroom because the price is typically the same, and you trade the updated appliances and stone counter tops for more space.

This article talks about the conversions of SRO units into micro studios on Chicago's North Side. Mostly dealing with Lakeview and Uptown.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...r-millennials/

[MonkeyRonin]

The livability of such small spaces is really dependent on how they're laid out. Apartments under $1000/month in Toronto (ie. my budget) usually max out at about 300 or 400 sqft. at the largest, and go down as low as 100 sqft. The problem with most of them is that the space is just so poorly designed (usually spaces shoehorned into old buildings rather than being purpose-built) that living in them requires significant compromises to quality of life.

As an experiment, I tried to design the smallest comfortably livable space I could and came up with this 210 sqft. apartment:

[mhays]

That looks pretty liveable. But you have some space that could be dual-use or just smaller if you were going for a really tiny unit. For example:
--The kitchen is basically full-service, and some micros have smaller ones. Two burners, smaller fridge, etc. Others have kitchenettes and maybe have an additional shared kitchen down the hall.
--The hallway between the bed and closet is single use rather than shared use. A desk might go there. Or the desk is a wider spot on the right end of the closet. Or you merge this function with other circulation areas. The dorm-sized units have much less circulation space.
--Often, closets and TV stands are the same piece.
--The tub could be reduced to a shower.
--The kitchen has a large vacant area. You could move the left wall in a foot or two and the whole concept would still work as-is.
--In the tiniest units of course beds are smaller.
--If you move the front door a foot to the right, you can add a pantry to the right.

That said, your version works. I'd put a small bar table or desk in the center, a chest of drawers next to the bed, shelves above the TV stand, and kitchen storage to the left of the door. The pillows would be at the other end of the bed to avoid the neighbor's noise.

[SHiRO]

I'd switch the fridge and the stove. And definately a shower instead of a bath. And there needs to be a table or desk of some sort. Where would you eat dinner or work on something behind a computer or otherwise? Eating or working in front of the tv or in bed is not very healthy...

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle micros are frequently below 200 sf, and sometimes even below 120 sf. The former (say 200-300 sf) would be like a very small studio, and the latter (commonly around 120-200 sf) would be more like a bedroom/bathroom with access to a shared kitchen. My numbers are approximations.

Seattle has changed the rules substantially. But until recently, you could permit a project as six "units" where each unit was maybe eight bedrooms. At six units you could avoid design review (a huge savings in process/time/cost). In neighborhoods that require parking, you could also base your ratio on the unit count rather than the bedroom count, maybe doing three spaces along the alley instead of 24 for the 48 bedrooms (also a massive cost saver, and making it possible to go way denser on small sites).

I've argued strenuously to keep allowing these. Micros aren't for everybody, but they are popular. They're the only way to provide affordable housing in core Seattle districts without subsidy. They're basically dorm rooms or hotel rooms, which most of us have lived in at least for short periods, and many have lived in for long periods. You trade square footage for financial health, a short or zero commute, and possibly having retail outside your door.

Rents tend to be in the $3/sf range. That's pretty normal for Seattle. It's still not cheap, but they'll do like any building...get slowly cheaper over time.

Opponents seem to be a mix of "let's keep the poor folks out" (or replace that with subtle or non-subtle racism), and "but they'll take my free parking space on the public street".

We're still getting new proposals and starts, but they units are averaging more square feet and they're in districts that don't require parking.

I know I'm quoting an older post, but that's insanely small considering I lived in a single dorm room in a vintage 1920's building that was 200 sqft. It had no sink, but public washrooms. Just a tiny closet and enough space for a twin bed, desk and dresser.

In Chicago, the smallest space I rented was 420 square feet at $3/sqft and that was pushing it. But I kind of started finding studio apartments were overrated in terms of "cost savings" They can allow you to live in the center of it all, but the fact that everyone is paying for a bathroom and everyone is paying for kitchen I felt it was more of a rip-off. I moved to 1400 square foot condo gut rehab a little further from downtown and pay less than the tiny hotel room studio

Point is, a tiny unit is definitely something that could work for a year or two for people looking for short term rentals or the first year or two after landing a job. Who cares if it's a small space. You just need a place to sleep. When I first moved to Chicago, I was out and about so much, my apartment was probably used only for sleeping or making quick meal. Since short term housing is lacking for recent college grads and students, I'd definitely advocate for more of these, but possibly in the more sensible square footage range of 350-450 sqft.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

The livability of such small spaces is really dependent on how they're laid out. Apartments under $1000/month in Toronto (ie. my budget) usually max out at about 300 or 400 sqft. at the largest, and go down as low as 100 sqft. The problem with most of them is that the space is just so poorly designed (usually spaces shoehorned into old buildings rather than being purpose-built) that living in them requires significant compromises to quality of life.

As an experiment, I tried to design the smallest comfortably livable space I could and came up with this 210 sqft. apartment:

Interesting, but pretty punishing. I don't think there's any need to separate the bedroom and living areas. When you rent a studio, it's a given that there will be zero privacy from the sleeping space. That's just the way it is. You want the space to feel open and big. At the very least the bed could be designed as a murphy bed or perhaps lofted above the bathroom.

[mhays]

It's important to allow the really small units. Housing affordability is a big issue, particularly in certain cities, and tiny units are the only way the market can directly address the low end without subsidy.

Yes the cost per square foot is usually higher, because as noted above every units has a bathroom and a sink, as well as a lot of casework and other expensive things. But $4/sf for 200 sf (or 150, or 250) is a lot cheaper than $3/sf for 400 or 500 sf.

And obviously micro units age, and get cheaper in relative terms as they age.

I lived in a hotel room for four months. It was basically a micro. On a temporary basis, it was great. More importantly, back in my 20s it would have been preferable to having roommates.

The Seattle City Council and Mayor have gone backwards on this stuff, because some of them are complete hypocrites about affordability and caved into the nimbys. I probably covered this in this thread somewhere. But we're still getting a lot of small units, just not as small or as cheap. An 82-unit building with units in the 300 sf range just broke ground near me. No parking of course. It's on a triangular 5,800 sf (13.3% of an acre) site that would have remained one-story retail forever if parking was required.