Smaller apartments of commuting from the suburbs is just dealing with the symptoms. The problem is overpopulation.

I think creating a bunch of micro-apartments in manhattan is a great idea...

As long as they can actually keep the rents affordable to the city workers they're intended for - which I highly doubt they'll do.

They'll start with the noble idea of making these affordable, small utilitarian living spaces, and before long it will be hijacked and they'll turn them into "boutique" novelty small apartments with sky high rents intended for richer singles who want to brag about their little apartments.

The entire borough of manhattan is being hijacked like this. It's becoming... no, it's already become a gated community closed to all but the "acceptable" people (oh, and sure, some college students can live around NYU too. But only temporarily, of course).

I agree 100% Dominic.

"They'll need the cultural blessing of the mayor, the council, the media, the neighborhoods."

That's why I love the Apodment trend. Each of those hurdles are tall ones, so they said "screw it", found a loophole, and started building anyway. The right thing to do would be legalize small apartments years ago, but the council has failed at that.

@2 If/when that happens, build more. There are only so many "richer singles who want to brag about their little apartments." Believe it or not, Manhattan suffers from the same building restrictions we do. Let developers build to the sky in more places, especially if building small units, and you'd see rents drop dramatically.

They really should call them "cages" instead of apartments. 150 sq ft is about the size of my office, and it sure feels like a cage!

Do we know for certain that building tiny apartments will provide affordable housing?

A couple of years ago I looked at Moda Apartments in Belltown. These are 300 to 500 sq. ft units, but the rent is not significantly lower (and probably higher) than many other places. $1300-$1600 a month. I couldn't believe it when I saw them.

I actually LOVE small spaces. The best place I've ever lived was 500 sq. feet.

Classist? No. I think people who discourage ideas such as these have totally bought into the idea that your possessions are what define you. For people that think that material worth = personal worth, they will never buy into this idea. It would be nice if these people would consider that having a smaller footprint is also good for the environment.

We are decidedly middle-class (unless you take Rmoney's definition of middle class in which case we are dirt poor). We are building our first Tiny House in our back yard. It will have everything I need, bathroom with shower, a kitchen area, a living room and a loft big enough for a king-size bed. Size is about 200sf. And the best thing about this is I can just hook my house up to a truck and move it where I want. Oh yeah, and no property taxes on the house.

Frankly, the idea of living with only what you need, not having outrageous property taxes (because there would be no permanent structures) and being able to go off the grid are extremely appealing and that is our retirement goal.

All you're doing is changing the cost of an apartment from money to space, the dilemma for a resident is the same. If I can get an apartment in the suburbs that is three times the size of an apartment in the city - for the same price - I'm going to live in the suburbs. And what happens when housing prices continue to climb, keep reducing the size until we're all living in closets?

Instead of densifying Capitol Hill into Manhattan, it would be nice to see other neighborhoods take on greater density. Rents are crazy on the Hill, Ballard, by UW and LQA to some extent...but here's hoping for more Cap Hill-like neighborhoods once the light rail and streetcar lines are done.

Developers will charge as much as people are willing to pay for housing. If every neighborhood had good access to transit, jobs, shops, entertainment, etc. it would take the burden off the Hill and other expensive locales.

@6 Check out the aPodments. They start at $350, though most are between $500 and $700/mo.

The prices for Moda currently start at $1,135/mo for 332sf. But they also look nice, with a fitness center, clubhouse, etc., and is located in Belltown.

@8 I don't see how in 150 sq ft there can be room for much more than a dorm fridge, sink, shower, toilet and bed. They could put shares washrooms on each floor, so the "apartments" don't need to have them, but at that point isn't it really a boarding house rather than an apartment building?

If large numbers of people really wanted such small residences and there was great profit in them for the developers, they would already hsve changed building codes, zoning, etc, so the developers could make their money.

@9 Sure, but other potential buyers will weigh the time cost of travel, cost of gas, proximity of amenities, etc and they may conclude to live in town with less space. Not everyone weighs costs exactly like you.

They already have those kinds of tiny apartments in Manhattan. Those tiny studios rented for $1,800/month just a few years ago, and I'm sure they're more expensive now. That's still unaffordable for most single people living alone, and few people are willing to cohabitate in such a small apartment.

The fact is, without significant government subsidies, cities will not be affordable for the working class. Micro-studios will benefit single young professionals.

@15 I don't think you understand affodability. Affordability = (income) / (cost of living). Even teachers in Manhattan make 3x what teachers make elsewhere. $1,800/mo sounds like a lot, but location is just as important as price, as incomes vary by location.

Anyway, $1,800/mo probably isn't affordable even in Manhattan (to drop that, you'd need more supply of small homes). But we can't know affordability if we only know price.

Oh, and my uncle lives in a ~150sf apartment in Manhattan and only pays ~$400/mo. Of course he's been under rent control since the 60's...

@16,

I understand affordability perfectly well. The median income in New York City is about $36,000/year. The median income in Manhattan is about $47,000/year. In order for $1,800/month to be affordable, an individual needs to make about $65,000/year. Rent that median incomes can't afford does not fit the definition of "affordable". You'd have to make an income 38 percent higher than median to afford what is, by most measures, a pretty crappy apartment.

@17,

Are you fucking kidding me? I'm the one who doesn't understand the meaning of "affordable"?

*danger, I havent had coffee *

Why do people keep assuming the government needs to fix this somehow? The problem is the entitlement complex of people. Dwelling size is a factor, but comparisons to NYC and 100sqft is a false dilemma and a little hyperbolic.

Until people are willing to fill in the rest of the city and not just bitch and whine because they can't walk to unicorn or smith, very little will change the situation.

Until people get over themselves with the 20 something scencester/hipster coolest neighborhood complex and start *living* in neighborhoods, then prices in places like cap hill will always be inflated and only available to people with cash.

It costs the same to build a square foot in cap hill as it does in bellevue, the motivation for developers is ROI. if no one gives two shits about magnolia, skyway, or greenwood, they are never going to build there. bullshit neighborhood zoning makes it more expensive to build anywhere near single family housing, which effectively lock build-able zones to highly dense neighborhoods, which in turn drives scarcity and cost.

What we need is better overall zoning. Arterial and two blocks in? zone for mid rise, with street front retail, apartments and condos. The fact we allow major streets ( like third ave ) to be dead zones from the street is part of what makes infill undesirable. Until we can break the monopoly on single family homes dictating where things get built this will never get fixed. Throwing money at it is a stupid waste of time.

I've lived in a 300 ft/sq apartment for seven years, and besides a few amenities (bathtub, full-sized fridge, room for sofa), that could probably be easily accommodated by a somewhat more open footprint, I find this to be more than adequate living space for a single person. And given the very modest rent I pay any minor inconveniences based on size are more than offset by the fact that I live within walking distance of my office, all of Capitol Hill, and even downtown.

Now granted, a new 300 ft/sq. apartment is probably going to cost somewhat more than what I pay, but I would think that even for a person living on a modest income proximity to work, public transit, shopping, entertainment, and all the other things people look for in an urban setting would make such living spaces highly attractive.

Chronopolis

The real problem is how much we waste on storage for cars, getting cars around, and all that.

I'd be all for this, as long as they are only zoned in for areas with decent transit. I think it would, for example, be great to have a cluster of such places built over 1 or 2 floors of shopping near the new Capitol Hill light rail station, or the Roosevelt one when it goes in. It would have been great to have these on top of the two-story shopping malls that went in around the Othello station.

As to Manhattan, anyone who actually knows anything knows that both London and Manhattan are being used by people in other countries who like to buy property. They "reside" there less than 6 months a year, so that they can avoid paying income taxes.

But you'd know that if you actually understood what was going on. Which you don't.

@18 My only point was that you can't just throw out a big number an claim it's unaffordable.

But since we're talking real numbers, $47k is almost $4,000 a month. Yes, the HUD definition of 30% of your income for affordability puts you at $1,200 for rent, but that's a housing-only number and ignores commute. Factoring in commute, 45% is a more reasonable number, and if you're walking to work that puts $1,800 exactly on the line of affordability.

Dom starts his story with a NYC plan to allow 275-300 sqft apartments then immediately jumps into a rant about apartments in Seattle half that size. Arguably a 300 sqft apartment would allow some level of comfort. Half that truly is only a dorm room and while possibly a home to minimalist zen practitioner, really is only a stopping point for a tech worker long enough to bankroll for a down payment for a real condo. these will not be permanent housing by any stretch...

And of course here in the comment thread is that oft-repeated nonsense about how bigger buildings and supply/demand will make everything affordable again. We need to get past this distraction if we are going to solve our housing issues.

But i think two real issues ares being missed in this debate.

The first has less to do with housing cost, and all to do with actually paying people living wages. Rather than subsidizing the bloated non-profit world to grind out barely affordable units or giving tax breaks to wealthy (often out-of-state) developers via the disastrous MFTE program, we should be aggressively working to ensure people's salaries are fair. If this were the case, we wouldn't have as much of an issue with affordable housing in the first place.

But the real issue of micro apartments is the density of people that they are placing into zones that were meant to harbor less people, and instead approximates densities targeted for the in mid-rise zones.

I don't think that anyone who opposes these things think they are a bad idea - if placed properly.

The failure to talk about densities of people - less in Single Family zones, and lots in mid-and high-rise zones - is the real problem. With the ow-rise zones being the buffer. That buffer has been abused with the introduction of apodments.

And with this abuse there is a breach the implied covenant made with neighborhoods when these zoning standards were made. That is what needs to be addressed.

But with so much money to be made in these things, and Council rockin' it hard on the Master Builders "wishes", it is unlikely that we'll see any courage there to address the issue soon.

This is unfortunate because natural neighborhood patterns are being eff'ed up. Even if a barista now has a place of his own rather than a couch...

Dominic, the Capitol Hill Community Council just made a formal position statement on this - it might be worth taking a look at. It's anti-apodment.

If you own a house and you have rentals on the same block, you'll quickly see the difference in upkeep and general appearance. Not being a snob, just telling it like it is. I've been a renter with roommates and a homeowner, and I saw it in my roommates and even myself too. Renters also don't tend to stay as long and get to know the neighbors. That's fine, but it is part of the reason that homeowners don't like the "apodments" since their tenants seem to be even more transient and unattached to the neighborhood, let alone the building.

@28 What you're saying is that you're a NIMBY. Unless you're proposing that renting should be illegal, you're probably ok with renters somewhere. Just not near you.

Until/unless you buy up your entire neighborhood, I don't see why it's your business whether someone down the street rents their home.

Agenda 21, look it up.

If you are single with a cat you don't need any more 700 square feet. Period.

BTW, this county needs to start buying the washer/dryer combo machines you see in apartments all over Europe. I don't know why they aren't all over the place here

I've lived in several apartments in the 400-500 square foot range, and I loved all of them. My spouse and I even shared a 400 square foot studio for a while, though, long term, that might have been a squeeze. We're in 2,400 square feet in the 'burbs now, and while it felt luxurious at first, the house is way too big for a couple of gay men and their dogs, and we're both feeling the need to downsize.

Let me get this straight: Dominic believes that forcing working families into the exurbs is classist, but stuffing them into tenements is progressive. I don't know what his agenda is, but I don't believe for a minute that he gives a flying fuck about the working class.

This does nothing to meet the needs of anyone except single people. Are you going to stick poor families in these little boxes and tell them they're happier than they would be in Kent?

@29, I wasn't defending the NIMBY stance as much as trying to explain where it's coming from. I don't have anything against renters, even the neighbors who rent on my block. In my old place it was mostly renters, but it was also dense and another couple dozen people wouldn't have too much impact. Where it gets sticky is when a house in a less dense neighborhood suddenly changes from three people to thirty, then I think it might have an impact on the quality of life for everyone else by way of parking and noise. This is why there are zoning codes, and the apodments skirt the intent of those codes to make quick profits for owners who don't live in the neighborhood.

@1 for the win! S.F. weighs in -

San Francisco considers allowing nation'…

More mudpies for zillionaires.

@36 "owners who don't live in the neighborhood" Isn't that more or less the definition of a rental?

Yes, NIMBYs that don't want to live near rentals is why zoning exists. I ask you whether this should be a use for zoning.

@34/35- Jumping to conclusions quite a bit, aren't you? Having small apartments available to handle single people means taking pressure off the family sized market. If they build 40 apartments in a space that would have had twenty in one building, it means there are 20 less people competing for space everywhere else. No one is saying "Never build a family size apartment." That's your straw man.

I live in such a unit. My studio is about 300 sq feet, the size of a living room.
It works for me... but that's me, and based on my needs, and based on the cost. If it cost more than $800 a month it would feel like a ripoff. Regarding space, it's fairly tight for two people, and any more beyond that probably unworkable.

"And of course here in the comment thread is that oft-repeated nonsense about how bigger buildings and supply/demand will make everything affordable again."

It won't. As long as developers and property-mongers control the pricing and there's always a steady stream of deep-pocketed suckers from the software industry or from NYC/LA/SF/Chicago, prices will always be high and getting higher unless they're actively regulated.

@41: Yeah, letting developers build a bunch of overpriced, undersized closets will lower housing costs. And a rising tide lifts all boats. Who are you, Ronald Reagan?

In times past, housemates were defined by who each of the other housemates as a group got together and interviewed and decided to allow in as a housemate. I had rooms much smaller than any apartment I've ever had, including efficiencies, and fifteen roommates or so in large, tumbled down houses. It was absolutely the best way I have ever lived and the best way to live---not isolated from others, not just for the young, but to live any time and at any age. Now, landlords fill such vacancies on a first come first serve basis with no input from tenants who must share kitchens and bathrooms, ostensibly to avoid discriminating against potential applicants by having housemates with common interests select their dwelling mates, but really because houses where this is how the choices were made had a sense of solidarity in understanding how to handle slumlords and we can't have that. The result is that some very dangerous characters (and I DO believe they need housing too, so this IS a difficult problem) move into these places and so essentially women can no longer live safely in rooming houses, and thus cannot rent the least expensive form of private housing left---so these places, which have also had their rooms divided up and made tinier, are now de facto discriminating against women in favor of ex-cons, whereas both groups do need housing. Also, I developed two nasty spinal injuries in middle age and became eligible for entitlement housing but am only allowed to live with other people if they are selected for me and also disabled (this is known as segregation). I think the best idea would be to have small apartments with nice big public eating halls and kitchens (maybe private bathrooms, though) in tall buildings, since those large houses of old are too small for high density Neighborhoods anyhow---that is to say, group house style large apartment buildings with real Community space and real Community participation. If there's violence by one of the tenants, it can be dealt with in the Community. We always had a rule of gender balance, same number of female identified as male identified people in the home---that keeps up the housing rights for women, and to some extent children, (for whom there could be some slightly modified units). This is probably just a pipe dream, but a large number of people are single or widowed or disabled in middle age and should not be forced to live alone. How many million years before anyone else thinks of or cares about any of the issues I just brought up?

am I paranoid in viewing this as progressives collaborating with the obscenely wealthy to fully do away with the American middle class?

#46, that's exactly what's going on. The Seattle "progressives" are not only iota less greedy or corrupt than the Republicans who run Bellevue.

@34 nobody is stuffing anyone into small apartments. The availability of small apartments would offer a choice. This is a choice I wish I had when I first moved to Seattle and could only afford a tiny closet sized room in somebody's basement in Lake City for $400/mo. I would have gladly paid $450/mo to live in an even smaller place in Capitol Hill.

FoxConnify Pike St.

@32 what if it's a big cat?

You only have to pay $1300 a month to live in an apartment in the city without a roommate?! That's less than in the suburbs near where I live.

@44- You're going to have to explain to me how increasing supply increases cost.

The best thing about small apartments is that it makes the city's social scene more lively. No one wants to hang out all night in a shoebox after spending the day in a shoebox. So they hit the pavement and go out to gallery walks, bars, readings, the library, and cultural events. Make people too cozy, and they don't interact, spend money in their neighborhood, or make friends. This is why NYC is alive, and Bellevue, for instance, is not.

The worst thing about small apartments is that your family has to stay in a hotel when they visit. Oh, wait...

Yes, yes, and more yes! YES! Rich people and big families don't have to live in micro-apartments; meanwhile, young singles CAN. What's the problem? Bigger families should be double-income these days anyway, especially in the city, so they'll tend to have more money to pay for larger units. This is for young singles and loners.

We should bulldoze most of Seattle and build hi-rise apodments to stack and pack our urban dwellers and charge them more rent than it cost to buy a modest home in Mountlake Terrace. We need to be more like Hong Kong http://www.ibtimes.com/hong-kongs-shoebo…