This would make me fee claustrophobic after a year or so...

My East Village apartment (and this was 1999) was smaller, very old, smelled of heating oil wafting up from the basement, with brick wall views out every window, for $1k. This looks like a bargain in comparison, especially since it's modern, clean, and new.

This is amazing. Not for me, but I admire those who can live this way.
I am always shocked when I see these sorts of posts on this site. Those people can cram stuff anywhere!

At $1,500 this is a joke, but it's not totally unimaginable for me. If I were single and made a lot of money, I wouldn't mind this cramped space for a little while.

That said, I split a $1,500/month apartment with my partner, so my effective rent is $750. For that we get 2 bedrooms in a 2 story apartment with deck and sunroom, 1.5 baths and right in the heart of one of the best areas of Toronto. Mind you, it's a bargain for where we live and what we get.

But San Fran is a pretty special place. I would play a premium to live there, but I can't afford the premium at this point in my life... if ever.

My space is about 400 sq ft. there are 330 sq ft units in my building that go for $1200!! I bet mine would go for $1300 if I rented it

ridiculous (I live in Toronto)

That is twice my mortgage, and I have 3 acres all to myself; granted, I live 30 miles from a stop light. No way would I give up raising my own meat, eggs and produce for any city.

@caseyinto come out to Oakville. Still on the GO train. $1600 gets you 1080 sq ft, 3bdrm 1.5 bath

I think it's outrageous rent and it totally makes me shudder, as you said, despite the slicko design. A total boon for landlords I guess. I kept seeing articles about this touting all the great aspects of it, so it's nice to see other people who think it's claustrophobic. It's certainly not the answer to getting low-paid workers who "can afford to live" in San Francisco. Having lived in a tiny space for years, I'm all for spaces that you can actually live in. Not mega-mansions, just ample space in order to breath. 220sqft isn't it, and at $1,500 is quite a bit more expensive per sq. ft. than a lot of all-round nicer places.

POPSICLE; I'm envious in a good way!! :oD.

I was born and raised in SF-I'm 55 years old and when the housing market took a dump, I was able to purchased a condo 'across the bay' as we say in a small town called Hercules. It's 1032 sq. ft, 2 bedrooms, 1-1/2 baths, 2 car garage in a ver pretty and quite area. However, If I could afford, SF, I would go back to live there but only in certain areas. There are many areas in SF that I wouldn't live even if it was rent free..seriously.
I miss being able to walk everywhere you want or need to go and if it's too long to take a stroll, there is always the mass transportation.
Would I live in 220 sq. ft even with wanting to head back to SF...NO. Give me 6-8 hundred sq. ft then we'll talk.

This would probably work for a single person (with a good job), but I need more room than that for my cats and their litter boxes, beds, etc. Would I love to live in SF? Oh yeah.

That's a distressingly high rent for so few square feet. I'm fortunate enough to pay $1 per sq. ft. in Manhattan and wish this were not the exception but the rule for those under a certain income. Goodness, even $3 per sq. ft. would be more reasonable than what this project offers. The gap in standard of living in the States is appalling.

By the way, there's a typo in the post. You meant, "[Y]ou'd have to work 36 hours/week (if you ignore taxes) just to pay the rent on a 220-square foot apartment," not "2,200 -square foot apartment" as it is now.

@the cubby- thank you for catching that! I did the same thing in conversation last night while discussing this with friends. I think my mind is rebelling against the concept of such a small space..

The ridiculousness of this is hopefully yet another sign that things have gotten so out-of-control crazy that nothing but a massive re-org of the financial system is possible. Not a few tweaks here and there, which is actually what the 1% want though they pretend to protest. When you have trillions of undeclared dollars, a few percent higher taxex, of even a few $billion, is chump change.

Nope, this change has to start from scratch.

Actually, all it will take is ceasing to allow central banks to print money out of thin air , the enormous implications of which allowed them to become the 1% controlling 99% of the wealth (or whatever the current ratio is.)

It's bound to be scary and uncomfortable especially since most people, even though they've heard about this 1%, still don't get what it menas, or think it's the "rich people" around the corner in the nice house who have lots of loopholes they can exploit. No, this is big. The only people with enough money to fall off any "cliff" which they themselves named in a classic doublespeak move, is the 1%. For the rest of us it's a small step, if any, down to stable ground.

Sorry if that sounds political. In fact, it is not political. The 1% knows it's important to stay way behind the scenes, and deflect any blame onto the politicians, whom they mostly control, And hey, she added defensively, you're the one who brought up economic matters:)

There are reasons the suburbs are cheaper. It's not too far from the city, but it's a totally different lifestyle.

For me, 2.50/sq ft in downtown Toronto is worth it - now I need to work on negotiating my salary...

The rent is outrageous. That being said, I think the space is livable for one person (I don't think I could handle a roommate in that space!). It's bigger than the single dorm room I had in college. Other than the cost, one of these micro apartments would be perfect for a student or recent graduate

I know most of the pictures in the SF Gate article are renderings, but some of the design details don't make sense. I don;t know if the apartments come furnished, but I think a sofabed/futon/daybed would make more sense than a bed and a separate couch. I like the Murphy bed/dining table idea in the queen bed room, but I don't quite understand how it all would work out. It also looks like some of the kitchens have a full size refrigerator/freezer, instead of a mini fridge. Especially since it looks like the kitchens might not have an oven, a full refrigerator seems like an odd choice.

I'd love to know more about the building, as well. What do the common areas look like? How many of them are there? A good (or a couple good) lounge-type places, some outdoor space, a gym, etc would go a long way to making micro living more feasible.

In a great city I would live there in a heart beat. It's all about where and how you want to live.

This is why I told San Francisco that we could have a long distance relationship and I would visit Her often, but I would never marry Her.

I pay less than $1500 in St Paul, another walkable and artsy downtown, to live in a bigger place on the 11th floor with a view from my corner apt of the capitol AND the mighty Mississippi. AND 2 balconies and a 30 ft deck. The common areas are amazing, including an entire floor of party/lounge areas surrounded by windows and a rooftop area that includes not just a swimming pool, but an outdoor movie projector to watch movies under the stars and an outdoor kitchen/grill area that will seat 30-40 at the bars.
Oh...and 4 seasons, which I dearly love. And a skyway to go to theatres and concerts and museums and restaurants and and and...
I still miss SF, but I managed to move on

$1500 sounds and is steep for the space. Considering how one rental price determines another rental price, I foresee a crisis coming. The Micro Apartment goes for $7.50 a square foot. The mentioned 400sqft apartment goes for $3.75 sq. ft. The landlord of the 400 sq ft unit may be tempted to raise the rent to match the MA price, making it $3000 a month. Landlords will do what the market can bear. In Pearl City, Hawaii in the 90's, the rental rates went from $600/mo for a studio, to $1000/mo when the Navy allotted sailors not living on base (Pearl Harbor) a $1000 housing allowance. Other unit prices went up accordingly. I had to move out to find a more affordable part of the island.

Like the look of slum tower apartments in China or Rio? We're heading towards another few billion people on the planet in the next two decades. We live in a world with finite resources like land and water and yet the politically correct and/or religious among us will defend the right for people to have as many kids as they want. Apparently there is no tipping point for San Francisco. People will pay whatever it takes-not only in rent, but try handing over gobs of income in taxes. San Francisco has an untenable public employee retirement system. $10 for all of your family-including inlaws health care coverage, several hundred thousand a year in retirement salaries. They've got to cram more and more people (and hopefully taxpayers) in to San Francisco to pay for this stuff. Quality of life and the environment be damned.

I lived in a micro apartment in New Zealand. It wasn't bad actually. But appliance manufacturers for overseas markets sell great things like combo washer dryer units that wash and dry in a short amount of time. Or wall hanging dual flush toilets that hang from the wall and therefore make more space in bathrooms last forever and have water sitting in the bottom. By comparison the one wash/dry unit available in the US market takes five hours for a wash/dry cycle. And the low flow toilets have no water sitting in them so they always have skid marks in them and the flush mechanism in the bottom wears out after about three years on the Kohler models.

Please Californians...do not move to Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Texas or whatever other state you dream will fix your problems. You created it...please stay and fix it instead of bludging off the medicare/medicaid systems of surrounding states you didn't contribute to until all your life.

In terms of size, I don't think this is a hugely big deal (haha) - I lived very happily in a place not much larger than 220 feet for two years. You can't have huge parties, or whatever, but it was a great place for me as a single person with a cat.

But aesthetically, I think that these particular apartments are really cold and unpleasant; they're like not very cozy hotel rooms. Maybe they're for business types who're always out, right? If you just basically need a place to sleep, I'd go for it.

can we alllll say....Prison/Jail...Cell !!!!!!!......we must understand these high priced Closets! are not made for the...Average Joe or Jill.....people who have money to throw away!...just to take a nap!...because you cannot..."Live"...in there!...it's like a sleep capsule.
What's the ole saying..."There's a...SUCKER!...born every...."220"!....minutes!!!...Lol...

May beat me to it - I was going to say this can't be much bigger than a prison cell. Yeah, commit a crime, you won't have to pay any rent and the state will feed you for free.

I love SF dearly but there are limits to everything.

I couldn't live here!! claustrophobic!

I can see it working for a student who doesn't spend a lot of time at home. It doesn't seem like a good long term living solution.

I think as we face population explosions in urban centres this sort of thing will become more typical.

This looks like its close to downtown and the baseball stadium...I'm guessing most of these micro apartments will be rented to corporations for short term employee and executives to stay, or people who work in downtown SF but have homes elsewhere.

As for Portlandrules' bigoted comments, millions of people move to California every year for economic opportunities, better quality of life, etc. To say that Californians shouldn't be allowed to move to the sates mentioned for the same reason is ridiculous.

Makes one wonder where all the store clerks,fast food workers,janitors etc,live! How can they possibly afford to live in the city where they work? As my granny used to say,"You can wrap a pile of poop in pretty paper and fancy ribbons,but when you unwrap it,its still poop",ladies and gentleman,I present to you,POOP! Build REAL affordable housing for lower income people and keep it affordable,then its a win/win for the city.Lots of diversity,and the folks who scrub the toilets can live in the same place they work.

I have to assume those that pay this much (and more) accept it and still have enough left over for basics and enough to partake in (whatever city) beyond just walking around. In that case, seems they're doing darn well. Is that the Golden Gate bridge view in the top pic? Sad to have to pay that much just for a good view. You only live once; are there that really believe they would wither and die if they didn't live in LA, SF or NYC? Ditto, re johncb; where do the Starbucks etc. people live?

I'm sorry, but this makes me so happy I live in Iowa. I just looked at a 500 SF one bedroom (sort of) apartment and could have rented it for $550. It's in a historic town, in a historic building and built out new with beautiful hard wood floors and cabinetry. I almost took it, thinking if people in NY, LA, SF, and Chicago can live in this amount of space, so could I. Then I found out the 600 SF 2 bedroom for $795 is coming available in spring. I'm choosing to wait. I don't know how you all pay that price. The question was is it worth it? Not for that price it isn't.

For those of us who choose to live in cities, it gets tiring to hear people with 3,000 sq ft houses that cost $120,000 talk about prison cells and claustrophobia. Everyone makes choices. Projects like this should be viewed in their context, not from yours.

This is not low-income housing. No one ever said it was targeted towards that demographic. It is housing for professionals, either young or maybe post-divorce, who are making many compromises to live in SF - or NY, which also has a project like this. Many of these folks would rather not have roommates. This gives them clean, multi-functional private space, probably well located in the city. Is it tiny - sure. Is it expensive? - don't know enough about SF rental prices to say.

But until someone comes up with a better way to house this demographic, this is an interesting experiment to do and to learn from. No one is being forced to live there.

I lived for 11 years in 234 square feet in LA, grew to love the simplicity, but at a much, much cheaper rent of $500. When that place got sold and leveled, I doubled my rent and moved into 575 square feet. I really had to readjust to having such a huge amount of space. I tend to keep it simple and uncluttered, and find that I quite enjoy the "echo," and whenever it disappears, I know it's time for another yard sale, and I feel gloriously greener each time. How much stuff would a wood chuck chuck, if a wood chuck could chuck stuff? Smaller is simply easier ;-)

Come to Mumbai.
One of my neighbours redivided her 475 sq ft, one bedroom-kitchen apartment into THREE bedrooms and tinier kitchen. For balconies to be converted to kitchens and kitchens into a second bedroom is not uncommon.

What is interesting is how these micro spaces are organized. Gives you ideas if you live in a small space. Ie.

1) situating desk across from the couch and under a wall mounted TV
2) put the furniture you would use most in daylight by the windows
3) creating different zones within one room to help create rooms within rooms, etc.

Warning: I'm going to hurt you now. In 1968 I moved out of my second-floor, one-bedroom apartment on Bridgeway in Sausalito. My rent was $90 per month. If I sat just right in my living room, I had an unobstructed view of the Bay.

To be honest I could ONLY seeing short termers living here. This would be great for students, people here for workshops, short term work, summer courses, etc. Otherwise just take your butt across the bay and get a place in Oakland or Berkeley. My place is $900 for DOUBLE the square footage and I'm getting ready to move into a 2 bedroom for just $1200. Less for more space without the hassle/bane of everyone's existence which is MUNI. BART is way better.

Wow $1500 is insane for a tiny space. I live in Pittsburgh and live in a Victorian row house and with utilities all included I pay $410. My room alone is the size of this apartment. I have a giant kitchen, fireplace, spacious living room and walk in closet and two cats with no cat deposit.

I mean that view would be nice and having the same unpredictable weather would be nice vs Pittsburgh's 4 season weather. I think it would be ideal for someone who doesn't need to consume and lives life outside of their home.

I'm in Manhattan, and I would kill to be able to have my own studio for $1500, even at that size.... It's pretty normal for people to pay that much for a room in shared apartments.

These things HAVE to be for people who are rarely, rarely at home. Just a place to sleep, make coffee, shower and get the heck out! :)
Not really for me, unless I had to.

Oh wow, that is incredibly expensive so such a tiny space. I'd wither away in there.
Currently, I share a space with my boyfriend and pay $927.00 a month for a 620 sq ft all inclusive apartment (this includes parking for our two vehicles as well) in Kingston Ontario.
Our minimum wage is a cent off San Francisco's. We don't live in a large happening city which is why we're getting away with a good deal... If I payed that much for a rented space I might as well purchase a house!

Leaving aside the rent issue, if I were younger, single, and did some serious downsizing, I could see living someplace like this.

I heard about this on NPR today. The host was properly skeptical. He said they should be called ipads.

This is bad news for affordable city living. And good news for investors.

End of story, and nothing else.

I think this is a good use of space and perfect for single people who work around the clock, but I am not one of those people. Family, pets, art studio, the garden, cooking and entertaining -- you know, the stuff that makes my life worth living, is all available at a much more affordable price on the other side of the bay. BONUS - no human waste on your doorstep.

Couldn't have said it better, @Taureg!

We live in a remodeled 600sqft studio in the heart of SF and rent is $2200/month. We work here and love city living. It's not a permanent solution, but it's more than do-able, and a good compromise for being in this little big city. $1500 for 220sqft is not that bad, especially for a brand new building. I can see a number of my coworkers moving in, as long as there was bicycle parking ;)

Living small is not that hard.. it was actually quite liberating to throw away all the stuff we had before that we never used and had no sentimental value. You learn to buy things that are efficient and/or only what you need and love.

Oh, forgot to mention, we also have two cats =^.^=

I lived in SF for a billion yrs in a teeny-tiny jr. 1 bedroom (that is, no separate bedroom, but the kitchen was up 1 step and sort of "around the corner" from the living room and the alcove where my fold-out futon was) and LOVED it, but it backed onto a large yard that I developed with tree-size shrubs, etc., so the sightlines were deep and extensive and as a result I never felt cramped or crowded, except maybe toward the last few yrs, by which time I'd accumulated possessions and more furniture than I should've squeezed into that place (heh heh).

I'd move back to the city in a heartbeat if I could (am currently underwater in a condo in the outer East Bay after losing my SF place), but having said all the above, I still think these micro-units are crazy-small -- like hotel-room small ! -- and feel claustrophobic partly because of the layout and building -- not to mention the fact they cost $1,000 a month more than I was paying for my little rent-controlled place. Wouldn't someone's better choice be to either share a place with a roommate or 2, or live in one of the currently very hot neighborhoods in Oakland?

San Francisco is a small big city, just 49 sq miles; it takes up less room than the Dallas Fort Worth airport. And, as a lot of people want to live here, it's very expensive to rent, to buy and just to live.
Apple, Google, Yahoo, etc run fleets of busses to take their staff from the city to their campuses.
Having said that, I think that these units are a bad idea. The people who work at Apple, etc can afford to here.
The people who can't are those on low income and these units won't help them.

My husband and I purchased a condo one bedroom 786 sq ft. In NJ.We both grew up in big houses ( so it feels like been there done that, not that exciting) and would rather spend money traveling. That being said, obviously we like smaller living space, however 220 square feet for 1500 seems I don't know...insane!? I am the queen of un- cluttered living and don't think I could do it. Of course, San Francisco is such a glorious place you could spend lots of time outside...Still, I'm feeling claustrophobic thinking about it! I think our place is as small as we like.

First of all I don't like the snobbery and elitism but in a way it's to be expected for websites like this. Beautiful spaces aren't just for rich folk. I live in the Oklahoma City area and they just raised my rent to $545 for my 600 sq ft 1 bed apartment with kitchen, dining area and fireplace and patio. I love both NY and SF but I certainly couldn't stay there with those prices, esp with no income.

If you can afford these rents and whatever else you NEED each month, you darn well better love/appreciate your job. This has really made me more sympathetic for the homeless.

I live in VB beach and can not even imagine...$1500 a month gets you a big house to rent or mortgage....wow,,, when I read this stuff..it floors me...smh!

To me it just looks cold and ugly. Perhaps if I saw one that had been decorated I would think differently. Right now it looks like a doctor's examination room. (Replace the couch with an exam table and - tada!)

There are a lot of wonderful places in this world but I don't think I could personally live in a place roughly the size of my master bath just for the privilege of living in a certain area.

This actually is on par with New York prices as well...actually if you were in Soho or Tribeca, you'd pay a little more, but $5,000/mo would get you a beautiful place.

"The gap in standard of living in the States is appalling."

How so? No one is being forced to live in a big and expensive city, and especially to live beyond their means. America (the name of the country is not the "states") is a large country with many inexpensive places to live. If properties are too expensive where you live then move.

"If you can afford these rents and whatever else you NEED each month, you darn well better love/appreciate your job. This has really made me more sympathetic for the homeless."

Most homeless people are suffering from addictions and/or mental illness. That's a totally different subject.

The days I mope about being in the midwest, I'm just going to come back and read how much rent cost in the big cities. I'm renting a huge 1bdrm / den / office / 1.5 bath house 5 minutes from downtown Cincinnati and it cost $900/mo. I could buy a house for less than $75K. At what point is the culture and convenience of downtown living really worth it? I'm starting to become extremely grateful I left Boston for Cincinnati when I did.

@jdoey,

Wow, you're rather rude. I know the name of the country in which I've lived all my life. I'm allowed to refer to it in shorthand. And I didn't say I couldn't afford my cost of living. I happen to be very fortunate. It just saddens me how so many can barely keep afloat even with multiple jobs. You can't tell others simply to live elsewhere if they want to remain near family or be close to where they can find employment without wishing to spend so much on their commute each day. Please treat others with more respect.

Portlandrules comments are in no way bigoted. Sometimes Truth hurts. There are consequences to be faced for one's choices. California in general and SF in particular has made some poor ones. IF this your lifestyle of choice, stay there & fix it...as opposed to running from the mess & mooching off other states.

Yep...folks do flock to CA for various reasons...but at what cost?

This is triple my mortage for 2000 sq ft + carport + outbuilding/storage + a full acre where I'm able to grow most of my own herbs and many of my own vegetables. Organically, to boot. Plus I live inside the city limits. No public transit here, however, everything is accessible in 10-15 minutes on foot or less than 2 by auto.

And did I mention? THE AIR IS CLEAN.

It does seem a little nutty that the price is so high, but it's all supply and demand. For those of us who think this is really claustrophobic-looking, that may be because we're used to spending a lot of time at home. Some people basically "live" elsewhere: between hours spent at work, the coffeeshop, bars/restaurants/clubs, the gym, the park, library, etc., they're rarely at home. The don't do any entertaining; they meet people somewhere. It could be very do-able for someone who already lives that way, but it would be a huge adjustment for someone in a more average-sized dwelling.

The comment wasn't meant to be rude. It was merely a correction for a terrible and improper term some people use to refer to our country. Also, "the states" is not "shorthand" for the name of the country, that would be USA, which is a whopping six letters less. America would also only be one more letter. In either case both are the proper names for our country, "the states" is not.

As for people living somewhere they can not afford or living beyond their means, it is not a matter of me saying they should move to a place they can afford, It is a matter of common sense and logic. Sure many people would like to live near family or have a home or apartment in a nice neighborhood or city but those are often emotions speaking, not sense and not thoughts that are in accordance with financial realities.

A person's most important and first family is also their spouse and their kids. That's the family that person should always want to remain "near" to, first and foremost. That's rather hard to do while trying to live near extended family in a location one can not afford.

I also wasn't suggesting you we're such a person.

There are way too many Americans today with an entitlement attitude. It's ruining America.

$1500 per month for this tiny place! But of course, he's living in a place with of the view of the bay bridge!I used to live in SF in a small studio in PAC Heights for $900 per month and located a block away from restaurants and bars on Polk St. You definitely have some more affordable options in SF.I think this particular apartment is insanely expensive because of its location and views!

@jdoey,

It really doesn't make sense to argue over someone calling the The United States of America "the states", "the US", "USA". Seriously... They are all accepted ways of referring to the country. Are you also offended when French or Spanish speakers refer to it as EU?

For that price in Boise ID you can rent a really large 4 bedroom HOUSE in areas, in the city, that look like gated villages but aren't. For $450 you can rent a 2-3 bedroom house in a normal older neighborhood with nice neighbors and yards. People in the less affluent neighborhoods don't lock their doors and often leave their car windows wide open in summer day/night. I'm not joking. However, there are heavy trade offs of fresh air (dry and stale here nearly year round and inversion layer that keeps it nice and brown) 105 in summer (didn't used to be they say) and 20 average in winter. The local culture is great if you are highly conservative, very religious and 80 yrs old. Honestly this would be a great place for gram or gramps to retire if he was raised in the midwest.
I'm just saying that there are places to live if you want a LOT of space for $1500 but it aint a high rise in SF with a veiw of the bay and theatres, awesome cafe's and shops, and the ocean just over the hill, not to mention the rest of CA, jobs, multiple state universities,...

Lol at the guy that calls me bigoted. I remember when every other car in California used to sport a bumper sticker that read "Welcome To California Now Go Home".
And I'll stand by my admission that I don't want Californians moving here for the "economic opportunity" of bludging off balanced state budgets and fiscal responsibility of other states when the city of SF continually does ridiculous things like vote to pay for the sex change operations of every transgender that wants one. Why should the states surrounding CA have to absorb the retiree bills of Californians that foolishly vote for things they can't pay for? Nothing against transgenders at all, but how completely selfish. It's younger workers cramming themselves into apartments like these that are going to pay the price. I truly feel so bad for them that they've been led to believe that living in these little prison cells, working non-stop, accumulating debt and never getting ahead is all worth it to be in SF. This isn't about my love of McMansions either. But a person making a decent living, paying this rent, CA taxes, etc will wake up at 35 and find they have nothing. I hope young people are encouraged to put down roots elsewhere. Your lives are worth more than than this. I've lived all over the world and SF is nice, but hardly worth sacrificing what little time you get on this earth for. We live in a finite world with finite resources and states like California believe in a pyramid system where they throw the bills at an ever increasing population behind them. Nothing illustrates this more than the California school system that just issues bonds whose interest doesn't have to be paid for 50 years. So I'll say it again...stay in California. The rest of the country doesn't want to pay for your ridiculousness. And if a bunch of young people want to pay for it I feel nothing but pity for them.

@portlanrules,

As a Canadian to pays taxes for reassignment surgery for trans Canadians, I say that I am happy to do so for the small number of people who need it. It's not like there are tens of thousands of people taking advantage of this just because it's paid for. People don't have this surgery just because it's free...

Some people like living in cities, so what's it to you? I would feel my life were sacrificed if I was living in some suburb just in order to own a home. For many people in the world home ownership is not really desired over enjoying where you live. I could move to Manitoba and afford all the house and property I wanted, but I don't want that.

This is disgusting. Also, this is your future. I work in the multifamily asset industry in southern California & ASSURE you, every time an article like this is written & receives a lot of attention, 20 new buyers/developers decide to buy land or old apartment buildings & convert them into these shoe boxes, so they in turn make 2-3x the amount of money they used to back when they had normal, comfortable apartment buildings.

Also, bed bugs, roaches, etc run RAMPANT in these types of buildings.

Also, you're surrounded by like, 50 loud neighbors & their pets, so kiss a good nights sleep goodbye. Plus your guests will never be able to find street parking when they come to visit you. And lastly, because of the overcrowding in these types of buildings, they tend to smell. A lot. Food, garbage, pets, smokers, the entire building stinks.

Do a search for Agenda 21; you can find YouTube videos on the subject. This might be an aspect of that, which is basically the shuffling of populations into high-rise megacities to "re-green" the wilderness and reduce consumption of resources. Acclimating people to smaller spaces could translate to buying less stuff and a lesser chance of starting or expanding a family. And before you dismiss it outright as some kind of right-wing conspiracy theory, just consider the information.

Nice try, but the panic about Agenda 21 is absolutely, 100% a conspiracy theory. The UN is not interested in forcing people to relocate from the country and suburbs into the big scary cities. I'd laugh at the nuttiness of it, but people who believe in it are getting elected to local governments and blocking ALL attempts at responsible planning and development. I especially loved the (failed) CO gubernatorial candidate who claimed that a proposed initiative to promote biking to work was really part of the dastardly Agenda 21 plan.

Back on topic: I share some commenters' concern that these costly micro-apartments will lead to an across-the-board rent increase. For those who can afford it and want the very simplified lifestyle, it's great; enjoy your great views and walkable environment! But for those who live at or near the poverty line, I fear that they will be squeezed even further out of the city.

I don't see why people are making such a fuss over this. It's $1500/month of my money. If I want to live in the middle of a great city in a studio then let me. I'm single, no kids, and obviously make at least $54K to afford the place.

I don't tell you that you're ridiculous for buying huge properties or acres of land - don't tell me how to spend my money.

(Is what I'd say if I lived in SF)

jdoey, not everyone who wants to live near family and work is 'entitled'. Not everyone can afford to move far away from their jobs and family. Financial realities differ widely.
Here's mine, just to give you an alternate story of 'common sense and logic'. I live in a HCOL area. In order to find a home that costs 30% of my take-home, I'd have to move at least 2 hours away from my workplace. I have a 4 year old. I can't waste 4 hours a day, or more since traffic is awful, commuting. I would either never see my child, or he'd spend 4hrs/day in the car with me (I'm a divorced parent, my former partner has choosen to no longer be involved in our child's life, so I'm also a sole parent).
I moved into the city instead. I pay 60% of my income in rent, for a 750sq ft apartment in a somewhat questionable area of town, which I was lucky to find as I was prepared to move us into about 600sq ft. I had to sell my car, but that's okay because I have public transportation available. My commute is now 20min and I get to spend time with my child and have a life.
In addition, my family is 30min away and they help care for my son, which minimizes my childcare costs. I pay for part-time care instead of full-time care, which is a difference of over $1000/mo. If I had to pay full childcare, I wouldn't be able to afford rent.

We lived in a rural, LCOL area before moving here.Yes, my rent was less than 1/3 of what I pay for about 3x the space, but I was also making about 40% of what I make now. I had higher transportation costs since I had to drive everywhere. Plus, my child care costs were still about 50% of my take-home pay and back-up care cost even more, so I lost income every time my child was sick or daycare was closed.

Living in the HCOL city, close to work and close to family, has actually reduced my cost of living, despite the astronomical rent. In addition, our quality of life has exponentially risen. There is more to do here and I like the fact that my son is exposed to a huge variety of things and people. Living in the city makes financial sense for my family and emotionally it is much, much more satisfying.

I'm a younger worker (in my 20s). I pay what most would consider astronomical rent. But like my post above explains, it actually costs me less, overall, to pay the high rent and jettison many of my other bills. Small apartment = smaller utility bills, less stuff to buy and keep up, less space to maintain, more time to get out and explore the world outside my home.

I don't live in SF, but in DC. I love the city. My son loves the city. I have no debt aside from student loans. Living in the city, in a tiny apartment, allows me to save money and get ahead. I won't wake up at 35 and realize I have nothing, I'll wake up at 35 with money in the bank and the knowledge that stuff and space doesn't rule my life or my son's life. Knowing that we can live in a small space, surrounded by other people, dependent on public transportation, opens up so many more opportunities than being tied to a house in the suburbs or country.

Roots can travel with you, you know.

American people, you just need to go back to reality !

Here in Paris, France, we live in 150 square feet for a couple, 80 for a student, and we're happy with that. Obviously a little bigger would be great, but you American seem to have lost sens of reality.

We are 7 billions on this earth, for god sake !

I live here, in SF, and I live in a 1913 Edwardian apartment and I don't think I'd give up my 500 sq ft rent controlled apartment for a tiny box. We do have the usual plumbing problems, noise issues, and the occasional crazy person trying to break in the main door, but I love it here and it's exactly what I need. Because who would want to give up 8" molding and original hardwood floors? Not me. I might not live in the city forever, but I want to enjoy it while I can.

i think this highlights a pretty major dilemna though--- a lot of these big cities are attractive for the opportunities they offer to ambitious and career-minded people, as well as people who love a vibrant, diverse and educated community. So what places are the best compromise for those of us who want to progress and have access to such opportunity, but need space to breath, for hobbies and workspace, etc... and may not be able to afford it in SF, NY? I think Chicago can be a great midway point at half the cost of NY.

The sad & lonely-looking, buttoned-up guy in the foto playing with the remote says it all.
"Hey babe, wanna come over & hang out in my motel room? Hello...?"

What a sad way to live. "I am Jack's wasted life."

I live in sf and I was inspired by this micro legalization. i live in a 49sq ft apartment in nopa that i rent for 300 a month. you can read about my exploits on my blog: http://7x7x7x7.weebly.com/

Its because of rent control and laws that are heavily tilted towards tenants that SF needs more housing and even spaces like this. Thousands of places sit empty because landlords have chosen to not rent it out than deal with rent control, pay thousands and thousands of dollars to convince a tenant to move out, etc..

Most economists, even liberal heroes like Paul Krugman, will point out that rent control ends up doing is increase the rents for all remaining properties that don't fall under the umbrella of rent control. Progressives in SF cry crocodile tears about affordable housing even though they actively oppose new housing or highrises in SF and support rent control, even though both drive up rent to this degree.

As a housing alternative, I think these spaces are wonderful. Young people start out in studios or tiny apartments, when you get old(er), you move into a studio high-rise for the elderly. Either way, people need housing and difficulties will increase as the population grows. I currently live in a 2000 sq.ft. house with full basement and converted attic (which I don't use as living space. I'm looking forward to moving in to a studio apartment in a couple of years. I'm glad there are forward thinking housing providers out there.

650 feet is the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM of living space that a human being must have. There were studies done on this. Without it there is tremendous aggression particularly for the 2 who share this space. The nerves become jangled, even for 1 person..the body no longer functions right.
The lion, elephant,...ect needs a minimum of miles of terrain to roam to avoid being sickly, so do people. and 250 square feet is not it.
AS a landlord I would not rent such a space to people, unless it was for storage of furniture, much less charge $1,500 a month. I am not that ruthless, nor do I rent to stupid people. good luck

Oh man oh man. If the rent were a little lower, I would live here in a heartbeat. I'm all about urban, efficient living and this would be perfect. Definitely only for a young single adult who doesn't spend much time at home (and when you live in the beautiful city of San Francisco, you rarely spend do) I cannot wait for these to built so I can look into them!!

I challenge these guys to make something out of my 190 square foot bachelor

I challenge these guys to make something out of my 190 square foot bachelor