"...would go for $1,200-$1,500" will inevitably translate to $2400 in good old San Francisco.

I was thinking the same thing..Plus it's south of Market where parking is a nightmare...but anywhere in SF parking is a nightmare.
Up side..you can walk to just about anywhere you need to go.
Could I live in a space that small..probably..do I want to...NO.

I'm sure I could live in a space that small, but at that price it hardly seems worth it. Although, I would definitely rather live in a tiny shoe box of my own than share a larger apartment with a roommate. My current place is 650 sq feet and seems just the perfect size for one person.

Here in Houston good sized one bedrooms rent for $1200 and up (and up and up), and thats still almost half what I make in a month. I looked for something small and well located and it doesn't exist. I think there could be a demand for something like this here. Maybe not 200 SF but a greater abundance of well designed small studios at reasonable prices for us recent grads who don't make $50000+ a year would be amazing. I'd prefer a well laid out 300 SF studio to a spacious 1200 SF 2 bedroom whose living room is so poorly layed out furniture doesn't fit (and the heating cooling is almost another $150-200/mo.).

Sure I could rent a room in a house for cheap, or maybe a garage apartment, but I love the sense of community and safety I get living near people as well as the amenities apartments offer - secure parking, pool, gym, secure package delivery...and the generally better locations and access to transportation.

That being said (and no I didn't read the article, I'll do it asap) how are they dealing with issues such as fair housing and ADA? Because as an architect, I know it's practically impossible to layout an apartment under 600SF that allows for all the proper clearances and bathroom fixtures etc required by these codes.

Well said LBRO.

I love living in the Midwest. I have a 2 bedroom, 1100 square feet place for just over $900 and I'm just a few minutes from the city! I could not live in that space. 400-500 would be the smallest I could go if I had to.

Looking back on my twenties, I absolutely could have lived in a space that small. Now, I could, but I wouldn't want to. I enjoy entertaining too much. I'm not sure I would be willing to do it for $1200/month - that just seems excessive to me. There are some micro-studios being built in my town now that start at $550, which seems like a much better trade off.

I won't comment on the rent as I don't know the US avage.
But the size is a common studio/student apartment i Scandinavia. My old was 250 sq ft a medium studio flat that was 572$/month + gas/water/heat/electricity (aprox. 170$) in a city with 50.000 residence with train station/Uni and 30min by train from the capital center.
It's a lot in rent considering the size, but not common so close to the capital.

We have them here in Vancouver as well:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/12/19/bc-tiny-apartments.html
If I were single and not spending much time in my place, I think it's more than manageable. The designs have taken into account usage of space and everything is functional.

If I were single, I could absolutely live in a space that small. I would much rather have a safe location near restaurants, shops and bus lines than more space.

I would not live in a place that small unless there were absolutely no other alternatives. That's not much bigger than the dorm room I shared for 3 years while in college. It was acceptable then, but I would go insane in a place that tiny now.

I just set up living arrangements in about that amount of space while recovering from knee surgery. To avoid having to use stairs I set up a bed in my kitchen. It's good training for moving into a tiny house I'll build in the next couple of years, so far planned to be 8'x20' with two small storage lofts. There won't be room for my sewing/art/craft studio and ridiculously HUGE cloth, costume & craft supply collections (potential income) in there so that will have it's own 8'x12' Romani ("gypsy") wagon. The secret to small space living is good storage, organisation and functionality (and not owning too much useless junk) and lots of light. It also helps to have a decent outdoor space. A good view out the windows is nice too.

Twenty-five to thirty years ago, San Francisco was a fabulous place to live. It was crowded then, but nothing like the anthill it's become since the nineties. Approving apartments this size (illegal rentals this tiny already exist) is going to push the city more toward Hong Kong style density. It's a bad move.

This much $ for this little space is ridiculous. There's more to this country than living in something the size of a dog run just to have a SF address. Also, I have to think there are still singles for whom even this would not be affordable.

I've never lived in SF, but I've lived in 400 square feet in NYC. It was a tough squeeze for me, even though I was single at the time.

I guess it's ok if you're a partier or have a job that requires long hours and you only go home to sleep. Entertaining would be impossible in a space that small.

I couldn't afford that rent on my own. I couldn't live in that apartment with someone else. Not a reasonable option in my opinion, even in SF.

A lot of people are mentioning the inability to entertain in such a small space. Would community-style amenities suit that need? Perhaps reservable areas with grills/ovens/stoves/etc that overlooked nicer parts of the area you live? (Rooftop gardens? Over looking pools? Courtyards?) I think that would suit my need but I'm not a large-dinner-party type.

I've even heard it said on AP before - if you live in the right, walkable neighborhood with parks and fun things, your neighborhood becomes your backyard/space/etc and I think that in turn will foster stronger communities.

LBro- community-style amenities might work for some people. I don't think they would work for me. They just force you to give up too much freedom and flexibility. I'm sure that it would be next to impossible to reserve them around holidays or at short notice.

By myself, I do think I could live in a space that small. With a partner and cat, no way! We are seriously considering buying a standalone studio house right now (~400 ft2). But it has a large fenced yard that goes with it...otherwise we wouldn't be able to consider it.

I don't know, I lived in 340sf with my now husband our cat and 3 bicycles, we had dinner parties with like 18 people, I cranked out some gourmet grub in the teeny tiny kitchen. The size almost never bothered us. It's got to coincide with a seachange shift in how you view storage, though. My husband taught me the store things like a boat mentality. Everything has 2, 3, or 4 uses. It's kinda awesome and helps you really pare down your crap.

It all depends on your life. I might have been able to live this way in college, before I started accumulating the things I consider worth having. Now, with a partner, two cats, a house bunny, craft and sewing supplies, home theater (his), et al, no way. (Plus I like to do landscaping/gardening -- so, another problem there...)

I had a writer friend once. All she needed was a comfortable place to sit with her laptop and an internet connection (cable or wi-fi) and she was happy. She bought her whole apartment's furniture in one store in one shop, because she just didn't care what she got. No art. No accumulation of kitchen tools or holiday decorations. That's exactly the kind of person these places would be golden for.

I had no idea San Fransisco was so expensive! I would have expected a space that small to be more in the $700 or $800 range. I guess I'm just spoiled by affordable apartments in the midwest. I still think San Fransisco would be a very fun place to live, though. I'm sure whatever it lacks in square footage of apartments, it makes up for in culture! Why else would people live there?

Living abroad, I lived in a studio about half the size of that, and I survived just fine. It's true, you can't entertain a lot of people. But it's certainly doable.

If it was just me and one cat . . . yeah, I could live in that space. The problem is: I have a husband and six cats. Our master bedroom is just over 300 sf and that does not include closet space. I want to downsize . . . spouse does not. Maybe I should move to SF?? Can't afford it.

I got a question. When in the hell did a decent place to live become some kind of luxery! Fifteen hundred dollars a month to live in some 2 by 4 closet? Not this kid.

In Paris I've lived in a 180 sf apartment and later on in a 96 sf one (8th floor walk-up, toilet on the landing). For 2 years and 1 year respectively. I was very young, and they cost about $300 a month each. It was in the last century, I think now they'd charge about $700 for each.
It meant I couldn't store anything, I had to do grocery shopping every day, I couldn;t cook anything, I spent an inordinate amount of time at the laundromat, and I couldn't entertain anyone. It sucked big time. It was affordable, and that's all I can say for it. The rents they plan to charge for those spaces in SF are extortionist prices.
I can only see graduate students living in places like that, or very recent immigrants, and these are demographics that can't afford those rents.

I'd have to agree with Janet Brandt here.

The size is so small that the only demographic likely to be interested cannot afford the rent. $1200 a month for a rental is pretty steep - especially for a space that could only realistically accommodate one adult.

I lived in SF in the 90s and loved it... but we paid $1500 for a studio, THEN. Sadly, I think the city is going downhill. The character that makes all of the various neighborhoods so interesting and fun - will they still have people IN them in ten or twenty years at these prices? :(

Im surprised at the people balking at this, my flat is less than 400sq ft and my boyfriend and I live quite comfortably in it and we have a lot of stuff and barely any storage (under the bed is a Godsend). We use a twin sized inflatable bed for guests and its fine. I could totally live here.

Too much of a homebody to be able to handle a space that small. I feel like those apartments are really only home base for people who spend their life out and about--I love my days in and I would go batshit insane after 24 hours. I'm sure that for me it would feel less like a home and more like solitary confinement, just thinking about it makes me feel claustrophobic.

A couple of years ago, a friend lived in a 200 sf apartment in my Portland neighborhood. The biggest problem for her was that she loves to cook and she only had a hot plate. If the apartment had just a bit more kitchen space to allow even a small stove and oven, she probably would have lived there a lot longer than she did. My only issue (for her) was that she paid the same amount that I did in rent for my 400 sf place only 4 blocks away.