I couldn't find a thread specifically devoted to the trend of Micro Apartment living, and since it is catching on in coastal cities and recently in Cleveland I figured it would be a good urban topic. To start, here is a video that mentions Cleveland along with NYC, San Fran, and Vancouver as places where the trend is emerging.  Good points in the video include the necessity of cities to offer this type of housing in order to retain young professional people, and how the need for storage has decreased as music and book collections are housed in a laptop rather than on shelves. There are also good ideas shown in the video for any of us who are space challenged.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec13/microapartment_09-22.html

 

I remember when a proposal in University Circle came up (might have been Intesa) - I can't remember the square footage, but a local apartment owner scoffed at the idea of people not wanting/needing as much space. I definitely think cloud storage, shrinking technology and whatnot will have an affect on rentals targeting the younger generations. When it comes to Cleveland though, the microapartments are popping up in places where land is at a premium (i.e. NY, SF) so I don't know how applicable they'd be here except for a few specific areas like University Circle. I'm probably not the best person to ask - when I moved in with my S.O., I went from a 550 sq. ft. apartment to a 3K sq. ft. SFH  :|

What is interesting to me is that we havent seen any micro apartments with micro rents. Instead we only really see micro apartments in new build construction (in Cleveland) which demand high rents, even higher than those much larger units.

^That's consistent with MayDay's observation.  It's not that they offer low rents in an absolute sense, but they are definitely lower than full size units would be (or are) in the high-value locations where it makes sense to build them.  And for the record, I don't think we've seen any real micro units in Cleveland yet--the News Hour piece's shout out was definitely referring to the Intesa plans (long story how I know that).

 

 

^ What is considered a micro apartment, square footage wise?

^There's no clear definition, but generally less than 400 sf. Often less than 300 sf.  There was a freshwater Cleveland article about new "micro units" in Detroit Shoreway earlier this year, I think, which were actually full sized units. I have no idea why they used that word, but it definitely was outside its normal usage.

The second unit of the two-family home that I own in Tremont is a micro apartment.  It's tiny.  About 240 sf.  But we have had absolutely no trouble renting this unit for about $2/sf.  Just some anecdotal evidence that there is some demand for micro apartments in Cleveland.

^^400 sq feet?!!? I don't know what I would do with that much extra space!

There are rooms at IKEA that showcase extremely small (but functional) living spaces.  The ones below 500 sq ft are pretty wild.

The square footage seems to be relative to the market. Someone in NYC, and someone in Cleveland would definitely have different ideas about what constitutes a micro apartment or condo. In NYC, there would be a big market for a lot of people, whereas in Cleveland it might be more a niche like Case or CSU Students at this point. Although, as Hootenany said, there is no problem renting theirs, and given the old housing stock around Cleveland, there are probably many of them already scattered around. I lived in a 350 sqft place in Ohio City when I was going to CSU, and I knew another friend that lived in an tiny attic apartment in Little Italy. Shaker Square has some around there too.

 

My condo in Chicago is 650 sqft, and I am definitely in the minority among my friends who tend to live in more like 1200 sqft condos.  People here think its tiny, but my friends from NYC would kill for the space. Here it is to show how I efficiently use the space. The bedroom area is separated by a (conference room) wall system I scored from the Steelcase showroom at Merchandise Mart!

 

If anyone else lives in a small space, I'd love to see more examples in this thread on how they make it work.

The second unit of the two-family home that I own in Tremont is a micro apartment.  It's tiny.  About 240 sf.  But we have had absolutely no trouble renting this unit for about $2/sf.  Just some anecdotal evidence that there is some demand for micro apartments in Cleveland.

 

Wow, that's cool.  I didn't know there were units that small in 1-4 fam bldgs in Cleveland, but I guess it shouldn't surprise me too much.  I should rent a place like as a Cleveland pied-a-terra. 

 

^^400 sq feet?!!? I don't know what I would do with that much extra space!

 

That's still pretty small even for NYC (sorry to be the bearer of bad news).  It's been effectively illegal to build units smaller than 400 sf in most zoning districts for a while now, which is why the experimental building in Kips bay needed some regulatory accommodation. There are obviously many older units in the city that are smaller, though, including, at the very low end, the dwindling stock of SROs.

I remember when a proposal in University Circle came up (might have been Intesa) - I can't remember the square footage, but a local apartment owner scoffed at the idea of people not wanting/needing as much space. I definitely think cloud storage, shrinking technology and whatnot will have an affect on rentals targeting the younger generations. When it comes to Cleveland though, the microapartments are popping up in places where land is at a premium (i.e. NY, SF) so I don't know how applicable they'd be here except for a few specific areas like University Circle. I'm probably not the best person to ask - when I moved in with my S.O., I went from a 550 sq. ft. apartment to a 3K sq. ft. SFH  :|

 

Yes, Intesa was including micro apartments. The micro apartment skeptic was actually Ralph McGreevy, Exec VP of the Northeast Ohio Apartment Association (http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/12/tiny_apartment_trend_trickles.html).

 

The reason why micro apartments make sense in Cleveland is the opposite reason why they make sense in New York, Boston or San Francisco. There, they provide more affordable housing. Here, they cram together more renters into buildings that would otherwise not provide enough rental income for developers to win loans from lenders. And since young people tend to spend more time outside of their apartments socializing and/or using free wifi hotspots, having a big apartment isn't as big of a deal as it once was. Now, a well-designed, amenity-laden neighborhood is your living room and kitchen.

For some comedic relief, check out this web show "Tiny Apartment" about a couple in a tiny apartment in NYC. Pretty good stuff, the writers/actors are from various backgrounds including Adult Swim, SNL and the Onion. The pic below is from an episode where they order out food...from Edible Arrangements, and wash it down with 40oz beers.

 

http://tinyapartmentshow.com/

 

 

More press/media on this trend:

 

Micro Home Contest winner in NYC:

 

http://nypost.com/2013/01/22/micro-home-winner-to-show-how-stuff-works/

 

Unfolding Origami apartment video:

 

 

Proposal to make micro apartment more livable:

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/05/plan-make-micro-apartments-little-more-livable/5559/

 

Tiny apartments from above:

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/02/apartments-so-small-they-can-only-be-photographed-above/4780/

 

SMARTSPACE SoMa:

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2012/11/micro-apartments-so-nice-youll-wish-your-place-was-small/3932/

 

 

interesting - i think new build micro apts scattered around select cleveland neighborhoods make a lot of sense and would do well. ideally its a great way to add youthful density and streetlife.

 

if one doesnt work out or worst case scenario, it could always fall back to its historical ancestor, the sro apt bldg. and i am serious about that because it seems like every city has closed or converted their sro's. troublesome as they often were, they are needed as the better ones are (were) keeping people from being homeless. so it would never be a total wasted effort to build these, the bldg could probably be used for that or better a boutiquely hotel or something if the concept didnt catch on.

Another take on the issue. Although I'm not sure anyone expects that these types of units would really be for Parents and kids, or older people. Big houses/driving in sprawl have health risks too...so should they not be built?

 

The Health Risks of Small Apartments

 

New York City has a housing problem. Currently, it has 1.8 million one- and two-person households, and only one million studios and one-bedroom apartments. The obvious solution seems to be to develop more small residential units.

 

But how small is too small? Should we allow couples to move into a space the size of a suburban closet? Can a parent and child share a place as big as a hotel room?

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/12/health-risks-small-apartments/7929/

Yeah, the criticism in that article is not very convincing...  Of course people are likely to be happier in "normal" sized units than micro units, all else being equal,, but as Rolf Pendall points out, that's not the real choice here.  Also, it's worth pointing out that due to relative scarcity, large multi-bedroom apartments in New York are actually more profitable per square foot than smaller units (which is somewhat counter intuitive), so it's unlikely that relaxing the zoning is going to lead to some kind of transformative change in the housing supply, at least not in the short term.

But how small is too small? Should we allow couples to move into a space the size of a suburban closet? Can a parent and child share a place as big as a hotel room?

 

"Allow"? I'm not a libertarian, but statements like that could turn me into one. If we're going to prohibit micro apartments or, worse, start subsidizing larger apartments just so people can afford to live beyond their means, then we've really gone off the deep end.

interesting - i think new build micro apts scattered around select cleveland neighborhoods make a lot of sense and would do well. ideally its a great way to add youthful density and streetlife.

 

if one doesnt work out or worst case scenario, it could always fall back to its historical ancestor, the sro apt bldg. and i am serious about that because it seems like every city has closed or converted their sro's. troublesome as they often were, they are needed as the better ones are (were) keeping people from being homeless. so it would never be a total wasted effort to build these, the bldg could probably be used for that or better a boutiquely hotel or something if the concept didnt catch on.

 

Seattle has built a few new SRO's in the last couple decades.  I don't know all the details of how they worked, but I lived in one when first moving to Seattle.  They are usually managed by nonprofits and run as if they were hotels, not housing.  You could rent by the week, or for a substantial discount, by the month.  I believe there was a low income program, though I'm not positive.  The units were nicely furnished, to the standard of a more typical extended stay hotel.  It seemed to me like a good model, one I wish we could offer here- it'd be great for people moving to the region who couldn't find housing first.

^ oh yeah i heard about this in seattle. its unusual to have newer sro's. most cities have gotten rid of them one way or another, which is problematic because there will always be a need for them.

 

***

 

micro apts could make you crazy:

 

http://nypost.com/2013/12/23/experts-fears-health-risks-with-micro-apartments/

 

 

Lots of other videos of small living spaces here.

BTW, micro apartment projects aren't entirely new to Cleveland.  I lived in one when I went to CSU- Heritage Suites.  It is now student only, but wasn't back then.  It was renovated in about '97-'98.  They combined two of the original sleeping rooms into one apartment.  I believe the square footage with kitchen and bathroom was 256 sq ft.  I had a bunk bed with a couch underneath, a desk, a chest of drawers, and a small TV stand.  It worked very well for me then.  But I couldn't live there now- too much stuff, mainly for my hobbies.

Chesterfield has some, no?

This "trend" is crazy.  I just cant imagine living in something so small.  My shoes wouldn't even fit in a apartment that small.

But wouldn't that just mean you aren't the target audience? Not everyone has a massive collection of shoes/clothes/furniture/whatever that takes up space. The people who would want these are just on the opposite end of the "space requirement" spectrum.

But wouldn't that just mean you aren't the target audience? Not everyone has a massive collection of shoes/clothes/furniture/whatever that takes up space. The people who would want these are just on the opposite end of the "space requirement" spectrum.

 

Honey I'm too big to live in anything macro.  So people can do it, but I think anything less than 500 square feet with no storage is a developer taking your money.

Not if it's priced accordingly though. Which I'd hope in a city like Cleveland they would be.

 

I've been apartment hunting for a month or so and found my first legit micro-apartment, in downtown CLE no less:

 

 

$589/month for a 452sqft studio, at the Chesterfield.

 

http://cleveland.craigslist.org/apa/4278116155.html

^ That sounds perfectly reasonable.  It's not even that high a cost per square foot.  I lived for 6 months in an apartment in Chicago in Lincoln Park that was 500 square feet, and the rent was about $1,100. 

Seems inline with the rest of downtown apartments per square foot. Except you get a much more outdated space.

Purely semantic, but I think 452 sf is too big to count as a micro-unit, as "the industry" generally means it today in most cities.

That sounds like a shoe box!  I'm sure there is a market for it, but I can't fathom living in something that small.

Some of the smallest micro units (called "Twitter Apartments") just broke ground in San Francisco. Who knows how expensive they'll be by the time they open?

 

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/01/09/building_begins_on_160_microunits_at_9th_and_mission.php

 

The rent for existing micro-units? An insane $1850 a month. But sadly, that's cheap for a studio in SF...

 

Kayla Smith, 35, has been out of college for years, but she's returned to dorm-style living in an apartment the size of a one-car garage in a brand-new building in San Francisco's Tenderloin.

 

"It's the price you pay for living in San Francisco," she said. She winnowed her possessions to the bare minimum when she moved into the 279-square-foot space in September, paying $1,850 a month for the convenience of living blocks from work amid the emerging Mid-Market area.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Micro-apartment-developments-on-rise-in-S-F-4951775.php

 

I live in Mid-Market. The place is certainly improving, but it's still a slum and its main selling point is the city's best transit, and then proximity to Union Square and Hayes Valley. It's the easiest part of the city to get by without a car. With that said, there are homeless meth addicts everywhere and public defecation in the streets.

^ That sounds perfectly reasonable.  It's not even that high a cost per square foot.  I lived for 6 months in an apartment in Chicago in Lincoln Park that was 500 square feet, and the rent was about $1,100. 

 

Good God that's cheap!

Purely semantic, but I think 452 sf is too big to count as a micro-unit, as "the industry" generally means it today in most cities.

 

That's a standard studio in San Francisco. I believe our city's definition of micro is anything under 300-square-feet.

 

Keep in mind that's not that small for one resident. Many residents here (myself included) share 1000-square-foot railroad flats with four bedrooms and one split bathroom. Divided up, each person gets 250-square-feet of space, and the living rooms are converted to bedrooms.

^^not that cheap at all for Lincoln Park. In fact that's actually somewhat middish-high for the area (there are plenty of studios for $600 and $700)

^It's a bargain compared to SF, Manhattan, or even Downtown LA. That illustrates just how good of a deal Chicago still is. Better bang for buck than any other first tier US city. I think that's cheaper than Boston and DC too.

 

When my brother lived in Lincoln Park, I think his studio was about $800 a month.

 

So with these lower rents, is the micro apartment trend blowing up in Chicago?

^ That sounds perfectly reasonable.  It's not even that high a cost per square foot.  I lived for 6 months in an apartment in Chicago in Lincoln Park that was 500 square feet, and the rent was about $1,100. 

 

Good God that's cheap!

 

Thinking more about it, they're inflating their square footages a bit.  I was in one of the "convertible" units, which is a studio with some 3/4 height walls and a French door to kind of separate the bedroom from the living area.  Looking at their floor plans it's more like 440 square feet.  Still, it doesn't look like the rents have changed appreciably, which kind of surprises me.  It's a great area and although the building looks like some housing project, it's really quite nice inside.  There's tons of stuff within walking distance (right next door is a grocery store with a bank and post office branch).  It's one block from Lincoln Park (the park itself), but the only thing I didn't like is that it's a bit of a walk to the Fullerton L station.  http://www.apartments.com/Illinois/Chicago/Park-Lincoln/15412

That's still pretty small even for NYC (sorry to be the bearer of bad news).  It's been effectively illegal to build units smaller than 400 sf in most zoning districts for a while now, which is why the experimental building in Kips bay needed some regulatory accommodation. There are obviously many older units in the city that are smaller, though, including, at the very low end, the dwindling stock of SROs.

 

And that's the key difference between New York and San Francisco. SF never got rid of its SRO's. There are even bans on converting them to more suitable housing. The Tenderloin is sort of a zoned ghetto that can only half gentrify, and as a result, it's still the city's main immigration point. If you don't have a lot of money, that's just about the only neighborhood you can break into. The SRO's are still here in big numbers, and they house a lot of what's left of San Francisco's working class and non-wealthy immigrants. I've heard of small families sharing a single SRO unit in the Tenderloin. We're talking brutal living conditions- kids surrounded by meth addicts and prostitutes. Even rich kids first moving to the city sometimes have to live there as they fight tooth and nail at open houses for a lease. They've got money, but there just isn't enough housing. My old roommate had to do that and said it was pretty much hell on earth.

 

By comparison, these micro apartments are a huge improvement over an SRO. I can see why this trend is big in San Francisco. No matter how cramped, anything beats living in the SRO's. Sometimes the other residents in the building have a bigger influence on your quality of life than the apartment itself.

Micro apartments (are we talking smaller than 400ft) are not catching in Chicago. I think there are enough inexpensive studios in desirable neighborhoods, plus lord knows how cheap studios go for in rougher places where one-beds are $400-$500

 

related -- could you see yourself living in any of these tiny houses?

 

 

http://io9.com/could-you-see-yourself-living-in-any-of-these-incredibl-1508519357

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where's the first one?

Micro apartments (are we talking smaller than 400ft) are not catching in Chicago. I think there are enough inexpensive studios in desirable neighborhoods, plus lord knows how cheap studios go for in rougher places where one-beds are $400-$500

 

I don't think there Are enough Studios in Cleveland, for most new Developments studios are rarelty being built, it is more profitable to add the 150Sq/ft for a real bedroom, than to build a 500SQ/ft studio.

 

The economics of micro apartments are different, because with most modern studios they are essentially one bedroom apartments without a bedroom, with full sized kitchens, bathrooms and even washer dryer hookups, (Statler Arms).  with micro apartment everything is scaled down smaller kitchens, bathrooms often Without a tub and much like a hotel room share sinks for kitchen and baths, which combine to lower the cost of each suite.

 

 

They are not for everyone, but there is a lack of affordable housing is some regions, and even some areas of Cleveland which will only increase as those areas become more popular.

 

 

http://www.panoramic.com/smartspace/soma-san-francisco/interiors/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.panoramic.com/smartspace/soma-san-francisco/interiors/

 

 

 

Nice! I always wondered what the inside of one of these was like....

 

By the time the new micros are done in Mid-Market San Francisco, I'm expecting them to start well over 2k a month. At that point, it makes sense to pony up a little more and get a regular studio in the Tenderloin (or DT Oakland).

http://www.panoramic.com/smartspace/soma-san-francisco/interiors/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can you say claustrophobic?

^Yeah, if there ever comes a time I have to give up my current apartment, like many San Franciscans before me, I'm moving to Oakland!

 

It's not worth these prices just to say you live in San Francisco. And this neighborhood is still pretty bad. There was a brutal shooting last night at the Powell station. The criminal element has not been pushed out by gentrification since this part of San Francisco is severely lacking in much-needed beat cops. But, the Tenderloin and Mid-Market area could be amazing if it was cleaned up (I have not seen another area like this in the United States- just insane potential being underutilized). Everything adjacent to Market Street between Powell and Van Ness has huge potential. This is one of North America's greatest urban corridors...

 

That's why there is a building frenzy there right now. San Francisco is very anti-development, with an exception being the Tenderloin and Mid-Market area. These micros do add a lot of population density...