A century ago these would have been called tenement houses, but now we did a hip and cool Millennial rebrand: micro-apartments! The article spins this nicely:
The 180-square-foot (17-square-meter) room is filled with an air mattress where she, her partner and their children, ages 2 and 4, sleep. It’s also where they play or watch TV. At mealtimes, it becomes their dining room.
Boarding houses that rented single rooms to low-income, blue-collar or temporary workers were prevalent across the U.S. in the early 1900s. Known as single room occupancy units, or SROs, they started to disappear in the postwar years amid urban renewal efforts and a focus on suburban single-family housing.
Now the concept is reappearing — with the trendy name of “micro-apartment” and aimed at a much broader array of residents — as cities buffeted by surging homelessness struggle to make housing more affordable.
Wow look at all this urbanist progress!
Late soviet intelligentsia: “STUPID evil sovok building tiny 33 m2 apartments! They are too tiny! Unlivable! Not like Blessed America, where everybody lives in spacious, comfortable suburban houses!”
Modern day: “Actually 33 m is too much, 15 would be just fine. Even 3 square meters could be alright!”
Even 3 square meters could be alright
Take the glorious Hong Kong for example! The only place in China that was blessed by Western Democracy ™
How could we possibly make housing more affordable??
Oh well, let’s build another 2 block parking garage.
Liberals have no trouble understanding supply and demand up until it comes to housing lol
To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with relatively small houses. Current American standards are downright absurd. But the motivating factor for downsizing shouldn’t be because of the asshole landlords jacking up rent on everything.
How small is relatively small? I live in a standard 33 square meter apartment: one room, balcony, kitchen, combined bathroom (as in, toilet, bath and washing machine in the same chamber). It’s alright, although it’s gotten cluttered over the years. I don’t, however, have any children or other relatives in the apartment (just my partner and the cat). Usually people live in the same amount of space, but with children (often multiple), grandparents and other additions. Now that gets cluttered.
On the other hand, there are new apartments being sold and rented that are 15-20 square meters. Now that’s where things get interesting. 20 or so meter apartments are what’s labeled “studio” here - means they don’t have a separate kitchen (it’s just one big chamber) and no balcony or anything. 15 and below have strange layouts, arguably closer to something like a trailer - storage space under a bed, which also serves as a sofa/chair to sit in. There’s a folding table next to the bed, which functions as both a dining table, working table and whatever else you might need a table for. There are some overview videos on YT, if you’re curious.
Now does that all sound livable? Maybe, if you’re young and single. Except they still cost an arm and a leg. So yeah. How small is relatively small?
I live in an 18 sq meters Appartment and its totally livable for me. It is also cheap and Not those extremely expensive gentrifying Appartment complexes for “Young professionals”.
As soon as you’re Not single or have a Hobby that needs a little Bit of space you are fucked Tho.
I think you answered your own question. It’s a good question, and quite different from what I was talking about.
these look luxurious in comparison to the goshiwons in qusling korea.
$900 per month for this tiny ass apartment. Wtf?
Henry George must be turning in his grave.
Bring back tenement buildings!!! We need them!!! I love capitalist “efficiency”!!!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But at $900 a month —more than $550 less than the average studio in Seattle — the micro-apartment with a bare-bones bathroom and shared kitchen was just within their budget and gave them a quick exit from their previous arrangement sleeping on the floor of a church.
Known as single room occupancy units, or SROs, they started to disappear in the postwar years amid urban renewal efforts and a focus on suburban single-family housing.
Now the concept is reappearing — with the trendy name of “micro-apartment” and aimed at a much broader array of residents — as cities buffeted by surging homelessness struggle to make housing more affordable.
“If you’re a single person and you want a low-cost place to live, that’s as cheap as you’re going to get without trying to find a subsidized apartment,” said Dan Bertolet, senior director of housing and urbanism for the non-profit research center Sightline Institute.
Cities need to focus on building affordable housing that also includes larger units, such as studios and one-bedroom apartments, said Marisa Zapata, a land-use planning professor at Portland State University.
The units have a median rent of $550 a month, making them a “vital option” for people exiting homelessness or living on fixed incomes, such as those with disabilities, said Sarah Holland, senior director of supportive housing and employment.
The original article contains 1,209 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Meanwhile, in the DPRK:
Natural sunlight is the most important thing man, i’d trade half my 180sqft apartment for more windows. My apartment has one window, with an AC unit in it, it’s less than 2 foot tall after that. And then there’s a fence right against it, sucks ass.
