
The possibility of a small studio apartment for $50k in San Francisco (2016) - simonebrunozzi
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/9/22/the-50000-san-francisco-studio-apartment
======
oldmancoyote
I live comfortably 6 months of the year in a cab-over camper (about 90 square
feet). True, I lounge outside a lot reading and working on the computer, but
that's still practical in a balcony overlooking a pedestrian street. The other
6 months I live in a 3000 square foot house, and I'm constantly dealing with
maintenance and other hassles. A small studio apartment within walking
distance to shopping and public transportation would work for me, but not for
everyone. Actually, I'd pay $100,000 for such a studio if it were within
walking distance of a university.

You don't have to please everyone for this to be viable.

~~~
ams6110
> I'd pay $100,000 for such a studio

Illustrating why they aren't available for $50,000.

~~~
bluGill
No, what he would pay sets a maximum price for him. This has nothing to do
with supply and demand which is the combination of all potential tenants and
all potential landlords.

~~~
randyrand
A good point. Most people would spend many thousands on a smartphone given how
useful they are, but yet we don’t have to.

------
amanzi
Interesting - 120sqft is just over 11sqm which, in NZ, is smaller than the
minimum recommended size for a double bedroom. But perhaps a better comparison
is with a small to medium sized caravan which can be be pretty comfortable at
around the same size. I was just reading about the new Airstream Nest caravan
which is roughly the same size and looks pretty comfortable. A single person
(or a close couple) could probably easily share that for a couple years
without going too crazy. Interestingly the Nest is about the same price -
roughly $50k.

~~~
Aeolun
$300k for 66sqm would still be pretty good.

------
burfog
Because property taxes support the needs of residents, and because the density
of residents would increase, the property tax obtained per acre would need to
increase.

Thus you can't just shrink lot sizes by 90% and expect to shrink per-lot tax
bills by 90%. The average tax, in dollars per acre, must increase in order to
compensate for the extra people.

~~~
alwaysdoit
Not in California.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13)

~~~
burfog
Yes in California, or the proposal can't happen.

The limit of 1% of the property value looks to be a deal killer here. Cities
have an incentive to zone for very low density.

The limit of 2% increase per year is also a huge problem, but not specific to
small lots. If inflation ever goes above 2%, disaster strikes all California
cities.

Well, there is one other way. Forget about property taxes. Set them all to 0%.
Get the required 2/3 majority vote to raise income taxes, then grant a big
chunk of that to the cities based on the number of people living there.
Perhaps a UK-style council tax would also work.

~~~
toast0
The real incentive for cities is to encourage turnover, or at least not long
term holding -- sales reset property tax to current market value. Even in
2010, in the depths of the housing bubble burst, most California counties were
seeing growing tax rolls as turnover would reset to higher values more often
than not.

I'm not an expert, but I would think that holding period for smaller, less
expensive, 'starter' homes is shorter than larger homes. If that's the case,
you want to zone for that. But, zoning is more about not upsetting voters than
grand fiscal planning, in my understanding.

------
TylerE
This seems to operating in a different universe than the one I inhabit.

120 square feet is a prison cell, not a home.

~~~
beamatronic
But it’s only 50k!! If your goal is to come here short term and extract
wealth, it’s perfect.

~~~
anoncoward111
If I'm going for short term wealth extraction, it's either gonna be couch
surfing, sleeping in cars or malls, or maybe renting a room in an apartment
with like 7 other pre-existing people.

Sinking 50k into SF for a prison cell ( that for most house guests is socially
unacceptable ) is a bit of a tough sell for me!

~~~
bdcravens
I personally would prefer 120 sqft in solitude to sharing an apartment with 7
other people.

------
drinkzima
This article presumes acres for $420,000 in San Francisco. Not sure where the
author is finding land values like that in the Bay - certainly not in San
Francisco, where land is closer to $100/sqft at the low end ($4.5M).

~~~
tomjakubowski
The _very first_ plan, and the one clearly worst-suited for a city with pricy
land, needs a $420k/acre.

The next proposal, "low rise" apartment block:

> Let's assume a 6000sf building footprint. This would contain twenty 250sf
> units per floor, with some shared space. Four stories means eighty units.
> With 80 units, we have 80 x $10,000=$800,000 budget for land. Our 6000sf
> building footprint sits on a quarter-acre (10,500sf) of land, so the land
> costs could be as much as $800,000 X 4=$3.2 million per acre.

And next, the "medium-rise" plan:

> Next, we have a six-story structure, which is about the upper end of the
> Traditional City or "low-rise" format. We will step up here to a better
> standard of construction, such as brick or steel-frame, with a cost of
> $200/sf. This reduces our unit size to a fairly tiny 120 square feet, plus
> some common areas. Our footprint is still 6000sf, but since the unit size is
> smaller, we can get 40 units per floor, or 240 units for a six-story
> building. At $10,000/unit for land, that gives us a budget of $2.4 million
> for land. We will use more of an "attached" format here, with a little space
> in the back, or a 7000sf (sixth of an acre) plot. This translates into $2.4m
> x 6=$14.4 million per acre land and other costs.

The author is saying something about the density required to support
affordable housing in San Francisco.

~~~
drinkzima
Sure, but then he's building for $100/sqft in SF, which is laughable. Going
rates right now are closer to $400/sqft at the low-end, without permitting. I
get aiming for smaller units to improve affordability, but the assumptions
aren't grounded in reality.

~~~
wahern
According to a recent report the _average_ total cost is $330/sqft:
[https://www.spur.org/news/2018-05-09/it-all-adds-growing-
cos...](https://www.spur.org/news/2018-05-09/it-all-adds-growing-costs-
prevent-new-housing-california)

I imagine the low-end is substantially less than the average, or _could_ be if
SF zoning and permitting wasn't so screwed up and we were actually building
more low-end housing. The point of the article is to show what's financially
viable if the system weren't so screwed up; that low-end housing is viable
even in the face of absurd land-value prices.

------
DoreenMichele
_Our per-unit budget looks like this:

$30,000 construction costs

$10,000 land & other non-construction costs

$10,000 profit margin_

The cheapest lot I can find in San Francisco is $200k, not counting the lots
that are being _foreclosed on_ because land is so expensive there.

[https://www.zillow.com/san-francisco-ca/land/](https://www.zillow.com/san-
francisco-ca/land/)

I mean, I love the idea. This is the sort of thing I wish we could do. But
this does not sound realistic to me. The numbers look like they were pulled
out of thin air.

~~~
tomjakubowski
That's the _per-unit_ budget. These ideas all involve many units per lot.

~~~
Aeolun
It’s telling that this is such a foreign concept to people (presumably from
the US).

------
projectramo
By the way, does anyone have any ideas about why the new generation is having
fewer kids?

------
androidgirl
That image of the street in Norway was absolutely gorgeous. I'm not the
biggest fan of cities, but I would love an area like that, designed for
humans.

If such a thing came to be in San Francisco I'd absolutely move.

------
Y7ZCQtNo39
I have no desire to live in a 250 s.f. unit. What does my future look like?
How would I raise kids, if I wanted to have them? I don't know how anyone
outside of the top 3-5% pulls it off in San Francisco.

~~~
tjr225
Okay, but other people clearly do and this article is strictly about solving
the housing issues in SF creatively. Also, you're presenting a false dichotomy
- many people don't have kids, or don't yet have kids(Not to mention don't
want them). Many people live somewhere for a short amount of time, or a few
years, and then leave. I really honestly don't even see the point of your
comment other than to cast shade against someone's lifestyle choice that you
disagree with, or maybe to comment on the absurdity of the housing market in
SF, with regards to the former I choose to mind my own business.

And to your main question - if you are somehow blessed with the opportunity to
make a buttload of money and live on the (relative)cheap for a little while in
SF, then your future is probably looking pretty good. We are fortunate to live
in a country where you can go wherever the heck you want at any point that you
want, especially if you're financially able to do so.

------
HarryHirsch
Just for comparison, back then a one-room apartment in a 1960's Khrushchev
_plattenbau_ offered 30 m^2 of living space. This is what progress in the US
look like?!

------
morkfromork
Maybe people could live in the apartments in shifts. Be at work 16 hours per
day and sleep in the apartment for 8 hours. 3x the people. $50,000 apartment
is now only $16,666.66.

~~~
Tade0
When my father moved to his current apartment he noticed a peculiar thing: His
neighbors, who worked at a nearby 24/7 take away bar would move in threes in
and out of the apartment at certain hours.

This meant that there were at least six of them in a 25m^2 (277-ish sq ft)
studio. While it was physically possible to fit three bunk beds there - albeit
barely, they would have no space left for a wardrobe.

They spent two years like that and I imagine it was hell.

~~~
Aeolun
How do you need more than 6sqm for 3 bunk beds?

~~~
Tade0
I've checked the dimensions of a typical bunk bed and it's around 120-140cm x
200cm. But you'd also need two 30cm lanes for access to those three, so
eventually it's at least:

(120cm _3 + 60cm)_ 200cm = 8.4m^2.

~~~
Aeolun
Am I crazy, or are bunk beds the stacked kind?

There is absolutely no reason for stacked beds to be queen size.

[https://m.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/art/50269029/](https://m.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/art/50269029/)

------
newname2018
It's ridiculous all thru Cali One bedroom==1k Even in the outskirts towns
Edit, that's per month

