
Micro-apartments next for S.F.? - iProject
http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Micro-apartments-next-for-S-F-3706648.php
======
cletus
The more I read about the housing market in SF the more it looks like a
disaster. Compared to SF, NYC has done a number of things better:

1\. No new rent control leases since 1973 (IIRC) although you can inherit a
rent control apartment if you've lived there for two years. I'm sure this
system is abused but the SF equivalent is a huge number of units being left
vacant largely due to rent control;

2\. Exit clauses on rent stabilised apartments for the rent getting too high
or the occupant earning too much. The rent part is abused since between
tenants you're allowed to raise the rent by 1/40th or 1/50th (I forget which)
of the cost of capital improvements, which leads to renovating the
kitchen/bathroom and probably overstating the cost; and

3\. Most importantly, NYC has new construction, even in Manhattan.

What SF really needs more than micro-apartments is:

1\. A gradual phase-out of rent control including income-based assessments;
and

2\. More importantly, some kind of plan that allows for new construction.

As much as I like the weather in the Bay Area, between this and public
transport (NYC subways and comparatively cheap taxis > BART+Caltrain+munibus)
I'm glad I live in NYC. In lots of ways I think it's got a lot going for it in
terms of doing a startup here too.

~~~
bickfordb
It seems like the absurdity of the local public transit forces a lot of the
high density construction downtown. When MUNI isn't halted (it regularly is)
it often takes me 25 minutes to get to SOMA (Ballpark) from the Mission on
MUNI even though straight line distance is less than one mile. Each MUNI
ticket are is $2. The total system cost is $750MM and fare revenue is $150M
which makes the real value of a MUNI fare $10. $10 to go less than one mile
for half an hour!

~~~
notatoad
Have you tried walking? From what you say it sounds like a cheaper, quicker,
and more reliable alternative.

~~~
bickfordb
I cycle usually but I would appreciate a reasonable public transit system.
Yeah, it is often a similar amount of time walking places.

------
fiatmoney
The problem isn't that SF is running out of square footage for luxuriously
spacious apartments. The problem is that SF doesn't allow the construction of
high-density housing, or much new housing of any kind. They gained all of
50-something market-rate housing units in 2011.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/09/19/zoning-
law...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2011/09/19/zoning-laws-are-
strangling-silicon-valley/)
[http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/san_franciscos_to...](http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2012/05/san_franciscos_total_housing_inventory_and_pipeline_rep.html)

~~~
mmagin
This is probably the biggest factor. So much of SF is covered very low density
housing.

~~~
eshvk
I am in two minds about this: One hand, it does preserve the historic beauty
of the house. While personally, I wouldn't want to live in a
Victorian/Edwardian house because I like central heating, tiled floors too
much, they are beautiful and so many people enjoy living there. I guess one
possible solution is to attempt a urban renewal project of one of the more
shadier neighborhoods (Hunter's point e.g.) and build high density buildings
there. Of course, this would have to be coupled with enough percentage of the
units being available for low cost housing so that it doesn't become the usual
act of gentrification.

------
othello
To put this in a European perspective: the legal minimum floor area to rent
out an apartment in France is 9 square meters, or slightly less than 97 sq
feet.

Even better (or worse, depending on your perspective): the absolute minimum is
a _volume_ of 20 cubic meters [1].

Therefore in cities like Paris where flats with high ceilings abound, you find
owners of big, old apartments with 3m high ceilings breaking them up in 7 sq
meters (75 sq feet) "studios"...

250 sq feet is aplenty.

[1] <http://www.adil75.org/pdf/av12.pdf> (in French)

~~~
alister
> the absolute minimum is a volume of 20 cubic meters

Well, this is fiction, but I'm imagining just how much worse it could get:

In "Futurama" set in the year 3000, Fry and Bender are living together in
Bender's closet-sized apartment, and Fry complains that it's too small.

Bender: "Not enough room? My place is 2 cubic meters and we only take up 1.5
cubic meters. We've got room for a whole nother 2/3rds of a person."

------
mdanger
"That demographic cohort wants to continue their collegiate experience for an
indefinite amount of time," Kennedy said. "I envision this as a launching
space as they get established."

The "collegiate experience" Kennedy seems to be going for with this is
dormitory-style living (the article even touts the common areas that will be
available to tenants, just like some of the pitches when I was shopping around
for colleges!), but the first goal for many students at my university and
others I've visited has always been "get out of the dorms and into a real
apartment".

~~~
marvin
Interesting that someone should say this out loud. I've been thinking this for
a long time - I've just been having so much fun as a student, I can't really
imagine any other way of living. Cool roommates and always something
interesting to do.

When not starting a family or living with a partner, this seems like the best
way to live. The alternative would be to live on my own in a nice apartment -
this would entail a higher - "standard of living", but be much more expensive
and lonely.

------
SteveJS
The idea of sharing a kitchen counter and computer desk just makes me think
crumbs in the keyboard. However, minimizing the kitchen and having really high
end shared kitchen facilities would be great. Between the ages of 24 and 28 I
didn't eat at home even once.

One of the underlying sources for 'smaller is better' is Christopher
Alexander's "A Pattern Language". It also is the source that inspired the
pattern movement in software. A pattern language is second in the series, and
is a 1000+ page book with strong opinions on everything from City planning
down to interior decorating. It is very much worth the read.

~~~
pixelcort
I think most people would just use either the dining table or the one by the
window instead.

------
po
I was just talking with a friend yesterday about living in Tokyo. A big part
of what makes it reasonable is that _everything_ is smaller. The containers of
food I buy at the store are smaller and fit in my smaller refrigerator.
There's a laundry place right next door and they give you hangars that are
half width (folding the shirts back on themselves like when you buy them) so
they can fit in a shallow closet. As an American, it's hard to get used to not
buying in bulk but it really helps you make the most of your space.

~~~
bane
I've spent lots of time in Seoul, at one point crashing in the walk-in closet
of a friend for a few weeks. The apartment was pretty small by American
standards, the hallway between the front door and the bathroom was a little
wide, with the extra space taken up by a counter, fridge, sink and two burners
as the kitchen. On the other wall of the hall was the door into the closet.
Down the hall next to the closet was a very sparse bathroom that was
effectively a powder room (toilet + sink) with a shower hose on the wall. And
at the end of the hall was a small bedroom that fit a queen size bed and a
small desk and not much else.

In the U.S. I live in a fairly large house and was pretty concerned about the
small living area. But it worked! Everything is kind of geared to support that
kind of living arrangement. If you sleep on the floor, by rolling up your
bedding in the morning you suddenly have a living room. Fold out tables and
eating while sitting on the floor and you have a dining room that can fit (not
a typo) 8 people reasonably comfortably. The floor of the closet had room for
me and my wife. And since the floors are heated in Korea, even in the winter
we were incredibly warm.

To eat you buy what you need for that day, or even that meal at the grocery
next door, and your frequent trips in and out of the apartment give you plenty
of time to bring out trash and other things.

Feel cooped up or want to do some kind of activity like play video games or
drink and chat with your friends (but don't want to disturb the neighbors)?
There's literally an entire city full of services designed for the apartment
dweller, everything from cheap Internet Cafes (something like a dollar an
hour), to cheap bars with private rooms for your friends at no extra cost!

Other than sleeping and a few meals, we really didn't spend much time there,
instead spending almost all of our time out and about. It really is just an
entirely different way of living - not better or worse, just _different_.

------
CPops
It's sort of silly that a minimum apartment size is even legislated in the
first place. Somebody who chooses to live in a small apartment does so because
it's their best available option.

~~~
tptacek
Sure. And why do we have codes that demand working heating? People should be
able to choose to buy lots of blankets instead.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Just curious, what do you believe is the justification for laws demanding
minimum apt sizes/minimum heating requirements? The ordinary arguments about
externalities certainly don't seem to apply...

As an anecdote, while I was poor, I didn't turn the heat on because I couldn't
afford it. Do you believe the law should have forced me to turn the heat on?
If not, why not?

~~~
tptacek
First off: I'm not arguing that micro-apartments should be illegal; just that
"the government should just let private parties come to whatever agreement
they want regarding housing" is an untenable position. One obvious cost of
regulating housing is the need to revisit and recalibrate those regs, and I
agree in advance that our state governments suck at that. So then:

I think this is a discussion that would quickly devolve into a debate over the
tenement reform movement. I'd just say that the codes and statutes covering
apartments were a reaction to a time where housing was so cramped and
substandard that it caused cholera outbreaks, riots, and a 10% infant
mortality rate among tenement dwellers.

So then the idea behind the codes is simply: it's good that people buy
property and convert into rental dwellings, because a huge number of people
need rental housing. But nobody should be allowed to profit from housing that
falls below a minimum standard. Without than minimum standard, the financial
incentive would exist to race properties to the bottom, and while some renters
clearly would benefit from the increased choice in living expenses, many more
renters would be harmed either by (a) being locked by the market into
substandard housing, (b) being dragged by their parents or spouses into
substandard housing, (c) losing their homes when property ownership changed
hands and more profit was wrung out of their current houses.

As for you and your heat: you had the choice not to turn on the heat. If your
landlord wasn't required to provide heat, you might not have.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_...just that "the government should just let private parties come to whatever
agreement they want regarding housing" is an untenable position...cholera
outbreaks, riots..._

You'll note that I asked specifically about cases like heating/min size
requirements which have nothing to do with externalities (such as disease
outbreaks or fire spreading). So why bring them up?

 _Without than minimum standard, the financial incentive would exist to race
properties to the bottom, and while some renters clearly would benefit from
the increased choice in living expenses, many more renters would be harmed
either by (a) being locked by the market into substandard housing,_

This claim is not observed in reality. In virtually every market segment
including housing, you see a race to meet demand in all market segments, from
the top to the bottom.

The only way there would be a race to the bottom is if virtually everyone
wanted something cheaper than what is currently available and were willing to
sacrifice quality to get it. I.e., if the minimum size requirements are
hurting almost everyone. Do you believe this is the case?

 _(b) being dragged by their parents or spouses into substandard housing_

This seems like an extremely roundabout way of imposing minimum parenting
standards. An extremely obvious way and far simpler way would simply be to
forbid parents to bring their children into dorm-sized apartments.

 _(c) losing their homes when property ownership changed hands and more profit
was wrung out of their current houses._

Um, this usually happens when landlords want to turn cheaper housing into more
expensive housing. I.e., upgrade the projects to luxury apts. Should we also
impose quality ceilings on housing? If not, why not?

~~~
tptacek
I don't personally think we should impose quality ceilings, but I wouldn't
frame the discussion in terms of that being the bottom of a slippery slope,
because gentrification is a serious issue in many major metro areas ---
particularly SF!

The rest, I think we're getting ourselves mixed up. I understand your
question: absent externalities, which perhaps could be addressed more
effectively with targeted regulations rather than market-restricting housing
codes, what's the purpose of having housing codes?

I tried to make two points in my response: first, the reason we have housing
codes to begin with --- the observation that the externalities you alluded to
in fact were a major social problem around the turn of the last century ---
and second, that the reason absent "cholera outbreaks" to impose a minimum
standard on urban housing is that a minimum standard for urban housing is an
intrinsic good thing that will improve welfare more than greater choice in
housing will.

Regarding forbidding children in dorm-sized apartments: sure. Of course, we're
countering what you see as an overly broad and market-harming set of laws with
a far more intrusive set of laws. Also, if we relax minimum standard housing
and that sets off a race to the bottom, we can be in an unattractive position
later on of having to recognize that while we don't want kids raised in dorm
apartments, the market is such that we no longer have the option to forbid it.

As you know, we're very unlikely to come to agreement here, you and I having
polar opposite worldviews on subjects like this, but I do appreciate the
challenge. :)

~~~
ahh
In what sense is gentrification a serious (by which I presume you mean "bad")
issue?

As far as I can tell, "gentrification" means people like me--who make a decent
white collar living and don't cause trouble--moving into poor neighborhoods,
often crime-filled ones. Why should I be unhappy about having a nice place to
live?

~~~
tptacek
It dislocates lower/lower-middle class urban families.

And hey: I lived in a loft in SOMA. I'm not an anti-gentrification crusader.

~~~
ahh
Can you provide data for that claim?

Example: I have a friend who lives at Divisadero & Hayes, and passed on an
article that attacked him (personally, but anonymously) as a gentrifier:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020412420457715...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577150850802549554.html)

The writer complains about the loss of the "culture"...but the only meaningful
change we can see here was the disappearance of drug dealers and violence.

------
acavailhez
Recently we got to this in Paris: [https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-
snc7/s720x720/396654_...](https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-
snc7/s720x720/396654_10151261448218219_1005419078_n.jpg)

Quick translation: it's a 3.16 square meters (34 square feet) flat on sale in
the 10th district in Paris.

------
malandrew
The only thing I found weird about the article was the developers product
development decisions based on a single female MIT student as opposed to
talking to lots of people who are the target for a product like this,
especially since he plans on putting it in SoMa and targeting the tech crowd
which is largely male. This isn't sexism, it's just knowing the audience.

For example, the pull out bed in this apartment seems far more practical than
a Murphy bed that really only works if you make your bed properly so it's not
subject to the perils of gravity: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juWaO5TJS00>

The other decision was the move to a tub style shower. The only people I know
that that really take baths are women. Why? Because they fit in tubs
comfortably. I can't think of any men who habitually take baths but know many
women that do. Tub-size is probably a big contributing factor as to why.

TBH, if someone is living in apartment like this, they value practicality over
everything else. If that is the case, a bathroom space optimized for cleaning
and maintenance is more ideal, such as the bathroom in this micro-apt, where
the toilet, sink area and shower all share the same tiled floor
[http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/12/21/micro-living-
canadas...](http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/12/21/micro-living-canadas-
smallest-apartment-the-size-of-a-walk-in-closet/)

Anyways, really shortsighted product management in my view given the location
and target market. If I were a single woman, SoMa is not a neighborhood I
would live in. There is not enough foot-traffic and decent lighting at night
to feel really safe.

------
ibagrak
My wife and I live in a ~300 square foot apartment in NYC, although we don't
feel like we've got plenty of room, we never feel cramped either. Moreover, we
often have people sleep over in our "living room". A lot of it is about light
and how high your ceilings are.

I guess what I am saying is that the absolute minimum square footage you think
you need is a malleable concept.

------
firefoxman1
This is a great TED talk about how this guy maximized the space in a tiny
apartment and found he was happier than when he had a large apartment with
lots of "stuff"
[http://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hill_less_stuff_more_happine...](http://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hill_less_stuff_more_happiness.html)

------
MrFoof
I've downsized a few times over the years. 1080 > 920 > 720 > 660\. How much
have I missed having a bigger space? None. I could probably drop down to about
550 tomorrow and still have tons of room.

The first thing is "usable square footage". In the larger units (> 720) I had
things like hallways. Closets for a water heater or furnace. Etc. When I
dropped down to 720, I actually had more usable square footage than when I had
1080 square feet. This is because the smaller spaces were better designed for
their intended activities, and other things were inlined or made more
efficient (in-line electric water heaters, in-wall thermal pump) as a result
of the space constraints.

Additionally space isn't to store stuff, it's the support the activities
within the space. When I had 1080 square feet, the kitchen was larger than the
bedroom I grew up in. It meant a lot of unnecessary walking around to get
anything done. When the work triangle shrunk to about 20 square feet,
everything was in reach, and I still had tons of room for all the prep work,
and an excess of space to store everything. A 160 square foot kitchen was
excessively large when 50 works just as well. Just like a 50 square foot
"laundry room" is worthless when there wasn't any room to put an ironing board
-- now I have a laundry closet (9 square feet?) with some stacked Bosch units
that allow me to get just as much done (with a fold-out ironing board on the
door). The bedroom went from having a 90-square foot walk in closet, to 14
square feet of reach-ins -- of which I use one of them. I guess if I had a
live-in girlfriend she'd use the other. Bathroom? Also shrunk. However the
bedroom got larger, as did the main living area. Big wins.

As for stuff… I've gotten rid of tons of it. Every year, clean things out.
Every year, be baffled at home much gets tossed out. I've zero clutter now,
yet I still have everything I care about. I still have a home-office built
into a 15square foot reach-in closet with two 27" displays and a laser printer
that's very comfortable to work in. I still have some collectibles stashed in
a storage bench at the bottom of the bedroom closet. However if it doesn't
have sentimental, monetary, or immediate value, it's gotten tossed at one
point. It forces you to think hard about what you value, and stick to it if
you don't want to live in clutter or with a giant stack of boxes somewhere.

Coworkers always seem to "feel sorry for me". _"How do you live without being
able to stock up on toilet paper at Costco?"_ I guess I don't need nearly as
much TP in the bathroom as you do. _"How do you live with such a small car?"_
Yeah, a 2-seat roadster is really roughing it, but y'know, I soldier on. I
have everything I want, nothing that wastes my time or attention, less to
clean, less space to heat/cool, and a car I drive very sideways. 220 square
feet I probably couldn't immediately shift to, but I'm pretty certain I could
go to 350 very hastily if I had to. 220 would just require a lot of thought,
and giving up activities such being able to host thanksgiving, etc.

~~~
stcredzero
_> I've downsized a few times over the years. 1080 > 920 > 720 > 660\. How
much have I missed having a bigger space? None._

I used to live in a 480 square foot garage apartment in Houston. I loved the
place. Unfortunately, it had lots of storage space. Yes, unfortunately,
because I literally accumulated a _ton_ of stuff I didn't need. (Yes,
literally = actually.)

I'm moving to the bay area tomorrow, and I'll have reduced my worldly
belongings to one 7x7x8 foot POD, plus a suitcase.

 _> I have everything I want, nothing that wastes my time or attention, less
to clean, less space to heat/cool, and a car I drive very sideways._

I'll take all but the last, unless it's on a track and I know what I'm doing.

Shelter Kit makes homes just about our size. The whole kit can be had for
under $30k and includes the entire makings for the outer shell and fasteners.
Two people are supposed to be able to construct one in a matter of a few
weeks. I hope they're still around when I retire.

I have everything I want, nothing that wastes my time or attention, less to
clean, less space to heat/cool, and a car I drive very sideways.

<http://www.shelter-kit.com/kits.php?kit=barnhouse>

~~~
syedkarim
> I've downsized a few times over the years. 1080 > 920 > 720 > 660.

For five years I lived in a unit that was 384 square feet. And then my wife
moved in with me. And shortly thereafter, two cats. We all lived in this space
for about 18 months. It wasn't bad at all; we fondly refer to it as The Cave.
The only reason we left is because we moved overseas.

A lot of prospective renters weren't interested with the unit because of how
small it was. But those who were interested wanted it precisely because they
would be forced to get rid of stuff--and would not be able to mindlessly
accumulate.

When we move back to the US, we're looking at country acreage (to start a
small farm) and living in a converted shipping container. One of the biggest
drivers for a larger living space is to have some run-around area for the
cats.

------
grannyg00se
"It's disingenuous to say it creates affordable housing, it's just that you
get significantly less space," said Sara Shortt, executive director of the
Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco. "This doesn't create affordable
housing, it simply creates another lifestyle option."

How does this make sense? The other lifestyle option it creates is a more
affordable one. If a city has nothing but million dollar mansions, I'm pretty
sure creating some smaller homes would be considered affortable housing even
though they have less space. Is she somehow expecting that the apartments
should stay the same size, in the same area, with the same amenities, and
somehow still be cheaper?

~~~
malandrew
Totally agree.

I would say it creates a more affordable option if the developer had to offer
them at equivalent rates on a square footage basis. The fact that the units
are earning a 1-2 premium per square foot is completely artificial and simply
a by-product of having no housing that size.

In São Paulo, Brazil, one bedroom apartments often cost as much as two bedroom
apartments for the simple fact that there is a lack of one bedrooms available
in the market because historically people haven't lived alone (they usually
lived with the 'rents until marriage.)

------
slaundy
Interesting. This might change the nightlife culture of SF to be more similar
to bigger cities. I did a lot of hanging out in friend's houses, cooking,
playing games, or having house parties in SF. In NYC, where the apartments are
much much smaller, there's a lot less of that—people go out on the town all
night and buy $15 drinks instead, and that supports the bars and restaurants
than stay open late.

I'm also curious what safety measure they have on those vertical storage
units. In an earthquake, all your stuff falling down in front of the door
could trap you in your apartment.

------
coecoventures
There was something similar to this in New Zealand called Living Space. It had
roughly the same floor plan for the apartments and incorporated many common
areas. They had two TV rooms, library, communal kitchen, billiards room, and a
roof garden for the residents. This worked great and the place was always at
capacity. It was like a combined dorm and co-working space. It was a renovated
historic structure with a great location in Christchurch.

I think this concept would be great for SF. Just be sure to add the common
areas.

------
radio4fan
290 sq ft is about 27 sq m, which is about normal for a studio here in Lyon,
France.

<http://seloger.com> has 2700+ apartments in central Paris alone which are
smaller than 27 sq m.

I have no opinion on whether it would be good for SF.

Smallest I can find on seloger in Paris is 86 sq ft, which does seem a bit on
the small side...

------
vipervpn
I'm concerned about house pets (like dogs and cats) in such a small apartment.
Are these micro apartments fit for dwelling in for long periods of time? I
don't think so. Cats and dogs need space too, and they don't have the freedom
to come and go whenever they please.

~~~
axefrog
I suspect pet owners are not the target market for this type of living space.

~~~
vipervpn
Sure, although it's common for single people to have a pet.

I don't know about the US, but in Canada I think it's illegal for renters to
discriminate against pet owners. Many still do however.

~~~
xyome
In the province of Quebec you can specify a "no pet" rule in a lease. You can
even be more specific and allow for a certain number and type of animal (e.g.
max 2 cats, no dogs).

There's a lot of stuff you can't discriminate on, but animal ownership isn't a
fundamental right.

~~~
icegreentea
In Ontario, the law stipulates that a land owner may not restrict leasers from
owning a pet, unless the pet runs afoul of other stuff (like if they somehow
interfere with another leaser's ability to live a reasonable life). But
everyone still puts the 'no-pet' clause in the contracts.

------
n1c
Weird timing, I just watched this today: We The Tiny House People Small Homes,
Tiny Flats & Wee Shelters <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDcVrVA4bSQ>

------
olalonde
There is a legal apartment size? Seriously?

------
wslh
Does this sound interesting for investing? it can start a new real state
bubble based on micro apartments.

~~~
GFischer
It did start one here in Uruguay, they're popping up like mushrooms, since as
long as you can get a renter they pay for themselves in less than 10 years.

------
rabble
So any sense of how much these new micro apartments in SF are going to cost?

~~~
michael_michael
From the article: "The ultra-efficient efficiencies will go for $1,300 to
$1,500 a month, he said. Per city regulations, 15 percent of the units will be
allocated as below market rate for low-income residents; he thinks those would
rent for around $900 a month."

------
ktizo
The new proposed minimum is about the same size as my flat here in the UK, and
I know plenty of people living in smaller places than mine.

~~~
citricsquid
The UK has such small apartments, I guess it's down to how small the country
is. I think a lot of American people would have a hard time visiting some
apartment buildings here and understanding the small sizes. The apartment I
live in right now is one of the largest I could find in my current location
(Brighton) and I wasn't being cheap (I'm paying $2500/m) and it's only about
450 square feet[1]. I've found that it's quite literally impossible to get an
apartment here at 1k square feet unless the cost is >$10k/m, but in America a
lot of people consider 1k square feet to be small.

Here's an interesting chart about average sizes in a couple of different
countries, the difference between the UK and the US is huge:
[http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-
th...](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/average-home-sizes-around-the-151738)
(this is houses, but most apartments I've visited in the UK are about the same
size as the upstairs of a house, so splitting the figure it half seems a good
estimate for apartments)

I would theorise that the majority of people living in small apartments are
the sort of people that are young and still finding their path in life
(career, education) and so don't spend much time in their apartment (most
young people that have their own place don't have the luxury of spending 8
hours a day at home, excluding sleep) so they're not _that_ bothered by living
in a small space. It's where they sleep and eat and that's about it. If you're
a 40 year old that has a career and family living in 200 square feet would
seem insane.

[1] [http://www.godfreyinv.com/portfolio/17-the-upper-
drive/apart...](http://www.godfreyinv.com/portfolio/17-the-upper-
drive/apartment-6/)

