There is no way I would spend two hundred and seventy nine THOUSAND dollars on 250 square feet of space. I really want to live in San Fransisco but....not THAT bad.
I think there are other ways to achieve density without units being that small.
I plan on having a family: my wife and maybe one or two kids so 250 square feet just wouldn't work out too well.

I've got a better idea: just don't live in San Francisco. Anyone stupid enough to pay $279K for 250 sf should be forcibly sterilized.

That wouldn't be far off pricing in the London suburbs: not everyone has a choice about where exactly they live given constraints for work, schooling, etc, and living IN town is probably 'greener' than living in the middle of nowhere and needing to drive everywhere.

Maybe anyone who endangers the planet by insisting on driving everywhere by SUV and living in a wastefully-large house should be 'fixed' instead?

Rgds

Damon

Yes, these units are completely over-priced ($1K per sq foot is waaaay over the average in that neighborhood.)

However, one poorly priced housing complex does not discredit the concept of dense housing and does not make your comment, BigOil, any less flamebait. Go away troll.

I predict the prices will come down after nobody buys these for 6 months.

I could see these being used as corporate housing for employees who need to spend a couple weeks at a time in the city. Even at this price, it's a lot cheaper than even a crappy hotel. Make it even a little cheaper and it would make an appealing second home in the city. Again, you only have to regularly spend a few nights at a $200/night hotel for this to start making sense.

My wife, dog and I lived in a 400 square foot apartment in Brooklyn. We had a murphy bed that closed up to be our kitchen table, and found other ways to use the space as efficiently as possible, but, in the end, such a small place was not practical. We don't own much stuff, but 400 sf for two people is not terribly feasible. I couldn't even imagine 250 sf. A two burner stove? A mini-sink? So, basically, forget about cooking much if ever. My biggest problem with this type of development is that it ultimately drives the cost of even small units, the 400-500 sf variety and not these minis, way up, pushing everyone but the very wealthy further and further from the city center. Why did my wife and I decide to live in Brooklyn? Well, besides the fact that Brooklyn is way cooler than Manhattan, finding a comparably priced and sized place in Manhattan was next to impossible, unless you are willing to sit on the subway for an hour. In contrast, we have a very short commute into Manhattan, though our neighborhood is starting to get too expensive as well. I suspect the market for the type of housing that is discussed in this article is ultimately the young wanna be jet setter, you know the ones that only have a small trust fund, but still want a Northern Cali pad to go with their So Cali pad, New York loft, and Paris apartment. While dense and compact is admirable, affordable must be a part of the equation or we just perpetuate the trend that being green is only accessible for the upper class.

This is just nuts. What's the great push to "high-density living" anyway? Who decided that's the way most people want to live?

Give me a little bit of land out of town and a straw bale house. $25K for the land + $50K for the structure. Super green. Low bills. No mortgage. Ever. A shed out back to brew my bio-diesel used to commute 40 min to town. Done.

This is too small even for my pet. And I live in a small apartment in Manhattan and find this ridicules. More like a scam

Wow...

This is why suburbs exist.

If you ever wanted a reason to rent over buying in the bay area, this is it! Equity my foot - there are currently 4000+ empty condos in SF, and more being built everyday, due to overbuilding. Condos and lofts even in good ole' SF are a terrible investment, especially when you shell out that kind of cash for the size of my balcony in my current SF rental.

And I thought Long Island housing prices were bad.

America has been learning the hard way that too much is too much. The opposite lesson apparently has yet to be learned.

I like the idea of compact living as well, but totally seconded with the comment about not being able to cook. A two-burner "stove" and a mini-sink? You can heat up your pot noodles and that's about it. So much for any "100-mile" diets, eh?

Also, do none of the people who design these things own any books? I never see any bookshelves, and, hell, that's a significant part of my storage requirements.

Geez. This place is horrible. You'd have to eat out or go grocery shopping all the time. There is no storage space. Heck, there's not even room for both a dining room table and a bed! $1100 a square foot for a dorm room? I'm totally convinced that people who buy condos are insane.

With a 10% down payment, with a 6% 30-yr term; that's about $1800 a month once the condo fees are added. Not to mention that your $28k is tied up.

You can rent twice the space in SoMa for that monthly cost.

So for the cost of 18 months rent, you can have half the space and the joy of paying property taxes on top of it.

The design isn't that bad. I could see myself living in a small space like that. The price is a bit much. I guess that's the price you pay for a larger city.

I'm just surprised the model's decor didn't include a murphy bed, and a fold-down table - something like what Tim H. describes. It's like the tinyhouse phenomenon, but in condo format.

There's condos of this size in my not overly pricey hometown of Milwaukee - one is a converted hotel by the lake and downtown - that is mostly studios that aren't much bigger - and were built in the 20's, with 1980's kitchens - for about $70-90K. They're the ultimate starter for a pricey neighborhood, and they seem to sell and turn over pretty well. I almost bought one myself at one point, while it didn't work for my lifestyle - frankly, I didn't want to spend $20K in remodeling to make it liveable - I can definitely see the appeal of smal spaces in pricesy areas.

FWIW You can cook quite a bit on a 2-burner stove as long as you have a toaster oven. I did it for a few months (albeit in a bigger studio) and did just fine. I don't know that I would do it forever, but for awhile it was great. I actually ate very well, now that I think about it. Because my fridge was small, I had to buy a lot of fresh food.

Just for a size comparison, a 30 foot travel trailer comes out to about the same square footage. Ask anyone who's lived in one how nice it is to live in that small of a space, very few would ever do it again.

"if we are going to get more people living in cities this may be what we have to get used to."

Dude, you are NOT selling the concept with that line. Hell, let's all move underground and become Morlocks. No, on second thought, I think I'd rather take the route in show Futurama and just enter a "Suicide Booth".

Tiny: yes. Unreasonable: no. In manhattan, I like to refer to these as "Jewelbox" studios. With a doorman and a great location, they provide a safe place for students and people of modest means. It is tiny, but there are lots of ways to make it work. It's also a better option than the luxury sprawling "second homes" which create "ghost buildings" in many towns around the globe.

Keep on!

Compact living is wonderful.

Over-priced homes on the other hand, is just stupid.

I can buy some rural land and have a small house built on to it for less than 100k, and farm my own food the organic way.

If we're going to take people from the Suburbs back to the city, the cost of Condo's and Townhouses needs to be lowered.

Similar to prices in central Stockholm (bed/sofa looks like it's from IKEA), and they're pretty popular here too.

Honestly how often does one use more than two stove elements?

I imagine living "off-the-grid", on a farm or whatever is a lot harder than you'd think.

And just because you drive to work using bio-diesel does not mean you've internalized costs of living out of town (road, water pipes, electricity lines).

Haha. These look just like the dorm rooms I stayed at in Montreal, except more costly with a few fancy touches. This design would make an excellent dormatory. I'd love to stay there for maybe the 4-5 years I'd be in school, but there's no way I'd actually want to buy a place like this at that price. If it were a reasonable price though, i'd love it. I shared a space this size, if not smaller, i kid you not, with my two aunts and two cousins in the philippines when i visited for 6 months. To be honest, it wasn't even that bad. You eventually get used to it. So if you're the type who's either in studying, or out socializing, these places would definately be awesome.

I understand that the cost of living is high in S.F., but if I wanted to live in a big city that bad, there are lots where $279K will get you a house. Albeit, not a big one, but defiitely more than $250 sq. ft. I can't even imagine living in a space that small that has to incorporate every need. I'll go to Atlanta and get more for my money, thanks.

Keep in mind that salaries are high in SF, and these are affordable. A deal? I don't know about that. Don't forget, if you drive you'll have to shell out another $400-$500 month for parking. You could probably live on a boat bigger than these and keep it in the harbor for less.