New York micro-appartments

[garbon]

It works that way because there are two markets for apartments.  One market is the market of rent-stabilized apartments, which is affordable if they're available, but by simple Econ 101 logic, they're not in sufficient quantities.  The second market is the unregulated luxury apartment market (or condos).  Because there isn't enough supply of affordable apartments, often the option is to rent a much more expensive apartment, or nothing at all.  There is also a secondary longer term effect where developers are discouraged from building more affordable apartment buildings, because they run the risk of yet another rent control law appropriating the control of their property.

Here is an old Paul Krugman column on this issue:  http://www.pkarchive.org/column/6700.html .

So I get that but it seems like in place like NYC, that you are still talking about rents being pretty high even if now rent control was dropped and developers were encouraged to build affordable housing.  As Krugman's bit seems to suggest, it might make prices alright further down the line but would be rather hellish for the near future.

[garbon]

Because it's both extremes of the scale. It misses...order. Must be the OCD acting up.

That is basic order though. Most places I've lived have had people who had shit homes and people who have had dazzling homes.

[DGuller]

So I get that but it seems like in place like NYC, that you are still talking about rents being pretty high even if now rent control was dropped and developers were encouraged to build affordable housing.  As Krugman's bit seems to suggest, it might make prices alright further down the line but would be rather hellish for the near future.

In the short term, that is true, but that's the cost of economic stupidity.  You get a windfall just after you enact rent control, because you get free market rental supply at rent-controlled prices, and you get hell just after you repeal it, because you have stunted housing market but no control on the prices.  In the long run, though, it's a bitter pill that must be taken.

[garbon]

In the short term, that is true, but that's the cost of economic stupidity.  You get a windfall just after you enact rent control, because you get free market rental supply at rent-controlled prices, and you get hell just after you repeal it, because you have stunted housing market but no control on the prices.  In the long run, though, it's a bitter pill that must be taken.

That doesn't make much sense to me. After all, when rent control first comes into place, you only get a windfall on the accumulation of rents over several years.  You aren't looking at a large amount of money saved for tenants within that first year.  Whereas once you get rid of it - you're see a massive spike in pain for tenants in that first year.

Not sure I see the upside. I mean yes changing it up would decrease traffic/commutes and the strain put on that infrastructure but besides that? On the flipside you'd have potentially decreased tax revenues (I figure an affordable building isn't valued as highly as a luxury building), many pissed off tenants, /many, many tenants who have to flee the city to places they can actually afford.

[Eddie Teach]

Because it's both extremes of the scale. It misses...order. Must be the OCD acting up.

That is basic order though. Most places I've lived have had people who had shit homes and people who have had dazzling homes.

Most places the people with shit homes aren't paying 2 grand a month or more for though.

[The Larch]

For the record, 300 sq feet is 27.9 sq meters. It's not huge by any conceivable standard but for non permanent housing in a city it's ok. I lived in one for 6 months, turned out fine.

this.

you should see what they do with 22 m² at Ikea. Now that's a frightenly small sardinecan only fit for asians

Mine could have been slightly smaller and, with a better layout, it wouldn't be too different. I mean, I even had a bathtub, total waste of space. A simple shower would've been enough. And I was lucky to have a separate bedroom and everything!

[garbon]

Most places the people with shit homes aren't paying 2 grand a month or more for though.

Even if you strip out housing costs, most things in New York are more expensive than in most places.  Not sure what that proves.

[garbon]

For the record, 300 sq feet is 27.9 sq meters. It's not huge by any conceivable standard but for non permanent housing in a city it's ok. I lived in one for 6 months, turned out fine.

this.

you should see what they do with 22 m² at Ikea. Now that's a frightenly small sardinecan only fit for asians

Mine could have been slightly smaller and, with a better layout, it wouldn't be too different. I mean, I even had a bathtub, total waste of space. A simple shower would've been enough. And I was lucky to have a separate bedroom and everything!

Oh yeah, I had a 300 sq ft studio when I lived in Chicago for 3 months. It was nice enough as an intern on summer break for school but I'd never do that again as a place I planned on living in for a while.

[dps]

This is a very smart initiate by Bloomberg, though, because NYC rent control policies pretty much obliterated the part of the real estate segment that young non-millionaire professionals who don't want to room with two strangers look for.

There are very few rent controlled places in the city. Most of the units that exist are rent stabilized which only slows rent inflation.

Rent stabilization isn't as bad as rent control, but it still very distorting.  Tenants are still incentivized to hog their apartments, and more seriously, developers are incentivized to stay the hell away from low-end rental market due to political risk.  What you wind up with is old housing that's rent-stabilized and rarely on the market, high end luxury rentals, and condos.  Moderately priced new rental construction is nowhere to be found.

This is happening in a lot of places that don't have rent controls or stabilization, too, but controls exacerbate the problem. 

[viper37]

300 square foot?
That sounds pretty big to me. I know people here, in Tokyo and in London with much smaller places.
Looking at the diagram on the link...yeah, its huge for a big city place.

Metric would speak more to me but I have seen much smaller in Paris as well.

10' x 30'= 3,05m x 9,15m = 27,9m2.
I keep forgetting there are other, modern, people like me here 

[viper37]

300 square foot?
That sounds pretty big to me. I know people here, in Tokyo and in London with much smaller places.
Looking at the diagram on the link...yeah, its huge for a big city place.

Metric would speak more to me but I have seen much smaller in Paris as well.

You divide by 10, roughly, so it's 30 square metres.

1m=3,28ft.  So it's 3,28^2, closer to 11 if you need to do it in your head.

[viper37]

For the record, 300 sq feet is 27.9 sq meters. It's not huge by any conceivable standard but for non permanent housing in a city it's ok. I lived in one for 6 months, turned out fine.

it's design to be as permanent as any appartment can be.

[dps]

1m=3,28m. 

Uh, that can't be right.

[viper37]

Come to think of it...my current place might actually be smaller than that...And I find it too big for just me (though probally not quite big enough for two people, I call it a 1 1/2 person flat).

But meh, American averages really should not be applied to New York considering most of the US has the population density of the moon and what people there are live in mansions whilst New York...follows rather different rules.
The size we're talking about here is more than livable, even long term for an eternally single person, especially with the layout they propose (the layout of my place sucks balls).
Though it will make sitcoms difficult...

Did you guys not read the other part of the infographic? Bloomberg has a 12,500 square feet townhouse. It's not in the middle of nowhere, it's not in the suburbs. It's in the middle of everything.

That's the BS of it.

he could get rich by dividing it in 41 small appartments!  Oh, wait, he's already rich...

[DGuller]

That doesn't make much sense to me. After all, when rent control first comes into place, you only get a windfall on the accumulation of rents over several years.  You aren't looking at a large amount of money saved for tenants within that first year.  Whereas once you get rid of it - you're see a massive spike in pain for tenants in that first year.

The windfall comes from the availability of the apartments.  In rent-controlled city, that availability is very limited, but that develops over time.  You don't pay the availability price until some time down the road after enactment of rent control.

Not sure I see the upside. I mean yes changing it up would decrease traffic/commutes and the strain put on that infrastructure but besides that? On the flipside you'd have potentially decreased tax revenues (I figure an affordable building isn't valued as highly as a luxury building), many pissed off tenants, /many, many tenants who have to flee the city to places they can actually afford.

Decreased cost of living?  Not chasing away young but not rich residents?  Higher quality of life due to more abundant housing?  Much more efficient allocation of resources?  Increased mobility of the population?  Those are not little things, those things are very important for the city's economic vitality.