Thanks for mini-apartments

The Moda Apartments ... roommates not required.
The Moda Apartments ... roommates not required.

Few topics are as visceral. A 300 square foot apartment is an affront, and 200 square feet is downright inhuman…right?

Not to me. They fill an important and underserved need. And for a lot of people they’ll be a good and even fun way to live.

With the Videre opening up on 23rd soon, and with the Moda Apartments recently opening in Belltown (originally sold as condos), small apartments are a hot subject in more ways than one. There’s something about the very idea that compels many people to speak as if they’re being asked to live there personally.

Maybe those people think no housing is better than small housing. Or that the only legit route to affordability is to live farther out (as if that math makes sense), or to have roommates (there’s a way to maintain sanity!), or to live with Mom and Dad, or to live with a subsidy, or to live with the pitter-patter of rats, as a friend of mine once did.

You might think this is all theory to me, but I’ve lived it, and recently. Spent four months in a hotel room on Lower Queen Anne while between condos in 2008. Probably 250 square feet. Stuff away in a storage locker. The only thing roomy was the ADA-compliant bathroom. Living in the middle of things made it much easier…sort of like Moda, and even Videre for some people.

Costs can be high on a square foot basis, for example because plumbing costs don’t scale down with the size of the bathroom, the electrical load for each unit might be nearly as high, and elevator service is related to the number of units more than square footage. With shell costs automatically high, developers can be excused for spending a little bit extra to put in finishes that bring the perceived value up to the prices they need to justify.

About “fun.” We’re all wired a little differently. Some people think fun is living in 3,000 square feet and stretching out, with the whole family having a different room for each thing they do, and spending a lot of time fussing with the lawn, and having lots and lots of furniture, and, well, why on earth do people assume we all want that? Maybe fun is living within one’s means in a cozy place, knowing where everything is, and having freedom from stuff. Maybe fun is using that money to eat better, travel more, or have a financial cushion. Maybe it’s trading square footage for a location in the middle of it all. Yes, it’s possible to live small as a lifestyle choice.

Some people want fun, while others just want to live affordably and without subsidy in a clean place without roommates of the various kinds. Nothing wrong with that. Let those subsidies (such as the levy we should renew this year) go to more needy people. And it’s great when people choose to live near work or school, rather than taxing the transportation system.

Apparently the Videre project was fit into the zoning through creative use of the code, and wasn’t specifically envisioned. Rather than scurry around to fix this “loophole,” we should find ways to help more of these projects happen.

  • Matt the Engineer

    I have an uncle that has lived in a ~150sf apartment in New York for over 30 years. His bed folds into a table, and he lives very simply. But he wouldn’t have it any other way. His cheap rent allows him to be a teacher and a mostly-unread author, yet live in a very walkable and enjoyable neighborhood. He’s in his 60′s and has never had a driver’s license.

    Settle needs places like this. It keeps young people and those that value their life’s passion over money from being driven out to the suburbs. A vibrant city needs exactly this kind of resident.

  • Downtowner

    Actually I think this is a terrible idea – something the city should pressure developers should avoid in the future. Younger people or those on a limited budget often live in older buildings if they need to save money. That’s how it should be. Smaller units – especially condos – often remain vacant, and are the first to be emptied during a downturn.

    I’m normally pro-development, but there is no excuse for building these small units, especially in Seattle. (This is not a Manhattan rental or condo market!) No matter how you want to spin it, the primary motive here is greed by the developers.

  • colleen

    I disagree that this is a bad idea for Seattle or any urban center. There is much more to consider than affordable housing, although that certainly is a consideration. Often times, older buildings in Seattle are not necessarily cheaper either. Much of the affordable older housing around the UW has been leveled and replaced with expensive housing. This is a perfect solution for up and coming professionals or people on limited income. Besides offering a viable solution in affordable housing, we all should be looking to limit the square footage in which we leave – this kind of housing will leave a much smaller carbon footprint. We are so spoiled in the US when it comes to perceived ‘need’ – Mcmansions and luxury apartments are going the way of the dinosaur, and need to, before we do!

  • colleen

    whoops, I mean ‘live’ not leave!

  • JoshMahar

    Totally Agree. I lived in a 150sqft room all through college in a large frat house. I do think its better though to have at least one larger kitchen and gathering room so people have a neutral area to hang out and meet others. It was great to have that private/public balance.

    In fact, a few of my friends live in studio only buildings on the Hill and the atmosphere on each floor is so much more communal with people leaving their doors open and hanging out compared to my all 1-2 bedroom apartment building where none of us really know each other all too well.

  • Pingback: miami storage