Home, small home: 250 square feet in SoMa. New condo development targets young first-time buyers without too much stuff.
It’s about the size of seven ping-pong tables - and all yours starting at $279,000.
A San Francisco design and development firm has begun marketing 98 tiny condominiums - ranging from 250 to 350 square feet - at the Cubix Yerba Buena building in SoMa.
Ha! I told you that moving could save you money. Where I live you can get a 3,200 square foot house in a nice neighborhood for under $200,000. And no, I don't live in the boonies -- though GR is close to it!
Hey - at least you get those stainless steel appliances!
Posted by: Kevin | September 03, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Unfortunately, where you live you probably can't get a six (or even seven) figure job, with Google,Facebook, Apple, Cisco, Yahoo, Amgen, etc.
I'm guessing your area also isn't focused on technology, pharmaceuticals, and legal jobs. What would those folks who have those skill sets do where you live?
The market forces are at work based on what the average salary can afford in the Bay Area. While it seems crazy to people who don't live in the Bay Area it isn't that much different in terms of value ratio. Yes, the bay area has a smaller amount of land available so houses/apts are much smaller (similar to NYC), but overall very comparable.
Some of these folks could move to an area that is cheaper and commute. However, what kind of life do you have if you need to commute 2 hours each way. Not only that, then you're contributing to the destruction of the environment. People who live in the Bay Area generally try and decrease their carbon footprint even if the cost is greater...
Posted by: D | September 03, 2008 at 01:02 PM
D --
You're right. There's no technology, pharmaceuticals, or legal jobs anywhere but in big cities. I have to travel to Chicago to even use a computer, I get my drugs from Detroit, and as for law -- it's the law of the west for us hillbillies living outside the top 10 US cities -- the six-gun rules!!!!!
Posted by: FMF | September 03, 2008 at 01:08 PM
Wow. That's just ridiculous.
Thing is that even with a 6 figure income, with such a high cost of living, you may be better off in a cheaper area getting paid less.
Posted by: WiseMoneyMatters | September 03, 2008 at 01:19 PM
I think it's cute. I also love the hyper-designed tiny houses available these days, not that I can afford any of them. Although I live in a detached house (in a big city even!) I wouldn't know what to do with 3,200 sq ft. Start a collectibles habit? Wine cellar? Adopt a few greyhounds?
What your post is underestimating, although I recognize you're just looking to raise hackles, is the size of the back yard ... San Fran versus Wisconsin to play in? No contest, mate, sorry.
Posted by: guinness416 | September 03, 2008 at 01:39 PM
I wonder where "D" lives?
I always love hearing what people on the coasts think of "flyover country".
Posted by: Kevin | September 03, 2008 at 02:09 PM
Personally I think it's fantastic that people can own a place and live in San Francisco for *only* $279,000. I lived there for a couple of years (as a renter) and it is and probably always be one of my favorite cities. I've also lived in London and the house prices there make these tiny condos seem like some of the best bargains in the world. Some cities are just plain expensive and if you want to live there you need to make some sacrifices.
I'm also slightly prejudiced because I tend to like small, well-designed houses.
Posted by: MonkeyMonk | September 03, 2008 at 02:18 PM
After years of student living I can confidently say that no matter how well you design a a 250 sqft house, it still feels like living in a hotel room.
Posted by: a | September 03, 2008 at 02:54 PM
Thing is that even with a 6 figure income, with such a high cost of living, you may be better off in a cheaper area getting paid less"
So if you had been a scientist developing new drugs you'd prefer to move into Nowhereville, Nowhere and do exactly what? There is this little thing called job satisfaction.
My area (Westchester county, NY) is expensive as well. But at least here, one could get a 750 sq feet one bedroom condo at under 300K. Or a larger co-op.
Posted by: kitty | September 03, 2008 at 03:53 PM
I live in the SF Bay Area and can see some truth to both sides of this argument.
Sure, the Bay Area does generally have higher paying jobs, but that is definitely not true in every instance. Most of the time the higher pay does not make up for the much higher cost of living.
And very often, people in the high paying jobs around here have no life besides their jobs. Their whole lives revolve around their jobs/careers, which is not healthy in my opinion.
That said, it's possible to be just as happy living in a much smaller space (although maybe not 250 square feet) as in a 3200 square foot house. Most people living in large houses really don't make the most of their living space. So, for at least some people the trade off is still worth it.
Posted by: mysticaltyger | September 03, 2008 at 04:12 PM
Kitty (and others) --
It's interesting to me that people from the biggest US cities think that if you don't live in NY, LA, Boston, DC, or SF then you live in "Nowhereville, Nowhere."
Posted by: FMF | September 03, 2008 at 04:41 PM
I lived in a 400 sqft apartment once. Never again. I'll take my country bumpkin living any day.
Posted by: Cherryblossom | September 03, 2008 at 05:15 PM
Sure you could have a 3,000 square foot house, but not everybody wants the white picket fence lifestyle. I have lived in a city where you could easily have one of the biggest houses in town for $200k, but now I live in a city where I have a condo that costs more than twice that but is only 1,500 square feet. No way my wife and I could make our current salaries in the smaller city and we definitely wouldn't be as happy giving up our current lifestyle just to have a cheaper, bigger house. Sure there are jobs in law and other business professions, but if you want to do high profile stuff you usually have to go where the action is (there are exceptions, but they are exceptions). I think the people in the "flyover country" need to realize they are often just as judgemental on this stuff as the people on the coasts/big cities. Different strokes for different folks.
Posted by: J | September 03, 2008 at 05:55 PM
Actually, my point wasn't so much about the housing--which I agree may still be out of wack with compensation. It was about the idea that people can just move and have a better lifestyle. If you are in an industry that is basically specific to certain areas of the country you can't just "move and get a job" in some suburban area that doesn't support your industry. Not only would you need to take a much lower paying job (which, may compensate for the lower cost of living), but there is no guarantee you could even get a job. If a company looked at you and saw your advanced educational degrees, specialty skills in a specific area, why would they hire you if there was someone who was more suited to the job and didn't have advanced degrees that employers might think meant the applicant should be paid more.
It just isn't as easy as saying I'll just move and get a job where the cost of living is lower. That said, I do agree with the main point that some housing is completely crazy. Go look at what you can buy in NYC for $500k--a studio apt in a not particularly good neighborhood.
Posted by: D | September 04, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Wow these aren't just tiny, they look really badly designed. My family owns a tiny studio in one of the best parts of NYC which is probably about the same size, but it is really well-planned out. It has a little kitchen area behind closet doors, a murphy bed and room for a pull-out sofa and two decent sized (for NYC) closets. These SF studios don't even have closets. Our studio, which we use as a rental for part of the year, would probably sell today for about the same price as the SF studios - maybe a bit less because it is older. Do I think that's outrageous - absolutely! But this is Manhattan, so that's what you have to deal with.
Posted by: Nicole | September 04, 2008 at 01:23 PM
I agree with Nicole; I've seen tiny apartments in Tokyo and Hong Kong that are quite well-designed and optimize all space. One thing that nearly all these places have is built-in storage up high, so that precious floor space is not wasted on storage units. Also, murphy beds and easy-to-tear-down dining tables and chairs are widely used.
SF is far more like Tokyo or HK than it's like Michigan. After all, one could choose to live in Guangxi - where houses cost about 1/100 the price of HK and the weather is about the same - so why don't they?
Posted by: Foobarista | September 04, 2008 at 02:34 PM
Wow. 15+ comments and no one has mentioned the $270 per month HOA dues yet.
Posted by: Bad_Brad | September 04, 2008 at 04:34 PM