How Small Is Small?
The other night at a cocktail party someone was talking about a very small apartment they had lived in years ago in San Francisco. The studio unit was 300 square feet, and the most remarkable thing about it was that there were steps UP to the bathroom and below the bathroom floor was where the bed slid in, hiding it from view during the daytime. Ingenious, unless you have some sort of leaky toilet or overflowing tub…. The timing of this little anecdote couldn’t have been better, as the next day in the Chronicle’s Business section appeared an article “Home, Small Home: 250 Square Feet in SoMA.” James Temple spotlighted the new Cubix Yerba Buena, a 98-unit condominium development located at Harrison and Fourth, within walking distance to public transit, Whole Foods, and AT&T Park. Our own SF blogger, Anna Hibble, also posted about this new development, saying that 3 of the first 12 units released were in contract.
Last week, my first question would have been “Who could possibly live in 250 to 350 square feet?” Now that I know it can be done, thanks to some interesting party conversation, my question is not “Why would someone live in 250 square feet?” but rather “Who would pay $279,000 to live in 250 square feet?” The 250 sf units run $279,000, while the larger 350 sf units are priced at $330,000. That means with a 10% down ($27,900), 6% loan, your payment is $1255.50/month + taxes of $279/mo + estimated insurance of $50/month, plus HOA of $270. Total cost: $1854/month. And given the size of the units, they really are not feasible for two people to share (and share in the cost).
This lead me to two questions: One, is the cost similar to a rental? Two, what could you buy for that price in the Bay Area?
As for rentals, I searched for studio rentals in SOMA. I found three recent listings on Craigslist: (1) 565 sf loft $2,050/mo (2) 410 sf $2200 (3) SF unknown $1200/mo. So, yes, buying just might be cheaper than renting in this case.
What else is available for this price? There are actually 20 listings on the MLS for homes under $300,000 in San Francisco (one is a fractional ownership in the Ritz-Carlton). The largest of these is a 4/2.5 of 1719 square feet in Visitacion Valley for $287,900. There are studios on Nob Hill and Lower Pacific Heights, both with comparable pricing. A very nice 1/1 TIC on Portrero Hill. Eight more are in Bayview, and the remaining are scattered around the city. None are nearly as small as Cubix, but you’d have to weigh location and amenities for yourself to know which is the better buy.
So it just might bear looking into one of these units if your rent is high or you expect regular increases. Who’d have thought?
ness said:
These apartments are mansions compared to this 62 square foot apartment in London.
August 26, 2008 11:05 AM
susan.brady said:
Somehow I don’t think that 62 sf apt would pass muster in the states. And $247/week? wow….
August 26, 2008 12:43 PM
David said:
No, the question is why would anyone spend that money (>$1000/sq ft) to live in SAN FRANCISCO?????
Again, those are Manhattan prices. San Francisco is not Manhattan, again, and is inferior on just about any kind of objective “city living” measure I can think of, except possibly weather.
San Francisco is going to come down. Sooner rather than later.
August 26, 2008 3:10 PM
susan.brady said:
David – that’s actually a London apartment of 62 sf, not Manhattan.
August 26, 2008 3:49 PM
David said:
Susan, I was talking about the SF studios. 250 sq ft for $279K=more than $1000/sq ft.
August 26, 2008 4:13 PM
waste said:
Susan, add in closing costs, 1% annual maintenance costs, and subtract the mortgage interest deduction and the units are even more expensive.
But Studios are usually a fairly short term stay (not more than 2years), thus factor in more closing costs and moving costs than the renting equivalent. Purchasing a tiny studio is impractical when most folks eventually partner up, or will shortly crave more space.
August 29, 2008 1:51 PM