apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time


250 Square-Feet of Heaven in San Francisco

8-25-2008-250sq.jpg

We think we live in a pretty small apartment, and we were recently impressed by a couple looking to move into a 400 square-foot space.

But what about 250 square-feet? Could you do it? (Do you do it?)

 
 

8-25-2008floorplan.jpg

According to an article in the SF Chronicle, that's the size of some brand new condominiums that are about to be sold in San Francisco's SoMa neighborhood. They're starting at $279,000 and they're being marketed to young people, particularly singles, who don't have "too much stuff."

The name of the building is, appropriately, Cubix.

They're pretty stylish, but even the architect admits they're a bit too small for a family. We think, given the smart floor plan, they provide more than enough space for one person, possibly two.

What do you think?

The condos have some other green features besides their tiny sq-footage. Get more information here.

images via SFGate.com; Paul Chinn

Tags

Blogging..., San Francisco, small space, Cubix

Related Links

Share

Comments (30)

That's over $1000 per square foot.

posted by Khurt Williams on 2008-08-25 17:58:34
view Khurt Williams's profile

Too expensive, even for SF. I have lived in smaller space in Japan, but you worry about aesthetics a lot less and have a lot of multi-use stuff. A whole wall was shelving for example. It can totally be done, and you can live in relative comfort, assuming you change your lifestyle and don't get too connected to stuff.

posted by akatsuki on 2008-08-25 18:03:03
view akatsuki's profile

I'm assuming you'd have to have a pull-out bed or futon to sleep on? And probably a flat panel tv to hang over the dining area? Forget about about people who don't have "too much stuff". It looks like you can't have ANY stuff to live there.

posted by leanneabe on 2008-08-25 18:08:52
view leanneabe's profile

It's pretty easy to declutter your life down to a few possessions and survive. The condo seems pretty good, though pricey. The true value would be in how soundproof it is. No matter where I live, I do not want to hear my neighbors.

At the last place I lived in Boston, there was a metal fan to the left, techno girls to the right and a horrid sax player/new age fan below me. I have no problems with the music (except the goose strangling noises of the sax player) but hearing them all at once was a bit too much to handle.

posted by Gwendolyn on 2008-08-25 18:58:54
view Gwendolyn's profile

VERY pricey - nice layout for one. Guess it depends on "needs"

I have a 1100 sqft condo in S.FL.... Wish I had a garage for bikes, fitness stuff and crafts and a yard to compost and garden. And a gas stove.... Mmmmm a gas stove... drool..

Off to the Kitchn! ;)

posted by VeryDelishVeg on 2008-08-25 23:22:17
view VeryDelishVeg's profile

IKEA has models of 230 sq. ft. apartments, and several under 500. I don't see why it couldn't be done. You just need to be creative.

Maybe because I live in NYC, but 400 sq. ft. doesn't seem too small.

posted by theambershow on 2008-08-26 10:28:49
view theambershow's profile

Where would they put books?
I guess as a young couple, you are not supposed to bother with reading

Bikes?
Again, probably just rent the car from the garage below. Or tie it to the pole outside, so it can get stolen.

Clothes?
That armoire will barely hold couple of changes of underwear.

It's a joke of an apartment.

posted by LuckyMonkey on 2008-08-26 11:24:14
view LuckyMonkey's profile

Personally, I would get tired of being in the same room all the time -- I'd rather share a slightly larger space with another person than live in a tiny box by myself. But could this work? Absolutely.

There were super-small entries in the Small Cool contest that made their space more interesting, using furniture and decor to break up a studio into different defined spaces. (They also had much more storage.) This apartment is so, well, cubic that it's hard to see that working. The furniture and current layout aren't helping either -- too minimal, too flat.

posted by JL in QNS on 2008-08-26 11:33:58
view JL in QNS's profile

Where's the bed? I was expecting a Murphy sort of set-up. A sofa-bed doesn't seem realistic or desirable for the long term. There's also a lack of built-in innovative storage solutions. The amount of space is not the issue, it's the lack of creative design.

The Eames rocker in the sketch is a nice touch though!

posted by laila on 2008-08-26 13:46:59
view laila's profile

yeah, where *do* you sleep?

posted by whytephoenix on 2008-08-26 14:46:15
view whytephoenix's profile

When we were moving cross country we lived in a 20 ft trailer that was about 6 feet wide. and it had a full size queen bed in that space! Did i mention I lived there with a hubby and 2 kids? So 20x6 for 4 people for a year. We are in a slightly larger place now and we kinda miss our little place. We still have it for camping but we miss living in it. :)

organic mom

posted by luv2cook on 2008-08-26 15:13:42
view luv2cook's profile

That layout looks almost exactly like my teeny apartment in New Orleans. Besides my double bed, all I could invest in was a small table with two chairs and a couch. And amazingly, something that small not only works, but I love it. You learn to be creative with space. Luckily, the tall ceilings provided tall closets with lots of space.

And the whole place fits me, my boyfriend, and my chubby cat. I'd venture to say it's barely 400 sq. feet.

posted by Goosebucket on 2008-08-26 15:27:36
view Goosebucket's profile

I've lived in 260 sq feet quite happily. The smallest apartments for students are around 170 sq feet, including a small bath and a kitchenette! (and room for a bed).

A "normal" sized place for one person in Finland would be around 400 sq ft.

Now in my 800 sq ft US apartment I feel overwhelmed with all the space! Nice to have company :)

posted by Lilli K. on 2008-08-27 16:54:15
view Lilli K.'s profile

Looks perfectly sized. I could see myself living in that size if well defined.

posted by midnightskyfibers on 2008-08-28 00:11:43
view midnightskyfibers's profile

Well, the photograph looks better than the floorplan (some kind of closet there and more windows), but this apartment is not the best use of space.

1. I'd trade the bathtub for a shower stall to make room for a stacked washer/dryer unit.

2. I'd get rid of the balcony. It's wasted square footage that I would rather have in the room.

3. I'd put the kitchen where the generic living space is and just get rid of the 'living room' altogether.

4. I'd put a loft-type bed in the entryway for sleeping.

posted by chickie on 2008-08-28 13:58:20
view chickie's profile

my 400 sq ft studio seems huge now after living in an under 300 sq ft apartment in san francisco. i think that condo seems like a great price in that area, provided the HOA fees aren't too expensive.

regarding books, there is the public library. bike storage is usually communal in a place such as this. who the hell needs a t.v.?

posted by mannequingirl on 2008-08-28 15:59:38
view mannequingirl's profile

SF is an expensive city, and it's hard to find a place thats in a first time buyers budget, but it is possible. With the way the market is right now I bet you could find something that was bigger for not that much more money. Plus, it's not going to be easy to sell a 250 sq. foot home. I bought my 480 sq. foot place for 400k a couple years ago before the market dropped. A friend of mine got a 1000sq foot loft around that same time in the Mission. There are lots of options if you're willing to wait and do the leg work.

posted by bether on 2008-08-28 19:41:43
view bether's profile

I manage in 274 sq ft, but it is a challenge. I took the tiny place because living in the West Village is worth it. I don't see a time when I will be leaving the place as it is stabilized, short of a LTR or inheritance.

posted by Devyn on 2008-08-29 10:39:48
view Devyn's profile

Way too small.

I was the E & M engineer here for an 8 unit apt on a 40 x 100 lot and the units were 250 - 325 SQF. I was feeling cramped while doing my site inspections.

500SQF minimum for human life.

www.m2engineering.com

posted by MichaelM on 2008-08-29 22:27:02
view MichaelM's profile

I live in 300 sq ft and I absolutely love it. Luckily, the kitchen is the biggest room (12'x12') and it's perfectly comfortable. I built a peninsula to serve as food prep area and dining space. I made it from an old bowling alley lane and it works well (8'x4'). So well that I have space to store both my bicycle and my kayak in the kitchen, too. And it looks pretty damn good, pinkie swear. I just worry that when I actually buy a place, I won't be able to find something small enough.

posted by A Necessary Equal on 2008-08-29 22:33:23
view A Necessary Equal's profile

My boyfriend and I live in 280 square feet in NYC. We love it! It's plenty of space to live we want plus we save tons of money. He put custom-shelving up the high ceilings for our built-in desk-library area, everything is on the wall in the kitchen (yes, we cook regularly) and we even have a tiny fold out couch from ikea for guests (yes, 4 people have stayed in the apartment at once). We have his and her's ikea wardrobes (yes, I have a TON of clothes so I've taken over some of his) plus one other teeny built-in closet for misc stuff. Every single ounce of space we have is utilized, including storing most of our bathroom items in the shower curtain (pocketed from BB&B). ha! My parents live in Indiana in a gigantic house with rooms they don't even use. What a waste! The challenge of small-space living thrills me. If I bought, thinking of the long term, 400-500sq foot would be ideal. Custom-building with a lot of creativity and fit anything you'd need in that amount of space.

posted by nicinthecity on 2008-08-29 23:27:21
view nicinthecity's profile

And the 400-500sq feet would includ a family! haha

posted by nicinthecity on 2008-08-29 23:29:56
view nicinthecity's profile

Ah, California.
Land of crazy morons who pay $1M for a 1,000sqft home.
Not enough earthquakes or fires.

posted by bramasoleiowa on 2008-08-30 23:43:15
view bramasoleiowa's profile

I think the price is a bit ridiculous but I suppose the exact location could be part of it. I went from a 1050 sqft apartment to a 700 sqft apartment and actually found it kind of liberating. It really put into perspective what I "need." It would definitely be easier if you started in that apartment instead of going from something much larger and trying to downsize.

posted by http://badhuman.wordpress.com on 2008-08-31 18:45:49
view http://badhuman.wordpress.com's profile

I lived for a couple of years in an 8'x20' travel trailer- 160 square feet. With a bit of forethought, this kind of living is so very easy. My rule was, anything I brought into my home must earn its keep; nothing purely ornametal allowed.
Instead of buying books, I visited the library weekly. My couch was a fold-out bed. I had only a few clothes, a few dishes, one set of sheets, and two or three towels. I never felt deprived from not being surrounded by mounds of stuff. In fact, since I spent almost nothing, I always had more money for things like food and travel than my apartment and house dwelling friends did.
Ahhh, those were the days. I'd most likely still be in that trailer, or something of similar size, but I took in a relative who needed long-term housing, and it just wasn't workable for the two of us. I've since married a man who owns a 2,200 sq ft house on 10 acres, and he won't believe me when I tell him that 500 sq ft would be more than enough for the two of us.

posted by Esmeralda on 2008-09-02 16:56:59
view Esmeralda's profile

cool but reminds me of my old dorm too much. but i love living in oakland so i get the benefit of more square footage for less!

(and as for "who needs a t.v." - after a serious sick day with no one else around this weekend, i know i needed mine! i couldn't have read, crafted, or anything else...but a project runway marathon took my mind off being lonely and feeling like c-r-a-p!!)

posted by akostalas on 2008-09-02 17:30:18
view akostalas's profile

I'm with laila, the size could work with more innovation. A closet, built-in storage, or murphy bed would go a long way here. The layout in the photo is much better than the floorplan - it looks like there's at least someplace you can sit without staring at whoever else is there.

250 square feet but they made room for a dishwasher? If I lived in a space that small I doubt I'd keep enough dishes to make using a dishwasher worthwhile.

posted by kittenmittens on 2008-09-03 09:35:31
view kittenmittens's profile

I lived in 350sf in NYC in my twenties and it was a blast. This is a bit smaller, but the ceilings are high and there's light and it's new. The key is location, location, location. This building is right downtown. It's not made for people who stay home and cook 10 course dinners, it's made for younguns who stay up all night and drag themselves downstairs for a whole foods prepared meal afterwards. There's not many places available for that price in the city, at least this offers someone who is younger a rental alternative.

posted by SFGail on 2008-09-03 18:15:20
view SFGail's profile

I feel claustrophobic just looking at the floor plan. Can't imagine my family of four stuffed into a space that size with no privacy.

posted by Khurt Williams on 2008-09-04 19:13:36
view Khurt Williams's profile

this seems like torture.

posted by craftyFOLK on 2008-09-06 14:22:20
view craftyFOLK's profile