The Magazine

Living Small

The micro-apartment craze.

Mar 11, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 25 • By ETHAN EPSTEIN
Widget tooltip
Audio version Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

In justifying the subsidies and zoning waivers, their supporters hail micro-apartments as “affordable housing.” But this doesn’t hold up. Across the country, micro-apartments that don’t have income restrictions attached tend to rent for nearly as much as, or sometimes even more than, extant—and by definition, larger—studio apartments. Bloomberg’s micro-apartments, with free-market units expected to fetch more than $2,000 a month, will be roughly equivalent to the average New York studio rent of $1,950. (Moreover, the rent “is 40 percent higher than the median New York City household can sustain without infringing on basic necessities,” notes the Gotham Gazette.) In Boston, units in a building of 350-square-foot micro-apartments will be priced between $1,200 and $1,600 a month. In 2011, the average rent for a 485-square-foot apartment in Beantown was $1,215. At Portland, Oregon’s “Freedom Center” micro-apartments, a 267-square-foot studio rents for $865. The average one-bedroom Portland apartment rents for $774 a month.

The micro-apartment micro-boom is being driven primarily by greens, as it represents a move towards greater population density, a central goal of the environmentalist left. Even as U.S. population growth slows to a crawl, density is still all the rage. “Increased urban density is the way of the future; it has to be if we want our cities to lead the way in addressing the climate crisis,” writes the environmentalist website Grist. In this, micro-apartments fit in perfectly with additional environmentalist objectives, such as high gas prices, telecommuting, and other initiatives designed to reduce humanity’s “carbon footprint.” And in the micro-apartment universe, while we’ll be living like rabbits, we certainly won’t be breeding like them: It goes without saying that the 250-square-foot home isn’t exactly conducive to procreation—or even marriage or cohabitation.

For whatever reason, many developers and the micro-apartment evangelists in government and the media have convinced themselves that people born in the 1980s and 1990s—the so-called Millennial Generation—are just dying to live with as much personal space as did New York City garment workers of the 19th century. One California micro-apartment developer “believes tiny apartments are particularly well-suited for the active, car-free, single Millennials already coming to American cities,” reports the Atlantic. (Note that now-standard bit of cant, “car-free,” rather than, say, car-less.) As most big micro-apartment projects are still under construction, we’ll see how popular they prove. Even more depressing, one self-styled urban guru has suggested that micro-apartments “have the potential to be great homes for people in their late 70s and 80s.” Forget putting Grandma in a nursing home—just shove her into a shoebox. After all, it’s the environmentally friendly thing to do.

Ethan Epstein is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard.

Recent Blog Posts

The Weekly Standard Archives

Browse 15 Years of the Weekly Standard

Old covers