Check Out The Winning Design For The Tiny New York Apartments Of TomorrowClick to enter the galleryA lot of New Yorkers are accustomed to closet-like living quarters which sounds awful and uncomfortable right? Doesn't have to be. This winning design from an NYC architecture competition has some clever ideas for making the most of a bite-sized apartment.At less than 400 feet the winning design of New York's adAPT NYC contest isn't the roomiest spot. But My Micro NY as the design is called still manages to squeeze in some coveted amenities including 10-foot-high ceilings and Juliet balconies. The judges were impressed enough with the proposal to give the team--made up of Monadnock Development LLC Actors Fund Housing Development Corporation and the firm nARCHITECTS--the opportunity to create a building composed of 55 micro-units. The micro-units will be between 250 and 370 square feet and 40 percent of them will be designated for affordable housing. It'll even be Manhattan's first multi-unit building made with modular construction. The secret to developing units that are both tiny and (relatively) comfortable? Shared multi-purpose spaces. To compensate for a dearth of space in the units themselves the architects plan to create communal areas including a roof garden; lounges; and a ground-floor event space for rehearsals lectures and so on. In all 18 percent of the building's square footage will be used for shared amenities. It took a little bit of housing-zone fudging to make it all work. Housing codes don't allow for full micro-unit buildings but since this is a government-sanctioned project Mayor Bloomberg is waiving size and density requirements. My Micro NY then will act as a trial run to see if micro-unit housing is viable in the city. Check out the gallery for a look. [New York Times] Well its obvious to me that the layout is exactly like the slave quarters here in New Orleans with the addition of indoor plumbing and toilet: one small room for families to live in with a stove for cooking in one corner and a pot for a bathroom.So the slow decline of home ownership is now turned into living in slave-quarter like housing.  And why do i keep remembering movies liek 1984 or Metropolis...with the 1% living lavishly above the clouds and teh rest of us wasting away...How absolutely depressing.Well then esumiwa where in the article was it said that this design is optimal for all? Don't like it? Don't buy it. This design would suit me well. I am a tradesman. My time is at a premium and I simply don't care to mow grass.
    Other designers have been building free-standing units of similar design for years. I can see myself retiring in a unit similar to these.
    If you absolutely 'must' be depressed by this concept you have many far more pressing needs to be addressed. Odds are good you'd never find the time to buy a unit anyway.   ;)nkfro: Before you let your self righteous fingers type out another defense for a POPSCI article and lament someone's opinion (as if you have a correct answer that cannot be contested) please take a look at existing building code regulations for new apartments in New York. If you do that you will find that an apartment cannot be zoned by regulation standards if it is <450 sq ft. The rooms will be between 250 and 375 sq ft. Essentially the average size of a hotel room or smaller. Nothing like a significant reduction 17-50% in legal regulation size of a dwelling space. Don't be derogetory and tell us how you are a tradesman of a craft unknown and simply don't care to mow grass as if that's all esumiwa is capable of when he has a valid point on the illegal reduction of living space in NY which is allowing a 17-50% decrease in size for new apartments. This being called a fudge by Bloomberg. It's a smear. Slave quarters were of this size or larger...speaks volumes for someone willing to pay for that as a casket for their old age.Remove the NYC tag and you have what is likely the future for overcrowded cities.
I could never live in them but there are plenty of minimalists that would embrace these types of modular apartments. Asians would probably love these too. Coffin sized living quarters are all the rage right now.Looks like building stackable Lego Homes.  Legomes!I'm sure the rich will find them trending and destroy the whole concept.To Fummfur and Trooper BriYou have a problem if you require a coffin that large.love those 5th element apart style ^^ sign me in---
(Type 0.72) = We are still just cleaver monkeys!fumfurr your approval for me to express my opinion was not sought was not required and is completely irrelevant. There is no obligation for me to defend my trade or myself to you so shut up and listen for a change.
You might actually learn something once in a while when you remain silent!
    You assume far too much. The design is neither legal nor illegal until the permitting phase is undertaken. This was a design exercise not a notice of intent to build. NYC is NOT the only place in the world with an unsustainable number of people occupying the same square mile.
    There will soon be 6000000000 occupying the face of this planet and birth control will take a full generation perhaps even two generations to even begin to show a sustainable reduction in population. Are we to assume that you'll take some of those folks in under your roof?    I didn't think so.    You had better face facts - once rental and privately owned apartments/condos hit $1000/square foot ALL hope of a more reasonable price was pretty much lost. You have three options - go smaller go broke or get out. Common sense seems to be a weak spot for you so get out probably isn't an option for you.
    I own my 1800 square foot house in AZ. Isure as hell don't need all of that space living by myself but you probably do. My lot is approx. 4000 square feet. A well designed 250 square foot house would be ideal. The additional unused lot space provides for a lot of options not currently available.
    So you don't agree with my point of view no big deal. Next time keep it to yourself and you won't appear to be such an idiot the next time.nkfro likes the concept esumiwe hates it. To each his own. The room shown in the first picture is a deceptive construct. I would say it is between 400 and 500 sq ft. I would hate to live in one. Faced with nkfro's options I would rather ship out but if I was him I would rather live in poverty in his place in AZ than in luxury in a sardine can in NY. nkfro's 250 sq. ft. house equals a square of less than 16 ft. Single garages here are normally 10 by 20 ft.
I would not even buy one of the units as an investment. The chance of somethings like that becoming a slum is considerable.Today I learned that nkfro lives in a 1800 sq ft house approves of censorship and doesn't understand that I know regulations in NY because I live here. 1987 new apartments 400 square feet <----just google that with NY somewhere in it. I was off by 50ft. I'm sorry. 7%-37% reduction in code size. Still it's a significant adjustment to standards and is not legal by code. They should have to change the code before construction not after. But I do have a list of questions for you nkfro(a) Why are you using name calling? (b) If your job means nothing why mention it?(c) If you own a house that big why do you care for the construction of these units and purportedly say I can see myself retiring in a unit similar to these?(d) Did you know that the world population is now 6973738433 and that there is still no overcrowding or need for me to house others?(e) Did you know this was a design contest not a design exercise to be built on a public lot not because of demand of living quarters but a need for affordability? (f) Did you realize I didn't attack your job but pointed out that you used it to objectify the original poster?It's not even that I don't agree with you you are wrong. This is an erosion of living standards in my state that shouldn't be tolerated just because it is cheap. Most have given up hope of buying a house in this state and losing minimal requirements for apartment square footage is insult to injury for the youth in our state that can barely keep apartments while working in excess of 50 hours a week. I took out my stinger because you attacked a poster for his opinion as if yours was more right despite owning a 1800 square foot house in AZ. Why even have an opinion on what goes on here with policy in NY if you're already that well off? Do you have an investment with this company? I don't understand how you can even tell another it's really great to do this when you require that much more property for yourself. I am listening but you can't call me names and you can't just say I'm wrong without a counterpoint. My opinion on this matter is that as a first world country we should be increasing our living standards not taking them away for affordability. CS4: The whole coffin thing was a joke...because he said he'd like to retire in one...an analogy to it being cramped if you will.Of my travels to Brazil there is a gigantic shortage of homes. Of course part of the problem is 30% or so of the population has no education or jobs. Still these people are intelligent and do what they can to survive. These people build their homes anywhere and what I saw many homes on hillsides; when it rains the homes tumble down with death and destruction. I like to see a strong cheap manufactured homes brought to the poor people of the world.Of course education and jobs always helps too.The micro-units will be between 250 and 370 square feet and 40 percent of them will be designated for affordable housing.  Again families put into slave quarters.  Why?  Why jam more and more people into a smaller or into apartment coffins as if that is a *good* and *socially acceptable* thing/change. My point is: Why is Micro Housing an acceptable form?  Can you imagine a family of four living in a microhouse?  I can they are called slave quarters I am not being derogatory/racist these are actual buildings here that are being rented out as a single a person unit and they are in fact bigger than the micro housing quoted here.  And these slave quarter houses were determined at the end of Slavery Jim Crowe laws and Indetured Servitude to be unacceptable as housing for more than 2 people.I infact live in a slave quarter building and enjoy 800 sqr feet of what amounts 2 a two flat slave quarter. I have a balcony (microhousing does not even have that) I have a garden area I share with the main house and my slave quarter  building has WINDOWS multiple WINDOWs.  I do not have a murphy bed or a futon as the microhouse.  I am saying all this to support my point: why is this microhousing being considered socially economically and politically acceptable?  And by whom?Now we are swinging back to the point where 250 sqr ft is an acceptable housing format and acceptable for the  affordable housing group?Instead of Microhouseing why are we not investing in modern and beter rapid transit into new york so there would not be a need to cram more people into a smaller space.Why the hell are we cramming more people into smaller spaces?Fumfurr address your own issues first - your 'barb' not withstanding.1.  Your argument about 'living standards' being diminished by developers is flawed by reality. The developers don't set living standards. The buyers/renters do. You are under no obligation to buy/rent one of these units - once they are actually built. So don't.
    NYC real estate pricing started its uncontrolled spiral upwards 75+ years ago. Unless you know a legal way to drive prices back down (you're the one worried about developers and their illegal practices. You want to be consistent.) deal with reality.      2. I did not say that this concept would be appropriate for everyone. You are saying they are not suitable for anyone. Speak for yourself. My needs are simple as are those of many people. Yours are not. You are assuming that NYC is the only city facing the realities of rising real estate costs. It isn't. NYC may have the longest history of dealing with rising real estate costs but they've also done the least to change that scenario.
    Face reality - NYC is running out of real estate to economically build housing. Unless you have perfected a method to create new land at a reasonable price it's time to explore other options.2.  Ones utiity costs are directly proportionate to the size of their dwelling. Ones living standards are in part determined by the cash in their wallets at the end of the month. Current building practices are not as energy efficient as this 'concept'.
   High energy efficiency dwellings carry a premium - add up to 100% to construction costs for a single family dwelling green to the gills. Do the people who would be considering these dwelling be in a financial position to BUILD comparable efficiency into their dwellings?3. Remember that I said that size DOES matter? Which is why I mentioned living in an 1800 square foot house in the desert? Even with 6 inch stucco walls 16 of insulation in the attic and a 12 SEER heat pump the 115 -120 degrees we see in the summer with the thermostat set at 82 monthly power bills easily exceed $220. (12 SEER was the most energy efficient available when this house was built.) You do the math.      I am a 56 year old electrician forced into retirement with hips and knees destroyed by 25+ years of ladderwork. Yes I could have changed occupations but not trades. One knee was replaced but was lost to a staph infection. I worked 16 years with a fused knee just as many of the workers of my generation would.    Amazon Rover you also assume far to much. Poverty isn't defined by the size of ones home. A much smaller house would work well for ME. More money for other investments. I'd suggest DDD a three-D printing technologies company. 3-D printing is the future dontchaknow?   I mentioned lot size because of how the house occupies most of the lot. Hell with a radically smaller house I could even install a resistance swimming pool in the backyard. Swimming is one of the best therapies for arthritic bodies.
   I live alone and do not require a larger dwelling but will not sell this home at a loss. With 30+ years of life ahead of me practical living is more important to me. While I may be the only occupant ever in this house it is very likely I won't. The property value may not 'explode' but it will likely stay on par with the market. It's my HOME not my investment portfolio. Real estate value doesn't make me 'richer' than others.     By the way we don't have grass lawns - we have gravel 'lawns' unless someone has money to throw away on a non-income producing crop.I love the idea of a tiny domicile for the sense of simplicity and the opportunity is affords to choose the size of one's footprint. But choice is the operative word.To propose this as a solution to affordable housing I feel is despicable. To claim that slicing living space even smaller is some how innovative is bizarre. This is a practice that has existed through illegal subletting in New York for long long before this concept. Also to claim that it's just an exercise is to ignore the fact that it's a government sanctioned project that Bloomberg is considering waiving density requirements to bring to life. There are larger and more complex social and market forces at work making residing in an urban center difficult for poor people and these issues need to be addressed head-on. ignoring them is not the same as admitting reality. Calling giving in to an unfettered market system facing reality is quite cynical indeed. Cramming people into tinier and tinier spaces is just a band-aid. The expansion of public transportation enacting of a living wage better urban planning better public schools etc... are the real issues that affect standard of living and people's ability to live where they need to live and do the work that needs to be done.@nkfro
sorry about your Arthritis I know what you are going through. I do suffer from it as well not yet to the same extent as you do but I know it is no fun.
You have a comfortable place you are interested in 3 D printing think of something to print and set it up in the garage or a spare room. That is somethings that you will not be able to do in an 250 or even 500 sq ft place. But if you are set on one of these small places be careful it is just too easy for them to turn into a slum. Two or three bad neighbours and the whole development is doomed.Actual real estate value does make you richer seeing it is considered an asset of yours NKFRO. There is also no shortage of space in NY. Just north of the city toward Poughkeepsie (about an hour by train) there is plenty of develop-able land. We're not running out anytime soon. In fact Toll Brothers construction has found many facets of the Hudson Valley to sprawl it's designer houses on.And no my argument isn't flawed by reality but proved by it. African Rover brought up my biggest fear of the future reality of low income dwellings such as these (Thanks Man). And the people make up the  standards and codes because those are what are known as LAWS...when disobeyed it's called doing something illegally. Now why would we have placed a restriction on minimum size apartments in 1987? Could it of been the possible economic down turn during the 80's and this was put in place to protect low income people from predatory practices? It isn't rocket science to see this is a bad idea. In your defense you must be a good electrician to only pay about $220 in power utilities in a house that big. My power bill is only about $70 shy of that in a living space about 1/3 that size hardly using any electricity/heat/cooling. Central Hudson drives our costs up yearly if not monthly. Poverty may not be dictated by the size of ones home but poverty definitely restricts the size of ones home.And trust me I know of Real Estate increases...I'm pretty sure this whole country does. In <10 years the house that my parent's had bought and sold in NY had gone from about 40-50k to almost 500k. Half a million dollars for no land practically either just a house with maybe five feet of land around three edges of its property. Sorry about the arthritis but seriously...this isn't a good idea that's my opinion based on the reality of living in NY. I also don't think putting a resistance pool on your 4000 square foot piece of property should be a problem when your home occupies less than half of that. Also just because I won't buy one of these apartments doesn't mean I can't have a say on code changes in the state that I live. I'm pretty sure that's a right of mine to have an opinion on the matter...seeing I live here.African Rover sympathy is not warranted as I live as I choose. Please cease your efforts to impose your limitations upon me. Go back and actually read I what wrote and skip your canned responses.
   The reduced footprint of the smaller dwelling on MY lot (I OWN the land) dwelling provides the space to build my shop separate from the house. If one wants to keep their house clean a shop NOT in an attached garage is the first step. Noise in the house is reduced as well.
    You seem preoccupied with your 'slum factor'. Must be a NYC thing. I live in a subdivision of houses of similar and smaller size as compared to my current home and have discussed the idea at length with my neighbors. They see the care I give my property and of more importance they know ME. For that matter I could buy another lot in a less populated subdivision and build there. I might have a little trouble getting around but my mind is at least as sharp as yours.Fumfurr low power bills are the result of necessity. As said before I live alone but I live comfortably but not cheap. Living alone cuts down on hot water and laundry expenses. HVAC is zoned appropriately for my use. The entire back wall of the house is double-paned glass - plenty of natural light and plenty of early morning heat.  We are all electric here. Cooling is still less expensive than heating.
   Now here's the REAL hoot - electricity runs 12 cent per KwH with a break for use after 8pm and before 5am. . The hot water heater is on a timer - on at 4am.
   My car is a 1999 Toyota Camry V-6 with 38171 miles on the clock. You don't have to be 'smart' when buying cars - just patient. I do not like debt. Aside from a couple of medical bills that are being paid down religiously I have no debt. At all. Even with disability insurance I could not have been properly prepared for my current life if I carried any debt.
   I am no smarter than anyone else but live within my means just as would many of the occupants of the apartments to which you so vehemently object. I can easily live in a much smaller dwelling because I understand how I use or waste space. So I won't have a pool table in the house. I will have a separate shop building for work and play. The additional utility costs would be a blip - not a bump and the house will remain easier to clean.   Developers make money by not building that which he/she can't sell. Not all developers will build reduced footprint housing. That's not important. What IS important is that some WILL WANT TO because they see the opportunity to fill the need. Yes some will try to take advantage of the system  - that's why planning/zoning authorities exist.I think its great that people can live in a small housing unit.  Check out Graham Hill the Founder of TreeHugger's new NYC apartment: http://www.betterlivingthroughdesign.com/renovate/tiny-transforming-apartment/I am building a house near Cabo where I have carte blanche to build anything.  My thought is to build a house using container homes and to integrate some of the design features of Graham's home as well as some of the ideas from NYC's urban micro homes.  I like the efficiency of the designs and like living in as small a space as possible.CheersAlastairThis looks like the sort of place one would hang around in cheerfully eating Soylent Green.Terry Gilliam's movie Brazil partially anticipated this with the housing units that appear in several scenes.I wonder if there could be a yard or two? Once a month or so each unit could be moved there for a day so that occupants could have a party or pretend they were living in the suburbs.Is anyone else reminded of the houses people have built out of cargo containers?  There's a considerable similarity though the aesthetics of this design are far better.I think that living in one of these units is still far preferable than living on the street - unless one likes that lifestyle.  I have met people who cannot stand to be indoors and are quite adept and happy at camping out.  not many but a few.I live in a 4200 sq ft house that is obviously FAR larger than I need but I enjoy every square foot of it and I worked to pay for every square foot of it.  This one I designed myself to fit my own needs and yes it's extremely energy efficient with triple pane windows solar panels a tremendous amount of insulation ceiling fans and 4 zone HVAC.  I pay a lot less in utility bills than people with far smaller homes.Not everyone can afford to do this and not everyone wants to do this kind of thing.  I did it because I was willing to put in the time and to make the money I needed.  (Time is a serious investment as it absolutely cannot be replaced and each of us has a limited amount)If I could not have done all this then I would still far prefer a smaller more energy efficient home to a larger less efficient one.  I really do not NEED all the space I have; it just makes me happier to have it.Many people will probably like the units described in this article and they honestly do seem rather cozy and intimate.  Once you get past the notion of size as a status symbol (it isn't) living in one seems attractive for one person. I would seriously question it's utility for two or more people.What worries me are greedy builders who will turn around and decide to charge $ 500.00 per sq ft for these things...More affordable clean housing I LIKE IT!