I'm wondering why luxury apartments are built instead of affordable housing. Is it perhaps because the developers are trying to sell them to foreign investors?
As mentioned in the title, it's a maid's room ("Chambre de bonne"[0]).
The structure of these buildings is quite interesting. The stratification of classes through the floors they occupy (the first floor is called "piano nobile" for a reason), but you're probably French and you know all about Haussmann's renovation.
The meaning of the word luxury has been diluted. A lot of the "luxury flats" being built do have a nice finish, but they are they aren't exactly luxurious - "nice" would be about as high as I would classify them.
They are also built on the cheap so the nice finish doesn't even last.
If it doesn't last ... buying a place that "transforms" (needs to have heavy objects moving in order to support daily functions) would be stupid. They'd break and you'd be stuck.
If you could build 2 $100,000 apartments or 1 $1,000,000 apartments, which would you do? You know there's a massive shortage of housing and whatever you build will definitely sell. The cost of making the luxury apartment is not actually that much higher than making the other 2.
You'd be a complete idiot to build the affordable housing.
Planning laws and NIMBY are limiting the amount of buildings builders can make all around the world, so naturally the only buildings they bother making are the luxury ones with the big, fat, juicy returns, unless they are forced.
Alternatively: If you could build 1 $1,000,000 apartment or 20 $100,000 apartments, which would you do?
A lot of things about the modern market are more about volume than quality; this explains how e.g. common electronics have become relatively cheap, but tend to die within 3-5 years - they're cheaper and the profit margins are lower, but in the long run you sell more of them.
It's why smartphones will remain in the <$1000 range, so that, unlike e.g. a gold smartwatch, people will be more likely to replace them within 3 years. Or why the bio-industry is a thing - why make quality meat at a price point where people can only afford to have it once or twice a week, when you can make it dirt cheap so they eat it daily?
Because the bulk of the cost in building a building is in getting the land and getting the structure up. The nice finishes that make an apartment "luxury" - granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, hardwood floors - these are insignificant compared to the cost of the building as a whole, but have a larger impact on how much you can rent the apartment for.
So making a building that's not luxury is essentially leaving money on the table. It's a minor investment that produces a large return.
Of course, since everyone is doing it, the market for luxury apartments gets saturated while the more affordable market is underserved.
Suppose Earth passed a law that car manufacturers could only build 1,000,000 tons of cars a year. You'd have Ferarris, Corvettes and blinged-out Land Rovers selling for huge sums, and maybe a $50,000 Smart car. Nobody would make a $15,000 econobox because it would be a wasted opportunity. Well-heeled people would bid up the prices of the existing used car stock, and ultimately lots of people wouldn't be able to afford a car at all. And people would point to the high cost of luxury cars rolling off the line to argue that car construction raises the average price and should be restricted further.
I live in a tiny apartment and I can't recommend it for anyone. I desperately need some space for living and storage. At least I have my own front door so I can step outside if I need to stretch my legs.
I find it strange that small houses are being promoted to somehow solve the housing shortages in cities while they're really space inefficient. I guess renovating "maid's apartments" and attics is somewhat reasonable, given that these are in coveted areas and targetted at young people with a vivid social life in the city.
Everything points at urbanization being a ongoing trend, but affordable housing seems to be a problem worldwide.
I'd gladly move out of the city to have some space for myself but unfortunately the jobs tend to be in cities and remote work is still relatively rare.
It's the employers' fault, TBF. Especially in the rich Bay Area, the big companies could, instead of trying to cram everyone in a very expensive campus building, build smaller offices all over the county, state, even country. There's little reason why Facebook's thousands of engineers should be in the same building, while they could do their day-to-day job closer to where they live or would want to live.
The US is big enough for everyone to live comfortably, for houses to be affordable and spacious (and houses in the suburbs generally are far more spacious than e.g. European suburbs), for people to live where they work and have a reasonable commute, etc.
In Japan at least, the trick is to not "live" in the space, but in the city itself. The apartment is for sleeping and getting ready; the living takes place elsewhere.
I'm not sure other cities are optimized for this form of living, though.
I don't understand why we can't build up? I wish building regulations for cities were the opposite from what they are right now and only permit buildings over a certain height (20+ stories as a starting point?) so that we aren't wasting space. In SF I often times hear earthquakes as the reason (not fully buying that because there are many tall buildings in earthquake areas including SF). It probably all comes down to NIMBYs.
It comes down to housing being the primary investment vehicle for most Americans; downward pressures on housing prices are fought by everyone possible.
- No chair to watch a tv, bed usually serves as coach.
I have seen plenty of tiny apartments. Basic idea is to minimize space occupied by furniture, not to bring gigantic wardrobe which occupies most of it.
22 comments
[ 6.4 ms ] story [ 64.1 ms ] threadLook at the before&after pictures on the original http://kitoko-studio.com/projects/interior/maids-room-renova... - you'll see it's more an exercise in trying to sell every last bit of space in existing buildings.
I guess in this case "luxury" => "doesn't contain second-hand furniture".
Also http://www.independent.co.uk/property/studio-flat-with-bedro... (clearly they should of opted for a single bed too facepalm)
The structure of these buildings is quite interesting. The stratification of classes through the floors they occupy (the first floor is called "piano nobile" for a reason), but you're probably French and you know all about Haussmann's renovation.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambre_de_bonne
They are also built on the cheap so the nice finish doesn't even last.
You'd be a complete idiot to build the affordable housing.
Planning laws and NIMBY are limiting the amount of buildings builders can make all around the world, so naturally the only buildings they bother making are the luxury ones with the big, fat, juicy returns, unless they are forced.
A lot of things about the modern market are more about volume than quality; this explains how e.g. common electronics have become relatively cheap, but tend to die within 3-5 years - they're cheaper and the profit margins are lower, but in the long run you sell more of them.
It's why smartphones will remain in the <$1000 range, so that, unlike e.g. a gold smartwatch, people will be more likely to replace them within 3 years. Or why the bio-industry is a thing - why make quality meat at a price point where people can only afford to have it once or twice a week, when you can make it dirt cheap so they eat it daily?
Also, the cost of making a luxury apartment vs a cheap one, fittings, etc. is trivial compared to the sale value in today's market in Paris.
The choice isn't 1 v 20, it's 1 v 2. You can't make 20 cheap apartments in the space of one expensive one.
Hence why I used 2 instead of 20.
So making a building that's not luxury is essentially leaving money on the table. It's a minor investment that produces a large return.
Of course, since everyone is doing it, the market for luxury apartments gets saturated while the more affordable market is underserved.
This is the housing market in SF.
I find it strange that small houses are being promoted to somehow solve the housing shortages in cities while they're really space inefficient. I guess renovating "maid's apartments" and attics is somewhat reasonable, given that these are in coveted areas and targetted at young people with a vivid social life in the city.
Everything points at urbanization being a ongoing trend, but affordable housing seems to be a problem worldwide.
I'd gladly move out of the city to have some space for myself but unfortunately the jobs tend to be in cities and remote work is still relatively rare.
The US is big enough for everyone to live comfortably, for houses to be affordable and spacious (and houses in the suburbs generally are far more spacious than e.g. European suburbs), for people to live where they work and have a reasonable commute, etc.
I'm not sure other cities are optimized for this form of living, though.
It comes down to housing being the primary investment vehicle for most Americans; downward pressures on housing prices are fought by everyone possible.
- Storage and bathroom occupy half of the space.
- Closet for 3 shirts and a pillow?
- Stairs are weak and will break eventually.
- There is no cooker or even a microwave.
- No chair to watch a tv, bed usually serves as coach.
I have seen plenty of tiny apartments. Basic idea is to minimize space occupied by furniture, not to bring gigantic wardrobe which occupies most of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd4nKJPmWGA (80s Italian movie)