I love me some Hyatt Places, but I've found their rooms are bigger than a lot of studio apartments in DC.

by charlie on Jun 20, 2012 10:35 am • link • report

If you want to see a good example of how well < 400 sqft can be utilized, IKEA has a setup in their store of a similar space.

I'm sure it's much easier to do if you have a whole warehouse of furniture and gizmos to play with, but it was impressive how well they utilized the space.

On a side note, some people are too attached to their gigantic homes. /endflamebait

by kidincredible on Jun 20, 2012 10:46 am • link • report

In NoMa we're actually getting one of each...

* JBG is developing Hyatt Place at 33 New York Ave NE. This will replace the former Mirrors nightclub + a vacant lot, and is the first phase of their "Capitol Square" development.
* Be the Change is developing a 120 unit, 130' high building at 1005 North Capitol Street NE. The average unit size is around 350 sf (all 1-bedrooms), will be 100% affordable. The building will also have a retail space on the ground floor.

Both have been endorsed by ANC 6C (although 1005 needs one more vote), and actually have no on-site parking to help cut down on construction costs.

by Tony Goodman, ANC 6C04 on Jun 20, 2012 10:46 am • link • report

In the Del Ray section of Alexandria there is a 1960's era hi-rise apartment building, The Calvert, that is being redeveloped with new liner buildings along the street frontage. I recall early when the concept was first presented at a community meeting that there were some small units, 300/400 sq/ft, but I don't know if this made it into the final plan. I thought the existing tower was basically going to get a re-skin, but they have completely gutted it down to just columns and floorplates. Its going to be quite a make-over when it is done.

by Bill Cook on Jun 20, 2012 10:57 am • link • report

I believe that's a standard design for Hyatt Place--there's one in Chantilly that has it, at least--and I love it. Apartments like that would be great as long as they aren't overloaded with gratuitous luxuries. 344-400 square feet is certainly enough space for someone to live in, but if you start loading them up with granite counters, fancy tile floors, high-tech fitness centers, and so on, I'd worry about them becoming deeply overpriced for the available space.

by worthing on Jun 20, 2012 11:15 am • link • report

Hyatt and Hilton lead the way in interesting and intelligent hotel room design. They are big corporate chains, and can afford to have top-notch designers on staff. The designers take ordinary materials and render them through inexpensive methods and uncomplicated construction into these eye-pleasing--and cost-effective--shapes.

Remember, they have to do this 180 times for each hotel, so quickness, cost, and modern looks are the essentials for the project. Even if they replicate each room concept just 10 times per hotel, it's still 18 different room concepts that have to be manufactured and installed.

I'm not sure this kind of concept could be replicated for small apartments. Everybody has different tastes. Perhaps a catalog of designs could be issued to prospective buyers and the units built when needed. It all comes down to cost, I suppose.

by Poshboy on Jun 20, 2012 11:28 am • link • report

@Bill Cook

I drove past the Calvert a few weeks ago and was surprised to see it being gutted. The renovation looks very interesting - I can't tell if they're going to do "micro-lofts," though. If it works, the Calvert could be a good precedent for how to update other 1960's "tower in the park" style buildings.

@Poshboy

That's fair, though a lot of apartment buildings have a variety of layouts, too - the Mosaic at Metro has like 38 floorplans listed on their website. Of course, they don't have to furnish them all.

by dan reed! on Jun 20, 2012 11:35 am • link • report

The sample 250, 350 and 500 square-foot apartments at Ikea do indeed show how nice that density can be and Europeans certainly live very well in much smaller units than Americans do.

A 10-story building with all 1000sq' units is no denser than a 5-story with all 500sq' units.

In the 1950's an American family of 4 lived in an average residence of 1000sq'. Today people sit in the dens of their 3000sq' downtown townhouses and write about how we need more density.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 20, 2012 11:36 am • link • report

Removing 30 year mortages and requiring larger down payments would help faciliate this.

We've got a tricky balance; how to get people into owner-occupied housing and away from treating houses as savings or investments.

The concern with these units is the secondary markets and, if rentals, ability to convert into condos.

by charlie on Jun 20, 2012 11:54 am • link • report

In cities like Paris and London, a lot of people live in small places like this. They're old maid's rooms.

by Jasper on Jun 20, 2012 12:10 pm • link • report

British new-built homes average 818 sq'.

US new housing units average 2300 sq'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8201900.stm

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 20, 2012 12:41 pm • link • report

I'm not trying to be snide, here, but what is new about this? Isn't this just a studio apartment? Is the new part that an entire building is nothing but these? Otherwise, studios exist all over the place from my experience? We have them in the building I live in. I lived in one many years ago in another city. I once heard the style of having a partial wall separating the "bedroom" as a "junior one bedroom." Not legally, though, I don't think.

by rdhd on Jun 20, 2012 12:49 pm • link • report

"344-400 square feet is certainly enough space for someone to live in, but if you start loading them up with granite counters, fancy tile floors, high-tech fitness centers, and so on, I'd worry about them becoming deeply overpriced for the available space. "

I would think the fitness centers and other common spaces make the small units more palatable.

WRT Ikea - yeah, its easier when you have all new furnishings selected to match the space. I imagine lots of young people are not in that position (and forget about empty nesters)

"In the 1950's an American family of 4 lived in an average residence of 1000sq'. Today people sit in the dens of their 3000sq' downtown townhouses and write about how we need more density."

Of we need more density to make even 1000 Sq foot units more affordable. And yes, we have lots of things that werent commmon 60 years ago. Amazingly enough, not everyone wants to reverse decades of changes to living standards. That young people who are looking at 600 sq feet instead of their suburban peers desires for 1500 or more sq feet are "spoiled" because they don't want 300 Sq ft seems unfair.
Also, if those young people really DID accept 300 Sq living, wouldn't they (assuming same auto use per person) create just as much of the kind of crowding of streets and parking as the larger buildings do - I mean it would still be the same number of units, and of people.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 20, 2012 12:57 pm • link • report

I live in a 400sq' apartment, and it's a great space. My two complaints are more to do with layout than with square footage. First, it's hard to gain "psychic space" if there are two people there, like for example your significant other is hanging out for the weekend. Second, it's a little weird to invite people in (even friends) and your bed is *right there*. I think partition would go a long way to alleviate these two problems.

by David on Jun 20, 2012 1:03 pm • link • report

AWalkerInTheCity: I recall reading that vibrant neighborhoods like Eastern Market and Adams Morgan require more people shopping/dining/etc there than those neighborhoods currently support. Ie, they require people coming in from outside those neighborhoods to make the businesses there viable. (Which is why I roll my eyes when my friends who live in those 'hoods complain about the influx of 'tourists' on the weekends.) Greater density of people would mean more cars, but it also means there is more stuff to walk to in that neighborhood itself, and thus less reason to get into your car.

by David on Jun 20, 2012 1:09 pm • link • report

If a person can afford only afford 300sq' in Georgetown or Dupont/Logan and they make that choice over say 1000sq' further out because of wanting to be in that neighborhood fine. And there should be 300sq' units there for those wanting them.

Whether society should subsidize larger units (often with parking) for people who otherwise can't afford larger units in those particular neighborhoods is the issue.

I admire increased density of people, but hate increased density of cars and pandering to the entitled by destroying the urban environment and historic areas with vertical gated communities of wasteful square footage.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 20, 2012 1:16 pm • link • report

Amazingly enough, not everyone wants to reverse decades of changes to living standards.

You make some good points, but I have to take issue with your implication that everyone living in 4000 sq ft houses is a positive "change in living standards." (When viewed in the context of where and how most Americans live now).

Of course, if you amend this to "Amazingly enough, not everyone wants to reverse decades of changes to the American lifestyle" it's truer, but more banal.

by oboe on Jun 20, 2012 1:18 pm • link • report

I definitely support the idea of smaller units, especially in terms of affordability. The key, as noted in the article, is flexibility through the use of movable partitions and convertible furniture. I recently studied a few options here: http://www.dbmc.us/ideas/tiny-apartment-designs , looking at different bedroom configurations, appliances and furniture options.

by David on Jun 20, 2012 1:29 pm • link • report

I recall reading that vibrant neighborhoods like Eastern Market and Adams Morgan require more people shopping/dining/etc there than those neighborhoods currently support.

I can't speak for Eastern Market, but I don't believe this to be the case for Adams Morgan. The neighborhood's density is about 35,000 people/square mile (making it one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the US outside New York). I think that's high enough to support the number of businesses in the area. The problem may be that the population density cannot support the types of businesses in the area. In other words, perhaps retail diversity needs to be greater and needs to be updated to serve a changing population.

by Scoot on Jun 20, 2012 1:42 pm • link • report

My wife and I moved from DC to London and downsized from 700 square feet to 350 square feet. That amount of space still gives us a full living room, bedroom with full size bed, full kitchen (but with under the counter fridge), and a small but very functional bathroom. Our only struggle has been storage and I see the same problem with the Hyatt layout were it to be used for a flat.

by chris on Jun 20, 2012 1:50 pm • link • report

"If a person can afford only afford 300sq' in Georgetown or Dupont/Logan and they make that choice over say 1000sq' further out because of wanting to be in that neighborhood fine. And there should be 300sq' units there for those wanting them.
Whether society should subsidize larger units (often with parking) for people who otherwise can't afford larger units in those particular neighborhoods is the issue."

Not many people here are calling for subsidies. We want an end to policies that make it difficult to provide what the market is demanding, and SOME of us want to override the income segregation that purely market solutions would generate.

"I admire increased density of people, but hate increased density of cars"

Which is based on the number of people NOT on the size of their apartments.

" and pandering to the entitled"

We all have different ideas of who is "entitled" IMO thats a word thats mostly useful in deriding ones opponent, and not useful in actually understanding issues.

" by destroying the urban environment and historic areas with vertical gated communities of wasteful square footage."

Apartment buildings are now "Vertical gated communities"??? Nice rhetorical touch. Also the notion that apartment buildings destroy the urban environment is debatable. As for a 1000 sg ft apt (or for young single people more likely a 600 sq ft apt) being wasteful, than I guess no 1500 sq ft row house should have less than three in habitants.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 20, 2012 2:14 pm • link • report

@David (linked)

Your investigation is really interesting, particularly the one-bedroom unit. That two-bedroom seems kind of scary, though.

I think the trade-off for a smaller unit has to be a higher quality of "public" space. That can mean more amenities in the building, like a fitness room, lounges, or maybe just a nice courtyard or roof deck. But it also means more amenities in the larger community, like a grocery store within walking distance so you can make lots of short trips instead of a few large trips to buy bulk products that you can't store; nearby parks and plazas where you can go for a little breathing room, and so on.

by dan reed! on Jun 20, 2012 2:15 pm • link • report

"You make some good points, but I have to take issue with your implication that everyone living in 4000 sq ft houses is a positive "change in living standards." (When viewed in the context of where and how most Americans live now).

Of course, if you amend this to "Amazingly enough, not everyone wants to reverse decades of changes to the American lifestyle" it's truer, but more banal."

Oboe, cmon now. We are not talking about 4000 sq ft mcmansions (though they do pull the average up)

Tom is talking about 1000 sq ft for a family of four. I had neighbors like that growing up. two parents, and two kids in a two BR apt. It wasnt horrible, but wanting a TAD more (like what my family had, two parents and two kids in a THREE bedroom apt) doesnt seem like suburban mcmansion greed. And not, that ON AVERAGE. 1000 sg ft for the AVERAGE family four implies less space for those below average (unless we eliminate all SocioEconomic inequality, which somehow I doubt Tom is suggesting) And the implications for single people are more dramatic (note, not many single people lived alone in that era)

I dont think 600 Sq feet for a single, 900 sq feet for a couple, 1000 sq ft for a pair of roommates, 1200 sq feet for a family of three, or 1400 sg ft for a family of four is terribly consumerist or terribly planet destroying. Not everyone can sleep comfortably with their partner in a full size bed (some folks have sleep issues) not everyone can work together with a partner in a kitchen that small, and some people just feel a greater need for space (WITHOUT needed a 6 bedroom house on a third of an acre lot).

This is just more of the same "go live (smaller - farther - worser)" stuff thats regularly trotted out against the agenda of encouraging production of housing in urban walkable areas.

The result of following it will NOT be creating a generation of american Parisians in 300 sq ft units - it will be more movement away from the core - both to less accessible areas with resultant negative impacts on transportion energy usage, and to not yet transitioned inner city areas, with resultant racial and socioeconomic frictions. But thats worth it to prevent precious historic districts from being RUINED by "vertical gated communities"

Feh.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 20, 2012 2:26 pm • link • report

"I think the trade-off for a smaller unit has to be a higher quality of "public" space."

I agree, BUT

" That can mean more amenities in the building, like a fitness room, lounges, or maybe just a nice courtyard or roof deck."

Then the building is attacked for being for froo-froo yuppies.

" But it also means more amenities in the larger community, like a grocery store within walking distance so you can make lots of short trips instead of a few large trips to buy bulk products that you can't store"

Then its "OMG! The corner stores will ruin the neighborhood" which we've certainly heard a fair amount of.

Dan, I appreciate what you are trying to do, and hope the market provides these units for those for whom they work. I see however that this has already been hijacked for purposes of advancing certain policies.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 20, 2012 2:29 pm • link • report

@david - yes I tend to believe densification will be good for areas like that. I am trying to take issue with certain of the opposition to densification, which has focused on the increased number of vehicles associated with new apts and condos. Now some are saying smaller building with the same number of units would be fine - though that would not reduce the incremental number of vehicles (assuming, as they imply, the same number of people - of course if you assume that 350 sq ft studios for singles replace 700 sq ft units that had two roommates, Im not sure what the point is)

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 20, 2012 2:40 pm • link • report

The zoning in most of the historic old city allows 3 or 4 units per rowhouse now. Indeed for most of the past century many of those rowhouses were 3 or 4 units.

When increased density comes to a neighborhood in the old city it's better that wasteful square footage units be converted to 500-700 sq' residences. That would at least double density in most areas. And the residents would have more of a neighborhood feel by living in a distinct rowhouse with front yard and their own entrance to the street.

Gated communities, whether in the suburbs or in high rise urban buildings don't have nearly the same sense of community. I've dealt with both types in business, in community affairs and politically and it's clear that fewer residents of high rises disassocited with the community even register to vote, much less get involved with the neighborhood. I think Jacobs and Florida both write a lot about this.

Unfortunately the "DC Way" is to keep rowhouses for priviledged people to occupy large square footages and to provide greater density by erecting destructive and almost as wasteful high rises in adjacent commercial zones.In London, in Paris, and any other number of dense cities it's the rowhouses that are made into smaller units to provide density.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 20, 2012 2:41 pm • link • report

Tom,

My understanding actually is that in most of Capitol Hill the zoning only allows 2 units per rowhouse, as that's R-4. A bunch of north Dupont was downzoned recently to R-4 as well, and the same thing applies.

I'm in an R-5-B which does allow unlimited units per rowhouse, which is why the building next door has 4 units, one per floor, but I believe a very large part of the row house neighborhoods in the L'Enfant City are R-4 where that is illegal.

by David Alpert on Jun 20, 2012 2:50 pm • link • report

People really complain that corner stores ruin the neighborhood? I love corner stores -- it's one thing I think could really help areas like SW feel much more liveable. Philadelphia and NYC have lots of bodegas and I don't their neighborhoods are worse off for it.

Scoot: You could be right about AdMo. But my point was that neighborhoods need to be either more dense than we're sometimes comfortable with, or more appealing to outsiders to support true walkability. And, IMO, that means smaller apartments so that there are more of them and cheaper -- which means more people with more extra money to buy coffee, beer, a meal, etc in the local neighborhood.

by David on Jun 20, 2012 2:50 pm • link • report

"When increased density comes to a neighborhood in the old city it's better that wasteful square footage units be converted to 500-700 sq' residences. That would at least double density in most areas. And the residents would have more of a neighborhood feel by living in a distinct rowhouse with front yard and their own entrance to the street."

from what I can gather from this thread, anything over 400 sq feet is wasteful. You speak of 700 sq ft - thats pretty good for anything under a 1br w Den in a new apt building = and AFAICT 1 BR w den usually means two residents (or someone fairly affluent)

'Gated communities, whether in the suburbs or in high rise urban buildings don't have nearly the same sense of community."

I grew up in an apt building (a coop) in NYC and everyone knew everyone else, and were intimately tied up with each through the coops business affairs.

I think a lot of the difference is between owners and renters, and people of different ages and family situations. And, in a given neighborhood, selection bias between the types of folks who would rather rent a unit in a townhouse and who would rather rent in a building.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 20, 2012 2:51 pm • link • report

"People really complain that corner stores ruin the neighborhood?"

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/search/?cx=016106633186969982627%3Ag-4raj3cmea&cof=FORID%3A11&q=corner+stores

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 20, 2012 2:53 pm • link • report

@dan reed!: That two-bedroom is more than just scary--it's illegal. You can't call a space a bedroom if it lacks a window.

by aces on Jun 20, 2012 2:58 pm • link • report

@David Alpert- I think you'll find that most of R4 does allow at least 3 units- it's largely based on the required square footage. My block is R4 and we have several rowhouses that have 3 units each.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 20, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report

Walker- This isn't NYC. I know coops and even apartments there have much more community. NYC is unique.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 20, 2012 3:02 pm • link • report

@tom

The question is what makes NYC different? I think a lot of it is differences in tenure - coops, condos which people live in for long time periods, and even rentals (rent controlled) that people live in for long time periods - plus with so few townhouses (relatively speaking) there isnt the selection bias.

Selection bias is important, because it suggests that while townhouse dwellers may have more of some charecteristic than apt building dwellers, it would say that it does not follow from that that you can make more peole with the charecteristics of TH dwellers by building fewer apt buildings. It suggests those are charecteristics of people, and not of a building, as the slur "vertical gated community" implies.

In any case we have gotten away from the question of waste. My sense is that, even absent zoning, lots of DC townhouses would be inhabited by single families. It seems just unfair to me to call a single person living in a 650 sq ft unit wasteful when a single person living in a 1300 sq ft TH is not, and a couple living in a 15 sq ft TH is not. And absurd to compare that to a family of 3 living in a 3500 sq ft house on a lot of one quarter acre or more. It suggests to me that the concern is less with waste than in finding rhetoric to attack a particular group of people or a particular form of development.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 20, 2012 3:10 pm • link • report

Tom: Yes, R-4 allows one unit per 900 square feet of LOT AREA. My lot is something like 1,900 square feet, so if it were an R-4 it could only have 2 units.

Some houses are grandfathered in with more. I don't know about the specific examples for your block but maybe those lots are bigger or they are grandfathered.

by David Alpert on Jun 20, 2012 3:11 pm • link • report

@charlie:

Removing 30 year mortages and requiring larger down payments would help faciliate this.

I don't follow. Didn't you say in a different thread that credit standards should be relaxed? You seemed to argue that tight credit is a huge drag on the economy. So why would it make sense to raise down payment requirements?

But I believe the argument here is that in many ways, this represents an untapped market. If there was an actual supply of smaller units, people might be more likely to consider buying or renting them. As it is, they represent more of a novelty than anything. Around here, at least.

by Gray on Jun 20, 2012 3:21 pm • link • report

@David Alpert- I think the difference on Capitol Hill and on some of the "between" streets in Dupont/Logan is lot size. I think that's antiquated and would support a change to allow a more units per building and I think BZA should certainly grant variances for those now. I do know that just behind me on Swann there are two new condo rowhouses of 3 stories plus basement and each has 4 units. They were built after we became R4, but there may have been some grandfathering. At any rate there are plenty of R5 rowhouses adaptable to multi-unit which haven't been.

@Walker- I can tell you from experience that voting in local elections is a readily obtainable fact. In my former ANC and in other elections I helped with it became apparent that residents of rowhouses, including condo units in rowhouses, voted close to 100% in all elections, including just local ones. OTOH a couple of middle-to-upper income apartment and condo buildings with over 50 units had almost no voting by registered residents in purely local elections. And forget them coming to neighborhood meetings, etc. unless their particular ox were being gored.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 20, 2012 3:30 pm • link • report

"@Walker- I can tell you from experience that voting in local elections is a readily obtainable fact. In my former ANC and in other elections I helped with it became apparent that residents of rowhouses, including condo units in rowhouses, voted close to 100% in all elections, including just local ones. OTOH a couple of middle-to-upper income apartment and condo buildings with over 50 units had almost no voting by registered residents in purely local elections. And forget them coming to neighborhood meetings, etc. unless their particular ox were being gored"

A. I would imagine anyone in a condo building has community affairs to attend to WITHIN their condo building, which IIUC can be non-trivial. Thats also community involvement.
B, There is still a likely selection bias

None of which has anything to do with the question of "wastefulness"

BTW, as long as we are addressing personal experience, I lived in an apt in a building in a rowhouse nabe in Baltimore, and I attended two neighborhood association meetings and I was a renter (I was also involved in a community religious org).

I also know that the (nongated) TH area I live in in Fairfax has far lower than 100% turnout in national elections, let alone local. So I suspect your 100% turn has less to do with the intrinsic nature of townhouses, and has more to do with selection.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 20, 2012 3:51 pm • link • report

@Walker- At least in DC I think that owner/residents of rowhouses and owner/residents of condos in rowhouses have more of what they consider a financial interest and community involvement in a neighborhood's well-being. ut even past that I think that tenants who have a direct frontage on the street and maybe a front yard also seem to have more of a community involvement. OTOH there are well-to-do people who may even purchase a unit to live in in a larger building removed from the streetscape who desire something where they are not involved and don't need to be. And often they in fact want to be sealed from the community as much as possible.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 20, 2012 4:04 pm • link • report

". ut even past that I think that tenants who have a direct frontage on the street and maybe a front yard also seem to have more of a community involvement"

You may not have it on 14 street, but in some new buildings (like the Forge at the Yards in near SE) the ground floor units in large apt buildings DO have direct entrances on the street, and small front yards. The whole distinction seems somewhat arbitrary.

In any case, I certainly agree with you that it would be wise to ease division of TH's into apartments ( though those thinking the absence of families with children in some parts of the district might disagree) - that might lessen the demand for apartments of the same size in large buildings. I don't see what that has to do with the issue of 300 sq ft mini units - I hope those are built for those who want them, but I don't think the possibility of them should be used to suggest that housing affordability is not an issue.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 20, 2012 4:14 pm • link • report

@Walker- When I refer to vertical gated communities in DC (or Miami or LA) I mean buildings where residents want to take the elevator down to their car in the garage or come in through a guarded front desk and not have to deal with the streetscape any more than they absolutely have to. That's their privilege of course, but it doesn't create much community.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 20, 2012 4:30 pm • link • report

"I mean buildings where residents want to take the elevator down to their car in the garage or come in through a guarded front desk and not have to deal with the streetscape any more than they absolutely have to"

My wife and I have been looking at a few new buildings, and they almost all prominently feature their walkability, convenience to bike paths, etc. At least one new building will have an in building bike repair shop. Many suggest that the ability to be car free or car lite is an advantage (one which makes the considerable rent more affordable). Perhaps I have not been looking at the right buildings.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 20, 2012 4:46 pm • link • report

I'm not sure why we're hating on vertical gated communities... Tom isn't wrong, I can understand where this phrase is coming from; like a gated community in a suburb, these buildings have common amenities (pool, gym, grills, whatever else) that are shared among those who live there and pay for them. But that's what apartment buildings and condos in a city are destined to be. What would the alternative be, "ungated" buildings that are unlocked and open to all, where anyone could get in and roam the hallways and use the amenities whenever they wanted?

And just because we have garages to park in and manned front desks doesn't mean that we don't want to engage with the street and the area around us. I've lived in a few of these in the area, renting and owning, and nothing could be further from the truth. Most people don't live in walkable urban areas to avoid the walkable and urban parts.

by JES on Jun 20, 2012 4:58 pm • link • report

I'll be staying at a suites hotel built in a converted old warehouse in Montreal in 2 weeks. I hope it's as nice as that Hyatt Place.

by ceefer66 on Jun 20, 2012 6:09 pm • link • report

@aces, a bedroom does not require an egress window if the building is sprinklered per the IBC. Local jurisdictions may modify.
@dan reed, I agree the two-bedroom is tight and more similar to a dorm room than a hotel, but it is interesting to stretch the limits...

by David on Jun 20, 2012 9:13 pm • link • report

I think the top photo of the "suite" shows just how attractive and functional 344 sq' can be. I'm certain there are plenty of singles who would love living at a comparably low rent in such a unit in Georgetown, Dupont/Logan,West End or Penn Quarter. I have a neighbor who has a 260 sq' unit in a basement at 15th & P. Totally modern and a separate street entrance. (We call it a "pinkie-a-terre"). It rents for $850/mo including utilities. 750 sq' 1BR's in the same rowhouse rent for $2500/mo + util.

Small works.

by Tom Coumaris on Jun 20, 2012 10:05 pm • link • report

My old building in Adams Morgan, a c.1950 yellow brick place constructed on the heels of the WWII housing shortage, had a great many apartments like the unit described here--studios and efficiencies. They were very common in the early post-war years here and elsewhere. They became less common as post-WWII prosperity kicked-in and housing construction rapidly took off. Tiny apartments weren't entirely uncommon in earlier decades---the c. 1907 "Best Address" building where I lived in the 90s had units that were <500sf---so even buildings designed for "gracious living" included such spaces. Old, pre-WWII apartment buildings often had dining rooms, pools and other amenities--and it wasn't just gigantic places like the Kennedy Warren. I suspect one reason older DC apartments have tiny kitchens (even in otherwise enormous units) is because of the effect of these places with external amenities.

by Rich on Jun 20, 2012 10:46 pm • link • report