If you’re expecting to have basic necessities (like, say, a kitchen and a bathroom) with your rent, think again — at least as far as this New York apartment is concerned. In a Reel first posted on Instagram by Omer Labock on Feb. 17, the listing agent shows off an apartment that’s only a single room big enough to fit a twin bed… and that’s it.
No bathroom, no kitchen, not even a worktop with a microwave. There is a closet though. So that’s something.
“This has got to be the smallest apartment in Manhattan,” Labock said in the now-viral post. “I can’t make these things up.”
The bathroom, located down the hall, includes a standard toilet, sink and single shower cubicle, and is likely shared with several other similar units upstairs. There is no word on whether there is a full kitchen somewhere in the building.
“For $1,200 a month you can live in what is basically a bedroom,” he said, adding, “It’s also the cheapest apartment,” which people assume refers to the rest of the rent in the building. For reference, average Manhattan rental prices for 2023, according to CNBC, are around $4,400, so this technically is a theft of $1,200.
“A girl that’s smaller than my dorm room, what the hell,” one person commented on Labock’s post. Another said: “1.2K is the cheapest?! And that is it?”
“Bruh $1,200 is what I’m paying for a place on the coast of Spain,” someone else added. “How did these building owners get away with this?” another person wrote.
This room can be classified as single occupancy accommodation (SRO), which is usually intended to house low-income adults. These types of housing units exist in many large cities across the United States, with roots dating back to the late 19th century. Many times these rooms come equipped with the basics like a bed, desk, and chair (similar to a dorm room), but that doesn’t seem to be the case in this situation.
Labock did not provide any information on where this apartment is located in Manhattan, nor did he classify it as an SRO. And while that would absolutely change people’s reactions to the way the video was marketed, it still doesn’t change the fact that $1,200 is not a small price to pay.