Your city's grassroots efforts on housing affordability?

[mhays]

What are you basing that on? Are there examples of dorm-like units in your area?

There are in mine, from a mid-decade period when they were allowed. I haven't heard much about how they're doing. Like an offensive lineman, if they're not being talked about, it's probably good news.

Likewise, the flood of SEDU buildings (with bathrooms and small kitchens, generally around 280 sf, and no parking) continues. They must be holding their value.

Existing SROs went away for very different reasons. Commonly main one was fire codes being updated and enforced on unmaintained buildings. In Seattle this happened after a fire in one, resulting in the immediate demolition of 5,000 SRO units. That's not relevant here, with modern building codes, though there's always risk of unscrupulous landlords regardless of square footage.

New SROs were disallowed mostly because of the same BS reasons that come up today...mostly that people were offended by the idea, and were forgetting what it's like to be just starting out. It was also classism and probably a strong dose of racism.

PS, I lived in a "micro" with a bathroom but no kitchen for four months once...a hotel room. It was fine. As micro residents often say, nearby restaurants and parks were my living room.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by mhays

What are you basing that on? Are there examples of dorm-like units in your area?

There were until recently. This thing was just torn down:

New SROs were disallowed mostly because of the same BS reasons that come up today...mostly that people were offended by the idea, and were forgetting what it's like to be just starting out. It was also classism and probably a strong dose of racism.

It's not BS. I bought a house in 2013 that had been vacant for several years, back when there were multiple vacant houses on every block. This one happened to be between two multifamilies (the missing middle! I'm so trendy! Click that like button!), one of which was and still is a drug halfway house. People come and go from the place but it is consistently the worst-behaved building in the area, sometimes with multiple police runs per week.

I've had a lot of stuff thrown on the roof and over the fence, had a guy jump the fence and demand to be let in, and had a woman who took everything in her apartment out onto the front porch and back in every day one day flip out and start throwing her stuff on my front porch. Last year I had someone attempt to break into my basement through a glass block window. One guy would always ask to borrow my phone to call the Queen of England. Right now we have two abandoned vehicles parked in front, one with a car cover. The guy told me he came outside and somebody had put that cover on his car. So the guy is so high he doesn't remember buying and putting a cover on his car. Plus, he drives a motor vehicle while that high.

People are constantly coming and going because they're buying and selling drugs. People get the address wrong and they come to my door or in a few cases have loitered on my porch for lengthy periods of time. There are arguments at 4-5-6am on weeknights.

None of these people have jobs. These are the sort of people who occupied the SRO's of old and who occupy government-subsidized Section 8 and halfway houses. They do the bare minimum to survive. They're always going to live in the cheapest place available.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

Not true at all. Using Seattle parlance, a Small Efficiency Dwelling Unit (SEDU) with bathroom and kitchen can be 220 square feet, but the more common metric is 280 square feet to accomplish what needs to be included. We build many of these.

In any case, nobody is suggesting they're for everyone, so I'm confused by your comment.

The PNW is well known for the small house movement so I wonder how much of the "SEDU" trend reflects that.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

There were until recently. This thing was just torn down:





It's not BS. I bought a house in 2013 that had been vacant for several years, back when there were multiple vacant houses on every block. This one happened to be between two multifamilies (the missing middle! I'm so trendy! Click that like button!), one of which was and still is a drug halfway house. People come and go from the place but it is consistently the worst-behaved building in the area, sometimes with multiple police runs per week.

I've had a lot of stuff thrown on the roof and over the fence, had a guy jump the fence and demand to be let in, and had a woman who took everything in her apartment out onto the front porch and back in every day one day flip out and start throwing her stuff on my front porch. Last year I had someone attempt to break into my basement through a glass block window. One guy would always ask to borrow my phone to call the Queen of England. Right now we have two abandoned vehicles parked in front, one with a car cover. The guy told me he came outside and somebody had put that cover on his car. So the guy is so high he doesn't remember buying and putting a cover on his car. Plus, he drives a motor vehicle while that high.

People are constantly coming and going because they're buying and selling drugs. People get the address wrong and they come to my door or in a few cases have loitered on my porch for lengthy periods of time. There are arguments at 4-5-6am on weeknights.

None of these people have jobs. These are the sort of people who occupied the SRO's of old and who occupy government-subsidized Section 8 and halfway houses. They do the bare minimum to survive. They're always going to live in the cheapest place available.

What on earth does any of this have to do with new micro housing, particularly in a high-demand city?!

You're thinking with your emotions and latching onto something that sounds similar but isn't.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

The PNW is well known for the small house movement so I wonder how much of the "SEDU" trend reflects that.

It's economics in a high-cost city. And it's walkable neighborhoods that can be extensions of "home" with restaurants etc. And it's enabled by a low/no parking requirements in many areas.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by mhays

What on earth does any of this have to do with new micro housing, particularly in a high-demand city?!

So in the city of the future the lumpenproletariat shall be excluded from ADU's, SRO's, micro-units, etc?

Originally Posted by mhays

You're thinking with your emotions and latching onto something that sounds similar but isn't.

Actually it's pretty emotional to imagine a perfect future arrived at by zoning and housing policy changes.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's economics in a high-cost city. And it's walkable neighborhoods that can be extensions of "home" with restaurants etc. And it's enabled by a low/no parking requirements in many areas.

Again, that works for mostly young people. I can't see older people who worked an 8-10 hour day using their neighborhood as an extension of their home all the time. I know I would have lived in a cramped shithole apartment in NYC at 20 just to experience NYC because I'd never be home anyway but fast forward a few years and there are days where I want to stay home. I get it, there's obviously a market for places like this but a very niche one. I doubt most people even in expensive cities could deal with this after a certain point in their lives.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

Again, that works for mostly young people. I can't see older people who worked an 8-10 hour day using their neighborhood as an extension of their home all the time. I know I would have lived in a cramped shithole apartment in NYC at 20 just to experience NYC because I'd never be home anyway but fast forward a few years and there are days where I want to stay home. I get it, there's obviously a market for places like this but a very niche one. I doubt most people even in expensive cities could deal with this after a certain point in their lives.

Sure, but it's a huge niche in a city like mine...people in low-paying jobs, retirees on limited incomes, weekday crash pads for professionals on 80-hour weeks, students, and so on. These are people who would otherwise have roommates or massive commutes. That's why a ton of these units are going up.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

So in the city of the future the lumpenproletariat shall be excluded from ADU's, SRO's, micro-units, etc?

Actually it's pretty emotional to imagine a perfect future arrived at by zoning and housing policy changes.

I have no clue what you're saying. I'm saying we should build more micros, because they're good for a lot of types of people, particularly in an expensive city. The exclusion concept is your invention.

[C.]

Originally Posted by mhays

I have no clue what you're saying. I'm saying we should build more micros, because they're good for a lot of types of people, particularly in an expensive city. The exclusion concept is your invention.

It's almost as if homelessness is the preferred option. All the ills identified with micro housing are just magnified. People can try and cover their eyes all they want, but there is an housing affordability crisis and it's only going to get worse unless bold action is taken.

[jd3189]

Yeah, it’s either we build more affordable housing or accept the rise of the homeless population that will continue to grow into “desirable” areas. Junkies and the mentally ill will always be around. At least by giving them housing first then the services they need, we can try to deal with those greater problems,

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Again, that works for mostly young people. I can't see older people who worked an 8-10 hour day using their neighborhood as an extension of their home all the time. I know I would have lived in a cramped shithole apartment in NYC at 20 just to experience NYC because I'd never be home anyway but fast forward a few years and there are days where I want to stay home. I get it, there's obviously a market for places like this but a very niche one. I doubt most people even in expensive cities could deal with this after a certain point in their lives.

Not having a lot of space to maintain is actually a plus for me, but I don't have kids (and don't really want them). I also live in a nicer building than those roach infested former tenements that people coming to the city in their early 20s usually land in. The only tradeoff that I actually do miss by being in NYC is lack of private outdoor space. But it's not enough to leave the city.

[mhays]

We tend to subsidize a few units and expect the market to cover the rest. The result is typically inadequate numbers at the bottom end, plus a big gap that the market can't serve. We can address both.

At the subsidized end, we can (a) provide more funding, and (b) lower the cost of subsidized units. Smaller square footages are part of that.

The market gap can be reduced if not closed through various means that each help a subset of people. For example:

1. Micros with no parking, including dorm-like and SEDU-like options.

2. Plenty of other market-rate multifamily -- keeping supply ahead of demand in general. At the bottom incomes, people might need to cram into less space than they want for a while, something many of us have done at points in our lives.

3. ADUs, especially if policy encourages smaller units.

4. Quicker entitlements, to reduce design costs, land carrying costs, and effort levels.

5. No parking requirements or low requirements, whereever possible. One benefit is the direct construction savings. Another is that many sites can handle far more units if parking isn't a limitation. A site could literally be suitable for two townhouses with parking or 60 apartments without parking.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

Sure, but it's a huge niche in a city like mine...people in low-paying jobs, retirees on limited incomes, weekday crash pads for professionals on 80-hour weeks, students, and so on. These are people who would otherwise have roommates or massive commutes. That's why a ton of these units are going up.

Now I can see that. I am interviewing for jobs in the Bay Area because I'm in such a niche field which is virtually non existent existent here and would work out there but Houston would still be home. These type of living arrangement would actually make sense for my situation but it's highly unusual; I'd work in CA during the week and come home to Houston on the weekends.

[Gordo]

So often people get caught up in the "I don't like that" or "I wouldn't buy/rent that" part of micros or anything else about housing.

Who cares!?! Why should that question determine what we allow other people to do? I'm quite confident that the market can figure out if too many small units are being built and adjust to building larger units if that's what makes more money because no one is willing to buy/rent the small units.

I do not care for beets. Never liked them, not sure why. I personally do not understand why anyone would want to eat them. However, I'm perfectly fine with allowing beet farmers to continue growing beets and for people to continue consuming them. If people start switching from beef to beets and the volume grown increases by 10x, great! If people wise up to how disgusting beets are and demand drops by 90%, great! Who cares!?

[Northern Light]

First, may I suggest this has gone wildly off-topic.

The OP can speak for themselves, but certainly, on its face, this thread was not meant to be about the virtues or shortcomings of any given housing option at length.

It was a simple ask, 'What's being done in your City?'

****

With that said, here we find ourselves.

May I then say:

1) Microhousing may be an interim solution to an emergent housing shortage..........it is not the permanent solution.

Creating/Sustaining an underclass with a miserable standard of living is not desirable.
That is not an argument that homelessness is an acceptable alternative.
Its an argument we can and should do better.

2) People seem to wander off from the essential causes of homelessness in these arguments.

Its important to say, its not a single cause......

But

The first is acute poverty.

The second is mental illness/addiction

The third is an unbalanced real estate market in which supply does not meet demand in rental or ownership........

Noting the above, the solution is not simply a slightly lower cost housing type.
Its not that the above wouldn't be helpful.....its that its grossly insufficient and less than ideal.
If you can trim a $2,000 per month apartment to $1,200......how does that help someone with no job?
How does that help someone who can't get full-time hours? How does that help someone whose wage is $12 per hour?.....which might...be sufficient to pay $600 per month in rent.

****

The answer is far more nuanced and complex than simply reducing the cost of some housing......though yes, that may play a role.
Its about raising income for those who can/are working; its about providing greater support to those who are short-term unemployed, or disabled.
Its about restricting real estate as investment, vs living in it.

And more......

Can we tone down the hostility and examine the various options in play in different areas, consider their relative effectiveness and translatability to other jurisdictions?

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Who cares!?! Why should that question determine what we allow other people to do? I'm quite confident that the market can figure out if too many small units are being built and adjust to building larger units if that's what makes more money because no one is willing to buy/rent the small units.

That's fair.

Although, there are externalities to housing, including parking usage, increased litter, potential for crime, etc, so it's not exactly undue to have some sort of regulation for housing.

[SFBruin]

Anyhow, I'm all for microstudios. I just think that:

A) They are not for everyone and should not be considered a comprehensive plan to combat the housing crisis. And...

B) Have some externalities and need to have some sort of plan for how they are incorporated into the city.

[mhays]

Good news...nobody has ever suggested micro housing is for everyone, or is a broad solution to the vast housing problem.

But they're for a few people long-term. And they're good for many people short-term. And they're the only way the free market can produce affordable housing in expensive cities.

I've yet to hear a credible reason against any of this. Just emotion-based hand-wringing, which shouldn't carry much weight in public debate.

[Pedestrian]

This shouldn't be overlooked:

Newsom signs long-awaited bills to increase housing density in California
Alexei Koseff
Sep. 16, 2021
Updated: Sep. 16, 2021 9:17 p.m.

SACRAMENTO — Years of pitched legislative battles over single-family zoning and height limits ended Thursday with a long-awaited victory for advocates who have pushed California to embrace denser construction as a solution to its critical housing shortage.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a pair of bills that promote what supporters call a “light density” approach, loosening zoning rules to make it easier to build out existing neighborhoods with small apartment buildings.

The changes could ultimately help add hundreds of thousands of housing units across the state — though that is still far short of the more than a million new homes that experts estimate California will need in coming years to make up for the affordability gap and to accommodate future growth.

And the fight may not yet be over, as deep-pocketed opponents of the measures weigh potential legal and political challenges . . . .

SB9, by Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, will establish a streamlined process to split lots and convert homes into duplexes, potentially creating up to four units on a property that had just one before.

Under the law, local governments will have to approve applications if the projects meet size requirements and local design standards, fall outside historic and environmentally sensitive districts, and do not require the demolition of housing that is rent-restricted or has been occupied by tenants in the past three years.

A report published in July by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley estimated that the bill would enable new development on about 5.4% of the approximately 7.5 million parcels statewide zoned for single-family homes, making up to 710,000 new housing units financially feasible under current housing conditions. By comparison, California built more than 100,000 housing units last year for the first time in more than a decade . . . .

SB10, by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, will allow cities to rezone some parcels in urban areas, including those near public transit, for up to 10 units. Wiener said in a statement that the voluntary process gives local governments, which can spend years on rezoning because of environmental reviews and other steps, “a powerful new tool to get the job done quickly.”

The two measures are the remnants of a far more expansive proposal, first introduced nearly four years ago by Wiener, that ignited intense debate in the state Capitol over housing costs, local control and gentrification.

In early 2018, Wiener pursued legislation that would have required cities to allow four-to-eight-story apartment buildings and condominiums within a half-mile of major transit hubs and within a quarter-mile of highly used bus or light-rail stops.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics...e-16465752.php