Your city's grassroots efforts on housing affordability?

[SFBruin]

Maybe we should just centrally plan and build housing near transit.

I'm feeling increasingly despotic lol.

[SFBruin]

Microstudios aren't a good idea, imo.

Dorms work because no one cooks or has major responsibilities in college, imo.

In the non-college world, where you have a job, bills, responsibilities etc., I feel like you need 400 sq ft, maybe 350 sq ft, to maintain your sanity.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by mhays

Smaller housing is to blame for that? Even shared bathrooms can be one-person-only.

Seattle's biggest issues with the various super-micro types were (1) the idea that small housing isn't humane (apparently the street or a friend's couch are preferable), and (b) it's not ok to have a bathroom and kitchen share a sink.

São Paulo developers started to build lots of small units (150sqft to 300sqft) and the press, with very shallow articles, criticized the trend.

I see no harm in small units. They are great for university students and young workers. Big cities are expensive and small apartments definitely help to make things more affordable. It's not aimed for people living forever there, but for a period of their lives.

[SFBruin]

Maybe we can allow microstudios ONLY near transit.

There is little more depressing that having little space and not being able to go anywhere either.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Maybe we can allow microstudios ONLY near transit.

There is little more depressing that having little space and not being able to go anywhere either.

Here in São Paulo (and other Brazilian cities) they are common in more central neighbourhoods. On far away districts they don't make sense, unless when located near university campi.

But to me when it comes to build, the more the better. In São Paulo is very common single people in their 30's, from middle-class background, to share an apartment. That's a sign small units are needed.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Microstudios aren't a good idea, imo.

Dorms work because no one cooks or has major responsibilities in college, imo.

In the non-college world, where you have a job, bills, responsibilities etc., I feel like you need 400 sq ft, maybe 350 sq ft, to maintain your sanity.

That's ok for you, but what about the people who can't afford that much space? Should they live in the gutter?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Microstudios aren't a good idea, imo.

Dorms work because no one cooks or has major responsibilities in college, imo.

In the non-college world, where you have a job, bills, responsibilities etc., I feel like you need 400 sq ft, maybe 350 sq ft, to maintain your sanity.

In a big city, with long working hours and lots of entertainment outside home, it's not that challenging. People usually live in those units for a period of their life. If things turn right, they get wealthier or married and move to a bigger place and are replaced by the new generation of poorer youngsters.

[SFBruin]

Re: mhays -- I mean, obviously not.

I just think that microstudios are a less-than-ideal solution for people in many situations.

[mhays]

Of course they are. A mansion is also less than ideal for many people. The point is to have the option.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

This and the triplex thing in Minneapolis aren't going to make a big difference. The solution is a) hi-rise apartment blocks next to subway stations where rent is b) subsidized for those without a registered personal vehicle.

The big things that Minneapolis did were up zone all the commercial and transit corridors in the city to allow midrises by right, and getting rid of parking minimums. The fact that you can build 4 to 6 story buildings on any significant street in the city has done way more than triplexes. There is a lot of development going on right now and it is those, not triplexes or granny flats (which have been legal here for almost a decade).

The triplex thing was basically a useful distraction politically because nobody noticed the other major changes to the zoning code.

Rents have stabilized in Minneapolis over the last few years. It is not a coincidence that happened during a major construction boom. I think the real secret is to up zone a lot of areas for the type of housing the local market wants to build. In Minneapolis that is the 4 to 5 story midrise outside of downtown which are now popping up everywhere. You can add a lot of density with buildings like that if you build them on a large enough scale.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by mhays

That's ok for you, but what about the people who can't afford that much space? Should they live in the gutter?

Then you have to rethink your desired location and/or budget. 350 s/f barely covers a place to eat/sleep/ shower....if you're over 25. Otherwise #vanlife

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by mhays

Of course they are. A mansion is also less than ideal for many people. The point is to have the option.

I'm fine with some. I think, though, that if we are using them as the main solution to solve the housing crisis, than we need to rethink some things.

300 square feet might be livable. 200 square feet, if you're including a kitchen and a bathroom, really is pretty small.

[badrunner]

a lot of illegal/unapproved housing units, it doesn't get more grassroots than that, stuff like illegal garage conversions and add-ons, with rent paid under the table of course.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by mhays

Smaller housing is to blame for that? Even shared bathrooms can be one-person-only.

The issue is the cheapness. Junkies and gutter punks don't care about space or the decor or the view out the window.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The issue is the cheapness. Junkies and gutter punks don't care about space or the decor or the view out the window.

Junkies and gutter punks shouldn't have housing? You seem to be arguing that if housing is too cheap then people that you don't like might live there. The reality is that those people will exist regardless of what our housing policy is. The only question is whether they will be homeless or not. Purposefully reducing the supply of cheap housing so that they have no place to live is sadistic.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by JManc

Then you have to rethink your desired location and/or budget. 350 s/f barely covers a place to eat/sleep/ shower....if you're over 25. Otherwise #vanlife

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.

[SFBruin]

I mean, maybe we can pilot microstudios in various regions of Seattle (and other cities) and see what happens.

I'm not against providing people with options. I just think that we need to be responsible.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Chef

Junkies and gutter punks shouldn't have housing? You seem to be arguing that if housing is too cheap then people that you don't like might live there. The reality is that those people will exist regardless of what our housing policy is. The only question is whether they will be homeless or not. Purposefully reducing the supply of cheap housing so that they have no place to live is sadistic.

In all seriousness, I think when some people think about micro housing their brains go on vacation.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I mean, maybe we can pilot microstudios in various regions of Seattle (and other cities) and see what happens.

I'm not against providing people with options. I just think that we need to be responsible.

How about just allow them to be built? Markets are actually pretty good at determining what people want for various prices. If no one wants to pay a price that is profitable for builders to build...they won't get built.

I have no interest in a micro unit, but I've got several friends that are a few years older than me with kids finishing college. They'd happily pay a bit more for a micro unit than share a 3-4 bed place with 3-4 other people (the most likely other option in prime SF/NYC/etc).

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Chef

Junkies and gutter punks shouldn't have housing? You seem to be arguing that if housing is too cheap then people that you don't like might live there. The reality is that those people will exist regardless of what our housing policy is. The only question is whether they will be homeless or not. Purposefully reducing the supply of cheap housing so that they have no place to live is sadistic.

Ultra-cheap dormitory-type housing was banned in all American cities generations ago for a reason. People are picturing some sort of worker's paradise for these things but be careful what you wish for. After a honeymoon period, the building will devolve into chaos as sober and well-behaved people stop tolerating the nonsense, move out, and leave the whole place to problem tenants.