6 ms·

Oh hi. I'm one of the NIMBYs in Seattle that likes height restrictions and hates micro housing. Across the street there's a halfway house and two blocks down th

Oh hi. I'm one of the NIMBYs in Seattle that likes height restrictions and hates micro housing. Across the street there's a halfway house and two blocks down there's an empty lot that is now being used as a sanctioned tenting site for homeless. I have no problem with either being in my neighborhood. I hope they stay. I hope they expand. >You have to have a certain cynicism You certainly have to be cynical to believe that somehow Seattle is not operating in its own self interest. As faults are found, we try to correct them. Some are very difficult to correct (hello I5, hello American street widths, hello North Seattle sprawl, hello West Seattle suburban wasteland, hello unlivable industrial area) and some are geographic constrains (hello hills and water). Making tiny shitty apartments does not correct any of these deep problems. >The form of the rules is optimised to make them appear beneficial to all, The form of the rules isn't 'optimised' at all. It's an organic living document called "the law." You apparently think the world would be a better place if developers could make whatever size dwelling they want. I think that happened in the 19th century and the result was skid row. I am not interested in trying the experiment again. I am interested in more housing for my community, but honestly that means rezoning SFHs, not getting rid of height restrictions and parking requirements when they're justifiable. And yes, my opinion is entirely qualitative. I like 3-4 story buildings because I like them. They have been a staple of the environment that dragged me out of adolescence and into responsible, productive adulthood. They are the good geometry.

noelwelsh 10y ago
There is so much I don't like in this response, but I think the core is that you want people to live in small apartments for ... no good reason other than you don't like them. You can see from the exterior shot of OneOne6 (http://www.karmaresidential.com/oneone6.html http://www.karmaresidential.com/oneone6.html) that it is four stories high---so it doesn't engage the height restriction issue you are so concerned with (and is only tangentially related to the article). It's about five minutes walk from Capitol Hill station, so no need for parking. At least you have the insight to realise your opinion is "entirely qualitative" (i.e. entirely emotional) but apparently not the insight to recognize you should then change your opinion.
- cushychicken 10y ago
  Just as a counterpoint - it's pretty easy to get emotional about a decision that you, personally, have a quarter million dollars wrapped up in. (Or in Seattle/Cap Hill's case, substantially more than that!) That's what home ownership does to people - it causes them to protect their investments. Is it a net good? I don't know. But I think it's a huge and common misconception to interpret NIMBY-ism as a malicious action rather than a simple case of people acting in their own self interest.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - jschwartzi 10y ago
    The problem is that GP is deciding that the minimum cost to enter Seattle should be at least $1500 a month for everyone, and that they should all live like GP. Then they bring up halfway houses and tent cities, which says to me that they're fine with squalid living conditions. What they apparently want is for anyone in Seattle to either have a high salary or to live in a tent city with the rest of the homeless.
    - cushychicken 10y ago
      > What they apparently want is for anyone in Seattle to either have a high salary or to live in a tent city with the rest of the homeless. That seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. Plus, I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply there's this big, nefarious "they". It seems more realistic (to me, at least) to view NIMBYers as a bunch of individual homeowners concerned about the value of what's likely their single biggest investment. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the post you're referencing the "tent city" thing from was tongue-in-cheek. That's entirely personal speculation, however.
      - Decade 10y ago
        See, this is a problem with democratic decision making. Individually, you are just looking out for your own interests. Collectively, you are inadvertently choosing horrendous alternatives. In areas like San Francisco and San Jose, there is just not enough housing to house all of the homeless people. There is not enough public funding to create housing for all of the homeless people. And the effectiveness of each dollar keeps going down, faster than inflation. The article goes into detail, how micro-apartments can be $900 per month each in current market conditions, unsubsidized. But regulations force the cost upwards and the unit count downwards, so both the price goes up (or you do not build until median rent goes up) and the number of low-income people housed goes down. But, hey, at least the tent city is not directly in your backyard.
drak0n1c 10y ago
The endless suburban sprawl you complain about is caused in part by your opposition to higher density housing in central neighborhoods. Where else do you expect people to go?
- peterbonney 10y ago
  Seriously. Why is housing in Tokyo consistently affordable? Because the zoning rules allow high-density housing to grow with housing demand. Somehow in America we have convinced ourselves that if we stop high-density development in the cities that absolutely need it, we can make up for it by legislating prices lower. The solution to unaffordable housing certainly begins with building a lot more housing.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    It also doesn't hurt that the Tokyo population has been growing rather slowly--about 0.5% per year.
    - peterbonney 10y ago
      Yes, but it is also one of the largest, densest cities in the world, a place it arrived to by growing quickly and expanding its housing stock to match its growth.
      - ghaff 10y ago
        And Tokyo also has a great urban transit system etc. On the other hand, a lot of the population growth occurred between 1945 and 1965. [1] So it was starting from an historically low population and housing stock point for obvious reasons and had something of a clean slate. [1] http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/ABOUT/HISTORY/history03.htm http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/ABOUT/HISTORY/history03.ht...
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - 10y ago
panglott 10y ago
You support homeless tent cities but oppose micro housing because it doesn't mandate enough parking? Your moral priorities are screwed up. It's the ultimate "let them eat cake" moment of local housing policy. "Well, if they don't want to spend an extra $500/month on a mandatory car parking space, they should just live in a cardboard box on the street."
zacharycohn 10y ago
Hi NIMBY. I'm a former Seattlite millennial who's lived through the 2008 financial crash, the repercussions of a 50% divorce rate, and grew up on the internet. Growing up in the world I have, I've come to realize physical things weigh me down and participating in consumerism makes me unhappy. Working for 50 years so i can save up enough money to retire at 65 doesn't make sense to me. Why suffer for 50 years so you can live free for a few at the end, when you're old, maybe sick. I found minimalism, FIRE, and the idea that you ruthlessly reduce expenses for things you don't need. It turns out... I don't need a one bedroom apartment. I certainly don't need a house. I've lived out of a school-sized backpack for months at a time. Last time i moved, I packed everything I own in 3 hours, moved in one trip in a van, and unpacked in about 2 hours. I appreciate that you like 3-4 story buildings and your two bedroom apartments. I appreciate you like your parking. But I don't have enough stuff to fill an apartment. I don't have a car. I don't WANT either of those things. It's okay if you do, but why force me to have them? > "Making tiny shitty apartments does not correct any of these deep problems." It's true tiny apartments won't fix being surrounded by lakes, but if 1800 more people can afford to live where, and how, they want... Isn't that a start?
- dnissley 10y ago
  Just curious, what is FIRE?
  - stevenmays 10y ago
    Financially Independent, Retired Early
  - oftenwrong 10y ago
    I'm guessing it's something like Financial Independence Retire Early?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- sjg007 10y ago
  The work for 50 years thing is basically what happens when you have kids. Also some aren't so lucky to travel... the world today is much cheaper and accessible thanks to the internet.

noelwelsh 10y ago

There is so much I don't like in this response, but I think the core is that you want people to live in small apartments for ... no good reason other than you don't like them. You can see from the exterior shot of OneOne6 (http://www.karmaresidential.com/oneone6.html http://www.karmaresidential.com/oneone6.html) that it is four stories high---so it doesn't engage the height restriction issue you are so concerned with (and is only tangentially related to the article). It's about five minutes walk from Capitol Hill station, so no need for parking. At least you have the insight to realise your opinion is "entirely qualitative" (i.e. entirely emotional) but apparently not the insight to recognize you should then change your opinion.

cushychicken 10y ago
Just as a counterpoint - it's pretty easy to get emotional about a decision that you, personally, have a quarter million dollars wrapped up in. (Or in Seattle/Cap Hill's case, substantially more than that!) That's what home ownership does to people - it causes them to protect their investments. Is it a net good? I don't know. But I think it's a huge and common misconception to interpret NIMBY-ism as a malicious action rather than a simple case of people acting in their own self interest.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jschwartzi 10y ago
  The problem is that GP is deciding that the minimum cost to enter Seattle should be at least $1500 a month for everyone, and that they should all live like GP. Then they bring up halfway houses and tent cities, which says to me that they're fine with squalid living conditions. What they apparently want is for anyone in Seattle to either have a high salary or to live in a tent city with the rest of the homeless.
  - cushychicken 10y ago
    > What they apparently want is for anyone in Seattle to either have a high salary or to live in a tent city with the rest of the homeless. That seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. Plus, I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply there's this big, nefarious "they". It seems more realistic (to me, at least) to view NIMBYers as a bunch of individual homeowners concerned about the value of what's likely their single biggest investment. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the post you're referencing the "tent city" thing from was tongue-in-cheek. That's entirely personal speculation, however.
    - Decade 10y ago
      See, this is a problem with democratic decision making. Individually, you are just looking out for your own interests. Collectively, you are inadvertently choosing horrendous alternatives. In areas like San Francisco and San Jose, there is just not enough housing to house all of the homeless people. There is not enough public funding to create housing for all of the homeless people. And the effectiveness of each dollar keeps going down, faster than inflation. The article goes into detail, how micro-apartments can be $900 per month each in current market conditions, unsubsidized. But regulations force the cost upwards and the unit count downwards, so both the price goes up (or you do not build until median rent goes up) and the number of low-income people housed goes down. But, hey, at least the tent city is not directly in your backyard.

drak0n1c 10y ago

The endless suburban sprawl you complain about is caused in part by your opposition to higher density housing in central neighborhoods. Where else do you expect people to go?

peterbonney 10y ago
Seriously. Why is housing in Tokyo consistently affordable? Because the zoning rules allow high-density housing to grow with housing demand. Somehow in America we have convinced ourselves that if we stop high-density development in the cities that absolutely need it, we can make up for it by legislating prices lower. The solution to unaffordable housing certainly begins with building a lot more housing.
- ghaff 10y ago
  It also doesn't hurt that the Tokyo population has been growing rather slowly--about 0.5% per year.
  - peterbonney 10y ago
    Yes, but it is also one of the largest, densest cities in the world, a place it arrived to by growing quickly and expanding its housing stock to match its growth.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      And Tokyo also has a great urban transit system etc. On the other hand, a lot of the population growth occurred between 1945 and 1965. [1] So it was starting from an historically low population and housing stock point for obvious reasons and had something of a clean slate. [1] http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/ABOUT/HISTORY/history03.htm http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/ABOUT/HISTORY/history03.ht...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- 10y ago

panglott 10y ago

You support homeless tent cities but oppose micro housing because it doesn't mandate enough parking? Your moral priorities are screwed up. It's the ultimate "let them eat cake" moment of local housing policy. "Well, if they don't want to spend an extra $500/month on a mandatory car parking space, they should just live in a cardboard box on the street."

zacharycohn 10y ago

Hi NIMBY. I'm a former Seattlite millennial who's lived through the 2008 financial crash, the repercussions of a 50% divorce rate, and grew up on the internet. Growing up in the world I have, I've come to realize physical things weigh me down and participating in consumerism makes me unhappy. Working for 50 years so i can save up enough money to retire at 65 doesn't make sense to me. Why suffer for 50 years so you can live free for a few at the end, when you're old, maybe sick. I found minimalism, FIRE, and the idea that you ruthlessly reduce expenses for things you don't need. It turns out... I don't need a one bedroom apartment. I certainly don't need a house. I've lived out of a school-sized backpack for months at a time. Last time i moved, I packed everything I own in 3 hours, moved in one trip in a van, and unpacked in about 2 hours. I appreciate that you like 3-4 story buildings and your two bedroom apartments. I appreciate you like your parking. But I don't have enough stuff to fill an apartment. I don't have a car. I don't WANT either of those things. It's okay if you do, but why force me to have them? > "Making tiny shitty apartments does not correct any of these deep problems." It's true tiny apartments won't fix being surrounded by lakes, but if 1800 more people can afford to live where, and how, they want... Isn't that a start?

dnissley 10y ago
Just curious, what is FIRE?
- stevenmays 10y ago
  Financially Independent, Retired Early
- oftenwrong 10y ago
  I'm guessing it's something like Financial Independence Retire Early?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
sjg007 10y ago
The work for 50 years thing is basically what happens when you have kids. Also some aren't so lucky to travel... the world today is much cheaper and accessible thanks to the internet.