6 ms·

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 d

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.
      - cushychicken 10y ago
        I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's explainable, and that it's complex, and that it's driven by real incentives rather than blind malice. I also think there would be a much better chance of making the changes to allow microhousing if you understood where the opposition was coming from. It's hard to convince someone to your point of you by bashing them over the head with "you're wrong!" I think we have some common ground in that we both think the best solution is not have a tent city in the first place. Homelessness comes with a whole host of other problems that microhousing can't actually solve - like the fact that most homeless people have a hard time applying for housing by virtue of the fact that they have no prior address. So, maybe the better question is: how do we do that?
cstejerean 10y ago
There is always a need for parking. You may think that there isn't but the people moving in will have cars because you need a car in Seattle, this isn't New York. Except now they don't have anywhere to park it so they overcrowd any side streets and block driveways. If you are going to build a building with no parking you should not allow any cars to be registered to that address, and don't rent/sell to anyone that has a car. Then when the building is 75% empty you will realize that actually you needed parking all along because car ownership is pretty much required in Seattle.
- zacharycohn 10y ago
  I lived in Seattle for five years without a car. Enjoyed every second of it. Between walking, bike, bike share, car2go, uber, lyft, zipcar, busses, and the light rail, and upcoming self driving car services... Why do i need a car again?
  - cstejerean 10y ago
    You don't need a car, but you are also in the minority. You can't reasonably expect that none of your neighbors have a car as well. And yet this is exactly what builders propose when building a high density apartment building with no parking.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      > You can't reasonably expect that none of your neighbors have a car as well. No, but I can expect them to suffer if they do have one. Our current car system is unsustainable, and is a luxury. We really need to get rid of it long-term. I'd love to have a boat in my front yard, but it's too hard to find a place to park it. Should boat-owners have the right to a boat spot?
      - argv_empty 10y ago
        is a luxury I take it you haven't spent much time in non-downtown Seattle?
beguiledfoil 10y ago
>At least you have the insight to realise your opinion is "entirely qualitative" (i.e. entirely emotional) Pity it's not shared.

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.
    - cushychicken 10y ago
      I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's explainable, and that it's complex, and that it's driven by real incentives rather than blind malice. I also think there would be a much better chance of making the changes to allow microhousing if you understood where the opposition was coming from. It's hard to convince someone to your point of you by bashing them over the head with "you're wrong!" I think we have some common ground in that we both think the best solution is not have a tent city in the first place. Homelessness comes with a whole host of other problems that microhousing can't actually solve - like the fact that most homeless people have a hard time applying for housing by virtue of the fact that they have no prior address. So, maybe the better question is: how do we do that?

cstejerean 10y ago

There is always a need for parking. You may think that there isn't but the people moving in will have cars because you need a car in Seattle, this isn't New York. Except now they don't have anywhere to park it so they overcrowd any side streets and block driveways. If you are going to build a building with no parking you should not allow any cars to be registered to that address, and don't rent/sell to anyone that has a car. Then when the building is 75% empty you will realize that actually you needed parking all along because car ownership is pretty much required in Seattle.

zacharycohn 10y ago
I lived in Seattle for five years without a car. Enjoyed every second of it. Between walking, bike, bike share, car2go, uber, lyft, zipcar, busses, and the light rail, and upcoming self driving car services... Why do i need a car again?
- cstejerean 10y ago
  You don't need a car, but you are also in the minority. You can't reasonably expect that none of your neighbors have a car as well. And yet this is exactly what builders propose when building a high density apartment building with no parking.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    > You can't reasonably expect that none of your neighbors have a car as well. No, but I can expect them to suffer if they do have one. Our current car system is unsustainable, and is a luxury. We really need to get rid of it long-term. I'd love to have a boat in my front yard, but it's too hard to find a place to park it. Should boat-owners have the right to a boat spot?
    - argv_empty 10y ago
      is a luxury I take it you haven't spent much time in non-downtown Seattle?

beguiledfoil 10y ago

>At least you have the insight to realise your opinion is "entirely qualitative" (i.e. entirely emotional) Pity it's not shared.