4 ms·

I lived in Capitol Hill from around 2008-2014 and from what I recall the resistance to Apodments wasn't due to disdain for the working poor. It was that these c

by srj 10y ago

I lived in Capitol Hill from around 2008-2014 and from what I recall the resistance to Apodments wasn't due to disdain for the working poor. It was that these companies skirted laws by taking advantage of a dwelling being defined by having a kitchen. The parking was the biggest sticking point. It was already tough to find parking in the area: I would often drive 45+ min circling a several block radius looking for a spot and I had a friend who would just park way outside the area and take a bus to his car. A traditional apartment building with more than some number of units needed to provide parking for residents, but the Apodments skirted that having many separate residents share the same kitchen. IIRC the taxing for utilities including the sewer system also was determined based on the number of dwellings (kitchens). The laws and decisions cited in this article all reflect that the buildings would have many residents but for legal purposes were low density housing.

akgerber 10y ago
The broader context is that much of Seattle is tightly zoned to disallow anything other than single-family homes, which prevents in practice prevents the city from adding modestly-sized cheap units: http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2015/7/27/the-65-percent http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2015/7/27/the-65-percent The micro-housing was a workaround of these laws, which in practice disadvantage the working poor.
- TimJRobinson 10y ago
  How does micro housing disadvantage the working poor? Supply and demand would suggest more units = cheaper cost per unit.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    I think the assumption is that "working poor" living alone tends to suggest couples or even families that this type of housing doesn't accommodate in a reasonable by US standards manner. It's oriented toward second housing unit for out of towners or twenty-somethings who just want a place to sleep.
    - OrwellianChild 10y ago
      I think that this misses the larger picture. Say I'm a single 20-something who doesn't need a larger place. If there is micro-housing available, I take that, leaving the rest of housing stock untouched. If there isn't micro-housing available, I have to pay more and take up a unit of housing that could go to the couples/families that need more space/amenities. Net impact of micro-housing is positive from both a cost and inventory perspective.
TimJRobinson 10y ago
Seems like there's a simple solution here: Don't tie parking to housing. Those that have cars and want to park them on the street should pay for a parking permit, then the local council builds parking spaces in line with how many permits they've given out. You're only allowed to park with a permit in your area. Then those that really want a car can get one and find parking, and those that want micro apartments and don't need a car can have them too. Everyone wins. The prices for parking and the prices for housing are separated and both dictated by the market and it's fair for everyone.

by srj 10y ago

akgerber 10y ago

The broader context is that much of Seattle is tightly zoned to disallow anything other than single-family homes, which prevents in practice prevents the city from adding modestly-sized cheap units: http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2015/7/27/the-65-percent http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2015/7/27/the-65-percent The micro-housing was a workaround of these laws, which in practice disadvantage the working poor.

TimJRobinson 10y ago
How does micro housing disadvantage the working poor? Supply and demand would suggest more units = cheaper cost per unit.
- ghaff 10y ago
  I think the assumption is that "working poor" living alone tends to suggest couples or even families that this type of housing doesn't accommodate in a reasonable by US standards manner. It's oriented toward second housing unit for out of towners or twenty-somethings who just want a place to sleep.
  - OrwellianChild 10y ago
    I think that this misses the larger picture. Say I'm a single 20-something who doesn't need a larger place. If there is micro-housing available, I take that, leaving the rest of housing stock untouched. If there isn't micro-housing available, I have to pay more and take up a unit of housing that could go to the couples/families that need more space/amenities. Net impact of micro-housing is positive from both a cost and inventory perspective.

TimJRobinson 10y ago

Seems like there's a simple solution here: Don't tie parking to housing. Those that have cars and want to park them on the street should pay for a parking permit, then the local council builds parking spaces in line with how many permits they've given out. You're only allowed to park with a permit in your area. Then those that really want a car can get one and find parking, and those that want micro apartments and don't need a car can have them too. Everyone wins. The prices for parking and the prices for housing are separated and both dictated by the market and it's fair for everyone.