3 ms·
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 f
by 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 agoHow does micro housing disadvantage the working poor? Supply and demand would suggest more units = cheaper cost per unit.
- ghaff 10y agoI 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 agoI 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.