> 2) How do you avoid a race to the bottom in terms of housing quality when you allow said micro-apartments? Do we want a culture where the poor are living in b

> 2) How do you avoid a race to the bottom in terms of housing quality when you allow said micro-apartments? Do we want a culture where the poor are living in barely livable wage slave pods while the rich are living in abundant villas? Right now we've got a scenario where the rich live in fifty-year-old units that really ought to be reasonably priced and the poorest live in alleyways. Having the poor in up-to-code micro-apartments would be a major step up. It would also help if the rich could also live in modern up-to-code units of luxurious size. That would free some of the stock of existing units for everyone else instead of them being pinched between the rich and the most vulnerable. > I'm all for affordable housing but it seems too nuanced to allow market forces to take care of it. I think the correct solution revolves around government subsidized/funded housing but that's a whole other can of beans. The US has a poor record of being capable of funding and running public housing, even after you get past the effects of concentrating poverty. The first major problem is often that permanently BMR units cost in excess of $800k each to construct in places like SF - and the city has to be able to afford a lot of those. Then you have the problem of funding ongoing costs, which has often been the problem in the US. With this in mind, it's perhaps worth reconsidering why some might favor approachs that center on inclusing subsidized units into mixed-income properties.