3 ms·

One of the problems is that you probably can't legally build something like that again. You have to build an apartment with a full kitchen and parking spots.

mperham 5y ago
Yep. We’ve made it illegal to build cheap housing anywhere within cities so poor people wind up on the street.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  I am curious whether creating "welfare cities" would be viable. I get that people don't want to create ghettos, but politically homelessless is currently preferable to higher property taxes and density. That is just our current reality. You could locate them in areas that naturally would have a low cost of living (mild climate to keep energy costs low, few natural disasters, no prior pension fund debt for services, etc) and design them to be cheap and efficiently provide some services with a subsidized bus into town. You could avoid restrictions on zoning and building codes that prevent housing that is low cost.
- salawat 5y ago
  I'm having difficulty understanding something. This chain of inquiry implies that it's reasonable to grant a pass to make residences without the capability to support basic functions of living. Or am I missing the meaning of "Full kitchen" here, which I'd define as as cooking surface, sink, a couple cabinets, and some spots for appliances which if done right can become quite a tight footprint. If the Parking spot is the sticking point here, please consider that it really isn't reasonable to expect someone to be tightly constrained too just their current city, or their general locale. That's what gets you predatory markets and price gouging. I.e. the "convenience tax". The solution to that is accommodating the full spectrum of transit aids a society sports. So... I apologize if I'm being daft... How would one propose that at least 1parking space per household is an unreasonable requirement for urban development in the abscence of other controls/subsidized infrastructure the current residents are willing to foot the bill for?
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    > support basic functions of living Because a kitchen isn't a basic function for living as these people demonstrate. They use a hot plate and microwave, not a stove/oven/large fridge/dishwasher. They are making do with a single sink, the bathroom one. Obviously not great, but far better than where they were pushed. These people cannot afford cars anyway. So even if transit sucks and it requires them to walk 20 minutes each way, they are using it.
xtracto 5y ago
Wouldn't that be something like a large "family hotel" (most hotel rooms don't have kitchen and 1 parking spot per room). Would I not be able to build a 4/5 story hotel with (legally) minimal facilities and rent it at very low prices (say $10 to $15 the night) to these people? EDIT: Asking as someone who doesn't live in the US
- et-al 5y ago
  Depends on zoning laws in the area and how much residents nearby have a say in things. In the US, there are plenty of cities where neighbors would block a modernist concrete house from being built because it "ruins the neighborhood character". And similarly, lots of neighborhoods are notorious for blocking multi-tenant housing because it's housing for poorer people--they'll rarely say it so blatantly, though. tl;dr NIMBY

mperham 5y ago

Yep. We’ve made it illegal to build cheap housing anywhere within cities so poor people wind up on the street.

MattGaiser 5y ago
I am curious whether creating "welfare cities" would be viable. I get that people don't want to create ghettos, but politically homelessless is currently preferable to higher property taxes and density. That is just our current reality. You could locate them in areas that naturally would have a low cost of living (mild climate to keep energy costs low, few natural disasters, no prior pension fund debt for services, etc) and design them to be cheap and efficiently provide some services with a subsidized bus into town. You could avoid restrictions on zoning and building codes that prevent housing that is low cost.
salawat 5y ago
I'm having difficulty understanding something. This chain of inquiry implies that it's reasonable to grant a pass to make residences without the capability to support basic functions of living. Or am I missing the meaning of "Full kitchen" here, which I'd define as as cooking surface, sink, a couple cabinets, and some spots for appliances which if done right can become quite a tight footprint. If the Parking spot is the sticking point here, please consider that it really isn't reasonable to expect someone to be tightly constrained too just their current city, or their general locale. That's what gets you predatory markets and price gouging. I.e. the "convenience tax". The solution to that is accommodating the full spectrum of transit aids a society sports. So... I apologize if I'm being daft... How would one propose that at least 1parking space per household is an unreasonable requirement for urban development in the abscence of other controls/subsidized infrastructure the current residents are willing to foot the bill for?
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  > support basic functions of living Because a kitchen isn't a basic function for living as these people demonstrate. They use a hot plate and microwave, not a stove/oven/large fridge/dishwasher. They are making do with a single sink, the bathroom one. Obviously not great, but far better than where they were pushed. These people cannot afford cars anyway. So even if transit sucks and it requires them to walk 20 minutes each way, they are using it.

xtracto 5y ago

Wouldn't that be something like a large "family hotel" (most hotel rooms don't have kitchen and 1 parking spot per room). Would I not be able to build a 4/5 story hotel with (legally) minimal facilities and rent it at very low prices (say $10 to $15 the night) to these people? EDIT: Asking as someone who doesn't live in the US

et-al 5y ago
Depends on zoning laws in the area and how much residents nearby have a say in things. In the US, there are plenty of cities where neighbors would block a modernist concrete house from being built because it "ruins the neighborhood character". And similarly, lots of neighborhoods are notorious for blocking multi-tenant housing because it's housing for poorer people--they'll rarely say it so blatantly, though. tl;dr NIMBY