4 ms·
It may be hard to believe, especially for the typical Californian, but there are other kinds of housing than single-family homes. It wasn’t so long ago that a s
by thebooktocome 4y ago
It may be hard to believe, especially for the typical Californian, but there are other kinds of housing than single-family homes. It wasn’t so long ago that a single 17-year-old making minimum wage could afford to house themselves outside of a family unit.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI believe it. I think zoning and building codes are most of the problem. Allow 200 sqft apartments like you find in NYC and you will see a stark reduction in the working homeless.
- nine_k 4y agoBut aren't 200 sq ft apartments banned because they are unlivably small? The guys who enacted that should take a look at Tokyo and Seoul, and maybe actually listen to the reasons of people who rent tiny apartments there.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoThey are objectively livable in a literal sense. But, yes I agree that some policy makers decided that they would rather have people homeless than in unpleasant living accommodations.
- marvin 4y agoStudio apartments of that size (sometimes even smaller) are bought by university students in Norway all the time, sometimes for as much as $200.000. They can be quite comfortable. Not sure how they’d be priced in SF, but to my intuition that seems out of working homelesss range. In cheaper cities though, definitely.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoThese places are illegal to offer in sf. There is a minimum allowance for size