How Seattle Killed Micro-Housing(sightline.org)
sightline.org
How Seattle Killed Micro-Housing
http://www.sightline.org/2016/09/06/how-seattle-killed-micro-housing/
140 comments
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.
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.
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
The micro-housing was a workaround of these laws, which in practice disadvantage the working poor.
The micro-housing was a workaround of these laws, which in practice disadvantage the working poor.
How does micro housing disadvantage the working poor? Supply and demand would suggest more units = cheaper cost per unit.
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.
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.
I've come to the conclusion reading the comments here on this and on other stories concerning housing in cities with a large number of tech workers that a lot of people in tech do not realize that many people picked the cities they live in and their neighborhoods within those cities because they specifically wanted to live in that city and in that neighborhood.
It seems that a large fraction (most?) of the tech people picked their cities largely because that is where their job is.
People who oppose major changes to the character of their neighborhoods and cities aren't all just worried about the resale value of their house. They often are more motivated by a desire to preserve those features of the area that attracted them in the first place.
Also, I think a lot of tech people forget that there are other sectors that also provide a lot of jobs and bring a lot of money to the local economy. For instance, tourism and hospitality provide a very large number of jobs in San Francisco, and bring in a lot of outside money.
Change the look and feel of San Francisco too much and you could reduce the appeal to tourists. You risk changing it from people thinking of it as going to San Francisco and while there visiting attraction X, Y, and Z to people thinking of it as going to see X, Y, and Z which happen to be in San Francisco. A city will do a lot better with tourism when the city itself is thought of as a major attraction.
It seems that a large fraction (most?) of the tech people picked their cities largely because that is where their job is.
People who oppose major changes to the character of their neighborhoods and cities aren't all just worried about the resale value of their house. They often are more motivated by a desire to preserve those features of the area that attracted them in the first place.
Also, I think a lot of tech people forget that there are other sectors that also provide a lot of jobs and bring a lot of money to the local economy. For instance, tourism and hospitality provide a very large number of jobs in San Francisco, and bring in a lot of outside money.
Change the look and feel of San Francisco too much and you could reduce the appeal to tourists. You risk changing it from people thinking of it as going to San Francisco and while there visiting attraction X, Y, and Z to people thinking of it as going to see X, Y, and Z which happen to be in San Francisco. A city will do a lot better with tourism when the city itself is thought of as a major attraction.
Meh. Chicago beats San Francisco tourism numbers both in number of visitors and in overall tourism revenue, and while I will forever love Chicago foremost among all US cities, one place where I think we can clearly concede an advantage to SF over Chicago is tourism --- the SF sights, the ocean, the woods to the north, the nearby mountains, Silicon Valley, the Chinese culture, the history of the region. Chicago is practically the apotheosis of "going to see X, Y, and Z which happen to be in Chicago", and it does fine.
I read this article and didn't like it, but couldn't quite put my finger on what (apart from obvious things like the preachy style).
After a cup of tea, here's my conclusion: this is the housing equivalent of saying we must lower the minimum wage, otherwise employers will create fewer jobs.
It might be correct in a very narrow sense. It still doesn't feel right to me.
After a cup of tea, here's my conclusion: this is the housing equivalent of saying we must lower the minimum wage, otherwise employers will create fewer jobs.
It might be correct in a very narrow sense. It still doesn't feel right to me.
Yes, it is true that higher wages lead to fewer jobs, all else being equal, especially in the presence of free trade. The difference here is that corporations are not people. I don't care if they starve, as long as the people have somewhere to live.
Indeed, wages that go up increase fulfillment, all else being equal, but housing costs that go up increase civil unrest. It is not good for housing prices to increase unnecessarily.
Perhaps your discomfort is cognitive dissonance? If so, bravo. There are a lot about economics that defy common notions of decency, and you have to push through it to make decisions that bring actual long-term benefits. Human cognition is defective that way, but our remarkable intellect allows us to understand the bigger picture.
Indeed, wages that go up increase fulfillment, all else being equal, but housing costs that go up increase civil unrest. It is not good for housing prices to increase unnecessarily.
Perhaps your discomfort is cognitive dissonance? If so, bravo. There are a lot about economics that defy common notions of decency, and you have to push through it to make decisions that bring actual long-term benefits. Human cognition is defective that way, but our remarkable intellect allows us to understand the bigger picture.
Interesting perspective.
Some basic math on the author's numbers also reveal that the laws have compelling impacts on his bottom line for rental income - mainly in the downward direction.
Plus, looking at the floorplan of the proposed apartment: what on earth are people in one of these microhousing blocks going to do if there's a fire?!
Some basic math on the author's numbers also reveal that the laws have compelling impacts on his bottom line for rental income - mainly in the downward direction.
Plus, looking at the floorplan of the proposed apartment: what on earth are people in one of these microhousing blocks going to do if there's a fire?!
I thought the reason people hated micro-apartments was because they're used by extra rich people as second houses during the work week. I've only ever heard of them before for living in another city from where you work. Builders keep building those at the expense of normal housing, and young people are stuck with fewer traditional apartments (and therefore higher priced), or one of the crappy tiny places that most of us don't really want, despite how the article paints millenials. I would have loved for the article to research why people oppose them in the first place, other than vague and scary NIMBYism.
One thing that can provoke NIMBYs -- understandably -- is zoning changes. If Mr NIMBY buys a home in a neighborhood that is zoned for, say, 20 units per acre, he expects that to remain.
Often a builder requests special permission to exceed the zoning law, and build, say, 80 units per acre -- then solicits public outcry when denied. Zoning law gives owners a legal expectation.
Often a builder requests special permission to exceed the zoning law, and build, say, 80 units per acre -- then solicits public outcry when denied. Zoning law gives owners a legal expectation.
Can someone explain the reasons why there is such resistance to micro apartments from city councils? Fear of increased population density? Neighbours complaining?
As a Capitol Hill resident, the resistance isn't that crazy. Over half of Seattle residents rent (it's 16% higher than the national average), and the city is on track to have 60% of all housing be high density housing. This is almost double the national average, iirc.
From a city planning perspective if the majority of your new housing being built is being targeted to mid-20 year olds who just got imported by Amazon right out of college and only need space for a bed, then when those mid-20 year olds become mid-30 year olds and want a family there will be no housing to raise a family in.
Cities need families or the only way they grow is by relying on their major industries to import new residents, which is exactly what is happening with Amazon right now (Amazon has enough office space to employ about 11% of the city, and currently employs ~8-9% of Seattle). This is really dangerous for the long term health of any city.
Seattle is simply making sure that it's being developed in a way that will continue to support its residents as they grow. I live in Capitol Hill, love it, but it's pretty much turning into a big ass college dorm. While anecdotal, everyone I know that is starting a family is headed to Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond, etc...
From a city planning perspective if the majority of your new housing being built is being targeted to mid-20 year olds who just got imported by Amazon right out of college and only need space for a bed, then when those mid-20 year olds become mid-30 year olds and want a family there will be no housing to raise a family in.
Cities need families or the only way they grow is by relying on their major industries to import new residents, which is exactly what is happening with Amazon right now (Amazon has enough office space to employ about 11% of the city, and currently employs ~8-9% of Seattle). This is really dangerous for the long term health of any city.
Seattle is simply making sure that it's being developed in a way that will continue to support its residents as they grow. I live in Capitol Hill, love it, but it's pretty much turning into a big ass college dorm. While anecdotal, everyone I know that is starting a family is headed to Kirkland, Bellevue, Redmond, etc...
Can these just be designed so you can later combine small units into a larger one later on if needed?
More likely result, if there ends up being a dearth of young single people, is people who commute in from the burbs will buy these units to use during the week and airbnb them on weekends.
And I question that only young people will want these units. I'm in my 50s and would love to have a tiny affordable place in the city, even if I only used it on weekends and airbnb'd it the rest of the time.
Do I want to buy an expensive 2 bedroom with garage in the city? Not really.
More likely result, if there ends up being a dearth of young single people, is people who commute in from the burbs will buy these units to use during the week and airbnb them on weekends.
And I question that only young people will want these units. I'm in my 50s and would love to have a tiny affordable place in the city, even if I only used it on weekends and airbnb'd it the rest of the time.
Do I want to buy an expensive 2 bedroom with garage in the city? Not really.
> And I question that only young people will want these units. I'm in my 50s and would love to have a tiny affordable place in the city, even if I only used it on weekends and airbnb'd it the rest of the time.
lol so you want a second home in a desirable location, but not too big or expensive, or require too much maintenance, that you use only when it's convenient for you, and that someone else pays for? this is a fantastic idea. i'll take 2.
this is why the housing system is so screwed up in cities. everyone is scheming of ways to make money on their home, or have someone else pay for it, before they've bought it, lived in it, before it even exists!
lol so you want a second home in a desirable location, but not too big or expensive, or require too much maintenance, that you use only when it's convenient for you, and that someone else pays for? this is a fantastic idea. i'll take 2.
this is why the housing system is so screwed up in cities. everyone is scheming of ways to make money on their home, or have someone else pay for it, before they've bought it, lived in it, before it even exists!
Yeah it has nothing to do with supply, demand, subsidies for mortgages or of the other interventions into the marketplace.
Its people seeking their self interest, as all people tend to do, that are to blame.
If only they would all just stop doing it it so I could pursue my own self interest unimpeded.
Its people seeking their self interest, as all people tend to do, that are to blame.
If only they would all just stop doing it it so I could pursue my own self interest unimpeded.
>And I question that only young people will want these units. I'm in my 50s and would love to have a tiny affordable place in the city, even if I only used it on weekends and airbnb'd it the rest of the time.
So you're effectively saying that these would become unlicensed hotels. That's not very attractive to local residents.
(I actually agree that small apartments would be attractive as pied-a-terres. But that's not really the sort of housing that city planners prioritize or should prioritize.)
So you're effectively saying that these would become unlicensed hotels. That's not very attractive to local residents.
(I actually agree that small apartments would be attractive as pied-a-terres. But that's not really the sort of housing that city planners prioritize or should prioritize.)
I was in Capitol Hill a couple of weeks ago. Nice place. How do you factor cost into your argument? It seems the only way you could afford to house a family in Capitol Hill is either by building low cost apartments or by striking it rich at a company like Amazon or Microsoft (which leads to an undesirable monoculture as found in SF). I would have thought you would favor microhousing, as increasing density would lower the cost of land, making family sized housing more affordable.
Update: the more I think about this, the more it doesn't make sense to me. I don't think Amazon tech workers, earning, say, $8K a month, are the target for microhousing. I really don't see how pushing down price will do anything other than increase diversity.
Update: the more I think about this, the more it doesn't make sense to me. I don't think Amazon tech workers, earning, say, $8K a month, are the target for microhousing. I really don't see how pushing down price will do anything other than increase diversity.
Go back to the 80s and 90s even. Remember how only really poor people lived on Capitol Hill and how it was the place you went to score heroin or a hooker? Man, I miss that culture. Sorry you gentrified it only to have college kids move in. Sucks.
But joking aside, I do think that micro apartments speed up the population growth faster than is sustainable. Your small businesses give way to chain stores, and there would be lines everywhere if you didn't crack down on microhousing -- unless you were also able to introduce some sort of "microhousing-equivilent shops and services" model. (Maybe crowd-sourced delivery would partially work, but there's something to be said for having a local coffee shop with a free table.)
In the early 2000's we crammed 4 people into a 3 bedroom apartment near The Harvard Exit. Our total rent... $1600 a month -- I think my cut was $375 -- and another $25 / month parking. So in that sense, I don't think microhousing is any worse than what we did, but there certainly weren't that many people lining up to live in Capitol Hill back then...
To this day that was my favorite place to live.
But joking aside, I do think that micro apartments speed up the population growth faster than is sustainable. Your small businesses give way to chain stores, and there would be lines everywhere if you didn't crack down on microhousing -- unless you were also able to introduce some sort of "microhousing-equivilent shops and services" model. (Maybe crowd-sourced delivery would partially work, but there's something to be said for having a local coffee shop with a free table.)
In the early 2000's we crammed 4 people into a 3 bedroom apartment near The Harvard Exit. Our total rent... $1600 a month -- I think my cut was $375 -- and another $25 / month parking. So in that sense, I don't think microhousing is any worse than what we did, but there certainly weren't that many people lining up to live in Capitol Hill back then...
To this day that was my favorite place to live.
> ...if the majority of your new housing being built is being targeted to mid-20 year olds who just got imported by Amazon right out of college and only need space for a bed...
They certainly need more than just space for a bed and certainly get paid enough to afford a full studio or 1 or 2 bedroom apartment.
> ...then when those mid-20 year olds become mid-30 year olds and want a family there will be no housing to raise a family in.
They will move to Ballard or some other suburb like everyone else does, or live in the many other condos or larger apartments all over the city.
They certainly need more than just space for a bed and certainly get paid enough to afford a full studio or 1 or 2 bedroom apartment.
> ...then when those mid-20 year olds become mid-30 year olds and want a family there will be no housing to raise a family in.
They will move to Ballard or some other suburb like everyone else does, or live in the many other condos or larger apartments all over the city.
Could Amazon build on-site housing -- setting up sort of a mini-city? Given their amazing efficiency, I would love to see what they come up with.
Sweet. It'd be like factory dormitories in Chinese factories.
Probably something like this...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenement
The town where I previously used to live had a similar concern.
It's a small European town, with a University and a few other higher schools.
The houses in some parts of town were split in smaller and smaller units to maximise the rent profit (split one 2 1/2 flat worth 1'400 p/m and rent two single room flats for 900 each...).
The results is that Anna from the article would have found a shady cheaper flat and would be very happy with it (well, it's a bit expensive but it's mine!). But the spreading of micro apartments will also make her very unhappy for the rest of her life (the life before the first five years in her working career and the long years after that!).
She will come back and ask why there are no flats of reasonable size, for a reasonable price! She will state that not everybody is a twenty-something, who is almost never at home and only needs a bed to rest after yesterday evening party!
My stance: micro apartments are a need, but you probably don't want too many of them in town center. You need a good mix there and the twenty-something are not the ones who pay taxes nor the ones that build a solid social life.
It's a small European town, with a University and a few other higher schools.
The houses in some parts of town were split in smaller and smaller units to maximise the rent profit (split one 2 1/2 flat worth 1'400 p/m and rent two single room flats for 900 each...).
The results is that Anna from the article would have found a shady cheaper flat and would be very happy with it (well, it's a bit expensive but it's mine!). But the spreading of micro apartments will also make her very unhappy for the rest of her life (the life before the first five years in her working career and the long years after that!).
She will come back and ask why there are no flats of reasonable size, for a reasonable price! She will state that not everybody is a twenty-something, who is almost never at home and only needs a bed to rest after yesterday evening party!
My stance: micro apartments are a need, but you probably don't want too many of them in town center. You need a good mix there and the twenty-something are not the ones who pay taxes nor the ones that build a solid social life.
"why there are no flats of reasonable size, for a reasonable price!"
If there's demand, won't there be supply eventually?
If people will start paying premium for reasonable size flats while leaving some smaller units unoccupied, market will surely correct itself. It's true that for some time market might be skewed toward wrong sizes, but you don't have to ban anything outright to prevent it, some soft regulations might be sufficient.
If there's demand, won't there be supply eventually?
If people will start paying premium for reasonable size flats while leaving some smaller units unoccupied, market will surely correct itself. It's true that for some time market might be skewed toward wrong sizes, but you don't have to ban anything outright to prevent it, some soft regulations might be sufficient.
"In the long run, we're all dead" -- JM Keynes
These are buildings we're talking about. A city can get stuck with the wrong size units for a very long time. There's a reason things like the Parker-Morris space standards were developed, and they recommended 30m^2 for single occupancy dwellings in the UK in 1961.
The 220ft^2 apartments are 20.5m^2, not very large at all. The really tiny ones have communal shared cooking areas, which have the potential to be a social problem.
I think people are terrified of some kind of Stand on Zanzibar future where they're economically constrained into smaller and smaller spaces, and this is one way to push back.
These are buildings we're talking about. A city can get stuck with the wrong size units for a very long time. There's a reason things like the Parker-Morris space standards were developed, and they recommended 30m^2 for single occupancy dwellings in the UK in 1961.
The 220ft^2 apartments are 20.5m^2, not very large at all. The really tiny ones have communal shared cooking areas, which have the potential to be a social problem.
I think people are terrified of some kind of Stand on Zanzibar future where they're economically constrained into smaller and smaller spaces, and this is one way to push back.
In practice, cities with a lot of single people and a lot of large units just result in a lot of roommate situations— which many people like, but many others don't.
And roommates can pretty much always outbid families for housing.
And roommates can pretty much always outbid families for housing.
In a world of ever-growing population, I think you're economically constrained to smaller and smaller spaces or farther away (or otherwise less valuable) spaces. Pushing back on smaller spaces just changes the variables by which housing will be allocated economically.
Cities only take a small fraction of land. Growing population doesn't really matters here; (un)willingless to build does.
IMO, unwillingness to live farther out on that large fraction of land that isn't the city is a bigger issue.
Why is it an issue? Why not let people live where they want to live and just build up?
It seems to be an issue only in that people seem to want in a certain place but not pay the prevailing rent to do so. If they're willing to pay the prevailing rent, there is no issue.
In a neighborhood like mine (75% SFR, 25% MFR free-standing homes in West Cambridge), you can bet that I'll object to zoning changes that would allow "just building up". I don't need the noise, traffic, additional pressures on the school system, nor do I want to live in a mid-rise and high-rise district. If I did, I'd have bought in one...
In a neighborhood like mine (75% SFR, 25% MFR free-standing homes in West Cambridge), you can bet that I'll object to zoning changes that would allow "just building up". I don't need the noise, traffic, additional pressures on the school system, nor do I want to live in a mid-rise and high-rise district. If I did, I'd have bought in one...
First of all, what's "prevailing rent" now would be "ridiculously expensive" few years back. That's lack of supply skewing market.
There should be other options than building in your backyard. Find underused places and build up there. The biggest problem is what to build and how: it's amazingly easy to screw this one up (too sparse? too dense? too high? too low?)
There should be other options than building in your backyard. Find underused places and build up there. The biggest problem is what to build and how: it's amazingly easy to screw this one up (too sparse? too dense? too high? too low?)
One man's "lack of supply" is another man's "uptick in demand" skewing the market.
You can't simply conclude it's one xor the other.
You can't simply conclude it's one xor the other.
uptick in demand should be met with uptick in supply.
[deleted]
Yes and no. Activation energy to build a new house with bigger units, or to merge existing units by tearing down walls, is exponentially higher than the activation energy needed to split a big unit into two small units.
The problem you run into is that even people who have the money, can't find anything to buy or rent, and zoning laws or other types of limitations, prevent fixing the problem by increasing supply.
The problem you run into is that even people who have the money, can't find anything to buy or rent, and zoning laws or other types of limitations, prevent fixing the problem by increasing supply.
It seems that you're arguing that zoning can fix some problems created by zoning in the first place.
When the real solution to this problem, as to many others, is increasing supply.
When the real solution to this problem, as to many others, is increasing supply.
Splitting a big unit into smaller units often creates problems of egress means (for fire safety) and figuring out what to do with storage space that may not be evenly distributed throughout the house. Joining existing units rarely creates that type of problem.
And of course, nothing about that project is "exponential".
And of course, nothing about that project is "exponential".
The bulk of these buildings tend to be purpose-built rental stacks. Towers built under these conditions tend to have very low strata fees, poor maintenance, and can easily fall in to slum style living. The ownership can extract high rents for little space, and people can sublet to even more people to make for bunk housing. Why not just go Hong Kong style?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cage_home
There is a slide towards smaller and smaller apartments. Two bedroom units in major city centers are clocking in at 600 sq.ft. at times. Then put two parents and two kids in to one, maybe operate a day care or two out of them. Again, these are rental units, so the owners care about low fees and no phone calls. Renters don't want to lose their place, so the calls don't come. Fools that are owner/residents find themselves trapped.
Buildings with low owner/renter ratio may have programs with mortgages:
http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Selling/What_are_the_curre...
Plus, you never know if a single organization might buy up a massive number of units in the building and throw their weight around the strata to unduly benefit them.
One should also consider the source of the article. The author is a developer who would stand to make significant amounts of money on lower quality, rental focused apartments with more units per block. The hosting site has a huge focus on micro homes as a solution to everyone's needs or desires as well. Look at the list of articles under that section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cage_home
There is a slide towards smaller and smaller apartments. Two bedroom units in major city centers are clocking in at 600 sq.ft. at times. Then put two parents and two kids in to one, maybe operate a day care or two out of them. Again, these are rental units, so the owners care about low fees and no phone calls. Renters don't want to lose their place, so the calls don't come. Fools that are owner/residents find themselves trapped.
Buildings with low owner/renter ratio may have programs with mortgages:
http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Selling/What_are_the_curre...
Plus, you never know if a single organization might buy up a massive number of units in the building and throw their weight around the strata to unduly benefit them.
One should also consider the source of the article. The author is a developer who would stand to make significant amounts of money on lower quality, rental focused apartments with more units per block. The hosting site has a huge focus on micro homes as a solution to everyone's needs or desires as well. Look at the list of articles under that section.
NIMBY'ism[1] as our[2] neighborhood blog, Capitol Hill Seattle Blog, and citywide alt-weekly, The Stranger, describe it.
Here's a representative example from CHS: http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2015/07/mayor-backs-off-af...
And one from the Stranger: http://www.thestranger.com/news/feature/2015/04/29/22131155/...
Notably, I live about six blocks from the OneOne6 building mentioned in the article. It's a great neighborhood, even though I—ahem—lived here before it was as cool as it is today, and even though rents have doubled or even tripled in the past decade.
[1] Not In My Back Yard!
[2] I've lived in Capitol Hill, the neighborhood described in the article for almost 11 years.
Here's a representative example from CHS: http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2015/07/mayor-backs-off-af...
And one from the Stranger: http://www.thestranger.com/news/feature/2015/04/29/22131155/...
Notably, I live about six blocks from the OneOne6 building mentioned in the article. It's a great neighborhood, even though I—ahem—lived here before it was as cool as it is today, and even though rents have doubled or even tripled in the past decade.
[1] Not In My Back Yard!
[2] I've lived in Capitol Hill, the neighborhood described in the article for almost 11 years.
NIMBY isn't really an explanation, unless the underlying local negatives of a building are clear. NIMBY for a wind farm might be based on noise complaints. NIMBY for a nuclear power plant might be based on fear of radiation or an accident. What is NIMBY for microhousing based on?
I suspect existing property owners don't want lots of cheap housing to cut demand and prices for their more conventional properties.
Increasing density also has a lot of downsides for the nearby residents. It means that congested roads become even more congested, and so on. Dirty roads get that much more dirt. Schools become packed such that students end up in temporary trailer buildings instead of classrooms. The problem is that all of these types of infrastructure tend to trail density, and often by many years or even decades. Seattle schools are physically running out of room to house students, causing programs to end and people to get shuffled around.
There are benefits to density as well, as most people who live in a city will attest. But there are certainly compelling disadvantages too, and I think any honest discussion about housing should recognize that residents of an area have a legitimate and fair desire to want their circumstances to stay the same or not get worse. Increasing the density of an area usually entails a lot of quality-of-life disadvantages for the current residents, by straining services and infrastructure, whereas it entails advantages for business owners and business developers and potentially new residents. It also sometimes results in lower housing prices, but the effect of this is not entirely clear (development is virtually never genuinely motivated by the desire to provide low income housing since that's a poor business proposition), and low housing price is not always a priority for residents compared to quality-of-life.
Some of the infrastructure challenges that I'm describing can be fixed over time, but it's by no means a given that it will happen at all: the lower quality of life might just become permanent. Plus shutting down major roads to widen them or increase throughput is a disruptive activity on its own, and is not always possible (where do you get property for a new school?) So major problems can trail increases in density by quite a while. Traffic congestion in particular can become considerably worse because of changes in density, and that takes a very very long time to fix on the scale of city planning.
It's also worth recognizing that people have different values, and so some people might value the increased benefits from further density differently than others, and the increased disadvantages differently. If you purchased a house somewhere that's quiet, safe, and has little traffic, because you keep to yourself and want to raise a family, then you'd be upset if the area around you was transformed into a college dormitory party atmosphere.
I'm not saying that I think there's a clear answer for how to handle city planning problems, but I think we could have better conversations about the problem by recognizing that development and density increases are usually bad for existing residents (those who can afford the area, are happy with the price, and value the quality of life they currently have). It is a conundrum to an extent that many of those current residents would not be there if it were not for previous decisions to increase density in that same city. However, this is only a conundrum on the surface: there is a tipping point where increasing density at first yields tremendous advantages but few disadvantages, and then slowly the disadvantages begin to mount up until they overcome the advantages. I believe many big cities in the US are at this tipping point, such as San Francisco.
Cities are democratic organizations that exist to serve their residents, and so if residents believe that policies are not in their interest, they will vote them down. These zoning questions are ultimately entirely political, just like the question of whether a country should accept Syrian refugees.
There are benefits to density as well, as most people who live in a city will attest. But there are certainly compelling disadvantages too, and I think any honest discussion about housing should recognize that residents of an area have a legitimate and fair desire to want their circumstances to stay the same or not get worse. Increasing the density of an area usually entails a lot of quality-of-life disadvantages for the current residents, by straining services and infrastructure, whereas it entails advantages for business owners and business developers and potentially new residents. It also sometimes results in lower housing prices, but the effect of this is not entirely clear (development is virtually never genuinely motivated by the desire to provide low income housing since that's a poor business proposition), and low housing price is not always a priority for residents compared to quality-of-life.
Some of the infrastructure challenges that I'm describing can be fixed over time, but it's by no means a given that it will happen at all: the lower quality of life might just become permanent. Plus shutting down major roads to widen them or increase throughput is a disruptive activity on its own, and is not always possible (where do you get property for a new school?) So major problems can trail increases in density by quite a while. Traffic congestion in particular can become considerably worse because of changes in density, and that takes a very very long time to fix on the scale of city planning.
It's also worth recognizing that people have different values, and so some people might value the increased benefits from further density differently than others, and the increased disadvantages differently. If you purchased a house somewhere that's quiet, safe, and has little traffic, because you keep to yourself and want to raise a family, then you'd be upset if the area around you was transformed into a college dormitory party atmosphere.
I'm not saying that I think there's a clear answer for how to handle city planning problems, but I think we could have better conversations about the problem by recognizing that development and density increases are usually bad for existing residents (those who can afford the area, are happy with the price, and value the quality of life they currently have). It is a conundrum to an extent that many of those current residents would not be there if it were not for previous decisions to increase density in that same city. However, this is only a conundrum on the surface: there is a tipping point where increasing density at first yields tremendous advantages but few disadvantages, and then slowly the disadvantages begin to mount up until they overcome the advantages. I believe many big cities in the US are at this tipping point, such as San Francisco.
Cities are democratic organizations that exist to serve their residents, and so if residents believe that policies are not in their interest, they will vote them down. These zoning questions are ultimately entirely political, just like the question of whether a country should accept Syrian refugees.
Increasing density will increase congestion and overburden infrastructure? That is what you get when you build a place on the premise that everyone owns a private car and should drive everywhere. Density will achieve the opposite in the long-term. In dense, mixed-use places people have the option to go places without driving. The congestion may never leave, but for the people happily walking to their destinations, it won't matter. Picture New York or Tokyo - horrible places to drive, but for most people it doesn't matter because they aren't driving. Walking as a mode of transportation requires practically nothing in the way of infrastructure spending compared to that required for driving. Furthermore, the per-taxpayer-served cost of a street decreases as density increases. If the current residents want to park for free on the street next to their large home, and drive everywhere, and have free parking at all of their destinations, that's great for them, but many people would place more importance on ensuring everyone has access to affordable housing.
San Francisco isn't a good example of the disadvantages of density overcoming the advantages. San Francisco is a good example of the drawbacks of the conversation you call for overwhelming the advantages of that conversation over the course of four or five decades.
> There are benefits to density as well, as most people who live in a city will attest.
Anybody that lives in a city that can attest to the benefits of density? Living in Seattle with kids, can't think of any.
Anybody that lives in a city that can attest to the benefits of density? Living in Seattle with kids, can't think of any.
Make a list of the reasons why you live in Seattle and not in rural Wyoming, and you'll have your answer. :)
Typically it's "jobs", followed distantly by everything else, to include things like walkability, cultural attractions, food and dining, ease of visiting friends and family, etc. It varies by person, but the benefits obviously exist or nobody would live in cities.
Maybe none of those are the benefits of density qua density, but they are hard to achieve without the density. (I mean, I would love to live somewhere with a great tech job market, walkable neighborhoods with bars and restaurants, delivery food at 2AM, and where nobody except my friends and I live there. But of course that's impossible. The density is a precondition for everything else.)
Typically it's "jobs", followed distantly by everything else, to include things like walkability, cultural attractions, food and dining, ease of visiting friends and family, etc. It varies by person, but the benefits obviously exist or nobody would live in cities.
Maybe none of those are the benefits of density qua density, but they are hard to achieve without the density. (I mean, I would love to live somewhere with a great tech job market, walkable neighborhoods with bars and restaurants, delivery food at 2AM, and where nobody except my friends and I live there. But of course that's impossible. The density is a precondition for everything else.)
You are absolutely right.
We live in Seattle because it was the smallest / least dense city where both me and my wife could find work relevant to our skills. Across the lake, in the Redmond area, there are plenty of jobs and even less density, but we landed in Seattle before we knew any better about the local geography.
The density axis goes from lots-of-breathing-room-but-no-jobs to suffocating-and-jobs-that-barely-afford-a-box, with lots of tradeoff points in the middle. I fail to see how density is a positive in itself, or that more density is a always a net positive.
As for walkability, it is seriously overrated. Most people are not rich enough to live in walking distance of their jobs. If we could make everyone move in walking distance of job, then most likely we wouldn't need density. Next, you get overpriced shops in walking distance. I'll do groceries at Costco, thank you very much. Parks are more likely to come by in less dense areas. The major benefit I see is that one can safely party within walking distance, and even that benefit is eroded by Uber :)
[FWIW, I lived in a couple "walkable" European cities in a previous life. Slogging through cold rain for basic necessities, oh the memories.]
We live in Seattle because it was the smallest / least dense city where both me and my wife could find work relevant to our skills. Across the lake, in the Redmond area, there are plenty of jobs and even less density, but we landed in Seattle before we knew any better about the local geography.
The density axis goes from lots-of-breathing-room-but-no-jobs to suffocating-and-jobs-that-barely-afford-a-box, with lots of tradeoff points in the middle. I fail to see how density is a positive in itself, or that more density is a always a net positive.
As for walkability, it is seriously overrated. Most people are not rich enough to live in walking distance of their jobs. If we could make everyone move in walking distance of job, then most likely we wouldn't need density. Next, you get overpriced shops in walking distance. I'll do groceries at Costco, thank you very much. Parks are more likely to come by in less dense areas. The major benefit I see is that one can safely party within walking distance, and even that benefit is eroded by Uber :)
[FWIW, I lived in a couple "walkable" European cities in a previous life. Slogging through cold rain for basic necessities, oh the memories.]
How about being able to walk to places?
Many people argue that putting up micro-housing destroys the "character" of the neighborhood.
I'm not saying it makes sense, but that's the only real argument I've heard.
I'm not saying it makes sense, but that's the only real argument I've heard.
> What is NIMBY for microhousing based on?
This is an ongoing argument in Northern Virginia (which is not quite as expensive as SF / Seattle / NYC, but probably only one cost tier below that) and the major arguments are basically the same issues that apply to all "just build more housing, stupid" proposals.
Basically, if you suddenly build a lot more housing, you'd start to strain the infrastructure of the community in other ways. That strain is really, really unpleasant to other people who share the infrastructure, and so current residents -- who are often already feeling like things are strained and getting worse over time -- would rather avoid making things worse. The easiest way to avoid making things worse is just to control the number of residents, and the easiest way to do that is to control the amount of housing. If you don't live here, you're probably not using the infrastructure. QED.
In many ways, building more housing is the easiest problem to solve when it comes to urban infrastructure. Providing a heated place out of the rain just isn't that hard, compared to (say) transportation or schools or figuring out sustainable economic balance.
Existing residents are probably (very reasonably) suspicious that once a bunch of tiny apartments are air-dropped in, and then a bunch of people move in to fill them up, that there won't be any solution to any of the knock-on problems that will inevitably result -- parking, traffic, school overcrowding, tax-base changes, stress to physical infrastructure like gas/water/sewer/electric systems -- until those systems become untenably broken. I mean, I can't speak to Seattle, but those things are already an increasingly-severe problem today, with the current number of residents, in my area, and people don't have much faith in government's ability to fix them; so the idea that the situation will be improved once everyone installs a couple of backyard apartments is ridiculous. (And then there are questions like: how are these backyard apartments going to be taxed? Are people who move in really going to pay more in taxes than they consume in services and infrastructure impact, or is this going to externalize costs via taxes on everyone else? There's no clear answer to these questions, and people are reluctant to become the test case.)
If you want more housing, you need more infrastructure. If you want more infrastructure, either you need a very different funding model or you need better government and more trust in that government. Our government is largely (perceived to be) broken, and public infrastructure is (perceived to be) broken or breaking, and so the unsurprising result is that nobody wants to build more housing and add more strain to a system that's well beyond its design capacity anyway.
This is an ongoing argument in Northern Virginia (which is not quite as expensive as SF / Seattle / NYC, but probably only one cost tier below that) and the major arguments are basically the same issues that apply to all "just build more housing, stupid" proposals.
Basically, if you suddenly build a lot more housing, you'd start to strain the infrastructure of the community in other ways. That strain is really, really unpleasant to other people who share the infrastructure, and so current residents -- who are often already feeling like things are strained and getting worse over time -- would rather avoid making things worse. The easiest way to avoid making things worse is just to control the number of residents, and the easiest way to do that is to control the amount of housing. If you don't live here, you're probably not using the infrastructure. QED.
In many ways, building more housing is the easiest problem to solve when it comes to urban infrastructure. Providing a heated place out of the rain just isn't that hard, compared to (say) transportation or schools or figuring out sustainable economic balance.
Existing residents are probably (very reasonably) suspicious that once a bunch of tiny apartments are air-dropped in, and then a bunch of people move in to fill them up, that there won't be any solution to any of the knock-on problems that will inevitably result -- parking, traffic, school overcrowding, tax-base changes, stress to physical infrastructure like gas/water/sewer/electric systems -- until those systems become untenably broken. I mean, I can't speak to Seattle, but those things are already an increasingly-severe problem today, with the current number of residents, in my area, and people don't have much faith in government's ability to fix them; so the idea that the situation will be improved once everyone installs a couple of backyard apartments is ridiculous. (And then there are questions like: how are these backyard apartments going to be taxed? Are people who move in really going to pay more in taxes than they consume in services and infrastructure impact, or is this going to externalize costs via taxes on everyone else? There's no clear answer to these questions, and people are reluctant to become the test case.)
If you want more housing, you need more infrastructure. If you want more infrastructure, either you need a very different funding model or you need better government and more trust in that government. Our government is largely (perceived to be) broken, and public infrastructure is (perceived to be) broken or breaking, and so the unsurprising result is that nobody wants to build more housing and add more strain to a system that's well beyond its design capacity anyway.
Local residents concerns about density (parking, etc.) is one thing.
The bigger one is that the image most of these types of units seem to be trying to convey is that of small, efficient studios with bath & minimal kitchen for yuppies that used shared spaces to augment the small private spaces. (I've stayed multiple times in a 170 sq. ft. designed hotel room in NYC and it is indeed pretty much a place to sleep and work at a small desk.)
However, what a lot of residents probably see is something that isn't far removed from an SRO [1] such as you see in the Tenderloin and other dingy old downtown areas. If this is your perspective, it's not hard to see why you'd resist it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy
The bigger one is that the image most of these types of units seem to be trying to convey is that of small, efficient studios with bath & minimal kitchen for yuppies that used shared spaces to augment the small private spaces. (I've stayed multiple times in a 170 sq. ft. designed hotel room in NYC and it is indeed pretty much a place to sleep and work at a small desk.)
However, what a lot of residents probably see is something that isn't far removed from an SRO [1] such as you see in the Tenderloin and other dingy old downtown areas. If this is your perspective, it's not hard to see why you'd resist it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy
Incumbent property owners vote and agitate. Transient low-income residents don't. Property developers have alternatives in that they can build luxury apartments at the $/sq. ft that a microunit might command.
I am coming to understand that the purpose of almost all zoning regulations is to exclude "undesirable" people from the area. Poor people are considered undesirable. So zoning codes are tweaked until the effect is that high incomes are required.
You have to have a certain cynicism to understand that there is a huge disconnect between what regulations discuss (health and safety; parking requirements; setbacks; etc.) and what is the impact of the rules. The reason rules are made is they have a desired effect. The effects are often not obvious from the language of the rule, but if the effects turn out contrary to the interest of the rule-makers things will be tweaked.
So the language and purported purpose of rules is obfuscation. The rule-makers are paying attention to the effect of the rules. That is their real purpose.
The form of the rules is optimised to make them appear beneficial to all, while the function is optimised to benefit the rule-makers.
You have to have a certain cynicism to understand that there is a huge disconnect between what regulations discuss (health and safety; parking requirements; setbacks; etc.) and what is the impact of the rules. The reason rules are made is they have a desired effect. The effects are often not obvious from the language of the rule, but if the effects turn out contrary to the interest of the rule-makers things will be tweaked.
So the language and purported purpose of rules is obfuscation. The rule-makers are paying attention to the effect of the rules. That is their real purpose.
The form of the rules is optimised to make them appear beneficial to all, while the function is optimised to benefit the rule-makers.
Oh hi. I'm one of the NIMBYs in Seattle that likes height restrictions and hates micro housing. Across the street there's a halfway house and two blocks down there's an empty lot that is now being used as a sanctioned tenting site for homeless. I have no problem with either being in my neighborhood. I hope they stay. I hope they expand.
>You have to have a certain cynicism
You certainly have to be cynical to believe that somehow Seattle is not operating in its own self interest. As faults are found, we try to correct them. Some are very difficult to correct (hello I5, hello American street widths, hello North Seattle sprawl, hello West Seattle suburban wasteland, hello unlivable industrial area) and some are geographic constrains (hello hills and water).
Making tiny shitty apartments does not correct any of these deep problems.
>The form of the rules is optimised to make them appear beneficial to all,
The form of the rules isn't 'optimised' at all. It's an organic living document called "the law." You apparently think the world would be a better place if developers could make whatever size dwelling they want. I think that happened in the 19th century and the result was skid row. I am not interested in trying the experiment again. I am interested in more housing for my community, but honestly that means rezoning SFHs, not getting rid of height restrictions and parking requirements when they're justifiable.
And yes, my opinion is entirely qualitative. I like 3-4 story buildings because I like them. They have been a staple of the environment that dragged me out of adolescence and into responsible, productive adulthood. They are the good geometry.
>You have to have a certain cynicism
You certainly have to be cynical to believe that somehow Seattle is not operating in its own self interest. As faults are found, we try to correct them. Some are very difficult to correct (hello I5, hello American street widths, hello North Seattle sprawl, hello West Seattle suburban wasteland, hello unlivable industrial area) and some are geographic constrains (hello hills and water).
Making tiny shitty apartments does not correct any of these deep problems.
>The form of the rules is optimised to make them appear beneficial to all,
The form of the rules isn't 'optimised' at all. It's an organic living document called "the law." You apparently think the world would be a better place if developers could make whatever size dwelling they want. I think that happened in the 19th century and the result was skid row. I am not interested in trying the experiment again. I am interested in more housing for my community, but honestly that means rezoning SFHs, not getting rid of height restrictions and parking requirements when they're justifiable.
And yes, my opinion is entirely qualitative. I like 3-4 story buildings because I like them. They have been a staple of the environment that dragged me out of adolescence and into responsible, productive adulthood. They are the good geometry.
Hi NIMBY.
I'm a former Seattlite millennial who's lived through the 2008 financial crash, the repercussions of a 50% divorce rate, and grew up on the internet.
Growing up in the world I have, I've come to realize physical things weigh me down and participating in consumerism makes me unhappy. Working for 50 years so i can save up enough money to retire at 65 doesn't make sense to me. Why suffer for 50 years so you can live free for a few at the end, when you're old, maybe sick.
I found minimalism, FIRE, and the idea that you ruthlessly reduce expenses for things you don't need.
It turns out... I don't need a one bedroom apartment. I certainly don't need a house. I've lived out of a school-sized backpack for months at a time. Last time i moved, I packed everything I own in 3 hours, moved in one trip in a van, and unpacked in about 2 hours.
I appreciate that you like 3-4 story buildings and your two bedroom apartments. I appreciate you like your parking.
But I don't have enough stuff to fill an apartment. I don't have a car. I don't WANT either of those things. It's okay if you do, but why force me to have them?
> "Making tiny shitty apartments does not correct any of these deep problems."
It's true tiny apartments won't fix being surrounded by lakes, but if 1800 more people can afford to live where, and how, they want... Isn't that a start?
Growing up in the world I have, I've come to realize physical things weigh me down and participating in consumerism makes me unhappy. Working for 50 years so i can save up enough money to retire at 65 doesn't make sense to me. Why suffer for 50 years so you can live free for a few at the end, when you're old, maybe sick.
I found minimalism, FIRE, and the idea that you ruthlessly reduce expenses for things you don't need.
It turns out... I don't need a one bedroom apartment. I certainly don't need a house. I've lived out of a school-sized backpack for months at a time. Last time i moved, I packed everything I own in 3 hours, moved in one trip in a van, and unpacked in about 2 hours.
I appreciate that you like 3-4 story buildings and your two bedroom apartments. I appreciate you like your parking.
But I don't have enough stuff to fill an apartment. I don't have a car. I don't WANT either of those things. It's okay if you do, but why force me to have them?
> "Making tiny shitty apartments does not correct any of these deep problems."
It's true tiny apartments won't fix being surrounded by lakes, but if 1800 more people can afford to live where, and how, they want... Isn't that a start?
> I'm a former Seattlite millennial who's lived through the 2008 financial crash, the repercussions of a 50% divorce rate, and grew up on the internet.
Oh. Poor baby :(
FWIW I'm a millennial that lives in a 600 sqft apartment and has never owned a car. I just don't think that it's justifiable to rewrite zoning laws to achieve my weird goals of absolute independence.
>It's true tiny apartments won't fix being surrounded by lakes, but if 1800 more people can afford to live where, and how, they want... Isn't that a start?
I think it's a meaningless drop in the bucket and a wasted opportunity. You don't build shit that you don't want around for at least 30 years, and preferably 100.
Oh. Poor baby :(
FWIW I'm a millennial that lives in a 600 sqft apartment and has never owned a car. I just don't think that it's justifiable to rewrite zoning laws to achieve my weird goals of absolute independence.
>It's true tiny apartments won't fix being surrounded by lakes, but if 1800 more people can afford to live where, and how, they want... Isn't that a start?
I think it's a meaningless drop in the bucket and a wasted opportunity. You don't build shit that you don't want around for at least 30 years, and preferably 100.
Just curious, what is FIRE?
Financially Independent, Retired Early
I'm guessing it's something like Financial Independence Retire Early?
[deleted]
The work for 50 years thing is basically what happens when you have kids. Also some aren't so lucky to travel... the world today is much cheaper and accessible thanks to the internet.
[deleted]
There is so much I don't like in this response, but I think the core is that you want people to live in small apartments for ... no good reason other than you don't like them. You can see from the exterior shot of OneOne6 (http://www.karmaresidential.com/oneone6.html) that it is four stories high---so it doesn't engage the height restriction issue you are so concerned with (and is only tangentially related to the article). It's about five minutes walk from Capitol Hill station, so no need for parking.
At least you have the insight to realise your opinion is "entirely qualitative" (i.e. entirely emotional) but apparently not the insight to recognize you should then change your opinion.
At least you have the insight to realise your opinion is "entirely qualitative" (i.e. entirely emotional) but apparently not the insight to recognize you should then change your opinion.
Just as a counterpoint - it's pretty easy to get emotional about a decision that you, personally, have a quarter million dollars wrapped up in. (Or in Seattle/Cap Hill's case, substantially more than that!) That's what home ownership does to people - it causes them to protect their investments.
Is it a net good? I don't know. But I think it's a huge and common misconception to interpret NIMBY-ism as a malicious action rather than a simple case of people acting in their own self interest.
Is it a net good? I don't know. But I think it's a huge and common misconception to interpret NIMBY-ism as a malicious action rather than a simple case of people acting in their own self interest.
The problem is that GP is deciding that the minimum cost to enter Seattle should be at least $1500 a month for everyone, and that they should all live like GP. Then they bring up halfway houses and tent cities, which says to me that they're fine with squalid living conditions. What they apparently want is for anyone in Seattle to either have a high salary or to live in a tent city with the rest of the homeless.
> What they apparently want is for anyone in Seattle to either have a high salary or to live in a tent city with the rest of the homeless.
That seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. Plus, I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply there's this big, nefarious "they". It seems more realistic (to me, at least) to view NIMBYers as a bunch of individual homeowners concerned about the value of what's likely their single biggest investment.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that the post you're referencing the "tent city" thing from was tongue-in-cheek. That's entirely personal speculation, however.
That seems like a bit of a false dichotomy. Plus, I think it's a bit disingenuous to imply there's this big, nefarious "they". It seems more realistic (to me, at least) to view NIMBYers as a bunch of individual homeowners concerned about the value of what's likely their single biggest investment.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that the post you're referencing the "tent city" thing from was tongue-in-cheek. That's entirely personal speculation, however.
See, this is a problem with democratic decision making. Individually, you are just looking out for your own interests. Collectively, you are inadvertently choosing horrendous alternatives.
In areas like San Francisco and San Jose, there is just not enough housing to house all of the homeless people. There is not enough public funding to create housing for all of the homeless people. And the effectiveness of each dollar keeps going down, faster than inflation.
The article goes into detail, how micro-apartments can be $900 per month each in current market conditions, unsubsidized. But regulations force the cost upwards and the unit count downwards, so both the price goes up (or you do not build until median rent goes up) and the number of low-income people housed goes down.
But, hey, at least the tent city is not directly in your backyard.
In areas like San Francisco and San Jose, there is just not enough housing to house all of the homeless people. There is not enough public funding to create housing for all of the homeless people. And the effectiveness of each dollar keeps going down, faster than inflation.
The article goes into detail, how micro-apartments can be $900 per month each in current market conditions, unsubsidized. But regulations force the cost upwards and the unit count downwards, so both the price goes up (or you do not build until median rent goes up) and the number of low-income people housed goes down.
But, hey, at least the tent city is not directly in your backyard.
I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's explainable, and that it's complex, and that it's driven by real incentives rather than blind malice. I also think there would be a much better chance of making the changes to allow microhousing if you understood where the opposition was coming from. It's hard to convince someone to your point of you by bashing them over the head with "you're wrong!"
I think we have some common ground in that we both think the best solution is not have a tent city in the first place. Homelessness comes with a whole host of other problems that microhousing can't actually solve - like the fact that most homeless people have a hard time applying for housing by virtue of the fact that they have no prior address.
So, maybe the better question is: how do we do that?
I think we have some common ground in that we both think the best solution is not have a tent city in the first place. Homelessness comes with a whole host of other problems that microhousing can't actually solve - like the fact that most homeless people have a hard time applying for housing by virtue of the fact that they have no prior address.
So, maybe the better question is: how do we do that?
[deleted]
There is always a need for parking. You may think that there isn't but the people moving in will have cars because you need a car in Seattle, this isn't New York. Except now they don't have anywhere to park it so they overcrowd any side streets and block driveways. If you are going to build a building with no parking you should not allow any cars to be registered to that address, and don't rent/sell to anyone that has a car. Then when the building is 75% empty you will realize that actually you needed parking all along because car ownership is pretty much required in Seattle.
I lived in Seattle for five years without a car. Enjoyed every second of it.
Between walking, bike, bike share, car2go, uber, lyft, zipcar, busses, and the light rail, and upcoming self driving car services... Why do i need a car again?
Between walking, bike, bike share, car2go, uber, lyft, zipcar, busses, and the light rail, and upcoming self driving car services... Why do i need a car again?
You don't need a car, but you are also in the minority. You can't reasonably expect that none of your neighbors have a car as well. And yet this is exactly what builders propose when building a high density apartment building with no parking.
> You can't reasonably expect that none of your neighbors have a car as well.
No, but I can expect them to suffer if they do have one. Our current car system is unsustainable, and is a luxury. We really need to get rid of it long-term. I'd love to have a boat in my front yard, but it's too hard to find a place to park it. Should boat-owners have the right to a boat spot?
No, but I can expect them to suffer if they do have one. Our current car system is unsustainable, and is a luxury. We really need to get rid of it long-term. I'd love to have a boat in my front yard, but it's too hard to find a place to park it. Should boat-owners have the right to a boat spot?
> No, but I can expect them to suffer if they do have one.
The problem, and the reason why parking requirements exist, is because people externalize that "suffering" on others. They decide they need a car anyway, and then they park that car on other streets, or they park overnight illegally on private property, etc.
It's not like parking requirement laws fell from the sky one day on a bunch of stone tablets. They didn't exist a hundred years ago, but were created and became ubiquitous across the U.S. as cars became more popular because there were such problems when parking is in short supply.
Now, maybe there are some alternative solutions -- maybe you could get people to sign some sort of blood oath that they'll never own a car while living at a particular address, or maybe we could pass laws that prohibit cars from being registered to addresses that lack parking...? (Maybe we could require that in order to register a car, you have to prove you have the right to a place to park it, and stop treating parking as a public good?) But until there's some better solution, the underlying problem that parking requirements were created to solve still exists.
People are very, very good at sharing their suffering with everyone else and society is typically worse off for it. It takes a lot of work to prevent that from happening.
The problem, and the reason why parking requirements exist, is because people externalize that "suffering" on others. They decide they need a car anyway, and then they park that car on other streets, or they park overnight illegally on private property, etc.
It's not like parking requirement laws fell from the sky one day on a bunch of stone tablets. They didn't exist a hundred years ago, but were created and became ubiquitous across the U.S. as cars became more popular because there were such problems when parking is in short supply.
Now, maybe there are some alternative solutions -- maybe you could get people to sign some sort of blood oath that they'll never own a car while living at a particular address, or maybe we could pass laws that prohibit cars from being registered to addresses that lack parking...? (Maybe we could require that in order to register a car, you have to prove you have the right to a place to park it, and stop treating parking as a public good?) But until there's some better solution, the underlying problem that parking requirements were created to solve still exists.
People are very, very good at sharing their suffering with everyone else and society is typically worse off for it. It takes a lot of work to prevent that from happening.
Parking laws did, pretty much, fall from the sky one day on a bunch of stone tablets, usually reflecting terrible data. if you want to read 750 pages on the topic, read Donald Shoup's The High Cost of Free Parking.
They usually are designed to produce neighborhoods where no one ever needs to spend any time searching for a free parking space— which leads to a great deal of suffering for anyone not in an automobile, since such neighborhoods have vast expanses of surface parking that are completely inhospitable to human beings, and are very difficult to serve with public transit.
They also often require an amenity that is very expensive to produce (parking spaces, especially structured spaces) be provided for free, which incentivizes people to own cars and drive everywhere— exactly what we don't want in urban areas, since cars pollute a lot, are dangerous, and require huge amounts of scarce land to store and transport.
They usually are designed to produce neighborhoods where no one ever needs to spend any time searching for a free parking space— which leads to a great deal of suffering for anyone not in an automobile, since such neighborhoods have vast expanses of surface parking that are completely inhospitable to human beings, and are very difficult to serve with public transit.
They also often require an amenity that is very expensive to produce (parking spaces, especially structured spaces) be provided for free, which incentivizes people to own cars and drive everywhere— exactly what we don't want in urban areas, since cars pollute a lot, are dangerous, and require huge amounts of scarce land to store and transport.
We are not talking about free surface parking lots. We are talking about assigned parking in a parking garage for any new high density construction. It isn't free, it's paid by the builder and included in the sale/rental of the units. And you can build it below your building so it doesn't take up any additional surface space.
And, often, such assigned parking spots can be sublet to others if you don't need them yourself.
This assumes all kinds of access to capital, good credit, business acumen, and other expectations of the owner/renter. For those affected by a shortage of affordable housing, buying/renting bigger and then subletting parking is most definitely not an option.
> But until there's some better solution, the underlying problem that parking requirements were created to solve still exists.
But that problem is still a luxury problem. It's not some fundamental right for people to own a car. If you want luxury benefits, you should have to pay luxury pricing. I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to own a car, just that, like any luxury good, it shouldn't be cheap.
In Seattle there are many public transportation options. Sure, it could be much better, but it's still available and quite feasible to use.
But that problem is still a luxury problem. It's not some fundamental right for people to own a car. If you want luxury benefits, you should have to pay luxury pricing. I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to own a car, just that, like any luxury good, it shouldn't be cheap.
In Seattle there are many public transportation options. Sure, it could be much better, but it's still available and quite feasible to use.
Unsustainable or not, most people do have a car, and it is a major nuisance when there is inadequate parking around housing. If there isn't parking near a restaurant where you want to eat, you might just choose to eat somewhere else. But if there's no parking near your home, you're likely to park illegally/block someone's driveway/generally step on your neighbors' toes.
Inadequate parking does have a negative impact on a neighborhood, and it's not the only way to nudge society in the direction of driving less.
Inadequate parking does have a negative impact on a neighborhood, and it's not the only way to nudge society in the direction of driving less.
> Inadequate parking does have a negative impact on a neighborhood, and it's not the only way to nudge society in the direction of driving less.
Sure, there are better ways to push people, and that's now why I want less parking, that's just a pain-point we shouldn't be trying to fix.
> Unsustainable or not, most people do have a car, and it is a major nuisance when there is inadequate parking around housing.
So? A nuisance that those people can avoid if they chose too. Sure, they have a right to own a car, but there's not right to avoid nuisance.
Sure, there are better ways to push people, and that's now why I want less parking, that's just a pain-point we shouldn't be trying to fix.
> Unsustainable or not, most people do have a car, and it is a major nuisance when there is inadequate parking around housing.
So? A nuisance that those people can avoid if they chose too. Sure, they have a right to own a car, but there's not right to avoid nuisance.
Replying to CaptSpify:
The trouble is that the nuisance is not just for the person "choosing" to have a car, it is for everyone in the area.
Only because it's a luxury good that everyone thinks they deserve. Cities that don't expect you to have a car (NY, cities in Europe, most of Seattle) don't really have the same problem, because nobody has a car. And it's not like this doesn't have any precedent. We've mostly car-less cities work before many times.
EDIT: Are you able to reply to my other post now? I think HN has a timer that limits how often you can reply, but I could be wrong.
EDIT: Are you able to reply to my other post now? I think HN has a timer that limits how often you can reply, but I could be wrong.
is a luxury
I take it you haven't spent much time in non-downtown Seattle?
I take it you haven't spent much time in non-downtown Seattle?
I spend a good majority of my time in non-downtown seattle. I don't have a car, and can get by just fine.
One of the things criticised in the original article was a city requirement that they needed to build at least one bike stand for every four micro-apartments.
If people can't even store a bike anywhere, that's a problem. And as the business case for these pods is that they're for people who can't afford a bigger place, they're unlikely to want to pay for an uber that regularly.
If people can't even store a bike anywhere, that's a problem. And as the business case for these pods is that they're for people who can't afford a bigger place, they're unlikely to want to pay for an uber that regularly.
+1
I've lived in Seattle since 1991. I've lived without a car since 2005. It was harder then than now. These days we have Zipcar, Car2Go, Uber, Light Rail, marginally better Metro. Walking and biking are always options. It's getting to the point in Seattle, as in other cities, where having a car is a cultural choice rather than a necessity.
Zipcar is great for the days or evening where you need to be in the car culture. It's way cheaper than actually owning one in Seattle, and you have a lot of models to choose from including some nice Audis, BMWs, etc.
I've lived in Seattle since 1991. I've lived without a car since 2005. It was harder then than now. These days we have Zipcar, Car2Go, Uber, Light Rail, marginally better Metro. Walking and biking are always options. It's getting to the point in Seattle, as in other cities, where having a car is a cultural choice rather than a necessity.
Zipcar is great for the days or evening where you need to be in the car culture. It's way cheaper than actually owning one in Seattle, and you have a lot of models to choose from including some nice Audis, BMWs, etc.
Kids.
Lots of people don't have kids, and aren't planning on it in the next few years...
Public transit, ride sharing, and a bike trailer are more than sufficient for most activities.
living in the uk, and having lived/worked in america a few times, this is one of the things I could not get used to. I'm definitely not a fan of having to have a car, but america seems to make it a requirement if you want to live in any city.
Not any city. But definitely most cities. You can easily get by without a car in New York. And depending on where you live/work and your family situation you may get away with it in New York, San Francisco and Seattle but you are definitely in the minority in those cases.
And in Seattle, given it's the current subject, if you head out to the mountains or wherever many weekends (as many people in Seattle are wont to do--indeed, it's why many people like Seattle), dealing with rental cars every weekend gets old after a while. And it's hard to put your kayak on that rental car.
This doesn't describe everyone but lots of people who live in cities like Seattle tend to want to get out of the city pretty regularly.
And to your broader point. Right. Developers can't build housing without parking on the grounds that people don't really need to have a car in Seattle. And good luck renting apartments that can't have a car registered to them. (Though people would just find a way to cheat I suppose.)
This doesn't describe everyone but lots of people who live in cities like Seattle tend to want to get out of the city pretty regularly.
And to your broader point. Right. Developers can't build housing without parking on the grounds that people don't really need to have a car in Seattle. And good luck renting apartments that can't have a car registered to them. (Though people would just find a way to cheat I suppose.)
There is plenty of legacy rental housing and owned homes/condos in the city that don't have parking and they are not facing record vacancy rates. Further, you can buy new homes in the city that do not include a parking space - several in my new complex did not include off-street parking. They were sold within a week of listing.
The fact that the city of Seattle has legislated a need for off-street parking in new construction does not mean that the market actually demands it in any way. Further, the skyrocketing price of housing in Seattle shows pretty clearly that folks will take whatever they can get, parking or no.
The fact that the city of Seattle has legislated a need for off-street parking in new construction does not mean that the market actually demands it in any way. Further, the skyrocketing price of housing in Seattle shows pretty clearly that folks will take whatever they can get, parking or no.
>At least you have the insight to realise your opinion is "entirely qualitative" (i.e. entirely emotional)
Pity it's not shared.
Pity it's not shared.
The endless suburban sprawl you complain about is caused in part by your opposition to higher density housing in central neighborhoods. Where else do you expect people to go?
Seriously. Why is housing in Tokyo consistently affordable? Because the zoning rules allow high-density housing to grow with housing demand. Somehow in America we have convinced ourselves that if we stop high-density development in the cities that absolutely need it, we can make up for it by legislating prices lower.
The solution to unaffordable housing certainly begins with building a lot more housing.
The solution to unaffordable housing certainly begins with building a lot more housing.
The problem is that adding high density housing to an area not built for it has a chicken and egg problem. When you add a massive high rise a lot of people move in. They all need to commute somewhere. Except now the streets can't accommodate the car traffic and the public transit system is also inadequate. And it will take a decade to catch up. So in the meantime everyone around the new high rise gets to suffer for the next 10 years, and it's understandable why they aren't particularly excited about it. On the other hand you can't build up the infrastructure first because you don't have any money to do so pre-emptively.
It also doesn't hurt that the Tokyo population has been growing rather slowly--about 0.5% per year.
Yes, but it is also one of the largest, densest cities in the world, a place it arrived to by growing quickly and expanding its housing stock to match its growth.
[deleted]
And Tokyo also has a great urban transit system etc. On the other hand, a lot of the population growth occurred between 1945 and 1965. [1] So it was starting from an historically low population and housing stock point for obvious reasons and had something of a clean slate.
[1] http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/ABOUT/HISTORY/history03.ht...
[1] http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/ABOUT/HISTORY/history03.ht...
I don't see a lot of people suggesting we can legislate our way out of housing prices without building more housing stock.
What I do see is a lot of what amounts to saying that "those people" should just go somewhere else. As long as that somewhere else isn't one where I have to notice their homelessness.
But yes. We have to build upwards. In cities where building vertically benefits the well-off (as in NY), and where it's profitable to do so, it happens. But note that it only generates high-end and expensive housing stock (excluding rules that require including "affordable" housing, which based on the examples I've seen seems to mean "affordable to a family making $120k/yr instead of the $500k you need to afford the market rate units in this development".)
Will adding more housing stock at the top decrease prices at the bottom via market effects? Yes and no. If the availability does trickle down, it takes a very long time.
Here in downtown Brooklyn there's a temporary glut of high-end housing added in the last 5 years. But compared to the number of people added to what was already a tight rental (and sales) market in the city 10-15 years ago, the number of units added is laughable. We're talking almost a million more people living in the city but something like 20-30,000 units (enough to house 50-100k people) having been added.
So what happens? This oversupply will likely last about 5 years. The only real effect will be 1-2 year 10-15% concessions on rent in the new rental buildings until they can fill them up. People looking for high-end rentals will be able to take 24 hours instead of 3 minutes to commit to a specific apartment after viewing it, and might be able to get it if they wait an hour or two to apply instead of contacting the management company within 5 minutes of the listing going live. In a couple years, the high end rental market will go back to its normal cut-throat self.
Maybe the gentrification of Crown Heights will be delayed by a couple years, but I doubt it. This trickle of new housing at $2500-4000 per person per month isn't nearly enough to keep up with the constantly expanding demand for units under $1200 per person per month.
The for-sale units in the crazy high-end buildings will sit vacant until enough new Chinese billionaires are minted who want to park their money outside the country, and then they'll continue to sit vacant indefinitely anyway because they're investments rather than homes. The ones in only normally high end buildings will also sit vacant for a year or so and then generate a tiny bit less profit than the developers were hoping for. But sales don't really factor into the affordable housing market here anyway. If you're having trouble affording rent, buying is unimaginable.
What I do see is a lot of what amounts to saying that "those people" should just go somewhere else. As long as that somewhere else isn't one where I have to notice their homelessness.
But yes. We have to build upwards. In cities where building vertically benefits the well-off (as in NY), and where it's profitable to do so, it happens. But note that it only generates high-end and expensive housing stock (excluding rules that require including "affordable" housing, which based on the examples I've seen seems to mean "affordable to a family making $120k/yr instead of the $500k you need to afford the market rate units in this development".)
Will adding more housing stock at the top decrease prices at the bottom via market effects? Yes and no. If the availability does trickle down, it takes a very long time.
Here in downtown Brooklyn there's a temporary glut of high-end housing added in the last 5 years. But compared to the number of people added to what was already a tight rental (and sales) market in the city 10-15 years ago, the number of units added is laughable. We're talking almost a million more people living in the city but something like 20-30,000 units (enough to house 50-100k people) having been added.
So what happens? This oversupply will likely last about 5 years. The only real effect will be 1-2 year 10-15% concessions on rent in the new rental buildings until they can fill them up. People looking for high-end rentals will be able to take 24 hours instead of 3 minutes to commit to a specific apartment after viewing it, and might be able to get it if they wait an hour or two to apply instead of contacting the management company within 5 minutes of the listing going live. In a couple years, the high end rental market will go back to its normal cut-throat self.
Maybe the gentrification of Crown Heights will be delayed by a couple years, but I doubt it. This trickle of new housing at $2500-4000 per person per month isn't nearly enough to keep up with the constantly expanding demand for units under $1200 per person per month.
The for-sale units in the crazy high-end buildings will sit vacant until enough new Chinese billionaires are minted who want to park their money outside the country, and then they'll continue to sit vacant indefinitely anyway because they're investments rather than homes. The ones in only normally high end buildings will also sit vacant for a year or so and then generate a tiny bit less profit than the developers were hoping for. But sales don't really factor into the affordable housing market here anyway. If you're having trouble affording rent, buying is unimaginable.
Builders will build the housing stock that is expected to sell and maximize their profit. As long as there is a never ending stream of professionals with six figure salaries moving to an area (such as people moving to Seattle for tech jobs) then builders will continue to target that demographic. If that cools down they will build cheaper housing if it makes sense (based on the price of the land, building costs, and zoning requirements that will restrict how many units they can get per lot they buy). If you want builders to build affordable housing at the same time then a) you need to have the zoning laws allow it to happen, and b) force them to do it as a condition of allowing them to build the luxury housing.
But as long as demand at the high end is unmet the people with money will outbid everyone else and drive up the price of "affordable" housing if that's the only thing they can find. Nobody wants to pay $2,000 for a shitty apartment. But the price of shifty apartments will well rise north of $2,000 if that's the only thing you can find walking distance to Amazon.
I think there is so much pent up demand for housing close to work that you can double housing stock and still not make a dent in prices, so it's easy to conclude that simply building more does not lower costs. I think we need to build a LOT more if we are ever going to have truly affordable housing near city centers.
But as long as demand at the high end is unmet the people with money will outbid everyone else and drive up the price of "affordable" housing if that's the only thing they can find. Nobody wants to pay $2,000 for a shitty apartment. But the price of shifty apartments will well rise north of $2,000 if that's the only thing you can find walking distance to Amazon.
I think there is so much pent up demand for housing close to work that you can double housing stock and still not make a dent in prices, so it's easy to conclude that simply building more does not lower costs. I think we need to build a LOT more if we are ever going to have truly affordable housing near city centers.
I'm also a New Yorker, and the examples you cite illustrate the problem. Why is it only profitable for developers to build dense housing in high-end neighborhoods right now? In large part because of our complex, draconian zoning rules - it's a huge economic hurdle to climb for developers, and contributes to making it not worth their while to build in cheaper neighborhoods.
The affordable housing rules you mention are an example of an attempt to legislate our way out of the problem, and obviously they haven't worked. I'd say the reason they haven't worked is because they don't address the real issue: to have cheaper housing we need to reduce the barriers to building more housing.
At least that's my personal view. I'm not an economist or a city planner or any kind of expert, just a rando on the Internet. :)
The affordable housing rules you mention are an example of an attempt to legislate our way out of the problem, and obviously they haven't worked. I'd say the reason they haven't worked is because they don't address the real issue: to have cheaper housing we need to reduce the barriers to building more housing.
At least that's my personal view. I'm not an economist or a city planner or any kind of expert, just a rando on the Internet. :)
The current building boom is indeed partially in response to a rezoning to allow residential development in the area. (It's also in response to surrounding neighborhoods having become very desirable for other reasons.)
What do you do when land prices and the obstacles to construction posed by high density (such as not being able to store large quantities of raw materials or keep a bunch of trucks on site) make development costs prohibitive for affordable housing? What do you do about the NIMBYs who are afraid the new skyscraper will block their view?
And why would a developer choose to build in a cheap area for lower rents when they can get higher ROI on everything but the land costs if they build luxury housing in an expensive area?
I'm not convinced that the biggest obstacles to affordable housing in the city are about zoning or safety regulations. (Some of which, btw, ARE necessary for the sake of, yanno, people not dying.)
What do you do when land prices and the obstacles to construction posed by high density (such as not being able to store large quantities of raw materials or keep a bunch of trucks on site) make development costs prohibitive for affordable housing? What do you do about the NIMBYs who are afraid the new skyscraper will block their view?
And why would a developer choose to build in a cheap area for lower rents when they can get higher ROI on everything but the land costs if they build luxury housing in an expensive area?
I'm not convinced that the biggest obstacles to affordable housing in the city are about zoning or safety regulations. (Some of which, btw, ARE necessary for the sake of, yanno, people not dying.)
> And why would a developer choose to build in a cheap area for lower rents when they can get higher ROI on everything but the land costs if they build luxury housing in an expensive area?
I would argue this is a false choice: very few developers have the capital to build luxury housing in expensive areas.
For example, I know a guy who builds lower-end housing in Philadelphia (among other places). He would never consider building anything in Manhattan, simply because he can't afford to tie up the capital it would take to build even a townhouse-scale project. Lower-end is his game, period - only a small handful of mega-developers get to make the kind of choice you propose.
By the way, he lives in New York, and logically/logistically it would make more sense for him to build in New York than Philadelphia, but the economics of lower-end development in New York are prohibitive. Once in a while a good opportunity will come along here, but to pay the bills and not be idle he has to look elsewhere.
> I'm not convinced that the biggest obstacles to affordable housing in the city are about zoning or safety regulations. (Some of which, btw, ARE necessary for the sake of, yanno, people not dying.)
Yes, I totally agree on safety regulations (I don't think I cited them as an issue, did I?). I don't think they are a primary driver of the cost of building in New York vs. other cities. Logistics of operating in the nation's densest city, yes; safety regulations unique to New York, probably no.
Zoning, on the other hand... I think it's a bigger restriction than most people realize. My favorite illustration of the zoning issue is this article: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-p...
I would argue this is a false choice: very few developers have the capital to build luxury housing in expensive areas.
For example, I know a guy who builds lower-end housing in Philadelphia (among other places). He would never consider building anything in Manhattan, simply because he can't afford to tie up the capital it would take to build even a townhouse-scale project. Lower-end is his game, period - only a small handful of mega-developers get to make the kind of choice you propose.
By the way, he lives in New York, and logically/logistically it would make more sense for him to build in New York than Philadelphia, but the economics of lower-end development in New York are prohibitive. Once in a while a good opportunity will come along here, but to pay the bills and not be idle he has to look elsewhere.
> I'm not convinced that the biggest obstacles to affordable housing in the city are about zoning or safety regulations. (Some of which, btw, ARE necessary for the sake of, yanno, people not dying.)
Yes, I totally agree on safety regulations (I don't think I cited them as an issue, did I?). I don't think they are a primary driver of the cost of building in New York vs. other cities. Logistics of operating in the nation's densest city, yes; safety regulations unique to New York, probably no.
Zoning, on the other hand... I think it's a bigger restriction than most people realize. My favorite illustration of the zoning issue is this article: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/19/upshot/forty-p...
Is it really a zoning issue or is it simpler than that? I'd assume that in this market where debt is cheap, people with high income can leverage more and thus pay net higher prices. This results in a certain type of housing increasing in price/sqft whereas low income housing would not see as much of an increase due to limited ability of low income people to borrow as much.
Net result is that a developer can profit quite a bit more from luxury housing than affordable housing. If you are a developer (which presumably means a for-profit business) and have a choice between the two, you naturally decide to go after the higher profit option. Can't say I'd blame them either.
This is where incentives need to be provided to balance the profit equation. If they could make the same amount of profit, or gain other business benefits, I imagine the problem would start solving itself.
Net result is that a developer can profit quite a bit more from luxury housing than affordable housing. If you are a developer (which presumably means a for-profit business) and have a choice between the two, you naturally decide to go after the higher profit option. Can't say I'd blame them either.
This is where incentives need to be provided to balance the profit equation. If they could make the same amount of profit, or gain other business benefits, I imagine the problem would start solving itself.
> If you are a developer (which presumably means a for-profit business) and have a choice between the two, you naturally decide to go after the higher profit option.
That may be true if the limiting factor is the number of developers - they will only develop the highest-value properties. But in a city like New York the limiting factor is not developer capacity, at least not that I have ever heard. Developers are effectively constrained by the number of profitable building sites, not their capacity to put up new buildings. And, in turn, the number of profitable building sites is dependent on not just the cost of labor and materials, but the cost of navigating city planning, obtaining permits, etc.
Don't forget that land is cheaper to acquire in less desirable neighborhoods, and it is also generally cheaper to build there due to lower existing density (which eases logistics by making it easier to get equipment in and out, allows more on-site storage, etc.). The development that maximizes returns is not always the development that maximizes revenue - cost and time also matter. And there are more developers who can handle building a 10-story building in the Bronx than can tackle an 80-story mega-project in Manhattan. Plus, a "cheap" neighborhood in NYC is often as expensive as an "expensive" neighborhood in most US cities, so if developers are willing to build in Milwaukee or Cleveland, they should be willing to build in the Bronx.
But in a world where the administrative cost of starting a relatively small project is overwhelming vs. the potential returns, then those smaller projects in lower-price neighborhoods simply won't get built.
That may be true if the limiting factor is the number of developers - they will only develop the highest-value properties. But in a city like New York the limiting factor is not developer capacity, at least not that I have ever heard. Developers are effectively constrained by the number of profitable building sites, not their capacity to put up new buildings. And, in turn, the number of profitable building sites is dependent on not just the cost of labor and materials, but the cost of navigating city planning, obtaining permits, etc.
Don't forget that land is cheaper to acquire in less desirable neighborhoods, and it is also generally cheaper to build there due to lower existing density (which eases logistics by making it easier to get equipment in and out, allows more on-site storage, etc.). The development that maximizes returns is not always the development that maximizes revenue - cost and time also matter. And there are more developers who can handle building a 10-story building in the Bronx than can tackle an 80-story mega-project in Manhattan. Plus, a "cheap" neighborhood in NYC is often as expensive as an "expensive" neighborhood in most US cities, so if developers are willing to build in Milwaukee or Cleveland, they should be willing to build in the Bronx.
But in a world where the administrative cost of starting a relatively small project is overwhelming vs. the potential returns, then those smaller projects in lower-price neighborhoods simply won't get built.
You support homeless tent cities but oppose micro housing because it doesn't mandate enough parking?
Your moral priorities are screwed up. It's the ultimate "let them eat cake" moment of local housing policy. "Well, if they don't want to spend an extra $500/month on a mandatory car parking space, they should just live in a cardboard box on the street."
Your moral priorities are screwed up. It's the ultimate "let them eat cake" moment of local housing policy. "Well, if they don't want to spend an extra $500/month on a mandatory car parking space, they should just live in a cardboard box on the street."
And unfortunately, as here, "poor people" frequently just means "young people". Working families can't really live in these apodments—they are for people out of college or starting out in their careers who are trying to get buy, build some wealth, when they are low-paid and rent is $1000+/month because NIMBYism has led to a shortage of housing and thus high prices.
In the UK our last chancellor did this to keep the ponzi housing scheme going. There are a lot of estates and bad places dotted around central London. So, first, reduce welfare, and then cap housing benefit on increasing rents, and then introduce a bedroom tax. Once all of the scum has been displaced, the place is flattened, and then new buildings go up. "Affordable Flats" where a bedsit costs you 360k.
This is the problem with the notion that micro-housing is somehow going to solve the affordable housing problem. The thing that seems to attract companies to it is that they can charge close to the price of a full-size flat for something much smaller, call it "affordable", and accuse opponents of being NIMBYs and not wanting affordable housing.
This all relates to the fundamental problem with housing in most cities, in that the extreme regulation destroys all competition. This actually happens in almost every field nowadays - the proliferation of effectively Nanny state government "protecting" its citizens from making bad decisions by regulating standards into things like residential zoning or even things like crop production or materials processing dramatically reduces the ability for competition to ever enter the market, because the more regulation you burden the industry with the more impossible it is for an upstart to actually comply or even understand it all.
That goes hand in hand with how another poster above commented about how regulations are written to look like they are for the common good but are only good for those writing the laws. And when you exist in a system where money buys politicians and the will of the people has no effective influence on politics, you end up using regulation to stop competition.
I want to see one city who bucks the profiteering and greed and just dezones everything and just lets people build. Yes, you would need to be more responsible as someone moving there to know if the building is safe or not, but really you have always paid for that through taxes and increased home prices, so paying someone to appraise your potential properties or more likely having general agencies that organically do it would be so much more preferrable to just preventing any innovation in the space at all in the name of NIMBYisms and market capture.
That goes hand in hand with how another poster above commented about how regulations are written to look like they are for the common good but are only good for those writing the laws. And when you exist in a system where money buys politicians and the will of the people has no effective influence on politics, you end up using regulation to stop competition.
I want to see one city who bucks the profiteering and greed and just dezones everything and just lets people build. Yes, you would need to be more responsible as someone moving there to know if the building is safe or not, but really you have always paid for that through taxes and increased home prices, so paying someone to appraise your potential properties or more likely having general agencies that organically do it would be so much more preferrable to just preventing any innovation in the space at all in the name of NIMBYisms and market capture.
There's an even more fundamental problem with housing in most cities: the fact that land in those cities is an inherently scarce resource and that people need homes to survive destroys competition and encourages speculation. When land owners can't sell new homes for rapidly increasing prices, they just sit on the land until they can.
Charge twice the price of what flats were a few years ago, advertise it in China first, and ignore the new owners leaving it empty. That's the worst case that's been seen in a few places.
fyi: 'estates' in british english means the projects, not high end real estate.
Exactly. You also see this across the board in virtually every area of politics and society.
My personal favorite example is around the general population's opposition to school choice / voucher programs while based on the status quo the only people who have that choice now are the people with higher incomes.
My personal favorite example is around the general population's opposition to school choice / voucher programs while based on the status quo the only people who have that choice now are the people with higher incomes.
The only intended desired effect is a full pocket
This is clearly a reaction to a desire to have lower rent. If you reject one option to address a problem then the onus should be on you to come up with an alternative.
I'd like a cheaper 2016 911 Turbo or iPhone7. Merely by proposing to PCNA or Apple a way they could do that does not obligate them to find an alternative way to make their product cheaper if they reject my idea.
The article has something of an issue in that its ever-escalating apartment prices are never bound to any material costs--i.e., it doesn't directly acknowledge that some significant amount of that $900 initial and $1400 ultimate cost exist only because they're what the market will bear. More, it seems assume the premise that the only solution to increasing costs is to decrease size.
But do micro-apartments not just exacerbate the actual problem--that decent, reasonably sized homes for people in good locations are too rare or too expensive?
I can understand how these micro-homes might appeal to people in certain circumstances (I spent a while myself splitting a tiny studio in Seattle with a few other people--and that same apartment costs ~3x now what it did when I lived there 5 years ago), but I can't see how the problems these are trying to solve wouldn't be much better solved by building new desirable areas, increasing the supply of good housing, and driving the costs of all housing down.
But do micro-apartments not just exacerbate the actual problem--that decent, reasonably sized homes for people in good locations are too rare or too expensive?
I can understand how these micro-homes might appeal to people in certain circumstances (I spent a while myself splitting a tiny studio in Seattle with a few other people--and that same apartment costs ~3x now what it did when I lived there 5 years ago), but I can't see how the problems these are trying to solve wouldn't be much better solved by building new desirable areas, increasing the supply of good housing, and driving the costs of all housing down.
But do micro-apartments not just exacerbate the actual problem--that decent, reasonably sized homes for people in good locations are too rare or too expensive?
If there are both families and individuals bidding for those reasonably sized homes, giving the latter a cheaper alternative should reduce for the larger houses, no?
If there are both families and individuals bidding for those reasonably sized homes, giving the latter a cheaper alternative should reduce for the larger houses, no?
It's not at all clear that only individuals would go for the cheaper alternative.
We also already have cheaper alternatives in e.g. studio apartments, and we currently have families living in those.
I don't see how building downwards will solve these problems in a decent way going forward--it seems that it could only continually reduce peoples' living conditions.
We also already have cheaper alternatives in e.g. studio apartments, and we currently have families living in those.
I don't see how building downwards will solve these problems in a decent way going forward--it seems that it could only continually reduce peoples' living conditions.
If families are already living in too-small housing arrangements like studio apartments, wouldn't this be because they could not afford larger accommodations? This is actually a sign that more housing needs to be build at the high and the low end.
The article is not saying "build micro-apartments instead of normal ones". It is saying "make it possible to build micro-apartments alongside normal ones".
The article is not saying "build micro-apartments instead of normal ones". It is saying "make it possible to build micro-apartments alongside normal ones".
There is a high end product. I don't need a high end product, but that's all there is. So I have to go for it.
Suddenly, there's a cheaper, lower end product that meets my needs. I go for that, someone who needs or wants the higher end product can go for that.
Suddenly, there's a cheaper, lower end product that meets my needs. I go for that, someone who needs or wants the higher end product can go for that.
The point is that for many decades the low end product was something like a one bedroom with a kitchen. Now that's being seen as a luxury that we need to build under.
[deleted]
No. I want to live in a micro apartment. I do not want to live in a house. GP might have a family of four. Ideally, we would not be competing for the same housing stock. Today, their decisions to ban micro housing force us to compete for the only housing available.
No. I want to live in a micro apartment. I do not want to live in a house.
How much more would you be willing to pay for a micro apartment than for a house?
How much more would you be willing to pay for a micro apartment than for a house?
Kill a local representative today. Make the world a better place.
[deleted]
I love the apartment shots, they could make it into the centerfold of the "Dwell"[1] magazine no problem. They look like any contemporary European apartment, in such a stark contrast to the stifled, fake Baroque Midwest or East Coast style.
You look at these shots, and you know instantaneously they're from the 21st century, spaces one would actually like to live in. It also looks like living in Seattle is really nice, something I've always suspected.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwell_%28magazine%29
You look at these shots, and you know instantaneously they're from the 21st century, spaces one would actually like to live in. It also looks like living in Seattle is really nice, something I've always suspected.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwell_%28magazine%29
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.