Comments

1
Yes, the horror of having two sinks in your apodment. How dare City Council impose such an arbitrary requirement?

As I read on another blog, there are third-world countries where one sink is a luxury. Seattle's low-budget renters should have the same opportunities as folks in those countries.
2
"Older, richer, whiter?" Isn't Alan Durning all three of those things?
3
Why is the concept of small affordable one bedroom apartments just something we don't even want to talk about? Micro housing is a short term solution. You don't go from a micro apartment to a $375K condo or $1.5 Million dollar house.


4
@3 Yeah, I don't understand that either. Once folks want to move in with their partners, maybe have kids, etc these apodments will be completely useless. Maybe build a bunch in the U District to help with the college kids, but outside of that age range the idea is a complete joke.

Either way, NIMBYs need to shut the fuck up.
6
28 people on a committee? That's an animal with four hind legs.
7
@5: wait - rents are based on whether the bar downstairs is "hip"?

and here I thought it was based on the income the property needs to generate to service the debt, minus maintenance, plus profit.

those bars pay rent, too. that's why a cocktail costs $11.

8
@7 - I once had the pleasure of dealing with a landlord whose overlords told her to keep raising rents until she had a certain percentage of turnover. Long-term stability in residents, it was decided, was a sign that the rent wasn't high enough. If the neighborhood is in demand, rent is going to go up.
9
Y'all need to read "Urban Fortunes".

The Stranger's worldview on the matter is childish at best.

And Durning, with his "NIMBY" rhetoric, is a dolt...

10
Durning brings up a component that I hadn't thought of before, but that upon reflection seems so obvious I can't believe no one has thought of it before.
@3-4; apodment s aren't completely useless. They're actually a vital component of urban infrastructure, or would be if they were priced right at about $300.00 - $400.00 per month. There were at one time several thousand one room units in the downtown core but the powers that be decided that it was time to push the poor, the spinsters and others out of sight, so the city declared the housing "substandard" and closed it down. But the need for small, one room, cheap lodging remains.
But I agree that there is also an overwhelming need for inexpensive small one bedroom units as well that is not even being talked about.
11
@10, good God man! Those old hotels downtown weren't closed down to be mean to poor people, to push them "out of sight," they were closed because they were fire traps and landlords refused to bring them up to minimal safety standards.

Google Ozark Hotel Fire in Seattle. Educate yourself. Learn something about the city you live in.
12
Yes, the Ozark fire (and the Seventh avenue hotel fire a year later) was used as an excuse to close nearly all the SRO hotels in the downtown core. Most owners could not afford the updates required and closed. No effort was made to mitigate the effects of the closures, nor were efforts made to try to find solutions that might help keep some of the housing stock viable. In short, there was a concerted effort on the part of the city to eradicate SRO housing. Much of that effort may have had an altruistic impetus, but much of that effort was certainly motivated by a desire to economically cleanse downtown. ( are you old enough to remember what 1st Ave looked like from Yesler to Battery in the '60's and '70's? I am)
I have actually lived in SRO's (in NYC '79-'81). It was a fascinating culture of the working poor, drug addicts, itinerant workers, misfits, disabled people and the elderly struggling to survive on SS and welfare. I learned a lot about the human condition in those two years, mostly at the long gone Marlton Hotel at 5 west 8th.
You should learn some history, some perspective and perhaps some empathy.
13
Lemme see if I get this right - The Stranger didn't say a word when there was no real advocate for small business during the $15/hr. debacle that The Stranger caused in no small part to happen, but now that something that you care about is not up to snuff, all of a sudden someone does their job?



Maybe The Stranger should more broadly do its job.
14
@4

Apodments aren't a joke if what you want is a way to house a certain number of the young, able-bodied, childless, unmarried poor for low-paying work in your nice nearby restaurants, while keeping out the kind of poor people who are too old or too sick or have too many children.

Apodments definitely serve a purpose. It's the same purpose served by boarding houses in Victorian London, or by company dormitories in contemporary Chinese cities.

And The Stranger is 100% in favor of building a city that will suit that purpose.
15
@14 I never said they were completely useless, only that it's a small piece of the overall puzzle.

I highly doubt they'll be available for $300-$400 a month, but I hope I'm wrong there.
16
Rock star reporting there, Ansel... Cindi Barker praised the regulations -- and she OWNS a house! -- therefore she is a NIMBY. In fact, she understands our local land use regs better than some of the DPD staff seem to. Seems like a good addition.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.