http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/thinking-small/Content?oid=1635067 Comments On: Thinking Small by Dominic Holden en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Fri, 24 May 2013 12:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss I'm a pre-k teacher. I take care of your kids and you have the audacity to balk at my need for affordable housing? I make VERY little- even with a degree. You should put your money where your mouth is and choke on it. :)
Posted by ouevre]]> Mon, 04 Mar 2013 23:46:05 -0800 The Stranger Posted by rtdnan]]> Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:54:25 -0800 The Stranger Then there's those of you who think they are helping the poor by making them live in a room which is about the size of a jail cell. The City seems to think that is better to do to these poor people than subsidize their rent in a livable place.

And tell me how many people aspire to live in these tiny places. I doubt many of the residents are feeling like they've finally arrived when they move into them. They want to live somewhere better and are only there because they are a tough spot at the moment. Everyone lining in these places would rather live in a better place and if they have any hope at all are trying to figure how they can do that.

These are about the developer getting 2 or 3 times the going per square foot rent. And the city avoiding to have to support people who need low income housing. And it's all wrapped up and packaged... Some of you seem to taking up their banner for them... And not even realizing it!!!

And all you poor folks denigrating those with more money than you... well better hope you don't make a lot of money... You might change your views.

Might be better to think about some of these thing before you jump to conclusions...
Posted by Bermuda]]> Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:29:15 -0800 The Stranger and i built these units --- at 4036 8th NE Seattle --- and another one was designed for 7th NE but i couldn't get financing....

just for the record
pam baugher
Posted by bunny-farms]]> Sun, 03 Apr 2011 13:25:32 -0700 The Stranger www.tumbleweedhouses.com)My boyfriend and I are looking at buying one eventually. It's about time Americans start to downsize and reshape our priorities. Less stuff, less stress.
Posted by Bakers West]]> Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:27:25 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Bakers West]]> Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:25:00 -0700 The Stranger
From: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

Well that explains a lot about that particular NIMBY, doesn't it...
Posted by Anne-La]]> Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:25:37 -0700 The Stranger
What has the true impact been... not the paniced neighbor reaction... but those who actually believe a neighborhood is a diverse community.
Posted by Anne-La]]> Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:03:00 -0700 The Stranger
Moving from my current apartment (over $1,100 per month if you include utilities) to one of these tiny places ($625 per month) will actually increase my quality of life. I'll be able to afford to travel, to donate to charity, to buy art and Mariners tickets. I'll be able to spend my money at the neighborhood pub or coffee shop or bookstore. As a result, I'll be a true part of the neighborhood and its economy -- not just the economy of my current landlord.
Posted by foleymo]]> Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:26:54 -0800 The Stranger
This doesn't really have too much to do with the article and for that I am sorry. Can anyone help us?
Posted by wifeydae@yahoo.com]]> Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:31:51 -0700 The Stranger
Urban farming----interesting concept, b.farms. I'd be all for it.
Posted by wileEcoyote]]> Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:20:03 -0700 The Stranger This housing saves tons of materials and uses much less energy.
There's nothing legally in the codes that forbids it.

We aren't still living in grass huts or adobe villages, and likewise today's cities are truly obsolete -- (Dirk's projects will fit in, i believe) ---far less space and far less materials will be used to create dwellings --- energy will be conserved --- food will be grown -- your home will sell energy to a smart grid ---
there will be hydroponic high-rise FARMS yes, food farmed right in the city, saving transport --and homes will be energy productive via solar -- and materials will be very different --- you won't recognize the city of the future --- but it's coming
Posted by b.farms]]> Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:14:15 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Tingleyfeeln]]> Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:15:31 -0700 The Stranger
"This is not about altruism. Mr. Mulhair and Calhoun Property Managment makes a lot of money every month off of their $550/month per 7x10 foot apartments. There are 48 units in the development that is the subject of this article. He has build at least one other similar development. Do the math."

yeah, DO THE MATH. 7 x 10 = 70. There's some math for you. Dude is building dorm-style apartments (just like the nice, legal hostels we see in cities every-freaking-where) of 110 to 160 sq. ft. That's (roughly) 14' x 8' to 20' by 8', not 7 x 10. Jesus. (Is multiplying by ten higher math now?)

I also love it when upper-crust NIMBYs get their shorts is a wad over the povs. But only when they get closer! "No-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o! The po' folk are supposed to stay in the ghetto!" Fer fuck's sake. You know something? Living in a small space doesn't automatically make you (a) poor or (b) fearsome. In fact, paying less for rent is very likely to improve a person's overall financial picture. I can see why the corporatists wouldn't like that, since being forced into the job market (for sometimes second and third jobs) makes them a nice profit while keeping people down, but not everyone worships at the altar of corporatism.

If your own miserable corporate job that pays for your three-quarters-of-a-million-plus spread is so awful that just the IDEA of living next to people who make less money than you? makes you so *intensely* unhappy, maybe the problem is internal. Plumb that line of thought for a while before you take your case to the federal courts.
Posted by happyhedonist]]> Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:29:34 -0700 The Stranger Posted by maps]]> Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:38:25 -0700 The Stranger
500 DOLLARS RENT IS NOT CHEAP WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT SEATTLE'S COST OF LIVING. THEY WILL STILL BE UPSTANDING PEOPLE AND MOST LIKELY LIVEN UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THOSE OF US THAT MISS WHEN THE COMMUNITY FEELING EXISTED RATHER THAN THOSE BUILDING FENCES TO UP THE VALUE OF THEIR HOMES.

Posted by eulalurene]]> Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:25:29 -0700 The Stranger Posted by l0st seattle]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:51:17 -0700 The Stranger
Here is the dirty little secret. If it had been an apartment building, the allowed lot coverage would have been smaller, and therefore the impact more rational.

The code incentivizes townhouses (not necessarily a good thing in an area where one wants apartment buildings) with more lot coverage allowed with the expectation of fewer households.

Expectation and meaning are different than what is in the law. I think the guy should build an apartment building with the proper lot coverage, or else not get an occupancy permit for the townhouses...
Posted by A Neighbor]]> Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:00:31 -0700 The Stranger
Underemployed:
BRAVO AND KUDOS TO YOU!!!!! Spot on!!

@40:
Stupid White Boy: shut the fuckinghell UP, already!
FYI: As for your slur on Evergreen State College, my brother earned a bachelor degree in animation there and I'll bet he makes a shitload more in L.A. than you do!
Good luck in Rainier Valley.
Posted by wileEcoyote]]> Mon, 08 Jun 2009 03:54:18 -0700 The Stranger
With due respect, the issue here is precisely that an apartment house was allowed into a lower intensity zone through a widely-criticized loophole in the Code that allows so-called "congregate housing" units (ie - de facto apartments with shared kitchens and no parking provided for their tenants, notwithstanding their actual car ownership levels) into a number of locations where that level of development was not intended in the ComPlan or various adopted neighborhood plans.

@60,

Neighbors of this project who bought their property under the existing zoning and in good faith don't owe you anything, so you might want to take the name-calling back a notch.


Posted by Mr. X]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:39:00 -0700 The Stranger Posted by tastytracey]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:59:32 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Tingleyfeeln]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:03:05 -0700 The Stranger No point in using your name since you think we should all be stacked into little cages, like chickens or rabbits. Assigning numbers just makes it easier to keep track of everyone. Perhaps a tattoo? Isn't this the same kind of affordable housing the Nazis encouraged in Warsaw? One person per room, then two people per room, then three, then......

Anyway, I'm glad you think that we should all be able to live where ever we want and not where ever we can afford.

Interestingly enough, I saw a Papa Murphy's Pizza Shop the other day that accepted Food Stamps. Never mind making sure that people on government assistance are at least eating healthy foods, let's make sure they continue to eat what the want to so we have more obese children and more health problems for the Government to pay for. Maybe McDonald's will accept them also.

Hey y'all, Welcome to Uncle Barrack's Plantation.
Posted by Finnagain]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:44:06 -0700 The Stranger
Get a clue Fin, or are you to sheltered by your wealth to see what the state of the world is?
@55, you might have said one of the best things in this thread:Remember, If we had a city where only the people who could afford to live here lived here, we'd have nothing but a bunch of neurotic baby boomers whining about how you can't get good help anymore.
@56, his rents do seem inflated, but the last time I looked for rooms for rent (essentially what this is) this is about going rate. The poor do tend to buy less yet pay more per unit than others higher on the food chain. In the rents we have to factor in stuff like the inclusion of utilities (tenants keep paying the same, while the landlord pays for the tennants electricity, water, sewer, garbage, no matter what they use).

Good management will be key in this.

So STFU NIMBY idiots, it's really not that bad.
Posted by Tingleyfeeln]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:09:46 -0700 The Stranger 1000sq.ft townhouse in Cap hill goes for ~2000. By taking the rent-a-hostel-room option he doubled the income from each of the six "townhomes" to avg. 4400/mo. The market price for efficiency apartments (including your own kitchen facilities) is ~600$ in Capitol Hill. Rental housing generally goes for about $2 sq.ft. he will be harvesting over $4.00/sq.ft. on this development. Nice trick. (Seattle Rentals reports Cap Hill avg rent lies between $1.25-1.75/sq.ft.)

Spelled out: the developer is charging twice the prevailing rate/sq.ft. for Cap Hill rentals generally. If he was primarily motivated to provide affordable housing at current market space/rates, rather than using zoning loopholes to enable him to simply double his rental income, the rental on these "hostel rooms" would be closer to 275/mo, not 550.

I see this is just another example of pure out & out developer exploitation marketed with a "friends of the poor" PR push. An irony is that if he DID rent these units for a much lower & fair price, the locals would likely be throwing *twice* the hissy fit they already are now. Basically, NPoorIMBY does sum it up. No matter how much the locals sugar coat their objections through parking issues, etc., it really all boils down to a class-based objection.
Posted by grrl_aex]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:15:10 -0700 The Stranger