"Changing the neighborhood character." "Sketchy people." "Transients."

Translation: Non-white.

"Changing the neighborhood character": Sounds like White North Seattle speak for opposing any sort of development that could bring poor and or dark skinned people into their single family home neighborhood.

Sadly @1 and @2 are more correct than others admit.

Remember, most of the people against housing forms like this tend to be older residents, and while the racial mix of younger people has shifted dramatically north of the ship canal, not so for the older people.

Older people also tend not to like change.

A lot of code words in there for "scared of people different than me".

There are other legitimate issues with them, like parking and resident density that do impact the blocks where these go in. These issues shouldn't be deal breakers to their existence, but like all zoning rules they should be looked at and adjusted so that we can grow our city in a sensible way.
Having cheaper rents available is a good thing. Density in the right places is a good thing. Dropping an unregulated apartment building into a single family block that doesn't have good access to transit isn't such a good thing.
Hopefully everyone can be sensible about this and let apodments (I really hate that word) flourish while being realistic about how and where they're built.

I like the idea of aPodments but I'd like them better if they were true studio apartments. Shared kitchens/bathrooms are what is sketchy about them. Not the people living there

@5,

While "transient" has taken on the meaning of "homeless" recently, it actually means someone who is staying or working in a place for only a short time. By that measure, the critics of aPodments are correct in identifying the residents of those buildings as transients. Very few of them will stay longer than several months, and virtually none will live there as long as several years.

While having a small number of transient residents in a neighborhood isn't necessarily a bad thing, allowing a neighborhood to transition to a mostly transient population probably would be. Which is why aPodments should be regulated, despite the inane bellyaching from The Stranger.

@6) They don't share bathrooms.

But what's "sketchy" about sharing a kitchen with a few other people? Renters in houses and apartments all over the city--people who barely know each other and meet on Craigslist--share their kitchens with roommates all the time. Hell, they even share bathrooms. It's totally normal.

Agreed @4.

However, while we should question the profit motives and zoning code loopholes used, this does not mean that shared housing is not a viable solution in the city to allow lower income (working class) employees to live closet to where they work.

So long as they don't become ghettos. Maybe a max density level per precinct (4 blocks) limit, or radius limitation.

Also, why not use the owner-occupied townhouse template and permit owner-occupied co-housing like aPodments, taking the property development speculators out of the mix?

Seattle homeowners need a good strong dose of humility. Apodments should be allowed anywhere and everywhere. Street parking and scenic views aren't a god-given right, and should be traded at any opportunity for more density. Transit should then follow. This is how cities grow up, and we should just tune out the churlish whining of entitled homeowners. The city is for people.

Not that it matters, but when I walk/bus by the aPodments on John and on 23rd (both on the Hill), the people I see living there look more like post university white hipsters than dark skinned transients. They're basically fancy UW dorms. Soooo scary.

@7) All construction in Seattle is regulated, so it's crazy to say The Stranger opposes regulation (I've even said I'm open to some sort of design review).

Also, this comment is way off the mark: "allowing a neighborhood to transition to a mostly transient population." If you think Seattle is going to convert entire neighborhoods to mostly micro-housing, you assume Seattle is a much poorer city than it actually is. It's just never going to happen.

Dominic - No public subsidy? Why do you say that? MFTE *is* a public subsidy. In 2013 there are 19 projects who will receive an exemption in their taxes worth approximately $308,000.

Most of that exemption is picked up by other taxpayers, some other portion is forgone and is a hit to our general fund. We aren't sure how much: http://licata.seattle.gov/2013/04/10/201…

@8 - Plus the idea of never having to clean the kitchen is appealing.

@13) That's been changed by a director's rule, according to Rick Hooper in the Office of Housing, by counting rooms in aPodments and apartments using the same standards.

That aside, the tax-exemption credit you are talking about it a tiny drop compared to the subsidies we're usually talking about for low-income housing, such as the city's $145,000,000 housing levy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04/18/…

(No shared kitchens. Or bathrooms.)

Boy, the people speaking in favor of moratorium sure seem angrier than they seem cogent.

@8, so when you rent an apodment you get to be interviewed by the entire building Dominic? Really? Have you ever lived in a rented room in a large house in the U District or the Hill? I have, and yeah..it's a little sketchy and NOT like interviewing for a roomie on Craigslist. I've lived in both situations and the two are not equivalent situations.

Last time I looked into this they wanted me to pay about 60% of my monthly salary, twice what I pay now, for a smaller apartment without a kitchen. Nuh-uh. I'll stick with my weird-ass roommate who's gone half the year and my insane travel times from south Seattle.

@10

Have you actully ever EARNED anything or WORked to make a major purchase such as a house?

I live in an apodment, and every one of my neighbors is a 20-30 something doing their own thing. I spend a lot of the days at home (I work nights), and it is quiet. I assume they are all at work, as I can hear the dude next door coughing when he is around. It's a great thing though, to be thought of as 'sketchy' as a white 20 something female college grad who couldn't afford anything else on the hill.

Of course urban living means smaller dense living spaces. Billions of happy productive families have been raised in under 300 square feet. But that's not the issue here.

Fallacy #1: aPODments are "affordable" housing.

Average per square foot Apartment rental cost in the Seattle area (including downtown) is around or just above $2.00.

An aPODment per square footage on the Hill and downtown (The LEEDs is $807 a month) is closer $40 - 60 per square foot. Even factoring in common spaces. This is not even close to affordable.

It's a way for developers to rig the game and keep per square foot costs high as inventory goes up. Per square footage is all that matters. It's what drives rates.

I guarantee you the net effect of more higher-price per square foot units going in will even higher rents across the board for everybody. It's what has happened everywhere else that does not have rent controls in place.

And if you think rents will stay at $600-$800 for these aPODments for more than a few years your smoking crack.

Fallacy #2
aPODments are for underserved lower income people. BULLSHIT. These will be filled with the same white 20-something upper-middle class yuppie wanna-be's you hate so much. Your selves in other words.

How stupid do you have to be to believe this developer nonsense. That's rhetorical. We can plainly see the metric for stupid.

Rent control. It's the only thing that has ever worked.

I like how everyone has some very big ideas about what rent is based on.

Is it at all possible that square footage isn't a very precise measure of the value of a living space?

I'm a huge fan of micro-housing. So I entirely resent the developer lies undermining the zoning code, housing code and City Hall's credibility. Yes you can believe that undermining the zoning code only hurts White folk NIMBY neighbors. But undermining the housing code is a hit on tenants for years to come. We are squandering an amazing opportunity in entry-level urban housing. The notions of "stacked" boarding houses and open-market congregate housing is fraudulent. And Dominic: sorry -- these developers are still taking huge chunks of tax money. So don't be an apologist for dirtbag liars and their City Hall puppets. A real journalist would be demanding aFRAUDment developers refund the MFTE program.

Are there any reviews/articles about what it's like to live in an "apodment"?

Even with the clear bias in favor of them here, they conjure an image of flophouses with a common room.

It would be nice to see interviews with people who actually live in them as well as descriptions and photos of the arrangements.