Features
May 8, 2013
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.
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
And "a magnet for very sketchy people"? Not everyone is raking in the cash for a swanky condo unit in Belltown, or Capitol "Snob" Hill.
Seriously, Alan Gossett, get over yourself - or move to Woodenville.
Then again this is the US where if you have the right amount of money and the right people to "loby" city hall, you can built the ugliest building in down right next to an 19th century mansion (don't believe me, go drive thru Spokane)
I am a cheapskate and I live in a very cheap place in an otherwise wealthy neighborhood. I am happy with it, on balance. Everything is crammed very tightly together. And so, I am often woken up from sleep or distracted from my relaxation by my neighbors' very loud yelling arguments: ambiguous bdsm scene/domestic violence/arguing about drugs or money or paying the rent/unending stream of profanity. And it feels as though if I were in a more expensive place where the houses were spaced farther apart, this wouldn't happen. These annoy me, but I like saving money, and I am kind of poor myself, so I tolerate it.
So, from that point of view, I can understand the idea that if you have plenty of money to spend, having sudden new cheap, cramped-together housing in your already-paid-for neighborhood might legitimately not be something that you want.
However, I'm still very new to the whole housing/zone debate so I'm sure I've made some thought-errors, feel free to correct me.
I've been amused by the fuss over microapartments. I've lived in "rooming houses" in a university town quite comfortably and affordably. I've lived in studio apartments that were as small as these units, only they were considered normal for the area! In Europe, people have lived in "bed-sitters" for centuries, paying a smaller rent to live in a lively area where they spend a lot of time outside of their room in restaurants, pubs and coffeehouses, the "common spaces" of the area - thus supporting local businesses, creating a lively community.
Get over yourselves, NIMBY's. This is the wave of the future, and we want these people here to contribute to the lively nature of our city.
For me, I don't like them because they're too tall and take away the small neighborhood-y feel of the area to me. I lived in another part of the Hill where there were nothing but tall buildings, and it was great to be able to have the option to get away from that (above Broadway). It's sad that building height is even increasing on Broadway, it's really destroying things.
The view blockage isn't an issue w/me; I don't have one anyway, nor does is the property value point much concern, as I'm a renter. But the thought that suddenly 40 or 50 more people will be on this street isn't good. It'll mean less parking (even if only 10 people in the bldg own cars, parking's tight enough already); more noise; more trash; more crime. I don't mean because of people in those units being "sketchy"; that didn't occur to me until reading this article, it's just that w/more people you get more of all the bad stuff. (I can't wait for fights to break out between strangers who have to share the same kitchen).
I also have some safety concerns. They build this new housing so close to buildings next door, I'd be worried when a fire breaks out in these new buildings it'll quickly spread to other buildings. I was also told (haven't had this verified) that there are no elevators in some of these buildings, not enough stairwells, and that the stairwell can't accommodate stretchers. If that's true, I find it very troubling.
You should run anti-apodment article for balance; there is in fact one Stranger writer I know who doesn't like them, so you might find someone willing. I think it would be very interesting.
I wasn't sketchy then, I'm not sketchy now.
A guide of affordable housing in NYC.
Dominic, you're speeding us right to NYC levels of retardation, without having NYC levels of salary.
Some of us are pushing for affordable housing that's actually housing, instead of rooms. But, to you, that's fucking dishonest, right?
I've no beef with the people, or the type of units, but lets not call it something it isn't, Some of these are not cheap spaces for low income folk.
I wish they were nicer to look at, but I wish that of most of all the new condos/apartments built regardless of size.
That, and exploiting loopholes is bad, and they should feel bad. Close the hole, and ensure they are actually affordable and I'm for them.
Could you put some foundation under that premise for us with a link or two maybe?
Which, when you check the zoning plats, means apodments should be potentially limited to the SR zoning within 2 blocks of a frequent transit point, or within 10 blocks of a major bike trail for bike apodments.
Otherwise you overwhelm the parking resources.
That said, the market "should" choose areas that are in fact near transit or bike arterials, since the demand is there.
Basically, MY problem with apodments IS the design.
As far as "a magnet for sketchy people" goes, that development has been no more of a problem than the Safeway parking lot or the bus stops near by.
While there are things that I hate about where I'm living now (North Dakota), I LOVE the fact that I have an 820 square foot, 2-bed 1-bath apartment - with water/sewer/garbage AND a garage included in the cost of my $455/month rent.
Don't get me wrong... I love Seattle for the variety, the culture, and the scenery. But the normal, average, everyday man (and woman) doesn't make enough to be able to afford a $250k (or significantly more expensive) house. The cost of living is what drove me away - and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
-D
Also, true free parking in front of your house isn't a constitutional right... but neither is living in Seattle.
NIABY Not In Anyone's Backyard.
Specifically, I know city officials and reporters depend on statistics that state "Hey, look. We increased affordable housing by X units this year!"
One also can look to Dominic's spin. "The number of new microunits are only a fraction of the total new units." That fraction being 1 out of every 3 new units. Actually, it's even more than 1 out of 3, but we'll round. If I told you that 33% of all new units were microunits, would you say that was a fraction?
Or, Dominic fully buying into Matthew Gardner's bullshit, when he's partners with Windemere Real Estate! Of course he's going to say rent won't increase because of microunits. Windemere will profit from that by being able to drive up rents and home prices. Follow the money.
Dominic is a full on fucking credulous hack, and this piece is chock full of hackery. He couldn't find a real estate economist to agree with him that was t paid by real estate agencies.
Both buildings I lived in are well maintained and typically cost anywhere from $395-1,000. We have a couple of janitors who clean the bathrooms, the kitchen, the laundry room, and the entrance at least twice a week. We also have regular fire drills and safety inspections. I always feel safe and comfortable here and living conditions are ideal for the price. ...Please don't buy into this classist garbage that The Downtown Seattle Neighbors Association espouse.
Or...maybe...
Besides, you're dreaming if you think Seattle could end up looking anything like Manhattan within your lifetime even if we removed all building limits.
The real problem is that young singles -- the people these apodments are geared towards -- are not the real poor. This is something of a hipster-empowerment movement, building new units for the Capitol Hill bar-hopping crowd, The Stranger-reading crowd, but does nothing for working-class or service-class families, who want and need proper full-service apartments or houses. This is all about well-off young people with good educations and good jobs, in other words.
The real poor are being left out of the discussion. They don't read The Stranger, because The Stranger is for privileged white people, not Latino immigrants or poor black people or uneducated "white trash". They're the ones who are still going to be pushed out to Auburn and taking hour-and-a-half buses to their increasingly nonexistent jobs at Rite-Aid or the car wash.
Note: I'm not against apodments. I think they're fine. But they're not going to solve the problem that some people think they're going to solve. And I don't think the problem they ARE going to partly solve, that of young folks who want to live on Capitol Hill but can't afford an apartment, is very interesting.
Making sure they don't live next to you is not a solution to sketchy. It's a fearful, crouching capitulation.
Weak sauce, in other words. Weak, narrow minded, bullshit sauce.
A resident in one of these could very well end up needing to rent some off-site storage as well subsisting on restaurant and prepared meals (it takes space to store food and cook rather than just reheat). These can quickly inflate monthly living costs and negate that "affordable" housing expense.
Seattle isn't Manhattan where people put up with this kind of abuse. Seattle simply doesn't have the endless smorgasbord of cultural and career opportunities that Manhattan has to offer that make an over-cramped lifestyle endurable. In fact, we've likely already reached the upper limit on the development of those opportunities here.
This is yet another example of real estate developer greed (I'm convinced they all go straight to hell when they die; spare us the job creation BS). But, what's most distressing is that there are people lacking in the critical thinking skills necessary to objectively evaluate what living in one of these pods can fully entail.
Also, why should anyone that cannot or chooses not to live in large spaces be considered sketchy. Is greed for space good? Seattle prides itself on being green and leading in sustainability. Living in more space than one needs is less than sustainable.
We have geographic challenges - lakes, crazy hillsides, rivers, ravines, canals, Puget Sound - all in abundance WAY over the average for an American City - that mean simply annexing another block is not a sustainable or supportable model for growth. We have to be more creative and aggressive about density than other cities because of where our city is.
We've also fought density for a long time and that simple, gross supply problem I mentioned has resulted. If the city seems to simply be talking about MORE rather than BETTER right now, it's a natural consequence of this city putting off development and density for as long as it did. Smart growth takes time. We frittered our time away instead of slowly but surely expanding density, capacity, and housing options. Now we're simply behind the curve and have to catch up.
if this were the 'affordable housing' being built in the south end for people of color or immigrants, Council would be all over it complaining about packing poor people into 140 sq ft apartments and would be finding ways to improve the standards of these projects.
the fact that the tenants are largely young working class white folks that are really just looking for a place to live in a hip neighborhood that they can afford mitigates the problem with these to some degree.
because socially they are single and they can afford to eat out, or get lunch at the Amazon cafeteria, hang out in coffee shops or at bike polo, or whatever other means these projects have devised to exteranlize costs, people shrug these off.
Suck it up and don't be dicks to those who don't make your silver-spoon paycheck.
The only reason you think you can get away with such an outrageous lie is that you imagine that everyone in Seattle is a fuckwit who's never lived in the suburbs of Boston, or visited relatives who live there.
What a lying asshole you are.
and the keeping people out is a false argument raised against those that want to ensure minimum habitable and safe buildings which fit into the neighborhood are being built in. people in those communities have the right to raise that issue.
and complaining about @21's activities, one could use that same argument against the transit blog looking for transportation solutions for "you" to use which are subsidized quite substantively.
let's focus on the real issues to keep the discussion above the NIMBY/profiteering level it has degraded to...
Just as the minimum wage isn't a livable wage, microhousing is not livable housing. We need to work away from the term "affordable housing," as these apartments serve as a reminder that talking solely about affordability isn't discussing the whole picture.
Anemically, I think about the fact that in my neighborhood of Seattle we don't have apodments that I know of, but in the house right next to mine there are 6 twentysomethings who have essentially turned that house into a make-shift apodment, taking what would be a single family home and turning every room into a bedroom (including the living room) and sharing bathrooms and a kitchen.
I have no problem whatsoever with them doing this, but I wonder if this demographic had the option of apodments would that lower the overall demand for more traditional housing and make it more affordable for workers.
I do completely agree with your point though that apodments are not the panacea for Seattle's affordable housing problems that some might think they are.
Habitable and safe is up to the residents and developers to assess, not some nosy neighbor who thinks they have dibs on the neighborhood and fuck anyone that wants to be part of the community. You are being such the provincial Seattle resident with your comment.
Honestly it was one of the nicest/bourgeoie-st places I've ever lived (granted I was only the 2nd tenant).
And yes, it's still expensive to live in an apodment. Rent goes up significantly if you chose to stay on after the initial 3 month lease.
Great Article. That sucks that guy pretty much kidnapped you. I'd have taken the lower road. I appreciate you coming out to actually see a unit (Unlike Dennis and his crew) and meet the people that live in these units. It's all about class and social issues with "them" no matter what they say. If they are that concerned why are they not going out of there way to to enforce living standards everywhere in Seattle? There are shitty rooms and housing with cramped areas all over the city that are falling apart including most of the redeveloped housing these are being built on. I know a few friends living in crawl spaces and sketchy converted attics. Why do they investigate the traditional builders of Larger units and ask them why they charge so much that many people cannot afford. Also I don't see how they can say the buildings will fall apart and are built shitty and then say at the same time they will last for 200 years and be an eye sore. And Dennis I'm still waiting for your "Proforma" showing that these buildings Net +$300,000 a year. What an idiot you'll believe anything on the internet.
Also, I come from the traditional multifamily management corporations. These units are going to perhaps drive rates down because there will be less demand from singles either needing a studio or, sharing a two bedroom. Why would it drive it up? Yeah some in the units don't want to pay $1200 not because they cant afford it but because its fucken stupid to pay that kind of money when you aren't there a lot.
Current situation: There is very high demand for specific locations in Seattle, which are hemmed in by very real constraints of physical geography (hills/water/mountains). There is a lack of supply. Lack of supply in high demand areas (whether for housing or the ever-trendy quinoa) will increase the cost, thus pricing out those who cannot afford the good, and forcing them to move either outside their preferred area to say Everett, or buy a less palatable alternative, rice.
You increase the supply, the price is bound to fall as there is more availability, lots go empty (failing to benefit the owner) or quinoa sits on a shelf, not benefiting the seller, so the price drops.
It's basic basic math, people. Please! I'm sure you can look it up on a free educational resource like khanacademy.org or similar.
These micro-units may indeed fill a niche for a certain segment of the population, but in no way can they be considered THE answer to Seattle housing for the working poor.
And the way the developers knowingly got around regulations by claiming "6 units" to one group, and "48 units" to another is just.... deceitful.
Speaking of ones he can't refute, he brought up and then ignored (when it came time to counter his opponents) the argument that aPodments draw transient tenants (defined as people who don't put down roots and move out of the neighborhood in 12 months or less). That argument is factually correct. Very few people are going to treat aPodments as anything more than transitional housing.
And maybe bringing a ton of transient tenants into Capitol Hill isn't going to negatively affect the neighborhood, but that Dominic just ignores or brushes off arguments he can't refute is hilarious. It's almost like he's a credulous hack.
In Chicago I could buy a nice 2 bedroom 1.5 bath condo for 250k with minimal dues and still be 20 minutes to the loop via a 4 block walk to the El.
We need more housing and allowing these micro houses is part of the solution.
But they are changing, and that is inevitable. Prices will go up, density will go up, parking will disappear and every halfway decent restaurant will have a line going out the door. We cannot control this. Microhousing didn't cause it, and banning it won't fix it. The demand is there, and the demand will create the future.
You'd better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone because the times, they are a changing.
*This* is journalism.
BTW...is the guy who is putting up these aPodments advertizing in The Stranger? I think if we just follow the $$$.....
SURELY, THE PEOPLE OF SEATTLE DO NOT THINK THERE WILL BE NO UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES STEMMING FROM LEGAL DOPE. THESE PART-TIME OR UNEMPLOYED DOPE SMOKERS HAVE TO LIVE ... SOMEWHERE.
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON
Now instead of comparing the impact of that structure compared to the impact of a single house, take a broader view. Each of those 120 people would have been in other houses or apartments, spread around the region. Let's assume they each find a house to share with 3 other people: that's 30 houses built *somewhere*. Each of those houses took out some fields, forests, or farms to be built. Then they paved a driveway, and contributed to added highways.
In total, density is a massive win for the environmental impacts you're talking about.
For YEARS I lived in Monroe and commuted in to Seattle every fucking day. But you can live closer - Woodenville, Kirkland, where ever.
But please stop bitching about LIVING IN THE FUCKING CITY with other people.
Also, I'll bet there isn't a single Black Man on any of these NIMBY "commities".
There is nothing inherent in developing urban density that requires reduction of the quality of life for the denizens of urban neighborhoods. There is nothing that says modest accommodations must be built at the expense of quality of living for the residents and surrounding neighbors. Quality of life cannot be simply expressed by a measure of dollars per square foot or other equally abstract measures.
Microapartments are an economic squeeze being put on people with the least amount of ability to defend themselves against the economic pressures being placed on them. They are a ruse and in the long term will not solve the problems they appear to address currently.
If you are a couple or a family, *obviously* this is not for you. But if you are a student of a recent grad or a single person who doesn't need or want more, why PAY for more?
People who are saying this is marginalizing poor people need to pull their heads out of their asses and put down the latte and John Galt / Ayn Rand book and live in reality. Hugo Chávez is dead and Castro is soon to follow. All you Nike-wearing fake "Anarchists" and fake "social activists" need to get a life.
Look...
What would you say if some corporate mouthpiece told you that, "Every time we have to submit our designs for this-here new power plant (coal shipping facility, etc) to review for design or be subject to "spurious environmental appeals" it only means that the cost of building the plant goes up and that means the price for the consumer will be higher"?
You'd call total bullshit on that ass-backwards, 1%-er, trickle-down-Reaganomics argument wouldn't you?
Cuz you're no fucking idiot and you know that the price to the consumer is determined by what the market will bear, and NOT by the costs of the production facility built for it.
So why treat us like we're idiots right here in the middle of the article, Dom?
The aPodment developers will rent the units for whatever price the market will bear. If their costs in construction are higher that DOES NOT mean that they will rent the units for more than people will pay for them -- it just means that the developer's profit margins will be slightly slimmer and their ROI will take longer to realize.
Those 1%-ers perhaps won't get richer quite as fast if we make them act responsibly. Oh. Well. Boo-fucking-hoo!!!
And if you really did believe that if developers didn't have to undergo full design review they'd magically "pass the savings on to renters"... well, you'd be a complete and total fucking moronic idiot, Dominic, simple as that.
And I honestly don't think you're an idiot. (At least not a complete and fucking total one.) So don't treat us like we are. Okay?
However, Holden's column earns no points with me over his encounter with the Nikfard brothers at Swifty Printing.
I've used Swifty's services many times. It's the type of family-run business that any neighborhood would welcome in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, its located at Third & Virginia, an area that grown much seedier over the years. I've been approached in broad daylight to buy drugs twice and physically threatened by a third dealer who apparently thought I looked too much like a cop and was scaring away his customers - all of this taking place at the bus stop across the street from Swifty's.
I take issue with Holden labeling the Nikfard's opposition to a 65-unit building for people "who are transitioning off the streets and into stable residences" as "fanaticism." The backgrounds of these residents more likely than not meet the definition of "sketchy." And Holden lets the Plymouth group off scot free with their claim that "the building will be designated solely for residents who "have demonstrated a long-term track record of stable and successful tenancy with Plymouth."" An objective reporter would've asked the obvious: if they've all had such a long-term track record of stable and successful tenancy (and presumably saving their money towards first & last) with Plymouth, why are they still there needing new accommodations?
If my business was located in a declining neighborhood and I was faced with the prospect of 65 more "transitional" people concentrated right behind me, I'd quickly become a NIMBY and start passing out flyers, too.
Why don't you GET THE LEAD OUT and "put your money where your mouth is" and move to a fucking COMMUNE?
Look, the people that choose this housing will vary, depending on proximity to hospitals (more doctors and nurses with massive student loans), colleges and universities (more grad students and students), and job sites (locations near marine facilities might have transient fishers).
All deserve to live in Seattle.
If you don't believe that there's a war on the poor, try getting by in prosperous a major city on 1/3rd the median income. (It's called the veterinary field, and I love it, but the pay is peanuts).
Ignorant, well-funded NIMBYs scare the hell out of me. Get rich or GTFO of the 206? Hell, no!
http://www.businessinsider.com/hong-kong…
Microhousing can be a viable and cool housing option, but it's clear the city doesn't know what the hell it is doing.
People are understandably a little jumpy as most of the input on our "sustainable" growth comes from those who are positioned to profit from it.
Yes, there are obnoxious folks and cranks and comments that are disrespectful.
Aren't there always.
The NIMBY trash talk is always entertaining. I'm sure many of you at Seattle's only newspaper are anti coal trains, drones, etc. Strictly speaking these Are NIMBY positions. As was protecting the precious Bauhaus.
There are no guarantees, but it's always good for a neighborhood to engage with a developers. The statement that the loop has been handled and taken care of by the city is naive, to say the least.
I suggest you spend some some with a responsible representative of the "loyal opposition " - you may learn something. (such as Mr. Bradburd)
As the power shifts from small property owners to very large ones, your accusation of classism is laughable.
But try again, you're getting closer.
Thanks
This is just as true for aPodment building as for any other business.
The Death of Pike/Pine - November 30, 2006
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Conte…
Look, it's not just stereotyped NIMBY caricatures who are not liking the directions some developments are taking in the core neighborhoods. Reasonable people who don't have a problem with living in smaller urban pads (that's why they live where they do) can and do have a problem with building things carelessly and too quickly.
For plenty of people (understandably not profiled due to their lack of irrational flair) who choose to live and work in the core of the city for all the opportunities it offers, being skeptical of "could-be-a-good-idea-if-it's-done-right-and-total-shit-if-it's-not" projects isn't NIMBYism. It's just not being a sucker for a bunch of marketing bullshit from builders who don't live in or near their own creations. These projects in particular need to be evaluated much more carefully than they have been.
The naive pro-density uber-alles arguments seem to assume that more housing inventory should mean more affordable housing. That's a demonstrated fail. More units get built because the demand is already high and continues to increase. More demand fuels higher prices. Repeat cycle. The same thing will happen to the microapartments that happens with studio apartments and all other property rentals. This year's $850 unit will be $1200 in a few short years.
Sure, small apartment units can and should be built, (so should larger affordable units for families for that matter). They should not be pimped with the misguided idea that they are magically solving a rental pricing problem. They aren't. They are an alternative product, even a more expensive product as honestly pointed out. Seattle has economic disparity that won't be solved by smaller places, even if the city starts zoning for bunkbeds hourly. These tiny rooms are not going to bring the funky vibrancy back to full tilt, if anything they'll compound the economic pressure for floorspace in high demand locations. Seattle's not the only place this is happening, it doesn't seem like we can unring the bell.