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.
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!
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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...