How Seattle Killed Micro-Housing

Re:How Seattle Killed Micro-Housing by akgerber on Friday September 09, 2016 @11:27AM (#12463081)

The broader context is that much of Seattle is tightly zoned to disallow anything other than single-family homes, which prevents in practice prevents the city from adding modestly-sized cheap units: http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2015/7/27/the-65-percent

The micro-housing was a workaround of these laws, which in practice disadvantage the working poor.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Seattle Killed Micro-Housing by TimJRobinson on Friday September 09, 2016 @02:45PM (#12464986)

How does micro housing disadvantage the working poor? Supply and demand would suggest more units = cheaper cost per unit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Seattle Killed Micro-Housing by ghaff on Friday September 09, 2016 @04:44PM (#12465909)

I think the assumption is that "working poor" living alone tends to suggest couples or even families that this type of housing doesn't accommodate in a reasonable by US standards manner. It's oriented toward second housing unit for out of towners or twenty-somethings who just want a place to sleep.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Seattle Killed Micro-Housing by OrwellianChild on Friday September 09, 2016 @05:23PM (#12466155)

I think that this misses the larger picture. Say I'm a single 20-something who doesn't need a larger place. If there is micro-housing available, I take that, leaving the rest of housing stock untouched. If there isn't micro-housing available, I have to pay more and take up a unit of housing that could go to the couples/families that need more space/amenities. Net impact of micro-housing is positive from both a cost and inventory perspective.

[ Parent | on HN ]