What It's Like to Live Near a Micro-Unit Building

[Jasonhouse]

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

I live in the Wallingford neighborhood of Seattle (about 4 miles north of Downtown and directly west of the University District). There are a bunch of the micro unit developments in the U District and they really seem to fit right in among the other rental housing that's marketed primarily to students. There's one in the center of my neighborhood and so far there haven't been any issues that folks have reported on the neighborhood blog (in Seattle any problems in the neighborhood wind up on the neighborhood blog).

I think the initial exploitation of the zoning loophole to essentially create rooming houses has created a significant backlash against the micro units in the neighborhoods. The new regs should calm down a lot of that down while incorporating micros into the range of housing types available.

What neighborhood blog exactly?

[Jasonhouse]

Originally Posted by Eightball

The question really is how do you get the NIMBYs to recognize all the positive aspects?

You don't. You organize YIMBYs and drown them out.

[Shawn]

The first apartment where I lived on my on in Tokyo was just under 310 square feet / 28 square meters. I lived there for 6 years and loved it. Mind you, it cost me over $1000 a month. This wasn't a "save money" decision so much as a "this is what a 300 sq foot place costs, so unless you want to go down to 200 sq feet, deal with it" decision.

When you don't have so much living space, you're forced to prioritize purchases and to accumulate less crap. Now that I live in a much bigger place with my wife, I am keenly aware of all the space we waste to store crap we barely touch.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

What an odd perspective to write an article from, as though the burden lies on the neighbours for having to live near those people.

i agree. its market rate housing, not group housing for recovering addicts. im more curious whats it like to live inside a micro unit apartment.

[mhays]

Here's a reasonably balanced overview from late 2013: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/t...t?oid=16701155

Webpage for one of the top builders, which lists 14 buildings and has photos, average rents per building, etc. http://apodment.com/capitol-hill-apodments/

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by Shawn

The first apartment where I lived on my on in Tokyo was just under 310 square feet / 28 square meters. I lived there for 6 years and loved it. Mind you, it cost me over $1000 a month. This wasn't a "save money" decision so much as a "this is what a 300 sq foot place costs, so unless you want to go down to 200 sq feet, deal with it" decision.

When you don't have so much living space, you're forced to prioritize purchases and to accumulate less crap. Now that I live in a much bigger place with my wife, I am keenly aware of all the space we waste to store crap we barely touch.

Yep. Though I will say moving from a 3bd/2.5ba townhouse (1800 sq ft) to a 1200 sq ft 2/2 was quite the downsizing for us. I agree that it feels free-ing to own less stuff, tho.

Was your apt in Tokyo well designed? High ceilings?

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

What neighborhood blog exactly?

The one in my neighborhood is Wallyhood: http://www.wallyhood.org
Link to a discussion of the neighborhood micro-unit project - the concerns seem more about the idea generally than the specific project that was built: http://www.wallyhood.org/2014/09/boarding-houses/

Most neighborhoods have them - two of the more elaborate are for Capitol Hill and West Seattle:

http://www.capitolhillseattle.com
http://westseattleblog.com

They've kind of replaced local newspapers as a place for community information and they provide a forum for NIMBYs to lose their shit when things change. I'm assuming other places have something similar - the "well I'm going to post something on the neighborhood blog" impulse when confronted with real or imagined adversity is more of the stereotypical Seattle thing.

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by Eightball

Interesting. Have you been in any of the units?

I haven't. I've heard folks describe them as similar to fancy dorm rooms.

[fflint]

A former forumer bought a micro-condo here and lived in it for several years before decamping to Los Angeles. It was 250 square feet--full bathroom, half kitchen, and one open area that doubled as living space and the bedroom. The building has a handful of heated glass shelters on the rooftop (important in blustery, foggy SF) where people can basically have a party--nearby are two barbecue stations, sinks, etc. so he could have us over for a party without any problem.

[Double L]

I fully support Micro-Unit buildings. I hope they build some in Downtown Houston so I can afford to live there.

[ardecila]

Wow, this is making me acutely aware of the deal I have... I pay just over $1 per square foot for my 500sf apartment. Chicago has such an insane spread between gentrified neighborhoods and non, although my apartment is very cheap even for my neighborhood of Pilsen.

[kcexpress69]

Originally Posted by mhays

Here's a reasonably balanced overview from late 2013: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/t...t?oid=16701155

Webpage for one of the top builders, which lists 14 buildings and has photos, average rents per building, etc. http://apodment.com/capitol-hill-apodments/

Wow!! Those weren't bad. I don't know if Kansas City has any of these, but they need to.

[10023]

Does Seattle not have public or subsidized housing in its more desirable neighborhoods?

I ask because I can't see how the "effect" this would have on neighborhoods would be any different from (or even as significant as) that. NYC and London have Section 8 housing and council flats in even the most expensive parts of town (by law, at least in London's case).

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Wow, this is making me acutely aware of the deal I have... I pay just over $1 per square foot for my 500sf apartment. Chicago has such an insane spread between gentrified neighborhoods and non, although my apartment is very cheap even for my neighborhood of Pilsen.

chicago is fascinating. my girlfriend lived in logan square 8 years ago and paid what we are paying now in st. louis (dirt cheap). logan square has changed drastically, of course.

is the supply of sketchy but okay, easily transit accessible, cheap neighborhoods going to run out in chicago? i guess what i'm saying is, is the number of neighborhoods in that sweet spot shrinking (or is there a multiplicity of areas like i dunno, rogers park)? i havent looked at apartments in chicago in years so i'm out of touch, except that a friend of mine pays an absurd rent for being so far from the L and being in a more auto dominated area in logan square (he has lived there for many years, and fled wicker park, the blue line prices just caught up with him).

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by 10023

Does Seattle not have public or subsidized housing in its more desirable neighborhoods?

I ask because I can't see how the "effect" this would have on neighborhoods would be any different from (or even as significant as) that. NYC and London have Section 8 housing and council flats in even the most expensive parts of town (by law, at least in London's case).

The Seattle Housing Authority has buildings spread over the city and also a lot of smaller scattered site properties around the City, including in the more desirable neighborhoods (some properties with killer views). There are also nonprofit housing developers - the controversy about those proposals typically relate more to the population served than the density. For example proposals for senior housing are rarely controversial but housing for the more recently homeless would be.

The micro-units have been more controversial, in part because of the surprise factor - people thought the property next door was zoned for four apartments but it turns out to effectively be 32 - and the parking implications of the increased population. The surprise factor was eliminated by the new regs when they closed the zoning loophole. There's also a significant chunk of the City that is well below zoned density, so people are seeing what the future holds for the first time in many of these cases in terms of height, bulk, and scale that's allowed in the zone. I think the class aspect has folks more divided - there are a lot of people who remember being young and broke and wanting to live close to work and there are others who don't trust that small privately-managed apartments won't turn into slums.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by 10023

Does Seattle not have public or subsidized housing in its more desirable neighborhoods?

I ask because I can't see how the "effect" this would have on neighborhoods would be any different from (or even as significant as) that. NYC and London have Section 8 housing and council flats in even the most expensive parts of town (by law, at least in London's case).

Depends. In a single-family neighborhood where everyone is in the upper 1/3 or upper 1/20th, no. But Seattle multifamily is almost universally in mixed-income areas with broad income ranges.

Our true publicly-owned housing is mostly either single buildings or campuses in the 30-50-acre range that were built around WWII. The former are mostly in mixed districts. The latter are all being rebuilt with mixed incomes at higher densities.

Non-profits are our main way of adding more low-income housing. A voted levy provides $16,000,000 per year, which they combine with tax credit, donations, some rent, etc. We generally have at least a handful of buildings going up. These are also typically in the mixed-income areas. Buildings for singles (former street people for example) tend to be in more urban districts, while buildings for families tend to be where the transit is decent but the density is a bit lower.

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

What an odd perspective to write an article from, as though the burden lies on the neighbours for having to live near those people.

That's an interesting comment. Sadly, as the article posted by another commentor on this thread noted, people do talk that way. I would argue that talking like that about these kind of proposed projects is the rule, rather than the exception.

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by 10023

Does Seattle not have public or subsidized housing in its more desirable neighborhoods?

I ask because I can't see how the "effect" this would have on neighborhoods would be any different from (or even as significant as) that. NYC and London have Section 8 housing and council flats in even the most expensive parts of town (by law, at least in London's case).

As far as I can tell, throughout the US any public or subsidized housing frequently have multi year (in some cases a decade plus) waiting lists. Meanwhile, these micro unit buildings can often go up quickly without government financial assistance.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

is the supply of sketchy but okay, easily transit accessible, cheap neighborhoods going to run out in chicago?

That depends on whether gentrifiers can overcome their objections to living in black neighborhoods like Bronzeville or East Garfield Park that are actually closer to downtown than, say, Lakeview, and have good-ish transit.

Although, those neighborhoods have a lot less going for them in terms of housing supply, retail, etc than the Latino neighborhoods like Avondale, Pilsen, and Little Village that are currently in the path of gentrification.

[johnnypd]

Originally Posted by Shawn

The first apartment where I lived on my on in Tokyo was just under 310 square feet / 28 square meters. I lived there for 6 years and loved it. Mind you, it cost me over $1000 a month. This wasn't a "save money" decision so much as a "this is what a 300 sq foot place costs, so unless you want to go down to 200 sq feet, deal with it" decision.

When you don't have so much living space, you're forced to prioritize purchases and to accumulate less crap. Now that I live in a much bigger place with my wife, I am keenly aware of all the space we waste to store crap we barely touch.

These micro-apartments are spreading like a rash across British cities, but under the guise of "student residences". They're not cheap either, but are easier to rent than a standard apartment through a letting agency. They remind me of those Sakura House type places in Japan, that I imagine were built after the Japanese housing bubble burst. Seems like a cynical way for developers to maximise their profits, but they are slowly redefining our housing stock and not in a positive manner.