You are viewing walkitout

Previous Entry | Next Entry

more recent coverage of tiny apartments


Expect update/link fu:

http://www.seattlemag.com/article/are-apodments-ruining-seattle-neighborhoods

http://grist.org/cities/apodment-livin/

http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2012/12/05/city-officials-coming-to-capitol-hill-to-talk-apodments

The official (?) response to demands for a moratorium on micro-unit apartments:

http://conlin.seattle.gov/2013/01/17/microunit-developments-aka-apodments/

I find a lot of the opposition to this kind of building mysterious. On the one hand, a bunch of people seem to want rent control and for someone to build an enormous amount of "decent" housing so the supply catches up to the demand, producing sub-$1000/month 1 bedroom units in desirable areas. On the other hand, some of the objectors in the local area seem to be objecting to more density in already dense areas.

It would seem to me that the two groups objecting are not compatible with each other and thus doomed to both lose out to what the market is currently producing. (Additionally, the two groups objecting may not be all that hooked up to reality, either.)

Which is fine with me.

ETA: Meanwhile, in Worcester:

http://www.telegram.com/article/20130107/NEWS/130109686/1116

Building from the 1880s is going to be renovated to something closer to what it used to be like (connecting floors) -- I don't think it was residential before but I don't really know. It didn't need a variance because they were planning on the minimum apartment size (300 sq ft) allowed, but there was a frontage issue (seems like in Massachusetts there's _always_ a frontage issue. You would not believe the way lots wind up laid out as a result).