why shouldnt microhousing be allowed

[IAteYourMother]

In many cases these "distribution centers" (aka warehouses) are based in the suburbs of an urban area and not the main city because land in the main city has a premium associated with it.



Sure higher population density means that a single store is serving a larger customer base, but the inverse is not unique to suburbs. Smaller towns and rural communities benefit in the same manner. Not everyone can live in a city.

I'm not really arguing that suburbs or rural life is intrinsically bad. But the huge investment in roads has made gas artificially cheap, and in my opinion has led to a decline in other infrastructure investments. When I think about it, it seems absurd that so much transportation of goods is done by trucks rather than rail. In addition to fuel costs, the upkeep required to maintain the damage done to the roads is huge. But then again, this is really just my nonexpert opinion.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

I'm not really arguing that suburbs or rural life is intrinsically bad. But the huge investment in roads has made gas artificially cheap, and in my opinion has led to a decline in other infrastructure investments. When I think about it, it seems absurd that so much transportation of goods is done by trucks rather than rail. In addition to fuel costs, the upkeep required to maintain the damage done to the roads is huge. But then again, this is really just my nonexpert opinion.

Your observation is spot on. Warehouses weren't always sitting on 20+ acres of greenspace in the middle of nowhere. Many cities have "warehouse districts" that housed manufacturing and distribution in the middle of dense urban areas. Most of them have long since been demolished or converted to housing.

The spread out nature made it impractical to use rail to move around goods. Some of that is changing though as freight and passenger rail traffic continues to rise and car-miles traveled plummets.

Much of that goes back to the original point of the thread. Demand in many cities is making these microapartments palatable. Meanwhile developers are salivating at the cash cow.

 

[SketchMaster]

I've heard rumors that ultra efficient apartments may start popping up in Austin, where rent is an easy $3\sqft in downtown.

The hipsters will love them.

 

[rednas]

I've heard rumors that ultra efficient apartments may start popping up in Austin, where rent is an easy $3\sqft in downtown.

The hipsters will love them.

Austin is not even that expensive. Especially compared to places like Manhattan and San Francisco.

 

[rednas]

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/04/25/nob_hill_apartment_seeks_2150month_for_288_square_feet.php

here is one in SF for rent. not exactly cheap.

 

[bononos]

why shouldnt they allow people to live in cublicle housing like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-families-share-meals-space-size-cuboard.html

that looks noisy and not very private but not unsanitary. where i live the average rent is probably $2500 a month, this type of housing would allow people who make less than a hundred grand to actually live in cities, and yet they outlaw housing smaller than a certain number of square feet. it would also be convenient for people who have to travel around and dont want to spend ridiculous amounts on hotels

It just looks awful. If it were legal, that would be setting bar very low.
Apart from fire/hygiene issues, having that many people on one property means that slumlord is leaching off everyone else by not paying his fair share for common resources - sewers/mail/roads.

 

[Bateluer]

Thought this thread was going to be about the micro-houses popular with greenies and hipsters these days.

These.

Not slums that should be torn down for more code violations than could be counted.

 

[rednas]

http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/..._rent_in_san_francisco_is_225_square_feet.php

even the microapartments are still expensive.

 

[xSauronx]

my girlfriend has a 30' camper she is living in right now. it hadnt really been a plan, but long story short she always wanted a camper and got in a position of renting her house to family and needing her own space...and decided to give "full timing" a try.

for one person its plenty of space. per a friend of a friend "its almost as big as my apartment in ithaca." its got all she needs except a washer and a dryer.

she doesnt intend to live in it forever, shes had it about a year...i figure she will have it for another year or so. it took some adjusting to get used to the limited space, but storage is hidden everywhere in the thing. the worst part is the shower: its teeny, and even worse, so is the hot water tank.

its also great for travelling. we just move her home to wherever we want to vacation. mountains? yep. outer banks? yep. lakes? yep. arrive, plug in...home. we can go anywhere. its AWESOME.

i pretty much lived with her last summer in the thing [say 4 -5 days a week] and we had enough room to make it work. id want a little more space if we were to be pretty downsized together for the long term, however, but i wouldnt require much more.

honestly the amount of space people take up is pretty nuts sometimes, especially given the cost of what we are willing to pay for it [and to heat it, and cool it, and keep it up, or have particular niceties]. my parents have a large, 4000sq ft house on the river and they barely use any of it, they definitely dont need most of it. the damn thing has THREE hvac units.

im buying a 1700 sq ft house here for 105k, in pretty decent shape with a huge yard. but really, if it werent for my kids and that one hobby where i like to homebrew booze i could get by with a fraction of the space for a lot less money. if i wasnt being quite as particular as i am...we could get by in a smaller house without feeling cramped or running out of space.

 

[MongGrel]

I still like my 2000 ft, but I've had it 20 years now and just wouldn't feel right without it these days.

Less it was something like a 750+ ft Craftsman Bungalow that was well built, some of those go for about 300K down here these days.