Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unfortunately, we have people who value parking and square footage requirements more than basic standards. This means it's impossible to build new housing at low rents. It's a big part of the problem.
It's always about parking to you, isn't it? As for the square footage requirements, they are usually very modest. You might take a look at this, especially starting with p. 4: https://www.huduser.gov/publications...ing_in_hsg.pdf "Square footage is a tangible measure of crowding and is important when considering air-borne disease. The reason being that, all else held constant, human proximity is the key to disease transmission.
We defined an overcrowding standard of 165 square feet per person. This standard was chosen because it produced a level of overcrowding equal to the 2.4 percent of the households overcrowded for PPR when using the 2005 AHS National data."
That would mean 660 sf for a family of four. That is extremely modest.
Unfortunately, we have people who value parking and square footage requirements more than basic standards. This means it's impossible to build new housing at low rents. It's a big part of the problem.
Maybe parking and square footage requirements are "basic standards".
One problem with your economics is the insistence upon trying to build "low rent" housing in areas where space is deliberately made scarce.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 07-23-2016 at 09:32 PM..
It's always about parking to you, isn't it? As for the square footage requirements, they are usually very modest. You might take a look at this, especially starting with p. 4: https://www.huduser.gov/publications...ing_in_hsg.pdf "Square footage is a tangible measure of crowding and is important when considering air-borne disease. The reason being that, all else held constant, human proximity is the key to disease transmission. We defined an overcrowding standard of 165 square feet per person. This standard was chosen because it produced a level of overcrowding equal to the 2.4 percent of the households overcrowded for PPR when using the 2005 AHS National data."
That would mean 660 sf for a family of four. That is extremely modest.
Actually you're the one who insists on parking, making housing way more expensive. I'm for flexibility, which is massive part of the solution for affordability in urban areas.
But I'm glad to hear that you favor allowing small housing. Too bad most cities including yours don't...often it's 300 square feet or the gutter for one person, with no opportunity in the middle.
Denver has much higher minimum apartment square footage requirements. The "micro" topic and parking topic are fairly prominent in the local news lately, so I'm sure you already know about them.
As for your suburb I have no idea, but I bet anything outside a college dorm or hotel can't build 165 square foot units.
It's always about parking to you, isn't it? As for the square footage requirements, they are usually very modest. You might take a look at this, especially starting with p. 4: https://www.huduser.gov/publications...ing_in_hsg.pdf "Square footage is a tangible measure of crowding and is important when considering air-borne disease. The reason being that, all else held constant, human proximity is the key to disease transmission.
We defined an overcrowding standard of 165 square feet per person. This standard was chosen because it produced a level of overcrowding equal to the 2.4 percent of the households overcrowded for PPR when using the 2005 AHS National data."
That would mean 660 sf for a family of four. That is extremely modest.
You're going in circles. How do you make good housing affordable for people who can't afford it in the first place? Why don't you say that?
Denver has much higher minimum apartment square footage requirements. The "micro" topic and parking topic are fairly prominent in the local news lately, so I'm sure you already know about them.
As for your suburb I have no idea, but I bet anything outside a college dorm or hotel can't build 165 square foot units.
Document it! I'm not talking about 165 sf units. 165 is the recommended minimum for ONE person.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 07-24-2016 at 08:17 AM..
Minimum apartment size for NYC is 400 square feet; with a few exceptions. That includes one bedroom apartments and I think studios. Someone else can look up Denver; I doubt it's lower than NYC
Document it! I'm not talking about 165 sf units. 165 is the recommended minimum for ONE person.
Yes, and Denver doesn't allow units that size.
They're perfectly fine for hotels and college dorms (often fitting two people in not much more space) but not enough for (a) a college student off campus, (b) the guy just trying to afford a dry place to sleep, or (c) the retiree trying to make the nest egg last.
I'll look up Denver's code on another day. But there are breathless articles about 300 or 350 square foot units in Denver, and that's the lowest I've seen it.
I thought you paid attention to this stuff.
Seattle allows units that size btw. It's one way we're avoiding San Francisco rents and giving the 30-50% earners a way to live in the city despite the massive tech influx.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why don't you say that?
