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.
San Francisco was just in the news the other week about a rich techie telling the low and middle income residents who were protesting price increases in the city that it's a luxury that they(the urban poor) can even live among the techies.
The "rich techie" was a union organizer engaged in a piece of "improv political theater". In other words, a fake.
Please see the link I posted a page or two back. Affordable housing in the US is much more than just supply/demand, it's a structural issue that can be resolved through different policies.
And caring about the effects of micro apartments is so much more than how it relates to us personally. For a lot of us, we care about things such as affordable housing, poverty, and health/safety and want to discuss the ramifications of such things. Your characterization of "cries" in the "ghetto areas" about displacement speak volumes to how we think of the urban poor as second class citizens and we've been waging war on them for the past 30 years. San Francisco was just in the news the other week about a rich techie telling the low and middle income residents who were protesting price increases in the city that it's a luxury that they(the urban poor) can even live among the techies. Now imagine what would happen in 10-15 years if politicians thought these micro apartments are an even cheaper way to pack low income residents into a building(inclusionary or not) as a market solution in urban areas such as NYC or Boston.
Affordable housing for the poor in the U.S. as a whole and affordable housing for the middle-class in super-star cities are different issues that require different solutions. I know many people would disagree, but the U.S. as a whole doesn’t have an affordable housing problem, it has in income inequality problem. If you live near the poverty level you will have a hard time affording anywhere—but it’s not necessarily because housing costs are unreasonably high across the country.
Micro apartments are a limited solution in certain cities. I do agree that there is a danger of not being able to control occupancy rates. For example, a micro apartment renting for $1,200 to $1,400 in a decent neighborhood would be an extraordinary bargain in New York. I can see a scenario where a single mother of two, faced with the option of homelessness or a micro apartment, would choose the later. Especially if it came with a good school district. Even if such a living situation would be detrimental to children and the other tenants, affordable housing advocates may push for her to be able to live there.
Please see the link I posted a page or two back. Affordable housing in the US is much more than just supply/demand, it's a structural issue that can be resolved through different policies.
And caring about the effects of micro apartments is so much more than how it relates to us personally. For a lot of us, we care about things such as affordable housing, poverty, and health/safety and want to discuss the ramifications of such things. Your characterization of "cries" in the "ghetto areas" about displacement speak volumes to how we think of the urban poor as second class citizens and we've been waging war on them for the past 30 years. San Francisco was just in the news the other week about a rich techie telling the low and middle income residents who were protesting price increases in the city that it's a luxury that they(the urban poor) can even live among the techies. Now imagine what would happen in 10-15 years if politicians thought these micro apartments are an even cheaper way to pack low income residents into a building(inclusionary or not) as a market solution in urban areas such as NYC or Boston.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
The "rich techie" was a union organizer engaged in a piece of "improv political theater". In other words, a fake.
Not exactly. That guy was fake, but the next day a real techie posted this tirade:
Just got back to SF. I've traveled around the world and I gotta say there is nothing more grotesque than walking down market st in San Francisco. Why the heart of our city has to be overrun by crazy, homeless, drug dealers, dropouts, and trash I have no clue. Each time I pass it my love affair with SF dies a little.
The difference is in other cosmopolitan cities, the lower part of society keep to themselves. They sell small trinkets, beg coyly, stay quiet, and generally stay out of your way. They realize it's a privilege to be in the civilized part of town and view themselves as guests. And that's okay.
In downtown SF the degenerates gather like hyenas, spit, urinate, taunt you, sell drugs, get rowdy, they act like they own the center of the city. Like it's their place of leisure... In actuality it's the business district for one of the wealthiest cities in the USA. It a disgrace. I don't even feel safe walking down the sidewalk without planning out my walking path.
You can preach compassion, equality, and be the biggest lover in the world, but there is an area of town for degenerates and an area of town for the working class. There is nothing positive gained from having them so close to us. It's a burden and a liability having them so close to us. Believe me, if they added the smallest iota of value I'd consider thinking different, but the crazy toothless lady who kicks everyone that gets too close to her cardboard box hasn't made anyone's life better in a while.
Affordable housing for the poor in the U.S. as a whole and affordable housing for the middle-class in super-star cities are different issues that require different solutions. I know many people would disagree, but the U.S. as a whole doesn’t have an affordable housing problem, it has in income inequality problem. If you live near the poverty level you will have a hard time affording anywhere—but it’s not necessarily because housing costs are unreasonably high across the country.
Micro apartments are a limited solution in certain cities. I do agree that there is a danger of not being able to control occupancy rates. For example, a micro apartment renting for $1,200 to $1,400 in a decent neighborhood would be an extraordinary bargain in New York. I can see a scenario where a single mother of two, faced with the option of homelessness or a micro apartment, would choose the later. Especially if it came with a good school district. Even if such a living situation would be detrimental to children and the other tenants, affordable housing advocates may push for her to be able to live there.
You have a very skewed perception on what the edge of homelessness is. Assuming that your hypothetical teetering single mom cold afford this spot, you are assuming she has an annual income of $48,000 or over $22 an hour. That tip to homelessness would likely be the lack of a job, so she could not afford anything at all. With those wages, this person generally has a bit more flexibility than most either via job hours or employment type....
You have a very skewed perception on what the edge of homelessness is. Assuming that your hypothetical teetering single mom cold afford this spot, you are assuming she has an annual income of $48,000 or over $22 an hour. That tip to homelessness would likely be the lack of a job, so she could not afford anything at all. With those wages, this person generally has a bit more flexibility than most either via job hours or employment type....
Section 8 can pay a percentage of the rent and all she needs to do is come up with rent(the rest is another ball of wax). And $1,400 can be split amoung more than one person.
Gopman's not a techie. He's a marketer and a money man; his education is in marketing and finance.
As for the urban poor, there's not really much we real techies can do about it. If we don't live in the city the protestors complain we're not contributing to the tax base (because we're racists and don't want to live near dark people, natch). If we do live in the city we're driving rents up and poor people out. Apparently what we're supposed to do is live somewhere else and just throw money cityward... but we tried that in the 1980s and that actually didn't work out so well either.
Section 8 can pay a percentage of the rent and all she needs to do is come up with rent(the rest is another ball of wax). And $1,400 can be split amoung more than one person.
Section 8 is a pipe dream. In most places the waiting lists are huge and the inventory is minimal. This micro apartment is not designed for your hypothetical person at all. Let's be real, a crib likely wouldn't even fit on the floor. There are better shared housing options more ideal for her case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
Gopman's not a techie. He's a marketer and a money man; his education is in marketing and finance.
As for the urban poor, there's not really much we real techies can do about it. If we don't live in the city the protestors complain we're not contributing to the tax base (because we're racists and don't want to live near dark people, natch). If we do live in the city we're driving rents up and poor people out. Apparently what we're supposed to do is live somewhere else and just throw money cityward... but we tried that in the 1980s and that actually didn't work out so well either.
The protests over the google buses are much much more complex they illustrate a lot of problems in the bay area:
1. We have underdeveloped and under-built the housing we need to support the workers we have
2. Workers want to live in the "city" and the companies keep building far flung suburban campuses
3. We aren't building enough of the right housing types near the job centers
4. The new class of "tech workers" is very disconnected from the community they inhabit. For companies located downtown, like Twitter, they build a bubble/wall garden in the heart of the city. For those working in the heart of Silicon Valley, home is little more than a playground for the weekend. Let's talk about those people in the Mission. Their neighbors are peers and coworkers. The new restaurants/bars/etc opening up are designed and targeting their peers and not the overall community. It is very easy to live in a tech surrounded bubble, with a private coach to take you to work, a house/condo/whatever with other similar works and then "hangouts" with more similar people suddenly the benefits of the city are actually pretty lost.
The protests over the google buses are much much more complex they illustrate a lot of problems in the bay area:
1. We have underdeveloped and under-built the housing we need to support the workers we have
2. Workers want to live in the "city" and the companies keep building far flung suburban campuses
3. We aren't building enough of the right housing types near the job centers
4. The new class of "tech workers" is very disconnected from the community they inhabit. For companies located downtown, like Twitter, they build a bubble/wall garden in the heart of the city. For those working in the heart of Silicon Valley, home is little more than a playground for the weekend. Let's talk about those people in the Mission. Their neighbors are peers and coworkers. The new restaurants/bars/etc opening up are designed and targeting their peers and not the overall community. It is very easy to live in a tech surrounded bubble, with a private coach to take you to work, a house/condo/whatever with other similar works and then "hangouts" with more similar people suddenly the benefits of the city are actually pretty lost.
1) Nobody wants any more housing built
2) You can't build big campuses in SF either, because office space availability is low and nobody wants to allow any more office space to be built either.
3) See #1 -- the whole Bay Area is all about BANANA, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone. Except they don't even care about the last bit, it's more like BANA.
4) Evidently the benefits of the city aren't lost, or people wouldn't put up with multi-hour commutes to stay there.
1) Nobody wants any more housing built
2) You can't build big campuses in SF either, because office space availability is low and nobody wants to allow any more office space to be built either.
3) See #1 -- the whole Bay Area is all about BANANA, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone. Except they don't even care about the last bit, it's more like BANA.
4) Evidently the benefits of the city aren't lost, or people wouldn't put up with multi-hour commutes to stay there.
BANANA! Hahahahah! It is pretty hilarious. We are like "we need more housing, for those other people..... but I have housing so they need to fend for themselves."
What I mean by the city experience being lost, this currently model is more like the Disneyland version of the city. People want to have the "city amenities" without having to deal with the city reality: dealing with people that are different, sharing space, etc. It is basically a sanitized bubble of the city experience coddled by private infrastructure and insular experiences.
What do you guys think? Would you feel comfortable living in one and for how long?
Nope! I need my garden and fresh air. At least a quarter acre is most tolerable. A better arrangement would be about a 2500 square foot home on an acre. Then you can stretch out and relax!
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.
