Washington
Related: About this forumMicro-housing in Seattle
The Pitchforks Come Out at aPodment Hearinghttp://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-profiles/publicola/articles/the-pitchforks-come-out-at-apodment-hearing-april-2013
The buildings do not currently have to go through design review because, under the city's land use code, each floor of a building counts as a single unit with several (up to eight) bedrooms, so a building with 56 bedrooms would count as seven unitsbelow the design-review threshold. Although opponents say this is an unfair loophole, proponentsand I'm oneargue that they provide affordable housing to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to live in the city, and that a lengthy design review process would make that goal harder to attain.
The battle lines on the council itself were clear in today's meeting, where council transportation chair Tom Rasmussenthe council's resident microhousing skepticspent much of the time before public comment asking representatives from the city's Department of Planning and Development and Office of Housing rhetorical questions that had the effect of making aPodments look bad.
This seems pretty shortsighted to me. Many people want smaller homes and apartments simply because maintaining smaller spaces is much less hassle. And they address the affordability issue as well.
http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/
Alkene
(752 posts)Really? Rhetorical bias in the first sentence qualifies as journalism?
So those of us who get to have 56 people crammed into the 7-unit structure next door, with absolutely no improvement in public infrastructure and amenities- already woefully inadequate here, in West Seattle, are experiencing emotional problems which require "therapy?"
Well, not yet. Give it time.
Of course Seattle needs affordable housing programs. Is aPodment micro housing addressing community concerns of housing affordability, or is it a project to gain tax breaks and avoid environmental and design reviews? This article doesn't seem to provide any informational balance on these points.
Indeed, wealthy developers who are completely altering the small-town neighborhood character of West Seattle, etc. come off as champions of the underclass in this article, and those of us packed cheek to jowl onto the "Rapid Ride" austerity buses are apparently a bunch of snobbish upper-class twits.
I can assure you that as a relic of the lower middle class still managing to eek out an existence in Seattle, having a hyper-dense population without the least effort to address infrastructure by the city, county and state does not even approximate an, "I got mine,screw you" point of view.
Nor does the "wrong type of people" or "doesn't fit in" position even come to mind. This seems to be the core objection of community activists (code for bourgeoisie) , according to this tendentious bit of reporting.
The aPodment campaign is- in my view- a real estate investment strategy pursued by those who don't have to deal with, or live with, the consequences of an over-stressed infrastructure; not some beneficent program of affordable housing.
Shortsighted?
I'll discuss that with my therapist.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)most 14. 56 bedrooms = up to 56 cars.
also, if the economy heads further south, are these pods destined to become SRO slums?
The U-district is more the place for something like this.