Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays
You have some odd ideas!
Have you seen affordable developer-built housing that isn't micros? Not subsidized? Have a link? You said (today!) "Developers are going for the hi end." Which is it? Assuming a fairly typical definition of affordable, the market for new units is basically subsidized or micro.
|
Yes, I have seen affordable units developed by developers. For an example there are affordable units in High Point.
BTW micropods are hardly considered affordable housing. They are transitional housing for singles.
Quote:
"New construction raises the rent ceiling. Old bldgs mostly follow suit. That's why rents are rising overall in the Seattle rental market."
Other than on a very localized basis, this is pure delusion. If supply stays ahead of demand, building owners will compete on price.
|
And if supply does not stay ahead of demand, then all rents rise. And that is what's happening to the Seattle market.
Quote:
|
On the flip side, if you're right, then even the low end of the market would be more expensive due to your fees.
|
How so? The fees usually are charged on developments producing non affordable units.
Quote:
I've covered the third one ad nauseum already.
Fourth, you've argued against micros. Not very consistent are you?
|
What third point have you covered ad nauseum?
As for micropods, I am unclear why you see them as a significant solution to Seattle's affordable housing issue. At best they are transitional housing between a dorm room and a complete apt. And frankly, they are not all that affordable given their amenities. I suspect as their novelty wears off they will experience higher than normal turnover, resulting in higher than normal maintenance costs that will hurt an owner's bottom line and negatively impact future development.