What do you think about rent control/mandated affordable apartments? - Page 6

eschaton · #**101** Posted **Sep 10, 2018, 4:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

Your point about tiny houses is partially true. Yes some costs are static per unit. Same with micro apartments if they have bathrooms etc. Your house will cost more per square foot if smaller. But a 200 square foot house will still cost a fraction of a 2,000 square foot house.

I simply don't see anywhere in the country where tiny homes could be feasible as a main component of new-construction housing stock. If you're talking about a high-cost metro, the land could be much more effectively used to build apartment buildings than tiny homes. If you're talking about a low-cost metro, there's often tons of dated "small, but not tiny" homes available for affordable prices.

The only real effective place for them would be on subdivided residential properties - basically like what Vancouver is doing with "laneway houses." - though those homes are more typically about 550 square feet, thus don't qualify as tiny homes. It's hard to see why anyone, if allowed to build such a house, would purposefully choose a very small one rather than just a kinda small one, given larger=more rental income.

BrownTown · #**102** Posted **Sep 10, 2018, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

At 180 square feet, even a new unit in a decent area can be pretty affordable. And any increase in supply vs. demand can help the lesser units drop in relative price. But true, they're not a universal solution.

Your point about tiny houses is partially true. Yes some costs are static per unit. Same with micro apartments if they have bathrooms etc. Your house will cost more per square foot if smaller. But a 200 square foot house will still cost a fraction of a 2,000 square foot house.

It is a little funny that college kids at universities that cost more than the median income per year can live in 180sq ft dorm rooms, but if you suggested poor people live in such conditions you'd be accused of being racist.

I'm a very non-materialistic person so maybe that's why I don't get all this, but what we in the US see as minimum standards sure seem well above minimum to me. I lived in a dorm room for 4 years, and my efficiency apartment when I graduated was $450 a month.

If the government will give you for free what the average young college graduate makes then why even waste time and money going to college? Hell, why even work at all. People need some incentive to work and is it any wonder that these days the number who choose not to is continually rising?

Northern Light · #**103** Posted **Sep 10, 2018, 5:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownTown

It is a little funny that college kids at universities that cost more than the median income per year can live in 180sq ft dorm rooms, but if you suggested poor people live in such conditions you'd be accused of being racist.

I'm a very non-materialistic person so maybe that's why I don't get all this, but what we in the US see as minimum standards sure seem well above minimum to me. I lived in a dorm room for 4 years, and my efficiency apartment when I graduated was $450 a month.

If the government will give you for free what the average young college graduate makes then why even waste time and money going to college? Hell, why even work at all. People need some incentive to work and is it any wonder that these days the number who choose not to is continually rising?

Again with statements that are illogical.

Last I checked, University residence comes with a meal plan, which is why you don't need a kitchen in the room.

Historically, you might also have shared a bathroom, but this would be in the context of single-sex residences, with tenants who were all college kids, who are still overseen by a Don.

There are no comparable private-market accommodations.

PS. I just checked, the lowest cost residence at the University Toronto is just over $16,000 CAD for an 8-month term, or more than $2,000 per month.

The argument here is for accommodation that can be afforded, that's actually a premium to market-rent.

Gantz · #**104** Posted **Sep 10, 2018, 6:01 PM**

I don't understand the argument people are bring up about a person making min wage working at McDonalds and not being able to afford to live anywhere in the expensive metro area. Almost universally, min wage jobs, such as McDonalds, are ubiquitous and not specialized... this is not investment banking or tech start ups we are talking about here.

If you work in McDonalds in NYC and can't afford rent anywhere AND want to live by yourself... move to Wilkes-Barre or any other mid-size city and pay $350 for a 1br. There are McDonalds jobs in 200k people metros too. Chances are your work quality would improve, since it would be slower pace with less rude customers. Eventually, this will force McDonalds in NYC and all the other big corps who rely on low skill low wage labor to raise their wages significantly higher until the equilibrium between COL and wages is achieved. Government rent subsidies are just subsidizing big corporations and their low wages. People in affordable housing who can afford to live on $14 an hour in Manhattan or Toronto are just undercutting/outcompeting all the other poor working class people who weren't lucky enough to win an apartment lottery, so these big corps always have a labor pool of people willing to work for peanuts in high COL areas.

Northern Light · #**105** Posted **Sep 10, 2018, 6:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gantz

I don't understand the argument people are bring up about a person making min wage working at McDonalds and not being able to afford to live anywhere in the expensive metro area. Almost universally, min wage jobs, such as McDonalds, are ubiquitous and not specialized... this is not investment banking or tech start ups we are talking about here.

If you work in McDonalds in NYC and can't afford rent anywhere AND want to live by yourself... move to Wilkes-Barre or any other mid-size city and pay $350 for a 1br. There are McDonalds jobs in 200k people metros too. Chances are your work quality would improve, since it would be slower pace with less rude customers. Eventually, this will force McDonalds in NYC and all the other big corps who rely on low skill low wage labor to raise their wages significantly higher until the equilibrium between COL and wages is achieved. Government rent subsidies are just subsidizing big corporations and their low wages.

I'm completely with you at the end.........

I would have no issue w/a lack of rent subsidy providing measure were taken to raise incomes.

Supply and demand should function to do this, but it can't in the contemporary world.

The reality is all the low-wage employees or even 1/2 can not flee NYC for less costly pastures.

Barriers from children, to aging parents are one set of reasons, but another is more simple, they can't afford the move, the first/last/deposit, the time and cost of changing over their ID/License to a different state etc.

Also, if having grown up in an area with high quality transit, they may have chosen not to obtain a driver's lic.

That, in turn, may limit them to a transit-friendly destinations. (or high cost metros).

It also may further limit their ability to move affordably.

***

In the real world, as it is, not as anyone might organize it some ideal way; if you choose not to do rent supplements, you need to force income levels up.

The minimum wage is the most blunt tool, but there are others. Anything that constricts the labour supply will do.

That can be free/low-cost tuition and investments in HS graduation rates that see more young people stay in school longer, thus limiting supply of that demographic.

Or, it can be restrictions on hours for 'under 18s' (No work before 5pm or after 9pm on a school night, limit of 16 hour per week.

You can also mandate paid vacation, or increase said mandate.

Prohibit employers from requiring employee availability for a shift without guaranteed hours of some kind.

Or incent early retirement I would disagree w/the latter in a time of growing life expectancy, but it is a mathematical option.

***

You can also seek to rebalance real estate prices by taking action like New Zealand just did, barring foreign ownership of residential property; or barring anyone from owning more than 2 properties in a high-cost metro; or raise down payment minimums.

***

Some combination of actions is requires to ensure access to entry-level accommodation for entry-level wage earners.

Pedestrian · #**106** Posted **Sep 10, 2018, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gantz

I don't understand the argument people are bring up about a person making min wage working at McDonalds and not being able to afford to live anywhere in the expensive metro area. Almost universally, min wage jobs, such as McDonalds, are ubiquitous and not specialized... this is not investment banking or tech start ups we are talking about here.

If you work in McDonalds in NYC and can't afford rent anywhere AND want to live by yourself... move to Wilkes-Barre or any other mid-size city and pay $350 for a 1br. There are McDonalds jobs in 200k people metros too. Chances are your work quality would improve, since it would be slower pace with less rude customers. Eventually, this will force McDonalds in NYC and all the other big corps who rely on low skill low wage labor to raise their wages significantly higher until the equilibrium between COL and wages is achieved. Government rent subsidies are just subsidizing big corporations and their low wages. People in affordable housing who can afford to live on $14 an hour in Manhattan or Toronto are just undercutting/outcompeting all the other poor working class people who weren't lucky enough to win an apartment lottery, so these big corps always have a labor pool of people willing to work for peanuts in high COL areas.

It's not as if somebody moves to New York or, to keep it where I personally know the market, San Francisco, gets a minimum wage job and then starts looking for housing. Most people working at minimum wage were living in the city at issue. Many of them live in public or subsidized housing. Many of them live in larger families with other employed members. They aren't moving because the other family members have better jobs or jobs that wouldn't be found in some smaller, cheaper place.

In many cases it's also true that they are recent immigrants to America and don't know the markets and job availability in other places or don't speak the language well enough and don't want to go to a place where they might be alone linguistically and culturally. In San Francisco a very high number of fast food employees speek poor English--I have many times had trouble ordering a "diet Coke" and being understood. It is, of course, true that you get what you pay for in a skilled work force as in other things.

Pedestrian · #**107** Posted **Sep 10, 2018, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Mayor wants to lure modular housing factory to SF to provide both homes, jobs

As San Francisco officials continue to scout locations for a factory that can churn out modular housing units, Mayor London Breed is lining up the city to be the first customer.

Breed is expected to announce Monday that the city is prepared to spend $100 million on hundreds of modular apartments that would grow the city’s stock of affordable housing.

Who will run the modular housing factory won’t be known for some time, though the leading plan is to seek a private operator on city-owned or city-leased property. And even after a site is selected, it will take years to get a factory up and running.

But Breed and other officials hope the early — and sizable — promise to buy will entice interested operators to set up shop in San Francisco . . . .

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...F-13216703.php

BrownTown · #**108** Posted **Sep 10, 2018, 7:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northern Light

The reality is all the low-wage employees or even 1/2 can not flee NYC for less costly pastures.

Barriers from children, to aging parents are one set of reasons, but another is more simple, they can't afford the move, the first/last/deposit, the time and cost of changing over their ID/License to a different state etc.

That argument would carry more weight were it not for the million of immigrants who overcame far greater obstacles to move to this country.

mhays · #**109** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 2:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaton

I simply don't see anywhere in the country where tiny homes could be feasible as a main component of new-construction housing stock. If you're talking about a high-cost metro, the land could be much more effectively used to build apartment buildings than tiny homes. If you're talking about a low-cost metro, there's often tons of dated "small, but not tiny" homes available for affordable prices.

The only real effective place for them would be on subdivided residential properties - basically like what Vancouver is doing with "laneway houses." - though those homes are more typically about 550 square feet, thus don't qualify as tiny homes. It's hard to see why anyone, if allowed to build such a house, would purposefully choose a very small one rather than just a kinda small one, given larger=more rental income.

Tiny houses can be extremely economical. You can build one for five figures and put it on free land. I bet a lot of laneway house owners would love to put house on a much smaller parcel and keep some yard, or do two or three tiny houses. Nimbys with parking issues and poor-people issues, and their populist politicians, are probably the main impediment.

Development economics vary hugely by location, type, and situation, and I'd avoid any generalization. But add some zoning limits and there's clearly room for houses in places that don't allow you to stack units.

Of course they're only for singles, some couples, and the rare (or borderline homeless) family.

jtown,man · #**110** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 2:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

Tiny houses can be extremely economical. You can build one for five figures and put it on free land. I bet a lot of laneway house owners would love to put house on a much smaller parcel and keep some yard, or do two or three tiny houses. Nimbys with parking issues and poor-people issues, and their populist politicians, are probably the main impediment.

Development economics vary hugely by location, type, and situation, and I'd avoid any generalization. But add some zoning limits and there's clearly room for houses in places that don't allow you to stack units.

Of course they're only for singles, some couples, and the rare (or borderline homeless) family.

I love tiny homes but you know what I don't get...

Today you can buy a tiny home and then a standard sized 'normal' house in the new market. Where are the 700-1100 sq ft homes? Some of the cutest houses Ive looked at on Zillow(for fun, of course)from Norfolk to Philadelphia to Louisville to St Louis are small two bedroom homes with small basements. Most are 1 1/2 baths. For me and the gf, they would be great. Just enough room for us and a possible infant in the future and a tiny back yard to boot. We are living in a 630 sq ft apartment right now...so that would be huge for us...while not making us house poor.

We need more midsized homes like they use to build!

10023 · #**111** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 6:16 AM**

^ You mean like this?

Here’s a tiny one:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-65104747.html

Or if you actually want a kitchen:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-67400047.html

Gotta love London real estate. But there are lots and lots of houses in the 900-1,300 square foot range (and some quite a bit smaller as evidenced above).

Jonesy55 · #**112** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 8:07 AM**

That 2nd house is very similar is size and layout too my house. Slightly more expensive though...

Paris is an expensive market but they do have pretty affordable apartments even in central areas as they go down to extremely small sizes.

Example. 100 sqft, US$515/month

https://www.seloger.com/annonces/loc...135819469.htm?

10023 · #**113** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 9:25 AM**

^ That’s not an apartment, that’s a cell.

Jonesy55 · #**114** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 11:08 AM**

Maybe, but it's an affordable cell!

LouisVanDerWright · #**115** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 2:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northern Light

Again with statements that are illogical.

Last I checked, University residence comes with a meal plan, which is why you don't need a kitchen in the room.

Historically, you might also have shared a bathroom, but this would be in the context of single-sex residences, with tenants who were all college kids, who are still overseen by a Don.

There are no comparable private-market accommodations.

PS. I just checked, the lowest cost residence at the University Toronto is just over $16,000 CAD for an 8-month term, or more than $2,000 per month.

The argument here is for accommodation that can be afforded, that's actually a premium to market-rent.

But that's just it isn't it, the increase in the cost of housing over the last 100 years has a lot to do with increased standards in construction. It's like the question after Katrina of how to rebuild what were effectively slums after they were flooded. Well it turns out they don't let you build shifty frame shotguns in a hurricane zone or tenanment housing (this applies more to NYC or Chicago or other cities where lots of old dense housing has been destroyed) anymore. So rebuilding large parts of NOLA that were previously disinvested turns out to cost way more than you could ever possibly cover with the previous market income of the area.

The fact is they banned the construction of true market rate housing a long time ago. Most of Chicago's existing building stock is illegal under current zoning restrictions and that's without getting into what else is illegal in terms of room sizes, ventilation, fire code, exiting, service sizes, ADA, etc etc etc. The fact is many of these buildings weren't even built with one or more basic utilities. The building I live in was a frame workers cottage on the edge of the city from the late 1800s and originally had a latrine under the back porch stairs where people that through a hole in the floor into a bucket and took it out to the honeywagon once a week.

Needless to say you aren't allowed to do that anymore nor would we want people to do that. But it perfectly demonstrates the rapid advancement of building standards, that was only a little over 100 years ago. The real issue is actually one of room sizes or dwelling configurations. Why can't we build SRO style housing anymore? Why do you need a kitchen? Can't you share one with everyone on your floor?

I actually managed an entire estate portfolio of 9 properties in the Polish enclave of Chicago. The Polish immigrants in my area had a very specific way of setting up their living quarters. In almost every unit you had multiple groups of people. They rented out each bedroom separately and often the living room and dining room if they could make it work. Some buildings would have four or five bedroom units to a bathroom and kitchen. But it was all radically illegal under Chicago safety codes, this old lady had turned essentially nine 2 to 8 unit buildings as boarding houses. The tenants were all paying (cash) and the landlord was clearly taking in a boatload as she kept buying right through the recession even though she was in her late 70s. But it all had to go, every single one of those units needed to be deconverted which also meant it would have to be completely renovated to undo all the f'ed up shit they did.

Bye bye affordable housing, I don't see how they were living as a serious risk or problem, so why aren't people allowed to live that way if they want? What's so bad about it?

The North One · #**116** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

In other words, if I'm paying $1500 for a product that a person who is "poor" is paying $600 for, then what's the point of trying?

This logic is hilarious, you've got an entire capitalist system that rigs classes to remain in poverty while propping others with exceptional wealth/privilege and suddenly you lose all will to go on if a poor class gets some assistance with housing? Absolutely absurd.

BrownTown · #**117** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 4:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The North One

This logic is hilarious, you've got an entire capitalist system that rigs classes to remain in poverty while propping others with exceptional wealth/privilege and suddenly you lose all will to go on if a poor class gets some assistance with housing? Absolutely absurd.

The solution to subsidies for the rich isn't to subsidize the poor too.. it's to get rid of the subsidies for the rich. This is the true absurdity of the US these days. We're so used to suckling on the government teat that even when the government is the cause of the problem the only solution we can see is to give the government even more money and power.

Northern Light · #**118** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 4:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I don't see how they were living as a serious risk or problem, so why aren't people allowed to live that way if they want? What's so bad about it?

I can think of a few concerns.

The first would be that that density of people in a unit not configured for it would almost certainly be at risk for overloading the electric panel. Even newer homes are only configured for 200amp service.

But an older property in Chicago might be on 60amp.

If you've got a dozen people crammed in a space meant for 5 tops, your likely drawing way more than 60amps.

If the place didn't have central a/c, you've made window a/c all but impossible.

The risk of a fire would be very tangible.

While on the subject of fire, there would be a question of whether the building could be evacuated in a timely manner should the need arise.

Stair capacity and doors are based on anticipated occupancy.

If you triple the load factor there likely isn't enough space to get every one out fast in a fire.

**

Then we can talk plumbing. How many toilets/showers are vaguely reasonable in such an environment.

If you add extra, does your connection to the City line accommodate that? Or are you at risk of backflow, blockages or burst pipes.

Can you maintain water pressure if you've added extra draw?

In most cases, structural capacity for weight would be fine, IF, you didn't add extra walls, and IF you didn't cut into any beams.

My experience is bad contractors and DIYers are notorious for cutting into beams to fit a new toilet in, or shift HVAC. That could create a serious structural flaw.

Having done all that work without a permit, means its wasn't passed by an inspector, meaning the risk is greater of serious deficiency.

***

For all that, there's the simple question of livability.

I see people continuously imaging everyone in need of affordable housing as being young, able-bodied, probably single, and certainly no kids.

SRO has some utility, but certainly doesn't begin to address these other needs.

mhays · #**119** Posted **Sep 11, 2018, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

But that's just it isn't it, the increase in the cost of housing over the last 100 years has a lot to do with increased standards in construction. It's like the question after Katrina of how to rebuild what were effectively slums after they were flooded. Well it turns out they don't let you build shifty frame shotguns in a hurricane zone or tenanment housing (this applies more to NYC or Chicago or other cities where lots of old dense housing has been destroyed) anymore. So rebuilding large parts of NOLA that were previously disinvested turns out to cost way more than you could ever possibly cover with the previous market income of the area.

The fact is they banned the construction of true market rate housing a long time ago. Most of Chicago's existing building stock is illegal under current zoning restrictions and that's without getting into what else is illegal in terms of room sizes, ventilation, fire code, exiting, service sizes, ADA, etc etc etc. The fact is many of these buildings weren't even built with one or more basic utilities. The building I live in was a frame workers cottage on the edge of the city from the late 1800s and originally had a latrine under the back porch stairs where people that through a hole in the floor into a bucket and took it out to the honeywagon once a week.

Needless to say you aren't allowed to do that anymore nor would we want people to do that. But it perfectly demonstrates the rapid advancement of building standards, that was only a little over 100 years ago. The real issue is actually one of room sizes or dwelling configurations. Why can't we build SRO style housing anymore? Why do you need a kitchen? Can't you share one with everyone on your floor?

I actually managed an entire estate portfolio of 9 properties in the Polish enclave of Chicago. The Polish immigrants in my area had a very specific way of setting up their living quarters. In almost every unit you had multiple groups of people. They rented out each bedroom separately and often the living room and dining room if they could make it work. Some buildings would have four or five bedroom units to a bathroom and kitchen. But it was all radically illegal under Chicago safety codes, this old lady had turned essentially nine 2 to 8 unit buildings as boarding houses. The tenants were all paying (cash) and the landlord was clearly taking in a boatload as she kept buying right through the recession even though she was in her late 70s. But it all had to go, every single one of those units needed to be deconverted which also meant it would have to be completely renovated to undo all the f'ed up shit they did.

Bye bye affordable housing, I don't see how they were living as a serious risk or problem, so why aren't people allowed to live that way if they want? What's so bad about it?

On basic fire/sanitation safety I wouldn't negotiate, but everything else damn right! Shared facilities, tiny units, etc., should be the bridge between "normal" housing and shelters.

As for those 700-1100 sf units Jtown, I agree. Even townhouses in my city tend to be multiples of that.

sopas ej · #**120** Posted **Sep 13, 2018, 9:01 PM**

Quote: