Comments

1
"Murraysville." Never too soon to contemplate the ole' legacy.
2
A 12' x 12' space is "decent housing"? I think the more appropriate word would be "slums".
3
"the 30 finished units cost $88,000 each" and that doesn't include the cost of the land (was donated).

5
the 'pictures' link under the block quote is bad.
6
Anna,
I read that article over the weekend in the NYT. I shared the story with Charles. I like the idea and hope it works.
7
Why don't they just pay for an apartment rental at normal cost? Or rent some decent hotel rooms? Why are they "reinventing the wheel" when there is so much housing already that could be used? Just pay for what is already there and let people go immediately into housing. It would probably cost a lot less, while being more effective. I also agree that the units are too small, and that people should have their own kitchens for cooking, along with full bathrooms. Or just get hotel rooms right away in moderate and clean hotels (not Aurora Ave skid row, but rent out some Best Westerns or similar - so that the state isn't involved in slum lording). Gee, why is it so hard for so many to just give people housing?
8
I hate to say it, but 1000 unit would be almost 100 Million dollars. (Not counting land)
9
What does $88,000 each in Thurston County translate to in Seattle, and how is that 'affordable' if all you're getting is 144sq/ft?
10
Your link is bad; corrected link.

Looking at the pictures, I'm spectacularly unimpressed. Yes: microhousing. But: macro footprint! Each "microhouse" has its own four walls, its own plot, etcetera. Yes, this may have some useful psychological and community awareness/monitoring functions. But it's an incredibly inefficient use of space, of construction materials, and likely of energy (heating each separate microhouse in the middle of winter must cost a bit; also, cooling in summer). Why not apartments?
11
@10: probably because of the difference in how those structures are dealt with in the code.

12
@7,

A hotel or dorm room situation seems like a more practical approach. I've volunteered in subsidized housing for the formerly homeless before, and they were much more akin to dormitories. Individual rooms, sometimes (but not always) with private baths, and communal kitchens and living rooms.
13

These houses that cost over $500 per square foot, or four times the cost of what even an overpriced Washington State house in the same region does.

14
$3.1 million for 30 shacks in the middle of nowhere with showers in another building? We can do better. Here's six units, 18 bedrooms total, nice clean and new for $890 - right about $50k/person: http://www.redfin.com/WA/Olympia/2505-Co…

And these are nice and newer. An older apartment building or motel would be an even better deal.
15
#14

Completely insane, right? I calculated that for the money they spend per person for each guy in the homeless shelter in the auto garage downtown, they could put them up in 3-bedroom luxury units in a tony Kirkland neighborhood and have money left over to allow each homeless person to lease a late model automobile.

16
@10: Building multiple levels will likely be more expensive in terms of materials and labor, while less expensive in terms of land. If you have lots of land, you can go the cheap option. If you have less land, more land economic options make more sense, even if they're more expensive.
As for why not build apartments...

I'll just leave these here.
17
@#16
I didn't say multiple levels. I especially didn't say giant towering concrete blocks full of blind corners. But: row houses or motel-style construction would have some considerable efficiencies of construction cost, land usage, and energy usage, and wouldn't have the obvious problems that your rather exaggerated examples demonstrate.
18
@17: I think I overspoke in terms of the multiple levels comment. As for the "exaggerated examples", those examples are why we aren't talking about it. Do I think that those examples were bad ideas? No. I feel like we could certainly do better, but starting that conversation is difficult because of those examples. It is far easier to destroy than to build, and that includes ideas.
19
I think this strategy for housing homeless sounds fine , but I'm sure curious to see a breakdown of how $19k per unit turns into $88k when "site prep" (on donated land) and a 1/30th cut of the commons building is included
21
expand the crap out of Section 8, allow developers to build hella units

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.