$850 a month for 150 square feet??? Utter insanity aside, how is that even remotely considered ‘deeply affordable’
Because these idiots are comparing it to the normal sized flats, that are more expensive due to the deficit they created.
Why do they have to be micro though?
There are enough houses.
There are too many landlords.
once again, trying to shift the onus for a solution away from the 1% who caused and perpetuate the problem
Exactly. Not sure how slum lord flats are the solution here, when investment firms are sitting on millions of empty homes.
how slum lord flats are the solution here
they’re a solution for building owners who can’t find tenants to lease their office space to. they don’t actually care about the peasants who can’t find affordable homes
That’s kind of the definition of a slum lord, though, isn’t it?
instead of “tenants” i should have said “badly run businesses that nevertheless have tons of capital to blow on office space”
Ah. Sorry. I misunderstood ‘tenants’ in terms of the civiz who would rent the tiny flat, and not as the businesses who would rent the entire floor.
Who do you think owns those fucking buildings with office space?
The same investment firms. That’s my point. They own too much, and need regulation.
yes private real estate bad but also guys this is infill housing, this is good.
EDIT: wait no hold on just saw how small those are that’s awful
Ehh that studio on the right is perfectly livable for two adults. Common to see in Europe.
The left looks like some cursed dorm-type setup with shared restrooms and kitchens which is just unsanitary (have you met an average American?).
But the size is fine. Americans just insist on having ridiculous amounts of square footage to “live” because they don’t live. The US has no third spaces so either you go somewhere and pay for the privilege of being there, or you use your apartment as your all-in-one space for gatherings, exercise, relaxing, creating, etc.
The U.S. has a lot of third spaces like parks, libraries, art spaces, community/rec/senior centers, churches, etc. It’s more that there’s been a cultural shift away from using those spaces, because the norm for work-life balance has been steadily shifting toward only work, so people don’t have energy left for themselves or their communities.
I think this deserves a closer look. This isn’t just affordable housing, but affordable housing in the middle of Downtown areas loaded with walking distance services, jobs, and public transportation. Moving working class people into urban areas is a good thing that can have a reverse-gentrification knock-on effect as the extra housing inventory pressures landlords to cut rents.
It’s student accomodation - short term , probably ok for youths for whom sharing with strangers as part of the “experience”.
That’s no place for putting down roots, or for a full time worker. It’s not a bad idea in principle - i agree. But each unit should be 2-3 times the size and include a private shower room, toilet. and at least a small kitchenette. And the conversion should be nominally permanent - i.e. require a plaanning application to reverse.
That plan doesnt even have a washbasin/water supply. My guess is they want to cheap out on plumbing - hence the communal bathroom and kitchen. So that it is reversible back to office space - they’re not building a home if they want it reversible - it’s temporary “accomodation”. No good for a lasting comunity. I’d want this type of accomodation to be no more than a few percent of the homes in an area.
To me the fact they scaled down the plan of the “traditional studio” to make their plan look bigger betrays the fact that these are disingenuous salespeople not actually interested in making viable homes for people.
edit: It’s also fine for housing the homeless - no argument there, but I’d hope for them a pathway to adequate long term accomodation.
Lots of housing is the solution to the housing crisis.
Outlaw AirBnB and corporate ownership of residences or the amount of housing will literally never matter.
Also ban housing as an investment vehicle.
Just ban housing 🙂
Almost there… It’s really about ending capitalism.
While true, in the USA, there are millions of “investment homes” owned by investment firms, all sitting empty, driving down supply and driving up costs. The solution to the housing market in this instance isn’t to increase the availability of 150sqft slum lord flats, but instead to significantly decrease the number of “investment homes” an entity is allowed to own [and to restrict its use (for example, it must not sit empty for more than 6 months)].
Edit in []
The issue isn’t lack of existing housing.
No. It’s not a lack of existing housing. It’s lack of available housing. Millions of homes sitting empty, owned by these firms as investment properties.
This idea in particular seems inconvenient to me, but there may be people who would prefer something like this.
I had a very small apartment when I lived in Japan, and honestly, I really liked it for the most part. It was a bit bigger than what I think they’re saying in this article, though.
A lot of American municipalities have banned a lot of the cheap and small apartments that could house working people. Offer it as an option; it seems better than sleeping on the streets.
While I’m not fully on board with this idea, I do think it could help some people out. When I got my first job out of college, I definitely couldn’t afford to live anywhere aside from my parents house. All my friends were in the same boat and even with our meager salaries together, we could not afford to get an apparent together. It took us 3-4 years out of college to have the salary to be able to come together and get an apartment. But what if you moved to a new place and don’t have friends to share with? What if you just… Don’t have friends or have some reason you can’t live with others? This is a great solution for that. My brother was in a situation recently where he felt stuck in a relationship with his batshit crazy girlfriend because he couldn’t afford to be on his own and would have to move in with our parents if they broke up. It eventually worked out and he has an apartment all his own, but I feel he could have removed himself from that relationship sooner if there was a cheap option like this for him to use temporarily.
My work abandoned their offices during covid. The building is being converted into luxury apartments. Capitalism is fundamentally based on the deprivation, not the satisfaction, of human needs like food, housing, healthcare, etc.
Probably because you can’t convert offices into affordable housing. The cost is staggering.
“cost” or “price”? If a high price isn’t clearing a market . . . something uncompetetive is probably happening.
Converting older office buildings - say, 1950’s and earlier - is often feasible, it’s the newer ones that can be problematic. Most people don’t want an apartment without a window (and often fire or occupancy codes require a window). This isn’t really an issue for older building stock, as they were constructed when air conditioning wasn’t as prevalent, windows provided ventilation, and window light was used to supplement office lights.
Modern office buildings don’t worry about windows for either ventilation or light, so each floor can take up a massive amount of space. If this happens to be a long, thin space, you could put in some apartments - but a lot of the buildings are more square.
How do you handle that? Do you make each apartment really long and thin? If so, do you put in a hallway on one side that eats up precious space and does nothing other than keeping you from going through each room in turn? Or do you make it so you have to pass through each room to get to the end?
If you have the pass-through-each-room style, then which room should be the end room? Traditionally the living room gets the big windows, so you can entertain guests, but that leaves you passing through bedrooms to get there. If you put a bedroom at the end, then only one person/couple gets the light, and you’re still potentially walking through the second or third bedroom.
You could make the apartments more square - but these are massive floors, sometimes taking up entire city blocks. And as I mentioned, often code requires windows, so what do you do with the massive space in the center? Do you make each apartment wide and long - those will be expensive and won’t help the affordability crisis. Do you build in common areas: say, put in resident storage units every 3 floors and a gym every 5 floors and toss in some community spaces? That’s great, but those common spaces will need housekeeping and maintenance, which raises ongoing costs. You can put in office space, but most people don’t feel comfortable having those on the same floor, and it raises security concerns for the residents. There are a couple places that have put in a giant light well in the center, but that’s expensive and makes the resulting apartments expensive too.
Conversion tends to work better with older building stock and while that works fine in some places, what do you do in cities that don’t really have a good supply of older buildings? The supply of 1950’s era office buildings is certainly limited in places like Los Angeles or Phoenix.
I guess you shit and piss out of the window? Oh wait, office building windows don’t open. Oh well, communal shitter and kitchen in the same spot it is.
Are you saying the solution to the housing crisis is to starve 50 million people to death?
I’m making a joke in poor taste to express my disdain for people who commodify human necessities for profit.
I’m curious: are you also against private grocery stores? Because ya know, eating is also a human necessity.
In other words, you do sound like you’d like someone like Mao in charge.
are you also against private grocery stores?
I am, yes.
I have zero interest in spending this beautiful Friday morning arguing, so I’m not going to, but if you would like some reading recommendations to understand my political positions on these sorts of things, let me know and I’d be happy to provide them.
I’d be interested if you are still willing to share.
I’d start with Kropotkin’s “The Conquest of Bread” followed by Gelderloos’ “Anarchy Works.” Kropotkin explains the theory behind why libertarian socialism / anarchist communism is a better, more fair way to structure society, while exhaustively addressing common objections. Gelderloos writes from a modern perspective while offering examples of non-hierarchal human organization throughout history. For those who (somehow) read these and remain convinced that the idea is utopian, I’d recommend Kropotkin’s essay “Are We Good Enough,” and his principal scientific work: “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution” which offers a compelling counter-argument to the ‘dog eat dog’ conclusion drawn by many from Darwin’s theory of evolution by positing that cooperation is sustained in humans and animals over time through natural selection.
For a quick and dirty intro to the basic idea of what classical anarchism is: “An Anarchist Program” - Errico Malatesta.
Anarchism is a line of political thought that goes back for well over a century, with many branches and differing opinions; like any group, libertarian socialists are not a monolith. Anarchism, including anarchist communism, is a response not only to capitalism, but to other branches of leftist thought: while communist revolutions were taking place around the world, anarchists were there alongside them, critiquing the practices that continue to be critiqued today concerning communist projects with their focus on challenging power and unnecessary hierarchy: who has power over who, why, and is it strictly necessary? As someone once said: “Freedom without equality is the jungle. Equality without freedom is prison. I want neither the jungle nor prison.” That is what classical anarchist thought brings to the table: it examines how society can be structured while providing both freedom and equality in a way that neither capitalist thinking nor other leftist schools of thought adequately address.
I already know your political positions: you posted a portrait of Mao.
Look, capitalism is broken. It’s a terrible, terrible system - especially the ultra-capitalist society with ultra-billionnaires we have today. My personal opinion is that said ultra-billionnaires should face the pitchfork sooner rather than later.
But I also know enough history to know that communism is even worse. I don’t know what the solution to capitalism is, but it’s not Mao or Stalin. They can fuck right off.
So you aren’t at all interested in understanding my positions, got it. Have a good day.
Indeed I am not. Like you yourself said, I’m not interested in spending this beautiful Friday arguing 🙂
deleted by creator
not the answer, but an answer, in a very long list of possible solutions
I’m not negating the benefits here. But this answer is to a problem created by the very people providing the answer, except it only truly benefits the causes. Millions of empty homes, owned as investment properties by these firms. They’re causing the housing market deficit, and are now providing a “generous” 150sqft closet for $850us per month.
It’s that scaling distotion on the two side-by-side plans that does it for me.
These shoeboxes come with some magical feng-shui thing that makes 20ft appear to be the same as 30ft.
