New $28M sale exposes Seattle City Council's affordable housing blunder

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The city of Seattle five years ago passed regulations that make it virtually impossible to development ultra-affordable micro housing in a move that even the former planning director criticized.

The estate of affordable-housing pioneer Jim Potter this week sold three Footprint-branded micro-apartment buildings, all of which are essentially full, for a total of $28.4 million. This demonstrates that investors like the product as much as tenants do, and indicates developers would build more desperately needed affordable units in the city where homelessness has been declared a crisis – if they could.

Public records show that Seattle-based Anew Apartments bought the 4- to 5-year-old buildings with a total of 167 units. They are Footprint's Cal Park (1806 12th Ave.) Capitol Hill (422 11the Ave. E.) and Eastlake (2371 Franklin Ave. E.) Units in the buildings average around 200 square feet and are have shared kitchens.

The average monthly rent is $1,000, according to listing broker Dylan Simon, who leads Colliers International's Seattle Multifamily Team. This works out to a per-square-foot rent of roughly $5, which is appealing to investors since larger one-bedroom units of the same vintage rent for around roughly $3.25, said Simon, who with colleagues Jerrid Anderson and Matt Laird are marketing five more Footprint properties for sale.

Potter started building micro projects about 10 years ago and other developers followed when the projects filled up quickly. Neighbors concerned about the influx of new residents in buildings with minimal or no parking grew into a flood that swamped City Hall.

In 2014, as apartment rents soared and homelessness reached crisis proportions, the council imposed new rules that make it virtually impossible to build ultra-small unit projects. One of the arguments for the legislation was that housing people in apartments as small as 150 square feet is inhumane.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2019/01/25/jim-potter-micro-footprint-apartments-anew.html?ana=e_du_prem&s=article_du&ed=2019-01-25&u=ColXVN5SPzQtLHFP87ho2w07857290&t=1548465398&j=86281381

[KT2000]

1. rising rents force people

into less than desirable accommodations. Popularity has to do with cost not that these units are suitable for living quarters. Parking is no small issue when all these units are put onto small plots of land. They won't allow a floor or two for parking, they developer just wants to force all the cars onto already crowded streets. $$$$$$$

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

2. I think units like this should be restricted to where there's good transit.

Most of the ones I'm aware of are on Capital Hill or the U District.

It seems though there's been a push by many housing advocates to lessen the parking requirements in newer projects.

But yes I agree a thousand a month for renting a cracker box seems excessive.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

3. A thousand bucks a month and they have shared kitchens?

That's supposed to be affordable????

My mortgage on a 900 square foot two bedroom, two bathroom, three skylights townhouse in Santa Fe is less than that.