San Francisco says tiny sleeping ‘pods,’ which cost $700 a month and became a big hit with tech workers, are not up to code::The pods, which are 4-foot-high boxes constructed from wood and steel, made headlines after tech workers praised the spaces.
San Francisco says tiny sleeping ‘pods,’ which cost $700 a month and became a big hit with tech workers, are not up to code::The pods, which are 4-foot-high boxes constructed from wood and steel, made headlines after tech workers praised the spaces.
No. This is actually perfectly normal and has been throughout history.
This is a flophouse/hostel/barracks by another name. The concept of these largely predate (modern) capitalism and they are still a very popular model in a lot of high population density cities.
When I was younger, I loved when stuff like this was available because I tend to not spend a lot of time in my hotel when I am on holiday. As I’ve gotten older I have decided it is more important to have a place to stretch out and my own private bathroom but… it was really nice back in the day.
The relative cost and code violations… also just speak to the relative cost of housing. Which is “normal” capitalism.
Speaking of the relative cost of housing, you can buy an actual whole house in other parts of the USA for that much a month. That could be a 30-year mortgage payment on a 100k house.
In San Francisco/Bay Area that doesn’t even cover a parking space per month.
In the US, the average home price sold was $495k. Where can you find a $100k house that doesn’t need a tear down or complete renovation?
source
In the rural parts of the USA they are all over the place. Here is a 5-bedroom house for $95k in Illinois: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/417-W-Illinois-St-Steeleville-IL-62288/119741473_zpid/
So… your solution is to buy a house hundreds of miles away from their job?
Nope, I simply answered their question: “In the US, the average home price sold was $495k. Where can you find a $100k house that doesn’t need a tear down or complete renovation?”
My guy that is a 1900 built House. That is an immediate teardown on purchase.
What? Just because a house is old, doesn’t mean it isn’t still habitable. If a house that old is still standing and in good condition chances are it’s built better than new builds. And by the pictures, previous owners have taken a lot of care in it and upgraded it. Sure, the cosmetics may need to change depending on your preferences, but there is nothing wrong with that house structurally.
I really like how confidently you are wrong.
Did you look at it? That is not a tear down.