574
San Francisco says tiny sleeping 'pods,' which cost $700 a month and became a big hit with tech workers, are not up to code (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
164 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 48 points 3 years ago (3 children)

Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to see modern SRO-style buildings, noise proofed, with small individual bathrooms and kitchenettes. That sort of development would be a godsend to the housing shortage, perfect for young people, supercommuters, and recent transplants, as well as for stopgap homeless prevention.

This isn't that. This is horrible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 3 years ago

    Yeah young people(students) fresh out on their own and have nothing yet trying to make ends meet don’t have standards yet when they first get out into the world and once they run into responsibilities they find out fast this type of living really isn’t living. It’s actually super limited. Until then: extorters are going to extort.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    But how is this supposed to happen in high-density cities like NYC or SF?

    I don't have any answers, but as someone who lived in SF for 7 years back in the 90s and early oughts as a student, I know for a fact that "there are no simple solutions for the problems that we face."

    Yeah, I just quoted a DRI song; guilty as charged!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    I know. It's difficult. It would require changes to coding for square footage requirements. It might not be particularly profitable. It'd be expensive to run safely. The opportunity costs would be astronomical (considering the luxury-condo alternative).

    It wouldn't be the solution, because no one thing is. However, It would be a solution to a narrow set of problems, and an asset to residents and workers if it were managed and secured properly. I think one key would be ensuring that it didn't become a shelter for the vagrant homeless population, nor a place for families, just a relatively inexpensive, clean, safe option for individuals to land for a while.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent