[eschulz]

In my town there used to be a lot of single-room units (there are of course none now), and my understanding is that the primary residents were migrant men working pretty much all day. They'd just crash in the rooms, all their meals and social events would be out in town or at their work place.

I feel as though there would be a different tenant in the modern era. Some would be migrant young men trying to save every dime, but many would be those suffering mental illness, and they'd fill the unit with tons of stuff. Can you imagine how much more stuff Americans have these days than they did back in say 1900? I genuinely think that the volume of stuff/garbage would be a legitimate fire or structural hazard. No landlord would want that. Back in the old days landlords had a lot more ability to force out any tenants they didn't want.

[SoftTalker]

Yep the article shows a photo of a neatly kept room, the reality would be a bare mattress on the floor, piles of dirty clothes, trash, and hoarded posessions.

Drug-addicted and mentally ill people do not know how to keep even a moderately organized living space. Our city has tried "housing first" and it's been a disaster. The units are filthy, damaged, and the buildings don't pass minimal standards when the housing department inspects them because the "tenants" and their associates have destroyed them.

I do believe most SROs had a "no visitors" policy so that might help somewhat but there would have to be strictly enforced requirements about not trashing or abusing the property.

[kasey_junk]

One of the last SRO left in Chicago is about 2 blocks from my house. They have extremely strict cleaning requirements and a no visitors policy. It seems to keep the damage to a minimum. I think the biggest issue there is how many of the residents really need aged care but can’t afford it.

[AnimalMuppet]

Where are you? I think Salt Lake City did "housing first", and I seem to recall that it worked fairly well.

[naasking]

> Yep the article shows a photo of a neatly kept room, the reality would be a bare mattress on the floor, piles of dirty clothes, trash, and hoarded posessions.

This is exactly the kind of fact-free demonization the article described as responsible for the elimination of SROs which caused the explosion in homelessness.

[closewith]

The average drug addict and the average person with mental illness is employed, well-dressed, and financially stable.

[cman1444]

Yep, this is exactly what would happen. Anyone who has worked in industries adjacent to these types of people knows how it is.

At this price point, you're essentially only going to be renting to people who are currently homeless, which is great from a societal standpoint. However, you can't ignore the fact that substantial portions of the homeless community, and therefore your potential tenants, are either drug addicts and mentally ill people.

1 out of every 10 of those people will cause more property destruction than could ever be recouped in rent from the other 9. It just doesn't work for private landlords.

[generalizations]

I bet those landlords could build housing that was sufficiently resistant to property destruction, which those renters would be happy to pay for at a sufficient rate - everyone would be happy. But it's the myth of consensual housing: isn't there someone you forgot to ask? The housing regulations would (and do) absolutely forbid anything that fit this niche.

[adammarples]

I don't think it would be hard to carefully interview and vet each potential tenant. However, I don't even know if that would be legal nowadays.

[jimbokun]

Maybe but that’s pure speculation.

[eschulz]

You're right. The town has speculated it to be the case and doesn't want housing for situations like this. Real estate investors also speculate it, and they'd prefer to cater to those with more disposable income.

Single-room units would bring down the cost of housing for everyone, but those with influence and money have decided that we don't want it in our community.