Micro-apartments. The Boston Globe ("Micro-apartments will become a cost-effective solution for renters — eventually"), reports on the provision of small apartments in the city, 450 s.f. or less, with kitchens and community amenities. They are a form of what used to be called SRO, or Single Room Occupancy housing, but flashier. (Also see this BG article from 2015, "Developers, city hope tiny apartments will keep families in Boston").
From the current article:
The idea of living in a micro-unit, or an apartment roughly less than 400 square feet, might send some renters heading for the wide-open spaces of the suburbs. But for others, a small, manageable, and ideally affordable living space would make living closer to downtown feel more approachable. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it’s the affordability piece that Bostonians are still seeking.
In 2016, the city’s Housing Innovation Lab rolled out a traveling model apartment called the Urban Housing Unit, or UHU. At 385 square feet, this micro-apartment traveled to eight neighborhoods across the city, showing Bostonians what life in such a small space could look like. During its tour, the Housing iLab gathered feedback from roughly 2,000 residents to help draft guidelines for a compact living program.
... “We worked with the city of Boston to create these compact-living regulations that changed the [square footage] downward and basically made it so that it was more like an open-ended thing,” Roy said. “You had to just show it to the Boston Planning Department, go through the design, and make sure that you fulfilled certain requirements — there’s some storage, there’s a decent kitchen, there’s a place to put your bed, and there’s a certain amount of light and air.”
... Six years later, micro-units have proliferated throughout Boston — like the ones for rent at Micropolis in Beacon Hill and the studios at Troy Boston in the South End — but they aren’t quite nailing the goal of UHU yet. That’s because many of the micro-apartments for rent today aren’t exactly affordable. A 250-square-foot unit at Micropolis, for example, fetches more than $2,000 per month.
... Smaller homes can present advantages, too. Though there’s a shortage of space, there’s also less cleaning and maintenance to be done, Salpoglou said. Utility bills will be smaller, and you’ll likely be buying less “stuff,” like furniture, accessories, and things that might constitute clutter. “There’s no question there’s an added benefit to them,” he said.
... It’s the kind of project Roy thinks could benefit Boston, along with more cohousing models. Both would serve demographics like workforce singles and couples, graduate students, single parents, divorcées, the elderly, artists, and recent immigrants, which make up many of the groups currently priced out of Boston’s housing stock.
“There has to be a way for the city and the state to subsidize nonprofit development to do this,” Roy said. “It’s necessary for the workforce — for people who don’t make $100,000 a year and just need a place to live.”
What I think's interesting about the initiative is the prototyping they did. There definitely is a need to extend the range of housing choices available to people, especially singles. Cost of new housing is an issue, so subsidy might be required. And it is a way to add "gentle density" to a community, especially if such buildings are built in areas with good transit and other amenities.
Two adjacent rowhouses on Chapin Street NW were combined and renovated to form the first Cohabs building in D.C. There is no signage to suggest that the building is different from the other houses on the block. (Aaron Wiener/The Washington Post)Co-living. In "Can 35 roommates cure loneliness? This co-living housing firm thinks so," the Washington Post discusses a firm opening a more expensive of group housing that they call co-housing. From the article:
Brussels-based Cohabs is buying up properties in D.C. with the aim of converting them into “co-living” spaces, where as many as 36 housemates will share common areas, events and — according to the firm’s marketing — a cure for urban loneliness.
The company opened its first D.C. house last month. The property, formerly two adjacent rowhouses in Columbia Heights, has been turned into a warren of 36 bedrooms, 15 bathrooms, two full kitchens, six kitchenettes and two roof decks.
Cohabs has purchased five other properties in D.C. and is aiming for more. In 2025, the company plans to buy a building a month, according to U.S. managing director Daniel Clark. “We could go pretty quickly to 500 beds, and I think 1,000 beds is possible,” Clark said.
... Those rents include cleaning services, utilities, periodic group breakfasts and events, a full-size bed and other furnishings, and basic communal supplies such as toilet paper, soap and olive oil.
According to the article, other firms offer a similar kind of experiential housing elsewhere in the city, while the WeLive spin off from WeWork failed.
It does seem like a good way to add housing density without new construction or teardowns of existing historic building stock. It extends the range of housing types available--not everyone wants their own apartment. The programming is a nice touch for people more interested in experiences.
The New York Times article refers to co-living as "dorms for adults," ("As Housing Costs Soar, Co-Living Makes a Comeback").
Co-housing. I was confused at first, thinking they were calling it co-housing. I've visited the co-housing development in Takoma DC. The building is U shaped, with separate attached buildings, like rowhouses, with a commonspace in the middle including kitchen, dining, and other facilities. But each housing unit has its own facilities: kitchen, washer and dryer ("There’s Community and Consensus. But It’s No Commune," New York Times).
But the intent, like the Cohabs version, is to promote interaction, which isn't necessarily the case with group housing, unless people already know each other. From the NYT article, "Modern Housing With Village Virtues":
Louise Dunlap, 78, has rented a studio apartment in a nine-unit cohousing community for the last six years. “Interdependence,” she says, “goes beyond turning the compost and fixing the washing machine. I get a chance to share meals and deep conversations. There’s a kind of love that grows out of these connections — not romantic love, not family love, but something about our common humanity. I wish everyone could experience this.”
The problem with co-housing is that the first wave of residents are fully committed, while tenants are replaced individually as units go up for sale, and new residents don't necessarily have the same commitment. Another problem is financing the building in the first place ("They Took a Chance on Collaborative Living. They Lost Everything," NYT).
Co-operatives. There are two types of co-operative housing. One is more communal, the other has separate apartments or buildings, with zero focus on co-living. For example, in Ann Arbor, there are a large number of communal co-ops serving as a form of student housing. They prepare common meals, at least for dinner, using an in-building commercial kitchen, and have joint spaces for living, with individual small rooms and shared bathrooms. Rather than jobbing out cleaning etc. like the co-living spaces, the residents do this collectively.
Single Room Occupancy ("Single-room rentals in America's housing ecosystem," Niskanen Center, Single Room Occupancy Task Force Report, Hennepin County). Units were significantly smaller than co-living options, with a size of 80 to 140 s.f. on average, with shared restrooms and a living room. Rooms often had a small kitchenette with a hot plate, not a full stove.
Many cities have seen a small rebirth of the SRO type as a way to address homelessness.
Boarding houses. A variant of SROs was boarding houses, which included dinner for sure and maybe breakfast.
Labels: affordable housing, housing choice, housing cooperatives, housing planning, housing policy
.jpg)
.webp)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.webp)
.jpg)
