The Case for Micro-Apartment Housing in Growing Urban Centers
by
Zachary Shore
B.S. in Biology & Environmental Science, 2006 College of Charleston
Submitted to the Program in Real Estate Development in Conjunction with the Center for Real Estate in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Real Estate Development
at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
February, 2014
©2014 Zachary Shore All rights reserved
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created.
Signature of Author_________________________________________________________ Zachary Shore
Center for Real Estate December 23, 2013
Certified by_______________________________________________________________ Peter Roth
Lecturer, Center for Real Estate Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by______________________________________________________________ David Geltner
Chair, MSRED Committee, Interdepartmental Degree Program in Real Estate Development
Introduction
The Problem: Mismatch Between Supply and Demand
A. Supply
I. Historical Context of Housing Development
B. Demand
I. Shifting Demographics
II. The Rise of the Single Person Household
III. Rising Demand for Rental Housing
C. Options for Single Person Households
I. Options for Living Alone
II. Alternatives for Single-Person Households
D. Effects of Not Meeting Demand
The Solution: Micro-Apartments
A. What is a Micro-Apartment?
B. Changes in Space Requirements
C. Cultural Context
I. Sweden
II. Japan
III. United Kingdom
IV. Brazil
D. Early Adopters in the United States
I. Cities
II. adAPT NYC Request For Proposal Responses
III. Developers
The Barriers & Alternative Theories
A. Zoning
B. Financing
C. Alternative Theories
I. Inhumane
II. Increased Bottom Line
III. Gentrification and Rising Costs of Land
IV. Threatening the Supply of Affordable Housing and SROs
V. Transient and Marginal People
Additional Benefits of Micro-Apartments
A. Affordability By Design
B. Retaining Young Professionals and Companies
C. Sustainability
Conclusion
A. Recommendations
B. Further Research
table of contents
1
07-09
10-13
14-15
16-18
19-21
22
23-24
26-27
28-30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37-39
40
42-44
45
46-50
51-52
53-54
55-56
57
59
60-61
62
64-69
70
References
05
06
25
41
58
63
2
3
4
5
6
Appendix A: Additional adAPT NYC Entries
71-83
Taking an analytical approach, this thesis will address how the unmet housing need of urban single-person households can be rectified by the introduction of micro-apartments. The existing housing stock has been built largely based on the needs of a historically stable demand for family housing. By 2025, the number of single households will equal the number of households con-taining families with children. Given the remarkable increase in single-person households over the past few decades, a significant gap has formed in the availability of properly priced housing to meet the needs of people who would prefer to live alone. This affordability gap is an oppor-tunity for cities to take strain off of family housing, stimulate the economy, and create innovative housing types that satisfy the needs of their fastest growing demographic. With land and labor costs at an all-time high, apartments with less square footage—micro-apartments— are a viable solution to filling the supply gap for single-person households.
This thesis first analyzes this mismatch between supply and demand; introduces micro-apart-ments as a logical approach to ease the strain on housing; evaluates barriers and alternative theo-ries that delay the implementation of this logical solution; and finally, makes recommendations for planners and policymakers to successfully add micro-apartments to their menu of housing options.
The growth in single-person households with various levels of income indicates a significant demand for small units of modest means. Micro-apartments offer the opportunity to live alone to a variety of people, including new arrivals to cities, young professionals, and people at transi-tional stages in life such as a recent divorcée or a young couple. By offering housing to these segments of demand, micro-apartments will implicitly lessen the strain of existing housing stock intended for families.
abstract
Submitted to the Program in Real Estate Development in Conjunction with the Center for Real Estate on December 20, 2013 in Partial Fulfillment of the Re-quirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Real Estate Development
by Zachary Shore
Thesis Supervisor: Peter Roth
Title: Lecturer, Center for Real Estate
The Case for
micro-apartments in growing
urban centers
I would like to thank my Dad, for always encouraging me to reach higher, wish you were here to know that I went to MIT, you would be proud.
I would like to thank Peter Roth, my thesis advisor and friend. I first met Peter at the MIT open house in Los Angeles, where he encouraged me to apply for the program. He has been equally encouraging and inspiring in and outside of class.
I would like to thank the class of 2013, I feel lucky to have been a part of such a unique group of individuals.
I would like to especially thank John McDonald from the class of 2013, who has been an incred-ible friend and advisor. I have learned more from John than any other friend I have had.
I would like to thank my MIT professors; David Geltner, Bill Wheaton, Dennis Frenchman, Chris-toph Reinhardt, Karl Seidman, Harvey Michaels, Bill Aulet, Matt Marx, and John Kennedy. I would like to thank all my friends from the tiny island I call home for their support and encour-agement.
I would like to thank Patrick Kennedy for stimulating my interest in the topic of this thesis. I would like to thank Alexis Wheeler for teaching me design skills and for an extra eye on my thesis.
chapter 1:
Introduction
The U.S. demographics of today have changed radically from those of 50 years ago, when themajority of urban housing was constructed. As the presence of nuclear families continues to decline and single-person households increase, development patterns are not fully accommodat-ing this remarkable demographic shift, leadaccommodat-ing to a significant mismatch between housaccommodat-ing supply and demand. With people marrying later in life, if at all, and half of all marriages ending in divorce, planners and policymakers need to accept that singles are a permanent part of the population and strategize on how to accommodate them. Single people living alone now make up close to 30% of all households around the nation. Not providing housing that meets the needs of this diverse group of people and income levels has negative ramifications for many segments of the market. Despite attempts to meet the demand of single-person households, developers are limited by a number of policy and social barriers. Such barriers prevent developers from fully meeting the needs of single-person households of modest means. With land and labor costs at an all-time high, apartments with less square footage—micro-apartments— are a viable solution to filling the supply gap for single-person households.
The introduction of micro-apartments to the market could rectify this unmet housing need of single-person households by providing a less expensive option. A micro-apartment is a “small, typically urban, self-contained apartment that is typically between 150-350 square feet” (Life-edited.com, 2013). Producing more micro-apartments could add density to the core, reduce rent pressure for many segments of the housing market, and provide much-needed options for people currently making do with other product. To produce a variety of housing for single-person households will require the participation of planners, policymakers, financial institutions, and de-velopers. All aspects of the housing delivery system will need to be put under a microscope to create a more diverse array of housing options.
chapter 2:
the problem
Unrelated Adults Sharing Couple with No Children Single Person Living Alone Studio and One-Bedroom Units
Austin Denver New York Seattle Washington D.C.
200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 1,400,000
Availability of Studio & One-Bedroom Apartments for Households that Require Them
The existing housing stock has largely been built based on the needs of a historically stable de-mand for family housing. Given the remarkable increase in single-person households over the past few decades, a significant gap has formed in the availability of proper housing to meet the needs of people who would prefer to live alone.
Depiction of ACS data regarding the mismatch of supply and demand for small apartments Source: Citizens Housing and Planning Council, Watkins, 2013.
In the United States, most developers have designed our cities around past demograph-ics and their housing demands. As the Yale historian Dolores Hayden has shown, “most modern cities and, especially, suburbs were designed for nuclear families in which the mother stayed at home to do domestic work while the father labored elsewhere; so, too, were most residential units, both apartments and stand-alone houses” (Klinenberg, 2012). The namesake of residential buildings carries with it familial ties, such as ‘single-family’ homes and ‘multi-family’ buildings.(“‘Mak-ing Room’: Why Should We Care? | CHPC New York” 2013) Currently, people search-ing for houssearch-ing often have to adjust to these existing housing types by making monetary or locational sacrifices. According to the Ur-ban Land Institute, “aiming for a mass mar-ket with a limited number of tried-and-true housing products—the products that were once the profit-producing staples of most developers—is no longer a viable develop-ment strategy. This is because the market has become too fragmented, too diverse” (Urban Land Institute, 2005).
Past demographics have also influenced the current supply in terms of how large homes are. The concept of how large a home should be shifted after World War II, and in response to this shift, develop-ers began to produce larger homes. Be-tween 1950 and 2011, the average size of a home more than doubled from 983 square feet to 2,480 square feet (U.S. Census Bu-reau, 2012). As a result of suburban flight, Americans became accustomed to having spacious homes because they were built on cheap land and paid for with subsidized
mortgages. During this time, children also became used to having their own room. According to the 1960 U.S. Census, the av-erage family had 2.4 children and 0.7 bed-rooms per child, suggesting that many chil-dren shared bedrooms. In contrast, in 2000, the average family had 1.9 children and 1.1 bedrooms per child (Klinenberg, 2012). The production of more space spread from the suburbs back into cities, where apartments were produced with unusually high square footages, tending to be built like suburban homes, a practice that comes at a high cost in the urban core. Given such development trends, Americans have grown accustomed to an unusually high square footage per per-son, commanding an average of 832 square feet per person. In contrast, other countries get by with much less average square foot-age per person; Japan has 379 square feet, the United Kingdom has 356 square feet, Russia has 237 square feet, and China has 215 square feet per person (Wilson, 2013). Because of the growing expectation of high square footage in the U.S., developers have built increasingly larger households, and as
A. Historical Context of Housing
Development
1950
2012
983 sq. ft. 2480 sq. ft.
Average Home Size in the United States
supply
a result, the current supply of housing avail-able is based on past, not current, demand. Because developers, who look for ways to profit, tend to be on the leading edge of un-derstanding demographic change, they have attempted to change the supply of homes based on changing demographics. With high costs of land and construction com-bined with zoning code limitations on what can be built, they have been doing their best
to meet the demand of single-person house-holds. The rate of production for studio and one-bedroom units has increased with the demand. However, current policy restricts developers from fully meeting the demand for units of modest means. As a result, cit-ies face supply constriction for smaller units that meet the needs of their middle-income residents. Source: Shrinkthatfootprint.com United States-2,480 Sweden-893 United Kingdom-818 China-646 Hong Kong-484 Germany-1,173 Average New Home Size by Country (Square Feet)
Supply also reflects past demographic de-mand because planners continue to permit only a limited variation of housing types in cities. With each unit type conforming to the other, there is little deviation in rents. This limited variation in both physical space and cost of living tends to meet the needs of only a segment of society. With people flocking to cities, finding an apartment that fits one’s needs has become a challenge. The housing stock simply does not fit the new demand. Since people need a place to live, they often create their own solutions with the existing building stock. This results in a range of so-lutions such as strangers banding together to find housing through web portals, which creates abnormally high household incomes and distorts the housing market by driving up rental prices (Watkins, 2013). One conse-quence is that families in cities cannot com-pete with such high household incomes and end up being driven out. This is a direct re-sult of this new demographic trying to make do with what they have, not what they want. Ideally, supply would respond to demand from each underserved demographic seg-ment, starting with single-person household options. As Klinenberg argues, the “main reason that there’s not enough affordable housing for people who live alone is that our metropolitan areas weren’t built for them and we’ve failed to redesign cities and sub-urbs to meet the needs of a singleton soci-ety. Compact residential units in apartment buildings, not single-family homes. Walk-able and densely populated neighborhoods. Proximity to a range of commercial goods and services, attractive public spaces, and restaurants, bars, and cafes where residents can meet. Good public transit. These are important for people who live in all kinds of domestic arrangements, but they are es-pecially important for those who live alone, because they are such heavy users of the places that support local social life” (Klinen-berg 2012).
The demographics of the United States have shifted radically over the past fifty years, and this shift has brought with it changing demand for housing. Understanding the makeup of today’s demographics will help accurately portray the mismatch between housing supply and demand. As Alva Myrdal recognized back in the 1930s, many people, including young adults and the elderly, are happy to live in small but functional spaces so long as they are in well-located buildings with plenty of amenities and public spaces. One benefit, which planners and policymak-ers need to realize and take advantage of, is that by filling the needs of these populations, the available supply of family-size housing will increase, allocating more space for fami-lies and other households who actually need the room (Klinenberg, 2012).
One change impacting housing demand over the past few decades in the United States is the rapidly shrinking household size. Where-as average household size in 1900 wWhere-as 4.60 persons, today the average household size is 2.58 (Nelson, 2013). This shift has oc-curred for several reasons: “(1) women are delaying or forgoing marriage and are thus increasingly older when they have children, and they have fewer children; (2) more wom-en are raising childrwom-en outside of marriage; (3) more people are moving from rural to urban environments, which generally weak-ens and even ends the need for extended families; (4) the education of women leads to more women in the workforce and to de-layed marriage, with associated lower birth rate; and (5) since the 1960s women have
Demand
i. Shifting Demographics
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Persons Per Household
Year
Household Size 1900-2010
4.60 4.54 4.34 4.01 3.68 3.38 3.29 3.11 2.75 2.63 2.59 2.58had improved birth control” (Nelson, 2013). Another shift in the demographics that has impacted housing demand is the decreasing number of households with children. Today the majority of households do not have chil-dren. By 2030, according to Arthur Nelson, the United States “will add about 26.3 mil-lion households, and households with chil-dren will account for only 3.5 million of that change, or about 13 percent of new house-holds. Households without children will ac-count for about 87 percent of the change in households by type” (Nelson, 2013).
Today, households who do have children have different housing demands from households of the past. The composition of households with children has changed drastically com-pared to that of 1950, when more than half of households consisted of nuclear families. In 1960, 45% of households were married with children under 18 years old, with the father as the primary breadwinner. Today, only 23.5% of households are married cou-ples with children under 18, and the father is primary breadwinner in only 29.2% of them (U.S. Census Bureau). The predominant fam-ily type today is the two-earner famfam-ily. The fastest growing family type in the U.S. is the single-parent family, and women head five out of six of these families (Hayden, 2002). Each of these different family compositions will seek different floor plans and amenities in their housing.
Even the category ‘households with chil-dren’ has a different meaning today, as the age of ‘children’ living at home has in-creased. Although the U.S. Census Bureau still uses ‘children under 18’ to represent a family, the growing reality is that kids stay at home much longer. According to a report in August of 2013 by Pew Research Center, 21.6 million adults aged between 18 and 31, or 36% of said demographic, lived at home with their parents in 2012 (Forbes, 2013).
These members of the millennial and Gen Y generations have earned the name ‘Boomer-ang Kids.’ These young adults living at home are changing the physical demands of their family housing, often demanding accessory dwelling units for privacy. In addition, as this group of young adults leave home and seek housing in urban areas, many will surely form single-person households.
Source: Time Magazine
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012
Select Household Changes 1970-2012
Unrelated Adults Singles Living Alone
Married Couples with Children
Year
Housing demand has also shifted with multi-generational households now on the rise in the United States, offsetting the decline of nuclear families. Many of these house-holds have two to four generations living under the same roof, potentially consisting of great grandparents, grandparents, par-ents and children. Since 1980, multi-gener-ational households have grown to make up 16% of all households. By 2030, they could make up as much as 24% of all households (Nelson, 2013). Their growth is fueled by Baby Boomers retiring and moving in with their families and the growth of minorities in the United States, which accounts for a large fraction of population growth over the coming decades. These multi-generational households will require alternative forms of housing structured around their needs, such as dwellings with attached accessory dwell-ing units, or “granny flats.”
High-end one-bedroom apartments in cities are often sought after by two-person house-holds. Comprising “empty-nesters,” DINKS (Dual Income No Kids), or young profession-als living together, many of these two-person households live in apartments or condomini-ums in downtown urban cores (Euromonitor International, 2013).
Just as Baby Boomers transformed the face of the suburbs, so also will they mold cities to accommodate their housing needs, driv-ing the demand for sdriv-ingle-person housdriv-ing.
U.S. age distribution has been leveling out over time, moving from a pyramid to a cone shape as Boomers age. Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Next Generation Millennials Generation Y Generation X Baby Boomers WWII Generation Silent Generation 2000 2010 2020 2030 PERCENT OF POPULATION 7% 26% 17% 13% 28% 9% 20% 25% 16% 10% 25% 4% 7% 25% 24% 22% 15% 6% 20% 25% 22% 17% 13% 3% < 5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-8485+ 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 < 5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-8485+ 0 5 10 0 5 10 15 < 5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-8485+ 0 5 10 0 5 10 15 15 15 MALE FEMALE
Population Distribution by Age Cohort 1970 - 2030
(Percent of Total Population)
1970 2000 2030
Source: Urban Land Institute
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Generation Years Born Major Events & Experiences
WWII Generation 1935 - 1945 WWII, Introduction of Television Baby Boomers 1946 - 1964 American Dream, Booming Economy, Vietnam War, & Civil
Rights Movement
Generation X 1965 - 1976 Computer Revolution, End of the Cold War, High levels of Education Generation Y 1977 - 1994 Education with Computers, Rise of Pop Culture and Social Media The Millennials 1995 - 2010 Digital Age, Powerful Social Media, Increased Terrorist Threats iGeneration 2011 - 2025 Generation of the Future
Between 2013 and 2020, an average of 1.5 million Boomers will turn 65 each year—four times the number per year in the early 2000s (Leinberger, 2008). As Boomers turn sixty-five between 2011 and 2029 and downsize, they will “leave behind millions of suburban homes that no longer meet their needs. Be-cause of Boomers’ changing housing needs, there will be more sellers of homes in the 2020s than buyers in most states” (Nelson, 2013). Many Baby Boomers will take the proceeds of their suburban home sales and move to cities, which offer ease of transit and plenty of social engagement for the re-tired life. Many from this generation are sin-gle as a result of divorce. Many have lost or will lose their spouse, shifting them into the single-person household pool.
Source: Nelson, 2013
Demographics have clearly diversified im-mensely over the past few decades. Based on this change, the Urban Land Institute says that “developers need to build hous-ing that appeals to many different houshous-ing types of nontraditional households – people living alone, childless couples, single parents with full-time or part-time children, unmar-ried couples, same-sex couples, empty nest-ers, and multigenerational families. Add to this rich blend the additional filters of age, income, and the special nuances of ethnic or cultural communities, and the household mix diversifies exponentially” (Urban Land Institute, 2005). 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Persons Turning 65 (annually)
Number of Persons (thousands)
The most remarkable demographic shift that has impacted housing demand, one that has had the most profound effect on the mismatch between housing supply and de-mand, is the rise of the single-person house-hold over the past fifty years. This demo-graphic shift has resulted from young people delaying marriage until a later age, a divorce rate hovering around 50%, the move away from traditional family structures, and more women entering lifelong careers (Euromoni-tor International, 2013). By 2025, the ber of single households will equal the num-ber of households containing families with children, each representing just below thirty percent of households (Leinberger, 2008). This household type has come to be known as the SINKS (Single Income No Kids). In 1950, 9% of the U.S. population lived alone. Today, 27.6% of all households in the U.S.
are comprised of single people (American Community Survey, 2012). Cities in par-ticular have seen a burgeoning presence of single households, accounting for 48% (Eu-romonitor International, 2013) of all house-holds on the island of Manhattan and 39.4% in the San Francisco Bay Area (American Community Survey, 2012). According to Ar-thur Nelson, of the 26.3 million households added by 2030, “53% will be the growth of households among single people, including Boomers who lose their partners and the emergence of Millennials, who will be most-ly in their twenties in 2030” (Nelson, 2013). In 1950 one in three adults were single. Sixty years later, according to the 2010 Cen-sus, 48% of all adults were single, but not necessarily living alone (Infranca, 2013). These single people consist of a broad array
ii. The Rise of Single-Person
Households
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012 Year
Single Person Household Growth in the United States
Santa Fe 40% Bozeman 32% Single-Person Households Seattle
San Francisco Washington D.C.
Minneapolis Los Angeles Portland Denver Phoenix Chicago Houston Nashville New Orleans Atlanta Miami Cleveland 40% 42% 30% 28% 40% 43% 35% 32% 36% New York 32% 40% 45% 36% 35% 48% 34% Boston 38% Des Moines 32% Oklahoma City 31% Little Rock 36%
Salt Lake City
37% Pierre 37% Boise 31% Manhattan 48% St. Louis 44%
The growth of single-person households has not been limited to just a few cities, but has occurred in all cities. Source: U.S. Census Bureau
NYU Sociologist Eric Klinenberg’s account of the remarkable growth of single-person households
of individuals with different types of hous-ing needs. Successful professionals often express that living alone is a form of self-protection, a way to create a “sanctuary in the city to come to after an action filled day at the office, a much needed time allocation for solitude and self-discovery” (Klinenberg, 2012). Baby Boomers are another big con-tributor to singles living alone. In 1950, one in ten people over the age of sixty-five lived
alone; one in three live alone today (Klinen-berg, 2012). As mentioned earlier, with 1.5 million Baby Boomers turning sixty-five ev-ery year, they will significantly contribute to the single-household demographic.
1950
2010
Single Persons in the United States - 1950 v. 2010
The projected growth in demand for rental housing, driven primarily by single-person households, will further exacerbate the mismatch between housing supply and de-mand. It is important to note that housing for single-person households has tradition-ally been rental housing, primarily because single-person households tend to view their situation as temporary. In urban areas, stu-dios are largely rental housing stock. Ac-cording to the 2012 American Community Survey; in New York City, 87% of studios are occupied by renters, in Boston, 89% of studios are occupied by renters, and in San Francisco, 96% of studios are occupied by renters (American Community Survey, 2012). Although some choose to buy, studio units are not viewed as permanent places of residence. They serve as a vital source of housing for people at transitional stages in life. Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing says over the next decade, almost half of the growth in rental households will be from single people, making up 44% of the 3.6 mil-lion households that will hit the market, with higher ratios in downtown areas in close proximity to amenities (Harvard Joint Center for Housing, 2013).
Demand has also been influenced by hous-ing tenure, which has shifted with the wealth of the country. U.S. wealth has been shifting to a smaller percentage of the population for decades. In the 1980’s, the wealthiest fifth
of Americans held eighty percent of the na-tion’s wealth. In 2009, the wealthiest fifth of Americans held almost ninety-nine percent of the nation’s wealth (Nelson, 2013). The primary reason for this shift is that much of the nation’s wealth was in the real estate eq-uity of American single-family homes prior to the recent great recession of 2008. The aftermath of the recession clearly exacerbat-ed the wealth disparity in the country by de-creasing the value of many people’s homes. In addition, banks have become increasingly cautious of releasing money to people with little wealth, allowing fewer people quali-fied to buy homes in the U.S. Furthermore,
III. Rising Demand for Rental Housing
Source: Harvard Joint Center for HousingHomeowners Renters
1980-1985 1985-1990 1990-1995 1995-2000 2000-2005 2005-2010 -0.250.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75
Annual Average Household Growth (Millions)
Single Person 44%
All Other Household Types
16% Single Parent
9% 13%
Married without Children 18%
Single-Person Households Will Account for Almost Half of All Renter Growth Over the Next Decade
Share of Projected Renter Growth (Percent)
Total Growth: 3.6 Million Households Married with
Children
homeowners cannot refinance their homes as easily as in past years in order to help make a down payment for their children, a practice that used to be commonplace (Nel-son, 2013). These events are having a direct impact on tenure of households.
The difficulty of buying housing and the fall-ing homeownership rate is naturally drivfall-ing growth in rental housing. With fewer people able to buy homes, real estate economic theory illustrates that prices will drop with the demand, which will further decrease the equity that people do have in their homes. According to ULI’s 2013 Emerging Trends in Real Estate, “This increased demand for infill apartment rentals is overwhelming: the vacancy rate in every market is well below the ten-year average. People need to find a place to live, and we see a cyclical move away from homeownership in metropoli-tan markets” (Miller, 2012). With a falling homeownership rate, the demand for rental housing will grow at a faster pace than the population. In 2004, the rate of homeowner-ship peaked at 69.4 percent in the second quarter. The rate has been falling since and
in the second quarter of 2013 it was at 65.1 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). If the homeownership rate falls to 64 percent, 55 percent of housing demand will be from rental housing and 45 percent from buyers. If the homeownership rate falls to 61 per-cent, rental housing will account for about 75 percent of the demand with buyers making up only 25 percent of the demand (Nelson, 2013).
The younger generations will drive the growth of rental housing, with a large por-tion comprising single-person households. The next generation of homebuyers would be Generation Y. This generation appreci-ates the ability to relocate in order to take advantage of both social and economic ben-efits presented to them from relationships or work opportunities. This generation will not care as much as previous generations about the opportunity to buy homes, as they will prefer not to be tied to the commitment, un-able to sell if the market is poor. Additionally, they do not trust that investment in a home will create equity wealth, having witnessed the great recession of 2008 (Nelson, 2013).
Source: Harvard Joint Center for Housing
Renter Household Growth in the 2010s is
Surpassing the Record Pace Set in the 2000s
Average Annual Growth in Renter Households (Millions)1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010 2011 2012 Decade Year
Another barrier to homeownership will be the inordinate amount of student debt that young people carry with them today due to increased tuitions at colleges around the country. Over the past decade, student debt has nearly quadrupled (Business In-sider, 2013). According to the Federal Re-serve Bank of New York, “the number of young adults under age 30 with student loan
debt outstanding increased by 39 percent between the start of 2005 and the end of 2012, with the average amount rising from $13,300 to $21,400” (Harvard Joint Center for Housing, 2013). With this kind of debt, many members of this generation will not qualify for a mortgage until later in life. This will drive a large majority of households to-wards rental housing options.
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of New York $250 $500 $750 $1000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013
Student Loan Debt Over the Past 10 Years
Billions($)
One of the core driving forces behind the mismatch between housing supply and de-mand is that those who would choose to live alone often have few options. Pricing of units that accommodate one person are typi-cally very high or very low, with not many op-tions in between, creating a significant gap in the market for single-person households. The most affordable option is an SRO, or Sin-gle Room Occupancy unit, formerly known as boarding houses. The tradeoff for its low cost is that an SRO will have no kitchen. Some have a private bathroom while others have shared bathrooms that might be down the hall. SROs serve as a much-needed form of affordable housing; many of the nic-er ones are run by non-profit organizations. The SRO stock has been depleted over the years, making such units difficult to secure. The next option for someone wanting to live alone is a studio apartment, at a significant price jump. Studios consist of one open room with a small kitchen and bathroom; as a result, they are less expensive than the next option, a one-bedroom apartment. While the demand for individual units exists, many who desire to live alone cannot afford a place of their own. According to the US Department of Housing and Urban Develop-ment, a household’s housing burden should typically not exceed more than 30-35% of gross household income (U.S. HUD, 2013). Transportation costs should be combined with housing cost as the location of one’s home is directly correlated to what it costs them to live there. Currently, rather than pay high rents for downtown apartments, many choose to live outside the city, known as the
Options for
Single-Person Households
New York City Rent Gap for Single-Person Households
Monthly Rent Average Studio Average One-Bedroom $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $90k $72k $54k $36k $108k $126k $18k
Annual income required to afford rent
Seattle Rent Gap for Single-Person Households
Monthly Rent Average Studio
Average One-Bedroom $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $90k $72k $54k $36k $108k $126k $18k
Annual income required to afford rent
Boston Rent Gap for Single-Person Households
Monthly Rent Average Studio Average One-Bedroom $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $90k $72k $54k $36k $108k $126k $18k
Annual income required to afford rent
Annual Salary is correlated to monthly rent, showing that some cities are more manageable than others for single-person households.
Source: LiveLovely Data Collection
‘drive until you qualify’ housing solution. Al-though this reduces rent costs, it increases transportation costs. Transportation is the second largest expense for households in the United States, which spend an average of 18% on transportation needs each year. If there were more affordable options in cities that were close to transit, carbon emissions could be reduced while making people hap-pier and more connected at the same time (Nelson, 2013).
Using San Francisco as an example, it is help-ful to consider the options on a monetary lev-el for a single person seeking housing. The average salary for an entry-level job in San Francisco is $46,000 (Indeed.com, 2013) and the annual per capita income is currently $46,777 (US Census Bureau, 2012). Hypo-thetically, a person that has been out of col-lege a few years with a good job might make
San Francisco Rent Gap for Single-Person Households
Monthly Rent Average Studio $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $90k $72k $54k $36k $108k $126k $18k
Annual income required to afford rent Average One-Bedroom
$60,000. If this person aims to spend 33% of her income on rent, she has a rental bud-get of $1,667 per month. What can $1,667 get her if she wants to live alone? SROs in the city run by a non-profit cost between $400 and $600 (ccsro.org, 2013), but they have long wait lists and her income
disquali-Annual Salary correlated to monthly rent Source: LiveLovely Data Collection.
Median rents for one-bedroom apartments across the San Francisco Peninsula. Source: Zumper data collection
fies her for most of them. Private SROs cost between $650 and $900 (ccsro.org 2013) but have a reputation for being poorly man-aged, ripe with dilapidation, and she would need to share a bathroom (ccsro.org, 2013). According to Cassidy Turley, average rent in the city for a studio apartment is $2,312, and average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,782, and both would increase a few hundred dollars if the apartment were new (Socketsite.com, 2013). Meanwhile, rents are increasing by double-digit percentages annually in the Bay Area (SF Gate, 2013). If this hypothetical single person were willing, she could try to allocate 55% of her income for a studio apartment by making spending sacrifices in other areas. However, with competition for rental units being so fierce in the city, the application process would typi-cally require proof of income, and spending 55% might put her clear out of the running for such an apartment.
Median rents for one-bedroom apartments in Man-hattan.
As mentioned in the previous section, the mismatch between housing supply and de-mand has created a lack of modestly priced apartments to meet the demand for single-person households. Many renters who would prefer a place of their own are forced to rent a room in a shared living arrangement. A multi-billion dollar underground housing market has emerged in the United States, with approximately 70% of its transactions occurring on Craigslist’s ‘Rooms & Shares’ section (Urban Land Institute, 2013). This housing market is completely unregulated. This means anybody entering it faces the po-tential for discrimination, minimal reliability, and the potential for scams (Craigslist.org, 2013). It is commonplace to rent a room in the city that comes with your own padlock on the door.
Depending on the person, securing a room rental can be just as challenging as finding an apartment. A recent court ruling held Craigslist unaccountable for any discrimi-natory housing ads that occur on the web-site (Stokes, 2013). Often, it will be up to the people currently living in the apartment whether you get the room or not, based on certain characteristics (Curbed SF, 2013). This means that depending on your age,
race, or social stature, you might be discrimi-nated against, as the household to which you are applying might want you to be simi-lar to them. Older people and minorities can have a very difficult time finding a place this way. For many, applying for a room in an apartment is not a viable option.
II. Alternatives for Single-Person
Households
Substandard rooms for rent in San Francisco and New York City ranging from $500 to $1400. Source: Worstroom.com Monthly Rent $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
San Francisco Cost of Living Alone vs. Renting a Bedroom
Source: LiveLovely.com market data
Rooms/Shared section of Craigslist that has become the norm for renting a room online.
One consequence of the demand for indi-vidual housing options being higher than the supply is that families are being priced out of the multiple-bedroom apartment rental mar-ket by single people banding together to mit-igate high rental prices. For example, San Francisco has a median household income of $72,888 and a median family income of $86,278 (US Census Bureau, 2013). If three young professionals who each make an av-erage of $60,000 band together and rent a three-bedroom apartment, their household income is $180,000. This is an unnaturally high household income and more than three times the median in the city. This is not a rare scenario, and landlords are taking notice and raising the price of these rentals. These
rising rents are then pricing out families who cannot afford to compete with the higher household incomes. Even more extreme are the ‘room share’ services that are emerg-ing on the web. These companies, such as Crashpad®, focus on the young and mobile tech worker. They gain control of large apart-ments and rent out beds. In Cambridge, a six-bedroom place was rented to twelve people, each paying $1,000 per month for a total monthly rent of $12,000 (Kirsner, 2013). According to Massachusetts state law, this household use is illegal unless the use is converted to a “lodging house,” as more than four unrelated adults are not legally al-lowed to live under the same roof (MAlegis-lature.gov, 2013).
Effects of not meeting
demand
Unnaturally high household income of unrelated adults living together prices many families out of neighborhoods.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau & Zumper data
San Francisco Household Competition for Multi-Bedroom Apartments
Monthly Rent
Median
Household Income Family IncomeMedian 3 Unrelated Adults w/ Income of
$60k Each Average Two-Bedroom Average Three-Bedroom $5,250 $4,500 $3,750 $3,000 $2,225 $1,500 $750 $135,000 $108,000 $81,000 $54,000 $162,000 $189,000
$27,000 Household income required
$180,000
$72,888
Some landlords are learning that they fare better renting out rooms rather than entire apartments, which is driving up average rents throughout the city. Other room rent-als are created by tenants seeking to subsi-dize their rent, with the landlord unaware of the additional tenants. Although illegal, for many cities, the creation of these alternate living scenarios is a necessity. There is a lack of reasonably priced units, and people need places to live within their means. Despite the solution of people banding to-gether to mitigate high rents in cities, there is a strong preference among many people to live alone. A recent survey conducted by AMF Development, a multi-family developer based in California, discovered that 62% of people prefer to live alone, even at a higher cost, than to live in a larger apartment with roommates (Multihousingnews.com, 2013). With few viable products out there for sin-gle-person households besides high-rent studios and one-bedroom apartments, an ever-widening gap exists in this rapidly growing segment of apartment rentals. This problem is exacerbated by the burgeoning speculative luxury apartment market, which continues to create options for only the most affluent renters, driven by high land and de-velopment costs. This affordability gap is an opportunity for cities to take strain off of fam-ily housing, stimulate the economy, and cre-ate innovative housing types that satisfy the needs of their fastest growing demographic.
chapter 3:
the solution: Micro-Apartments
Micro-apartments offer a logical solution for the affordability gap that single-person householdsface today. Providing single people with the amount of space they need—space smaller than couples and families need—will be the most efficient way to provide more affordable options for single-person households. In addition, developing these units will take a significant amount of strain off family housing by providing an alternative option for single people currently sharing apartments that could be occupied by families.
Monthly Rent
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
Micro-Apt
Studio
1 BR
2 BR
3 BR
4 BR
San Francisco Cost of Living Alone vs. Renting a Bedroom
Depiction of how micro-apartments can provide a lower cost option for single-person households & pro-vide an alternate option for unrelated adults living together who would prefer to live alone.
The micro-apartment is a concept that has emerged as a solution to the high demand for single-person household accommodations in areas with high land costs. Lacking a uni-versally formal definition, micro-apartments in the United States are only recently being defined by planning departments of cities in which they are built. The New York City partment of Housing Preservation and De-velopment (HPD) defines a micro-apartment as “an innovative apartment model, which includes a kitchen and bathroom, that is smaller than what is allowed under current regulations” (nyc.gov, 2013). A recent pilot program in San Francisco has a more techni-cal definition for a micro-apartment: “a unit measuring no less than 220 square feet with a living area, separate bathroom containing a water closet/lavatory/bath/shower, a kitchen with sink/cooking appliance/refrigeration, and a closet” (amendment to SF Building Code 1208.4). The general consensus from
cities and experts on the topic is that a mi-cro-apartment is “a small, typically urban, self-contained apartment that is between 150-350 square feet” (Lifedited.com, 2013).
What is a
micro-Apartment?
Micro-Apartment with murphy-bed in down position, ready for sleep.
Source: Curtis & Ginsberg Architecture Micro-apartment with murphy-bed in up position,
ready for entertaining guests.
Source: Curtis & Ginsberg Architecture
DINE SLEEP WO RK RELAX
Micro-apartments have multi-faceted functionality. Source: Curtis & Ginsberg Architecture
SALON DECK WEST LOBBY WEST PORCH CREATIVE SPACE BASEMENT ATTIC GARDEN 6 DENS PARLOR PORCH 365
A studio apartment is defined more vaguely: “a small apartment that has a main room, a very small kitchen, and a bathroom” ( Mer-riam-Webster, 2013). A micro-apartment is essentially an evolved version of a studio apartment that minimizes space while maxi-mizing efficiency. Micro-apartments aim to reduce the high cost of living alone in urban areas by eliminating unnecessary square footage. Through clever design, transform-able furniture, and the right location, micro-apartments intend to provide optimal living for a minimal cost. To enhance the experi-ence of small living, projects on the drawing boards focus on high-quality amenities and communal space such as rooftop decks, pa-tios, and active ground floor lobbies. Such communal space seems to be working its way into the definition of this new housing type.
A micro-apartment is essentially a refined studio, designed for efficiency to make up for lost ‘empty’ square footage. Source: Author’s CAD extracted from NEMA & Panoramic Interests floor plans
Micro-apartments tend to have a higher proportion of common space compared with regualr apartment buildings. Source: nArchitects W/D Medium Studio 722 Square Feet $3440 per month Requires salary of > $122,500
Comparison of new studios available in San Francisco
W/D Small Studio 471 Square Feet $2665 per month Requires salary of > $95,000 W/D 12’ 25’ Micro-Apartment 300 Square Feet $1500-$1800 per month Requires salary of > $54,000 Murphy Bed 17’ 24’ 33’ 29’
Many physical and social changes have con-tributed to Americans accepting the possibil-ity of living in less space, making the solution of micro-apartments possible. Technological advancements have paved the way for the reduction of square footage in today’s urban households. Not long ago, people brought boxes of books with them each time they moved and required space to store them wherever they lived. Today, most people do much of their reading on their tablet or Kin-dle® (The Wall Street Journal, 2013). Such technology has also largely replaced hard copies of magazines and newspapers. Tele-visions used to take up an entire portion of a room requiring the use of ‘entertainment center’ type of furniture to accommodate the TV, VCR, DVD player, VHS tapes, DVD’s, gaming system, games, and a myriad of oth-er components. Today, TVs that are a couple inches thick, stream movies from online, and mount on a wall are commonplace. Comput-ers have followed a similar path, slimming down from large boxes with multiple com-ponents taking up a portion of a room to slim
monitors or high-powered laptops that tuck away into small spaces. In addition, many store their photographs on their computers rather than compiling albums that require physical storage. Companies like Dropbox® offer cloud storage for files, which has re-duced the need for file cabinets and the plethora of paperwork that fits inside. For many, Smartphones and tablets have re-placed the need to own items that contrib-ute to clutter such as calculators, clocks, cameras, maps, calendars, dictionaries, and hard copies of mail.
Furniture companies have recognized peo-ple’s desire for efficiency and have begun producing multi-functional and transform-ing furniture that allows architects to design spaces differently from past practices. Such designs might include a coffee table that doubles as a desk, a bed that folds into the wall and is replaced by a dining room table, a 12” deep cabinet that transforms into bunk-beds, or a couch with ample storage under its cushions. Furniture designers are open-ing up the possibility of makopen-ing small spaces extremely functional.
changes in space
requirements
Source: Resource Furniture
Multi-Functional Furniture
Micro-apartments are also attractive be-cause of the recent trend in minimalist liv-ing, driven in part because of the desire to consume less energy. The amount of square footage per person and the location of its housing has led the United States to con-sume an inordinate amount of energy. The United States makes up less than 5% of the world population but consumes over 20% of the world’s energy (Worldpopulationbalance. org, 2013). Recognition of such statistics
has recently caused many Americans to re-alize that they can in fact live with less. This new minimalist outlook on life, coupled with advancements in technology over that past few decades, has made the concept of liv-ing with less square footage desirable for many. Websites such as Life Edited, with its slogan, “Design your life to include more money, health and happiness with less stuff, space and energy,” are gaining many fol-lowers (Lifeedited.com, 2013). The website
Bedroom Bedroom Living Room Bathroom 30’ 25’ 12’ 25’ Kitchen
750 Square Feet 300 Square Feet
Levittown Home of 1949 v. Micro-Apartment of 2013
Levittown Home above. Source: Flickr
Image of the micro-apartment shown above Source: Panoramic Interests
Comparison of a mid 20th century starter home & a micro-apartment, which have similar space requirements per person. This really puts in perspective the level of growth American homes have experienced over the past decades. Source: Panoramic Interests
The Minimalists has over two-million daily readers (Millburn, 2013), Many claim to feel happier after paring down their belongings. With people having fewer belongings in gen-eral, the feasibility of living in a smaller space becomes even more compelling.
Micro-apartments are attractive to people living in cities in the U.S. which are strate-gically planning more space for the public realm. As a result, public-spaces functioning as living rooms for city residents are mak-ing a comeback. New York City is a good example, having set in motion several public initiatives to improve public space. Traffic-congested areas have been closed off to cars and transformed into pedestrian plazas accommodating people with tables, chairs, and greenery. Examples include Times Square, Union Square, and Madison Square. Other projects such as The High Line Park have become popular gathering spaces for residents (Lifeedited.com, 2013). Private es-tablishments such as restaurants and coffee shops with free Wi-Fi further contribute to the utilization of the city as extra space for its residents. As is the case in many countries abroad, people tend to need less space at home when they spend the majority of their time out and about. “This concept is far from new. Visit most any European City and there will be a square, piazza, platz or one place that serves as the central congregat-ing point for the city or neighborhood’s resi-dents. It’s where people meet, shop, and hang out”(Lifeedited.com, 2013).
Popular design publications have embraced the concept of less square footage as well as micro-apartments
Source: Dwell Magazine
Many coffee shops have arrived on the scene in cit-ies, offering free wi-fi, good company, and gourmet coffee.
Source: Sightglass Coffee
New York recently shut down Times Square to traffic with the intent of improving the public realm. Source: Lifeedited.com
Dolores Park in San Francisco is one of a myriad of parks across the city where residents spend an ample amount of their free time, outside.
The solution of micro-apartments has worked in other countries for many years. Square footage is not so much an objective issue as it is a cultural one (Lifeedited.com, 2013). Many countries in the world did not experi-ence the post-war suburban flight to the ex-tent that the United States did. As a result, these countries did not have the single-fam-ily home mentality that became viral in the United States in the 1950s. Many countries did not have access to subsidized gasoline and home mortgages, making sprawl an expensive proposition. Many countries are geographically limited, having less land per capita than the United States. Many coun-tries did not abandon their cities for decades, only to return and try to fit people into the spaces left behind.
At 2,480 square feet as its average home size (U.S. Census Bureau), the United States has the highest average square footage for homes in the world, with other countries pal-ing by comparison. This makes international cities effective case studies on the topic of efficient housing. Foreign cities with high-density housing can provide useful models for how to build alternative housing to meet the needs of city residents. Dwelling units under 400-square feet that cater to single-person households are a prevalent form of real estate outside the United States.
cultural context
outside the u.s.
United States-2,480 Sweden-893 United Kingdom-818 China-646 Hong Kong-484 Germany-1,173 Average New Home Size by Country (Square Feet)
In Sweden, where 85% of the population lives in cities (Sweden.se, 2013), efficiency apartments under 400 square feet are the norm. There is a strong commitment to the public realm; with so many city-dwellers, public spaces are valued and utilized at maxi-mum benefit. These great public spaces en-able people to live with less.
In Sweden, singles living alone are a whop-ping 47% of all households, compared to the United States, where the percentage is currently 28%. In Stockholm, 60% of all households are people living alone. So why do so many people live alone in Sweden? It is because they can: their built environ-ment consists of myriad options for people living alone, including smaller units, cohous-ing options, and accessory dwellcohous-ing units (Klinenberg, 2012). This evidence suggests that real estate products ultimately drive ur-banization. In Sweden, “young people be-lieve that moving into a home of their own is essential for becoming an adult, because the experience will help them grow more mature and self-reliant. Middle-age adults believe that living alone is important after a divorce or separation, because it helps them regain their autonomy and self-control. The elderly believe that living alone allows them to maintain their dignity, integrity, and autonomy, and to determine how they will live”(Klinenberg, 2012).
I. Sweden
6 in 10 People Live Alone in Stockholm
85% of the population
lives in cities
Source: Euromonitor International
Efficiency Apartment In Sweden Source: Innerstadsspecialisten
Another view of efficiency apartment in Sweden Source: Innerstadsspecialisten 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Sweden United
Kindgdom Japan UnitedStates
Percent Single-Person Households by Country Source: Euromonitor International
In Japan, with 873 people per square mile, in contrast to the United States, which has 87 people per square mile, design maximiz-es space. Japan’s housing has always been small, as families have historically lived in row houses consisting of large communal areas, but living quarters are only about 100 square feet (Wong, 2013).
II. Japan
249 Square Feet, two floors. Source: Tokyo Apartment Inc.
234 Square Feet, with lofted sleeping quarters Source: Tokyo Apartment Inc.
100 square foot ‘wan rum manshon’ or ‘one room mansion’
Source: Lifeedited.com
Compact Apartment in Tokyo with glass bathroom wall
Source: Scaletta Apartments
Browsing Tokyo’s most popular apartment rental website (tokyoapartmentinc.com), one quickly realizes that compact apart-ments are the norm. An example is the ‘wan rūmu manshon,’ or ‘one room mansion.’ This is a studio apartment consisting of approxi-mately 100 square feet, including a kitchen-ette, bathroom, and bed. It is designed with singles in mind who might not be able to af-ford or want anything more (Lifeedited.com, 2013). This is an extreme case, and many would consider this to be too little space, but it serves as an interesting case for compact living.
In the United Kingdom, an average new home consists of 818 square feet of space, which includes single-family homes (Wilson, 2013). This is roughly a third of the average size of a home in the United States. Tak-ing into account the similarities of British and American culture, such a vast difference in housing size is perplexing. Avi Friedman, a McGill professor and expert on the topic of affordable housing and sustainability, calls the new U.S. trend of micro-apartments the ‘Europeanization’ of North America (Wong, 2013). The United Kingdom has many com-pact apartment examples in downtown ar-eas, referring to such units as “micro-flats” (Norwood, 2006).
III. United Kingdom
United Kingdom 818 square feet United States 2,480 square feet Average Home Size Micro-flat interior
Source: Nido Properties
Micro-flat interior Source: Nido Properties
Average home size in the UK is about 1/3 the size of the U.S.
Brazil is no stranger to density; its largest city is São Paulo, with a population of nearly twelve million people (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2013). São Paulo has a range of unit sizes and functions, including studio units with very low square footages to accommodate single-person households and couples who want to live downtown. Looking at various floor plans of residential buildings in Brazil, it becomes apparent that their housing units are space efficient. There is a distinctly common floor plan layout simi-lar to the micro-apartments proposed in the U.S. that is repeated throughout São Paulo. Many buildings have these units as a com-ponent, but there are also entire buildings consisting of solely studio units.
IV. Brazil
Patterns of small units intended for single-person households and couples, constructin in Sao Paulo in the mid-twentieth century.
Source:
Micro-apartment project underway in Sao Paulo consising of 150 square foot apartments
Several cities in the United States are pur-suing the solution of micro-apartments to allow for more options for single-person households. Planners and policymakers in major cities continue to recognize that their rents are out of control for multiple reasons. Some cities are conducting pilot programs for building smaller units, allowing planning and building codes to be put aside to accom-modate such pilot programs. San Francisco has created a pilot program for 375 units that will be allowed to be as small as 220 square feet, although none that small have actual-ly been proposed by developers (CBS.com 2013). Although each city defines these ‘mi-cro-apartments’ differently, the general con-cept is that they are allowing apartments in the range of 220 – 350 square feet to be built in urban areas to accommodate the needs
of their rising numbers of single households. Boston now allows micro-units (for the ‘inno-vation worker’) in its Inno‘inno-vation District. Al-though the minimum is 350 square feet, the units proposed thus far are 450 square feet, which would seem expansive in New York (CBS.com, 2013). In response to a Request for Proposals from New York’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development, thirty-three high-profile developers and de-sign firms responded to what was named the ‘adAPT NYC’ program. The winning team, Monadnock Development, will now construct fifty-five micro-apartments, 40% of which will be affordable (Treehugger.com, 2013). It appears that the demand for such units will continue, and so cities must move forward with such innovations.
Early Adopters in
the united states
I. Cities
Source: PBS
II. adAPT NYC Request for Proposal Responses for Micro-Apartments
The floor plate lays out efficiently on the floors with no amenities provided, allowing for 12 units per floor. A glass curtain wall allows the interior colors of the
units to display as the exterior aesthetic.
Services are concentrated on the core side of the building while living arrangements are on the exteri-or facade. A stexteri-orage unit is provided with a separate access in the hallway.
Each unit lays out roughly the same, each with either a balcony or a Juliette balcony. The use of awnings, balconies, and roof decks
pro-vide occupants with lots of access to the outdoors.
The architect chose to use a shower rather than a tub to allow for more storage in a non-ADA unit. Balco-nies provide access to the outside.
44'-9 " 86'-6" 5' -0" 104'-11" 18'-5" 26'-2" 5' -0" 29'-7" 8'-3" 2'-6" 5'-10" 8'-9" 86'-6" 18'-5" 12'-7" 25'-5" 3'-7" 11'-3" 5'-5" 25'-6" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 36'-27 8" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 15'-0" 50'-3" 45'-0 " 105'-0" 6'-8 " 3' -0" 3' -0" 45'-0 " FITNESS TERRACE 825 SF CORRIDOR 378 SF FITNESS ROOM 382 SF TRASH ROOM 39 SF
LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING AREA 168 SF
LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING AREA 168 SF
LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING AREA 168 SF
LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING AREA 168 SF
LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING AREA 170 SF
LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING AREA 168 SF LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING
AREA 207 SF CL M O O R H T A B M O O R H T A B BATHROOM UP DN DN UP BATHROOM M O O R H T A B M O O R H T A B UFAS UNITS ON 2ND, 3RD, 4TH, & 5TH FLOORS MW/ REF MW/REF MW/ REF MW/ REF MW/ REF MW/ REF MW/ REF SOLARIUM 114 SF L C L C L C L C L C ELEVATOR BATHROOM 280 SF A0BR 280 SF A0BR 280 SF A0BR 280 SF A0BR 280 SF B0BR 280 SF A0BR 302 SF A0BR
When Clei murphy bed is up, it converts to a comfort-able couch allowing resident to maximize the space.
Curtis & Ginsberg Architecture
Clei murphy bed allows bed to come down seamlessly while keeping books on the shelf.
5'-0" min. 36" 36" 18" min. 4'-0" 5'-0" 8'-6 " 8'-0 1 8" 1'-0 1 2" 16'-4 5 8" 25'-5 1 4" 11'-0" 5'-3" 5'-51 4" 40" min.
LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING AREA
168 SF
BALCONY
UFAS UNIT
OVEN / MICROWAVE REF / FREEZER BELOW
60" REMOVABLE BASE CABINET COOKTOP / DISHWASHER BELOW REMOVABLE VANITY ROLL-IN SHOWER CLEAR FLOOR SPACE TYPICAL 280 SF B0BR 5'-0" min. 2'-0" min. 3'-0" opngreq'd 3'-0" 18" min. 5'-0" 4'-0" 5'-3" 8'-6 " 8'-3 3 4" 1'-1 1 2" 16' -0" 25'-5 1 4" 40" min. 11'-0" 5'-51 4" LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING
AREA 168 SF BALCONY TYPICAL UNIT CL CLEAR FLOOR SPACE TYPICAL ROLL-IN SHOWER REMOVABLE VANITY OVEN / MICROWAVE REF / FREEZER BELOW
60" REMOVABLE BASE CABINET COOKTOP / DISHWASHER BELOW 280 SF A0BR Source: HPCD
Exploded axonometric shows the different functions of the apartment, including ample storage above the bathroom. image: mir.no 97 sq. ft. 246 sq. ft. 257 sq. ft. 297 sq. ft. 321 sq. ft. 291 sq. ft. 291 sq. ft. 291 sq. ft. 321 sq. ft DEN A’’’ A’ A’’ A’’’’ A A A B
LINEAR STORAGE LOFT cuft.
the same volume of storage as a Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen.
KITCHEN cuft*.
Efficient factory built kitchen with fold-down table/counter, full height pull-out pantry, full height fridge, range and space for a convection microwave. *including refrigerator
BATHROOM/CLOSET
Accessible bathroom with shower; full depth closet.
JULIETTE BALCONY
a laminated glass guardrail. Rendering reflects the ability to entertain guests in
the small space.
The modular pods are varied in size to cater to different income levels. The modular approach to construction is embraced
by the facade of the building, as each unit is a sepa-rate pod.
Kitchen peninsula converts into a dining room table for six.
Responding to demographics and city en-couragement, developers and design groups are working on the concept of micro-apart-ments in many urban areas. Developers who tend to be innovators in the marketplace are typically smaller entities working with higher risk capital. As with anything innovative, if proven successful on the small scale, the mainstream will follow. These developers are offering to build products that meet the new demand of demographics. Without their participation, the demographic demand for micro-apartments cannot be met. It will be important for planners and policymak-ers to offer such developpolicymak-ers their support if they plan on successfully accommodating the demographic demand. However, they face many barriers and risks such as zoning policy, financing gaps, untested financial pro-jections, and a range of alternative theories regarding social impact of micro-apartments.
III. Developers
Reducing the square footage of apartments is a logical approach to creating more affordable housing for single-person households. So why has this practice not been implemented in U.S. cities? This section will look at policy, financial, and social barriers that stand in the way of micro-apartment development.
