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
table of contents
1 Introduction 05
2 The Problem: Mismatch Between Supply and Demand 06
A. Supply
I. Historical Context of Housing Development 07-09
B. Demand
I. Shifting Demographics 10-13
II. The Rise of the Single Person Household 14-15
III. Rising Demand for Rental Housing 16-18
C. Options for Single Person Households
I. Options for Living Alone 19-21
II. Alternatives for Single-Person Households 22
D. Effects of Not Meeting Demand 23-24

3 The Solution: Micro-Apartments 25

A. What is a Micro-Apartment? 26-27
B. Changes in Space Requirements 28-30
C. Cultural Context 31
I. Sweden 32
II. Japan 33
III. United Kingdom 34
IV. Brazil 35
D. Early Adopters in the United States
I. Cities 36
II. adAPT NYC Request For Proposal Responses 37-39
III. Developers 40

4 The Barriers & Alternative Theories 41

A. Zoning 42-44
B. Financing 45
C. Alternative Theories
I. Inhumane 46-50
II. Increased Bottom Line 51-52
III. Gentrification and Rising Costs of Land 53-54
IV. Threatening the Supply of Affordable Housing and SROs 55-56
V. Transient and Marginal People 57

5 Additional Benefits of Micro-Apartments 58

A. Affordability By Design 59
B. Retaining Young Professionals and Companies 60-61
C. Sustainability 62

6 Conclusion 63
A. Recommendations 64-69
B. Further Research 70
Appendix A: Additional adAPT NYC Entries 71-83
References 84-94
 The Case for micro-
apartments in growing
urban centers
by
Zachary Shore

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

abstract
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.

Thesis Supervisor: Peter Roth

Title: Lecturer, Center for Real Estate

03
Acknowledgements
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.

04
 chapter 1:
Introduction

The U.S. demographics of today have changed radically from those of 50 years ago, when the
majority 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, leading to a significant mismatch between housing 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.

05
 chapter 2:
the problem

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.

Availability of Studio & One-Bedroom Apartments for Households that Require Them

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

Unrelated Adults Sharing

1,000,000
Couple with No Children

800,000 Single Person Living Alone

Studio and One-Bedroom Units

600,000

400,000

200,000

Austin Denver New York Seattle Washington D.C.

Depiction of ACS data regarding the mismatch of supply and demand for small apartments
Source: Citizens Housing and Planning Council, Watkins, 2013.
06
supply
A. Historical Context of Housing
Development
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 housing 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
07
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
Average Home Size in the United States
2012
1950
983 sq. ft. 2480 sq. ft.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
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
Average New Home Size by Country (Square Feet)
Source: Shrinkthatfootprint.com
08
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.
United States-2,480
Germany-1,173
Sweden-893
United Kingdom-818
China-646
Hong Kong-484
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).
09
Demand
i. Shifting Demographics
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 was 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 children 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

Household Size 1900-2010

5

4.60
4.5 4.54
4.34

4 4.01
Persons Per Household

3.68
3.5
3.38
3.29
3.11
3
2.75
2.63 2.59 2.58
2.5

2
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

10
had 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).
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.

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 family. The
fastest growing family type in the U.S. is the Source: Time Magazine
single-parent family, and women head five
out of six of these families (Hayden, 2002). Select Household Changes 1970-2012
45.0%
Each of these different family compositions
will seek different floor plans and amenities 40.0%

in their housing. 35.0%

Married Couples with Children
Percent of Population

Singles Living Alone

Unrelated Adults
Even the category ‘households with chil- 30.0%
dren’ has a different meaning today, as 25.0%
the age of ‘children’ living at home has in-
20.0%
creased. Although the U.S. Census Bureau
still uses ‘children under 18’ to represent a 15.0%
family, the growing reality is that kids stay 10.0%
at home much longer. According to a report
5.0%
in August of 2013 by Pew Research Center,
21.6 million adults aged between 18 and 31, 0.0%
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012
or 36% of said demographic, lived at home Year
with their parents in 2012 (Forbes, 2013).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
11
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
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 single-person housing.
Generation Years Born Major Events & Experiences
WWII Generation 1935 - 1945 WWII, Introduction of Television
American Dream, Booming
Baby Boomers 1946 - 1964 Economy, Vietnam War, & Civil
Rights Movement
Generation X 1965 - 1976 Computer Revolution, End of the
Cold War, High levels of Education

(Nelson, 2013). Their growth is fueled by Generation Y 1977 - 1994 Education with Computers, Rise of
Pop Culture and Social Media
Baby Boomers retiring and moving in with The Millennials 1995 - 2010 Digital Age, Powerful Social Media,
Increased Terrorist Threats
their families and the growth of minorities iGeneration 2011 - 2025 Generation of the Future
in the United States, which accounts for a Source: Urban Land Institute
large fraction of population growth over the
coming decades. These multi-generational
households will require alternative forms of 7% 7%
20% 20%
housing structured around their needs, such PERCENT OF
26% 25%
as dwellings with attached accessory dwell- POPULATION
ing units, or “granny flats.” Next Generation 25% 25%
Millennials 17%
24%
High-end one-bedroom apartments in cities Generation Y
16% 22%
are often sought after by two-person house- Generation X
Baby Boomers 28% 15%
holds. Comprising “empty-nesters,” DINKS
WWII Generation 25% 13%
(Dual Income No Kids), or young profession-
Silent Generation 22%
als living together, many of these two-person 13%
17%
10%
households live in apartments or condomini- 9% 4%
6%
3%
ums in downtown urban cores (Euromonitor 2000 2010 2020 2030
International, 2013). Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Population Distribution by Age Cohort 1970 - 2030

(Percent of Total Population)
MALE 85+ 85+ 85+
80-84 80-84 80-84
FEMALE 75-79 75-79 75-79
70-74 70-74 70-74
65-69 65-69 65-69
60-64 60-64 60-64
55-59 55-59 55-59
50-54 50-54 50-54
45-49 45-49 45-49
40-44 40-44 40-44
35-39 35-39 35-39
30-34 30-34 30-34
25-29 25-29 25-29
20-24 20-24 20-24
15-19 15-19 15-19
10-14 10-14 10-14
5-9 5-9 5-9
<5 <5 <5
15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15
1970 2000 2030
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
12
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.
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 housing
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).

Persons Turning 65 (annually)

2,000
1,800

1,600
Number of Persons (thousands)

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Year

Source: Nelson, 2013

13
 ii. The Rise of Single-Person
Households
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 num-
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.
30%
Percentage of Single-Person Households
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1940
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
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
Single Person Household Growth in the United States
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012
Year
14
of individuals with different types of hous- alone; one in three live alone today (Klinen-
ing needs. Successful professionals often berg, 2012). As mentioned earlier, with 1.5
express that living alone is a form of self- million Baby Boomers turning sixty-five ev-
protection, a way to create a “sanctuary in ery year, they will significantly contribute to
the city to come to after an action filled day the single-household demographic.
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

Single Persons in the United States - 1950 v. 2010

1950

2010 NYU Sociologist Eric Klinenberg’s account of the

Source: Nelson, 2013 remarkable growth of single-person households

Single-Person Households

Seattle
42%

Portland
34% Bozeman Minneapolis Boston
32% 43% 38%
Boise New York
31% Pierre
37% Chicago 32%
35% Manhattan
Cleveland
Des Moines 40% 48%
Salt Lake City 32% Washington D.C.
San Francisco 37% 48%
St. Louis
40% Denver 44%
40%
Nashville
Los Angeles Santa Fe 35%
30% 40% Oklahoma City
31% Little Rock
Atlanta
36% 45%
Phoenix
28%

New Orleans
Houston 36%
32%
Miami
36%

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
15
III. Rising Demand for Rental Housing
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
Annual Average Household Growth (Millions)
1.75
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
1980-1985 1985-1990 1990-1995
Homeowners Renters
Source: Harvard Joint Center for Housing
16
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,
Single-Person Households Will Account for Almost
Half of All Renter Growth Over the Next Decade
Share of Projected Renter Growth (Percent)
Married without Children
18%
Single Person
44%
Married with
Children
13%
Single Parent
9%
All Other Household
Types
16%
Total Growth: 3.6 Million Households
Source: Harvard Joint Center for Housing
1995-2000 2000-2005 2005-2010
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 driving
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
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
Decade
Source: Harvard Joint Center for Housing
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).
1990s 2000s 2010 2011 2012
Year
17
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.

Student Loan Debt Over the Past 10 Years

$1000

$750
Billions($)

$500

$250
2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013
Year
Source: Federal Reserve Bank of New York

18
Options for Single-
Person Households
I. Options for Living Alone
One of the core driving forces behind the New York City Rent Gap for Single-Person Households
mismatch between housing supply and de- $3,500

mand is that those who would choose to $3,000

Average One-Bedroom
live alone often have few options. Pricing of $2,500

Monthly Rent
Average Studio
units that accommodate one person are typi- $2,000
cally very high or very low, with not many op-
$1,500
tions in between, creating a significant gap
$1,000
in the market for single-person households.
The most affordable option is an SRO, or Sin- $500

gle Room Occupancy unit, formerly known $18k $36k $54k $72k $90k $108k $126k
as boarding houses. The tradeoff for its low Annual income required to afford rent
cost is that an SRO will have no kitchen.
Some have a private bathroom while others Boston Rent Gap for Single-Person Households
have shared bathrooms that might be down $3,500

the hall. SROs serve as a much-needed $3,000

form of affordable housing; many of the nic- $2,500
Monthly Rent

Average One-Bedroom
er ones are run by non-profit organizations. $2,000
The SRO stock has been depleted over the Average Studio
$1,500
years, making such units difficult to secure.
The next option for someone wanting to live $1,000

alone is a studio apartment, at a significant $500

price jump. Studios consist of one open

$18k $36k $54k $72k $90k $108k $126k
room with a small kitchen and bathroom; Annual income required to afford rent
as a result, they are less expensive than the
next option, a one-bedroom apartment. Seattle Rent Gap for Single-Person Households
$3,500
While the demand for individual units exists,
$3,000
many who desire to live alone cannot afford
$2,500
Monthly Rent

a place of their own. According to the US

Department of Housing and Urban Develop- $2,000
Average One-Bedroom
ment, a household’s housing burden should $1,500 Average Studio
typically not exceed more than 30-35% of $1,000
gross household income (U.S. HUD, 2013).
$500
Transportation costs should be combined
with housing cost as the location of one’s $18k $36k $54k $72k $90k $108k $126k
home is directly correlated to what it costs Annual income required to afford rent

them to live there. Currently, rather than pay
high rents for downtown apartments, many
choose to live outside the city, known as the
19
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).
Monthly Rent
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
Median rents for one-bedroom apartments across the San Francisco Peninsula.
Source: Zumper data collection
20
$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-
San Francisco Rent Gap for Single-Person Households
$3,500
$3,000 Average One-Bedroom
$2,500
Average Studio
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$18k $36k $54k $72k $90k $108k $126k
Annual income required to afford rent
Annual Salary correlated to monthly rent
Source: LiveLovely 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.
Source: Zumper data collection
21
 II. Alternatives for Single-Person
Households
As mentioned in the previous section, the race, or social stature, you might be discrimi-
mismatch between housing supply and de- nated against, as the household to which
mand has created a lack of modestly priced you are applying might want you to be simi-
apartments to meet the demand for single- lar to them. Older people and minorities can
person households. Many renters who have a very difficult time finding a place this
would prefer a place of their own are forced way. For many, applying for a room in an
to rent a room in a shared living arrangement. apartment is not a viable option.
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. Rooms/Shared section of Craigslist that has become
the norm for renting a room online.
Source: Craigslist.org
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,
San Francisco Cost of Living Alone vs. Renting a Bedroom
$3,500

$3,000

$2,500
Monthly Rent

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

Substandard rooms for rent in San Francisco and

Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR New York City ranging from $500 to $1400.
Source: LiveLovely.com market data Source: Worstroom.com
22
Effects of not meeting
demand
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).

San Francisco Household Competition for Multi-Bedroom Apartments

$5,250 $180,000 $189,000
Average Three-Bedroom

Household income required

$4,500 $162,000
Average Two-Bedroom
$3,750 $135,000
Monthly Rent

$3,000 $108,000
$86,278
$2,225 $72,888 $81,000

$1,500 $54,000

$750 $27,000

Median Median 3 Unrelated Adults

Household Income
Family Income w/ Income of
$60k Each
Unnaturally high household income of unrelated adults living together prices many
families out of neighborhoods.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau & Zumper data

23
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.

24
 chapter 3:
the solution: Micro-Apartments

Micro-apartments offer a logical solution for the affordability gap that single-person households
face 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.

San Francisco Cost of Living Alone vs. Renting a Bedroom

$3,500

$3,000

$2,500
Monthly Rent

$2,000

$1,500

$1,000

$500

Micro-Apt Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR
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.
Source: Zumper Market Data cross checked with LiveLovely market data
25
What is a micro-
Apartment?
The micro-apartment is a concept that has cities and experts on the topic is that a mi-
emerged as a solution to the high demand for cro-apartment is “a small, typically urban,
single-person household accommodations in self-contained apartment that is between
areas with high land costs. Lacking a uni- 150-350 square feet” (Lifedited.com, 2013).
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 De-
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 RELAX DINE

smaller than what is allowed under current WO RK SLEEP

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
Micro-apartments have multi-faceted functionality.
with sink/cooking appliance/refrigeration, Source: Curtis & Ginsberg Architecture
and a closet” (amendment to SF Building
Code 1208.4). The general consensus from

Micro-apartment with murphy-bed in up position, Micro-Apartment with murphy-bed in down position,

ready for entertaining guests. ready for sleep.
Source: Curtis & Ginsberg Architecture Source: Curtis & Ginsberg Architecture

26
A studio apartment is defined more vaguely: SALON
ATTIC GARDEN

“a small apartment that has a main room, a

very small kitchen, and a bathroom” ( Mer- DECK

riam-Webster, 2013). A micro-apartment

is essentially an evolved version of a studio 6 DENS

apartment that minimizes space while maxi- WEST LOBBY

mizing efficiency. Micro-apartments aim to WEST PORCH

reduce the high cost of living alone in urban CREATIVE SPACE

PARLOR

areas by eliminating unnecessary square

footage. Through clever design, transform- BASEMENT
PORCH 365

able furniture, and the right location, micro-

apartments intend to provide optimal living
for a minimal cost. To enhance the experi- Micro-apartments tend to have a higher proportion
ence of small living, projects on the drawing of common space compared with regualr apartment
buildings.
boards focus on high-quality amenities and Source: nArchitects
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.

Comparison of new studios available in San Francisco

17’

24’
12’

33’ W/D
29’ Murphy Bed
25’

W/D W/D

Medium Studio Small Studio Micro-Apartment

722 Square Feet 471 Square Feet 300 Square Feet
$3440 per month $2665 per month $1500-$1800 per month
Requires salary of Requires salary of Requires salary of
> $122,500 > $95,000 > $54,000
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
27
changes in space
requirements
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
THEN NOW
28
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 making small spaces
extremely functional.
Multi-Functional Furniture
Source: Resource 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
Levittown Home of 1949 v. Micro-Apartment of 2013
30’
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
12’

Bedroom
Bedroom

Bathroom
25’ 25’

Living Room Kitchen

750 Square Feet 300 Square Feet

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

Levittown Home above. Image of the micro-apartment shown above

Source: Flickr Source: Panoramic Interests
29
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 Many coffee shops have arrived on the scene in cit-
example, having set in motion several public ies, offering free wi-fi, good company, and gourmet
coffee.
initiatives to improve public space. Traffic- Source: Sightglass Coffee
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 New York recently shut down Times Square to traffic
time out and about. “This concept is far with the intent of improving the public realm.
from new. Visit most any European City and Source: Lifeedited.com
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 Dolores Park in San Francisco is one of a myriad of
concept of less square footage as well as micro- parks across the city where residents spend an ample
apartments amount of their free time, outside.
Source: Dwell Magazine Source: SF Examiner

30
cultural context
outside the u.s.
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.
Average New Home Size by Country (Square Feet)
Source: Shrinkthatfootprint.com
31
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.
United States-2,480
Germany-1,173
Sweden-893
United Kingdom-818
China-646
Hong Kong-484
I. Sweden

6 in 10 People Live Alone in Stockholm

In Sweden, where 85% of the population Source: Euromonitor International
lives in cities (Sweden.se, 2013), efficiency
apartments under 400 square feet are the Percent Single-Person Households by Country
norm. There is a strong commitment to the 50%
public realm; with so many city-dwellers,
public spaces are valued and utilized at maxi- 40%

mum benefit. These great public spaces en-

able people to live with less. 30%

In Sweden, singles living alone are a whop- 20%

ping 47% of all households, compared to
the United States, where the percentage 10%
is currently 28%. In Stockholm, 60% of all
households are people living alone. So why
Sweden United Japan United
do so many people live alone in Sweden? Kindgdom States
It is because they can: their built environ- Source: Euromonitor International
ment consists of myriad options for people
living alone, including smaller units, cohous-
ing options, and accessory dwelling 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 Efficiency Apartment In Sweden
them regain their autonomy and self-control. Source: Innerstadsspecialisten
The elderly believe that living alone allows
them to maintain their dignity, integrity, and
autonomy, and to determine how they will
live”(Klinenberg, 2012).

85%
of the population
lives in cities Another view of efficiency apartment in Sweden
Source: Sweden.se Source: Innerstadsspecialisten
32
II. Japan

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 Compact Apartment in Tokyo with glass bathroom
square feet (Wong, 2013). wall
Source: Scaletta Apartments

234 Square Feet, with lofted sleeping quarters

100 square foot ‘wan rum manshon’ or ‘one room Source: Tokyo Apartment Inc.
mansion’
Source: Lifeedited.com

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.

249 Square Feet, two floors.

Source: Tokyo Apartment Inc.
33
III. United Kingdom

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- Micro-flat interior
Source: Nido Properties
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).

Micro-flat interior
Source: Nido Properties

Average Home Size

United States
2,480 square feet

United Kingdom
818 square feet

Average home size in the UK is about 1/3 the size of

the U.S.
Source: Shrinkthatfootprint.com
34
IV. Brazil

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.

Patterns of small units intended for single-person

households and couples, constructin in Sao Paulo in Micro-apartment project underway in Sao Paulo
the mid-twentieth century. consising of 150 square foot apartments
Source: Source: Lifeedited.com
35
Early Adopters in
the united states
I. Cities
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
Micro-Apartment Projects in the U.S.
Source: PBS
36
of their rising numbers of single households.
Boston now allows micro-units (for the ‘inno-
vation worker’) in its Innovation 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.
II. adAPT NYC Request for Proposal Responses for Micro-Apartments
Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners Source: HPCD

Services are concentrated on the core side of the

building while living arrangements are on the exteri-
or facade. A storage unit is provided with a separate
access in the hallway.

A glass curtain wall allows the interior colors of the

units to display as the exterior aesthetic.

The floor plate lays out efficiently on the floors with no amenities provided, allowing for 12 units per floor.
37
Curtis & Ginsberg Architecture Source: HPCD
4'-0" 4'-0"

3'-0" 18" 5'-0" min. 36" 18"

REMOVABLE
VANITY min. min.

36"
ROLL-IN
SHOWER

5'-0"

5'-0"
CLEAR FLOOR CLEAR FLOOR

3'-0" opng

8'-0 81"
8'-3 43 "
SPACE TYPICAL SPACE TYPICAL

req'd
5'-0" min.
40" min.
OVEN / MICROWAVE OVEN / MICROWAVE

2'-0" min.
ROLL-IN 40" min. REF / FREEZER BELOW
REF / FREEZER BELOW REMOVABLE
SHOWER VANITY
CL

1'-021"
COOKTOP / COOKTOP /

1'-121"
DISHWASHER DISHWASHER

8'-6"

8'-6"
BELOW BELOW

25'-5 41"

25'-5 41"
5'-3" 5'-5 41" 60" REMOVABLE 5'-3" 5'-5 41" 60" REMOVABLE
BASE CABINET BASE CABINET

A 0BR B 0BR
280 SF 280 SF

16'-485 "
16'-0"
LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING
AREA AREA
168 SF 168 SF

11'-0" 11'-0"

BALCONY BALCONY

TYPICAL UNIT UFAS UNIT

The architect chose to use a shower rather than a tub

to allow for more storage in a non-ADA unit. Balco-
The use of awnings, balconies, and roof decks pro- nies provide access to the outside.
vide occupants with lots of access to the outdoors.

Clei murphy bed allows bed to come down seamlessly When Clei murphy bed is up, it converts to a comfort-
while keeping books on the shelf. able couch allowing resident to maximize the space.
105'-0"
104'-11"
86'-6" 18'-5"
26'-2" 29'-7" 8'-3" 2'-6" 5'-10" 8'-9"

DN UP
3'-0"

BATHROOM
TRASH
6'-8"

ELEVATOR ROOM
LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING CL 39 SF
A 0BR DN
3'-0"

UP SOLARIUM
11'-3"

AREA

12'-7"
207 SF 302 SF
114 SF

CORRIDOR
5'-0"

MW/
378 SF
REF
5'-5"

5'-0"

BA T H R O O M BATHROOM BA T H R O O M FITNESS
TERRACE
MW/ MW/ MW/
REF REF REF 825 SF
45'-0"

45'-0"
44'-9"

CL CL
BATHROOM BA T H R O O M BA T H R O O M

MW/ MW/ MW/

REF REF REF
CL CL CL
25'-5"

A 0BR B 0BR A 0BR FITNESS ROOM

280 SF 280 SF 280 SF 382 SF
25'-6"

LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING

AREA AREA AREA
A 0BR A 0BR A 0BR 168 SF 170 SF 168 SF
280 SF 280 SF 280 SF

LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING

AREA AREA AREA
168 SF 168 SF 168 SF
3'-7"

UFAS UNITS ON 2ND,

3RD, 4TH, & 5TH FLOORS
11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 11'-0" 15'-0"
36'-2 87" 50'-3"
86'-6" 18'-5"

Each unit lays out roughly the same, each with either a balcony or a Juliette balcony.
38
nArchitects Source: HPCD

image: mir.no

The modular approach to construction is embraced

by the facade of the building, as each unit is a sepa-
rate pod.
LINEAR STORAGE LOFT Kitchen peninsula converts into a dining room table
cuft.
the same volume of storage as a
Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen.
for six.

BATHROOM/CLOSET
Accessible bathroom with shower;
full depth closet.

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

Rendering reflects the ability to entertain guests in

JULIETTE BALCONY

the small space.

a laminated glass guardrail.

Exploded axonometric shows the different functions

of the apartment, including ample storage above the
bathroom.

A’’’
246 sq. ft.

DEN
97 sq. ft.
A’
257 sq. ft.

A’’
297 sq. ft.

A’’’’ A A A B
291 sq. ft. 291 sq. ft. 291 sq. ft. 321 sq. ft
321 sq. ft.

The modular pods are varied in size to cater to different income levels.
39
III. Developers

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 developers 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.

40
 chapter 4:
The Barriers & Alternative Theories

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.

41
zoning barriers
Zoning policy puts many limitations on the
feasibility of developing micro-apartments in
cities. Many of the zoning and building code
regulations were put in place decades ago
to mitigate past problems such as ridding
neighborhoods of tenement housing, densi-
ty, and lack of parking in a car-driven society.
Today, the issues are different. Given other
innovative building and zoning regulations
put in place over the years, progressive plan-
ners and policymakers are not as concerned
with the possibility of tenement housing,
the effect of density in the urban core, or
the lack of parking spaces. The issues they
face today are more related to housing defi-
cits, rising rents, constrained supply, climate
change, and lack of affordable housing.
Many of these problems are the direct result
of the antiquated zoning laws.
Developers need more flexibility in what
they can build in order to accommodate
the needs of an economically diversifying
population. More affordable housing can be
achieved if certain zoning and building code
regulations are amended to allow for more
compact units, higher levels of density in
buildings, less parking, and alternative re-
quirements in regard to unit mix.
1 Unit = 6300 sf 4 Units @ 1,575 sf = 6300 sf
42
For example, many cities in the United
States establish minimum square footage
requirements for newly developed housing
units. In New York City, according to Article
II: Residence District Regulations, Chapter
8 – The Quality Housing Program, Section
28-21: “A dwelling unit shall have an area of
at least 400 square feet of floor area” (nyc.
gov, 2013). Boston planners typically allow
units as small as 450 square feet near transit
hubs, and just recently are allowing experi-
mental 350 square foot units in the city’s “In-
novation District” (The Boston Globe, 2013).
Currently, many cities also have require-
ments for the minimum land area per dwell-
ing unit or maximum dwelling units per acre.
This means that a building has a limit on how
many units it can have within its otherwise-
permitted envelope. San Francisco, Boston,
and New York all have a similar mechanism,
intended to limit high-density housing. Den-
sity limits typically vary by neighborhood.
Few developers can afford to build less than
the allowable square footage with costs of
land so high in cities (Infranca, 2013). This
drives developers to build out all of their
units at whatever square footage allows
16 Units @ 300 sf = 6300 sf
them to maximize the overall size of the
building, resulting in many apartments with
more square footage than necessarily desir-
able. Units are typically accounted for by the
number of kitchens, rather than bedrooms,
making it difficult to built higher quantities of
smaller units. With more and more two and
three bedroom units being occupied by un-
related adults rather than families, density in
these buildings is not controlled as intended
when these regulations were put in place.
Furthermore, many cities require a certain
number of parking spaces per unit, and
these requirements can drive up the con-
struction costs significantly on a per unit ba-
sis. As an example, a prime site for multi-
family development in the Central Square
neighborhood of Cambridge, Massachusetts
that sits one block away from the MBTA Red
Line, a primary public transportation sub-
way line, has a parking requirement of one
space per dwelling unit (cambridgema.gov,
2013). Furthermore, this location between
MIT and Harvard caters to a graduate stu-
dent population, in which most residents
opt for public transportation, bicycles, or car
sharing services versus car ownership. In
a dense urban environment such as Cam-
bridge, the construction of an underground
parking space can cost $50,000 per space
(Urban Land Institute, 2013). The zoning
requirement for one parking space per unit
therefore increases the development cost
Source: MIT Density Project
43
per unit by over 15%, which in turn increas-
es the required rental rate needed to make
the project feasible. Many locations in cit-
ies have unnecessary parking requirements
when considering the proximity to public
transit, the availability of car shares such as
Zipcar, and lack of car ownership.
With the intent of creating more housing for
families, some cities require certain ratios of
unit mixes to attain a healthy spread of stu-
dios, one-bedrooms, two-bedrooms, three-
bedrooms, and other accommodations. San
Francisco Planning Code Section 207.6 re-
quires that either (1) “no less than 40% of
the total number of proposed dwelling units
shall contain at least two-bedrooms,” or
(2) “no less than 30% of the total number
of proposed dwelling units shall contain at
Car-share services such as Zipcar are making it man-
ageable to live in a city and not own a car.
Source: Zipcar.com
The strong increase in bike-shares in cities is contrib-
uting to less car-ownership amongst city dwellers.
Source: Citibike.com
least three-bedrooms” (planning.sanfrancis-
cocode.org, 2013). This requirement has
caused much controversy, given that many
of the multi-bedroom units are rented to un-
related adults who share the units to reduce
their cost of living.

As the city environment, technology, and the

population of city-dwellers change, planners
and policymakers will need to review current
regulations and any ramifications they might
have on the cost of housing, encourag-
ing sprawl, and excluding particular diverse
groups of residents. The City of New York
did just this in a recent pilot program. A re-
quest for proposals was put out to develop-
ers and architects for a piece of city-owned
land where only two regulations were re-
duced and waived: the minimum unit size
and maximum density. The proposals for
the adAPT NYC RFP were promising, illus-
trating the kind of creativity that comes from
today’s design community when a few regu-
latory barriers are lifted (Architizer, 2013).

In this pilot program, New York identified the

two primary regulations that limit more af-
fordable units in cities. The most intuitive
way to make a more affordable unit is to re-
duce its size, cutting out unnecessary square
footage. The ability to build smaller units
makes them more affordable because it fur-
ther splits up bulk costs in the development
such as the cost of land, common space,
superstructure, utilities, and other fees. If
cities are still concerned about density, they
could put requirements for amenity space in
buildings with smaller units, or require that
the ground floor be for other uses.

44
financing barriers
In addition to zoning laws, securing financing
for a project consisting of micro-apartments
is also a barrier for many developers. A devel-
oper trying to raise capital for an innovative
project such as one with micro-apartments
would have difficulty getting financing from
lenders and equity sources due to their un-
familiarity with the product. These sources
of money have an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix
it” mentality when it comes to housing prod-
ucts. To mitigate their risk, lenders prefer
the developer to stick with something that
conforms to other successful projects in
the area. Some believe it might be time for
banks to assess the actual demand for hous-
ing in cities and realize the potential for suc-
cess of new types of housing (Leinberger
2008).
The real estate financial system in the U.S.
adheres to well-understood decision-making
rules. As a result of the 1980s real estate
boom, followed by a downturn, the RTC
(Resolution Trust Corporation) stepped up to
remedy the upside-down financial system.
The market was reintroduced to REITs and
other ways to provide liquidity to a histori-
cally illiquid asset type. At that point, real
estate joined bonds, stocks, and cash as the
most widely held and most valued forms of
sulted in what is referred to as the ‘nineteen
standard real estate product types’ that Wall
Street knows, understands, and can be trad-
ed in large quantities. Any deviation by build-
ing a product that was ‘non-conforming’, a
term of art on Wall Street, meant that it was
not one of the nineteen and that you either
did not get financing or, if you did, it was far
more expensive” (Leinberger, 2008).
Given the familiarity of underwriters
on Wall Street to the standard product types,
it has been much easier for developers seek-
ing financing to make their projects conform
to the standard specifications. For the same
reason, conforming product types are more
attractive to institutional buyers. Noncon-
forming product types are typically only of
interest to local buyers, a much smaller pool.
This makes building anything with variation
difficult on a large scale. In the interest of
securing financing they can count on, most
developers tend to produce conforming
product types.
The Nineteen Standard Real Estate Product Types 2006
INDUSTRIAL APARTMENT
Build to Suit Suburban Garden
Warehouse Urban High-Density

American investment (Leinberger, 2005). To RETAIL HOUSING

Neighborhood Center Entry Level
participate in this new financial market, the Lifestyle Center Move-Up
real estate industry had to mitigate risk as- Big-Box Anchored Luxury
Assisted Living/Retirement
sociated with their products through com- OFFICE Resort/Second Home
modification of what they built. This means Build to Suit
Mixed-Use Urban HOTEL
ensuring that each product and unit within Medical Business/Luxury Hotels
that product resembled every other product Budget Motel
MISCELLANEOUS
of that type. The resulting large group of Self-Storage
products is what Christopher Leinberger and Mobile Home Park

others define as the ‘Nineteen Standard Real The nineteen standard real estate products from the
Estate Products.’ This commoditization “re- Hoyt Group
Source: Leinberger, 2008
45
alternative
theories
Several speculative claims about the potential social effects of micro-apartments have created
social barriers around the concept of their development. The media has dramatized the introduc-
tion of micro-apartments to U.S. cities, gathering claims both against and in support of their de-
velopment. This section will consider alternative theories against micro-apartments and analyze
their accuracy.

I. Inhumanity & Tenement Housing

One alternative theory that has created a
barrier to policy reform suggests that micro-
apartments are an inhumane form of housing
and will result in inhumane living conditions
for tenants. To many people, two people
living in 550 square feet is acceptable, but
one person living in 275 square feet is un-
acceptably small. Some lay claim that the
proposed micro-apartments will lead to living
situations similar to the tenements of New
York City in the 19th century (Hollingsworth,
2013). To assess such a claim, it is important
to understand how the tenements came into
existence.
In 1811, New York City subdivided land into
25’ x 100’ lots, intended for the construction
of row houses. At the end of the Civil War,
these single-family row houses became the
idyllic place to live. The row houses typically
consisted of three story masonry buildings
(Hayden, 2002). Given the revolts in Ger-
many, the Irish Famine, and the opportuni-
ties that the city had to offer, the population
of New York began to grow rapidly. As the
demand for housing increased, some own-
ers began subdividing their row houses to
accommodate the new people, with the
intent of gaining revenue. This brought an
onslaught of immigrants into the Lower East
Side. Many affluent owners could not imag-
ine allocating space for the increased density
and were disappointed when their neighbors
began subdividing. As a result, they aban-
doned their homes and moved North, leav-
ing their low-rise masonry buildings behind.
With a lack of planning and building codes,
these Lower-East-Side row houses were
subdivided into what became known as ten-

New York Tenement House on 25’ x 100’ Lot

NO WINDOWS ON THIS WALL

Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom

Living Room Living Room

25’ Yard
Hall

Living Room Living Room

Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom

NO WINDOWS ON THIS WALL

100’

Floor plan for a New York Tenement on a typical 25’ x 100’ lot
Source: Riis, 1890
46
ement housing. When the population kept
growing, landlords began building floors on
top of the existing buildings with shortcut
construction techniques. In his famous book
How the Other Half Lives, Jacob Riis wrote
that in 1869 there were 14,872 tenements
in New York housing 468,492 people. By
1890, when Riis wrote his book, that num-
ber had more than doubled (Riis and Sante,
1997). At the peak of tenement housing in
New York, 82,000 tenement buildings were Lodgers in a tenement house room
home to more than three million people who Source: Riis, 1890
lived in some of the worst conditions in the
world (Watkins, 2013). For quite some time,
there was no regulation of these tenements.

Eventually, the Tenement Housing Commis-

sion came together after reports from the
city health inspector pointed out the extreme
densities, lack of ventilation, abundance of
disease, and lack of light in tenement hous-
ing. The first legislation came in the form
of the 1867 Tenement House Act; requiring
one toilet for every 20 people, 7’ tall ceil-
ings, light wells, and cellar rooms must be
permitted by the Board of Health. A new
set of laws came out in 1879, known as the
‘old law’ requiring; no building of tenement
housing on more than 65% of the lot (never
enforced because of clause allowing inspec-
tor to alter it), established thirty sanitary po- Family in their tenement room.
Source: Riis, 1890
licemen for the city, a requirement that any
room used for sleeping have at minimum of
a twelve-inch square foot window opening
onto a yard or street (Tenement House Re-
form in New York, 1834-1900). The old law
also introduced the concept of light shafts
New York Tenement for 12 Families per Floor
to channel natural light into the units, which
backfired when the light shafts were used
for trash disposal by the tenants (New York
Times, 2013). The ‘New Law’ for tenements
came in 1901, calling for lot coverage of no
more than 70% (correcting the unenforce-
able 65% law of the past) and increasing
light shafts to being courtyard size (New
York Times, 2013). Depiction of how cramped these living quarters were.
Source: Riis, 1890
47
Could it Happen Again?
Building and zoning codes have come a long
way since the late 19th century. Buildings
are safer and healthier today with the advent
of building code requirements for ventilation
and indoor air quality such as ASHRAE 62.1
(Ashrae.org, 2013), minimum dimensions for
bedrooms, requirements for natural light, the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA.gov,
2013), and stringent fire code requirements.
Any building, whether consisting of small
apartments or large condominiums, can be

International Building Code Specifications for Humane Units

Section Topic Parameters

Building must have proper amount of air changes per hour.

1203 Proper Ventilation Operable windows must equal 4% of floor area. Mechanical
ventilation required for tight envelopes. Conforming with ASHRAE.
All habitable spaces must be provided with space heating, to be
1204 Temperature Control
68 degreeas at 36" above the floor
All habitable spaces must have specified amount of natural or
1205 Lighting
artificial light.
Must maintain minimum lengths and square footages dictated by
1206 Yards/Courtyards/lightwells
code
Walls and floor/ceiling assemblies must meet minimum sound
1207 Sound Transmission transmission coefficient. Airborne sound by ASTM E90 and
structure borne sound by ASTM E 492
Sprinklers required in high-rise and mid-rise buildings in units and
903 Automatic Fire Sprinklers
common areas
Fire Extinguishers required in common areas and stairwells as
906 Fire Extinguishers
well as units
907 Fire-Alarm and Detection Required in units, hallways, and common areas
909 Smoke Control Systems Required in stairwells, common areas, and hallways
Standard ratings for party walls, common spaces, and floor/ceiling
Chapter 7 Fire Resistive Construction
assemblies
Minimum sizes for means of egress, illumination, and accessibility
Chapter 10 Means of egress
required
Chapter Minimum clearances for hallways, bathrooms, kitchens, etc.
11+ 2010 Accessibility Standards for door hardware, door closers, elevators, access
ADA ramps, etc.
No room other than the kitchen can be less than 7' in any
1208 Room Size direction, and no less than a net area of 70 square feet (excluding
bathrooms)
Must have a clear 36" passage area around them and conform to
1208 Kitchens
ADA rulings
Minimum height of 7'6" must be maintained in all areas except
1208 Ceiling Height
bathrooms and storage where height must me a minimum of 7'.
1208 Basements Basements must conform to the same codes as stated above.
Minimum 220 square foot living/dining/sleeping room +100 square
feet for each additional occupant. Not included in the 220 sq.ft.
the unit must contain: Bathroom with water closet, lavatory, and
1208.4 Efficiency Dwelling Units(EDU's)
tub/shower + Cooking area with 30" clear space in front with sink,
cooking appliances, and refrigerator + A separate closet for
storage.
Summary of building codes that prevent the construction of inhumane units today.
Source: 2012 International Building Code
48
sliced into small tenement housing if one so sought-after housing today. However small
desires. The original size of a unit does not the row house apartments are, when these
exacerbate the issue. In fact, small, well- neighborhoods are well cared for, they are
designed units control concerns of tene- still among the most desirable of all urban
ment housing as they ensure good design and suburban areas anywhere” (Hayden,
and code-compliant construction from the 2002).
outset. These smaller dwellings provide
flavor to a neighborhood, accommodating There is no evidence that legal smaller apart-
a vital component of today’s demographics. ments will lead us in the direction of tene-
Dolores Hayden says in her reference to the ment housing of the past. Instead, there is
row houses of New York, “Eventually the much evidence that illegal and unsafe hous-
row houses began to be recycled for smaller ing conditions are being created in existing
families and new uses. They form districts units, cramming people into spaces not de-
in New York that include some of the most signed for such density.

2013 New York Micro-Apartment Floor Plan vs. 1870s New York Tenement House Floor Plan
105’

DN UP
3'-0"

BATHROOM
TRASH
6'-8"

ELEVATOR ROOM
LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING CL 39 SF
A 0BR DN
3'-0"

AREA UP SOLARIUM
207 SF 302 SF
114 SF

CORRIDOR
5'-0"

MW/
378 SF
REF
5'-0"

BA T H R O O M BATHROOM BA T H R O O M FITNESS
TERRACE
MW/ MW/ MW/
825 SF
45’
REF REF REF
CL CL
BATHROOM BA T H R O O M BA T H R O O M

MW/ MW/ MW/

REF REF REF
CL CL CL

A 0BR B 0BR A 0BR FITNESS ROOM

280 SF 280 SF 280 SF 382 SF

LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING

AREA AREA AREA
A 0BR A 0BR A 0BR 168 SF 170 SF 168 SF
280 SF 280 SF 280 SF

LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING LIVING / DINING / SLEEPING

AREA AREA AREA
168 SF 168 SF 168 SF

UFAS UNITS ON 2ND,

NO WINDOWS ON THIS WALL

Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom

Living Room Living Room

25’ Yard
Hall

Living Room Living Room

Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom

NO WINDOWS ON THIS WALL

100’

When comparing the floor plans and fenestration of modern day micro-apartments with a New York Tenement, there
are no similarities. The micro-apartments appear spacious in compartison, especially considering that they house
only one or two people, as opposed to an entire family.
Source: Riis & Curtis & Ginsberg Architecture
49
Alternative Sources of Tenement Housing include the illegal subdivisions in apartments
(San Francisco Examiner, 2013). Scrolling
With a lack of appropriate housing for single- through Craigslist rental ads, it is easy to read
person households, people who want to live between the lines and identify housing that is
alone are forced to seek alternate options in fact illegal, and the quantity of such ads is
such as shared living arrangements. Capital- astonishing. Telltale signs include unusually
izing on desperate renters, some landlords low rents, language about ‘utilities included,’
are illegally subdividing apartments. In other and ‘month-to-month’ lease offers. These
cases, tenants are violating their leases by units are the closest that today’s society has
renting out space in their apartment not in- been to the tenement housing of New York
tended as living quarters without informing in the 1800’s, and these practices will likely
the landlord in an attempt to subsidize their continue without alternative options captur-
rent. As a result, many apartments tend to ing the demand. There are clear signs in the
be overcrowded, sometimes compromis- market that alternative forms of housing are
ing the safety of occupants (Watkins, 2013). needed. Planners and policymakers should
Many units do not have smoke detectors, consider creating them rather than leaving
adequate natural light, adequate ventilation, the job to landlords.
approved fire exits, or temperature control.
Units listed far below market rate come
with extreme sacrifice, often times with no
kitchen, full bathroom, or operable windows.
When people rent units with no kitchens,
they will own a hot plate or propane stove,
elevating the risk of fire for everybody in the
building. This type of housing is so common
that many people living in such units and do
not realize they are illegal, as they signed a
lease when they moved in. Regulations for
existing units are far easier to circumvent
than regulations from the planning or build-
ing department. Planners and policymakers
are over-focused on parameters regarding
what we can build, and are losing sight of
what is going on in the underground hous-
ing market. Many of these alternative op-
tions for single-person households tend to
be strikingly similar to tenement housing.

The New York Building Department received

18,126 complaints last year about illegal
units (Therealdeal.com, 2013). With an es-
timated 250,000 residents unaccounted for
in the census, it is clear that the city has a
serious illegal housing issue (Watkins, 2013).
San Francisco estimates that about 100,000
people are living in tens of thousands of il-
legal ‘in-law units,’ a number that does not
50
II. Increased Bottom Line
Another theory that does not support mi-
cro-apartments suggests that as a result of
charging more per square foot for micro-
apartments, developers will make an inor-
dinate amount of money, and if allowed to
do so, will build them as quickly as possible.
This theory is a barrier to policy change and
also worth analyzing. In real estate, it is
common knowledge that rental costs per
square foot typically increase as a unit gets
smaller. This increase is directly correlated
to cost of construction, the efficiency of a
building, and operating costs; but it is also a
function of the market’s willingness to pay
more per square foot for the essentials of a
separate dwelling unit, and less per square
foot for larger rooms, non-necessary func-
tions, and amenities.
The TDC (total development cost) of mi-
cro-apartments comes at a significant pre-
mium to standard apartment units. Micro-
apartments have a higher ratio of expensive
square footage (bathrooms & kitchens) to
less expensive square footage (living rooms,
bedrooms, closets). This makes their con-
struction costs higher per unit. For example,
consider two high-rise buildings, one with
typical apartments and another with micro-
apartments. In a hypothetical scenario, the
typical apartment building would have half
as many units as the micro-apartment build-
ing. Studios in the regular building would
be 600 square feet, 2 bedrooms 900 square
feet, and 3 bedrooms 1300 square feet. The
micro-apartment building units would be half
that size, with studios running at 300 square
feet, 2 bedrooms at 450 square feet, and 3
bedrooms at 650 square feet.
The micro-apartment building would also
consist of almost twice as many kitchens,
bathrooms, HVAC systems, electrical fix-
tures, plumbing fixtures, doors, and hard-
ware. Other additional construction costs
51
would include more walls, extended project
schedules, soundproofing costs, and extra
infrastructure for the building. In addition to
such elevated construction costs, the devel-
oper would also need to pay for additional
fees related to utilities such as an elevated
number of water, electrical meter, and sewer
hookups. Amenities are essential to such
projects and come at a premium, such as
rooftop decks, 24/7 lounges, functional lob-
bies, and storage.
Another contributing factor to increased
costs is the reduced efficiency of the build-
ing (ratio of rentable square footage vs. gross
square footage) in a building consisting of mi-
cro-apartments. Factors contributing to this
include more data closets, space for infra-
structure such as plumbing risers and meter
bus duct risers, more party walls, and more
mailboxes and storage capacity. Addition-
ally, square footage is given up to allocate
space for more amenities such as mentioned
above. The average apartment building will
run about 70% - 75% efficient (Multifamily
Executive, 2013), which can easily be ex-
ceeded with intelligent design. There are
many examples of new multi-family build-
ings today that are in the 80th percentiles
in terms of efficiency. The micro-apartment
high-rise under construction at 1321 Mission
Street in San Francisco is 60% efficient (Pan-
oramic Interests Project Data, 2013). The
RFP for the micro-apartment building at Kips
Bay in New York City received many applica-
tions, all of which had very low efficiency.
The plan from Jonathan Rose was 52% ef-
ficiency, the plan from Macro-Sea was 47%
efficient, and the winning application from
Monadnock Development will be 49% effi-
cient (HPD RFPs, for adapt NYC, 2013). In
the case of the 60% efficient San Francisco
project, the building is approximately 100,000
gross square feet. As a result of the reduced
net-to-gross ratio, the building has at a mini-
mum 10,000 less rentable square feet than
a building with standard apartments. With
rents for a two-bedroom apartment in SoMa
set at $4.70 per square foot (San Francisco
Business Times, 2013), the developer of this
micro-apartment building will be looking at a
minimum reduction in monthly net operating
income of $47,000, or almost $600,000 per
year (the rate for a market rate 2 bedroom
apartment was used as this would be the al-
ternate to building a more efficient unit with
lower square footage).
Another cost not mentioned, one that carries
both implicit and explicit costs with it, is the
cost of entitlement. With higher construc-
tion costs on a project, the permit fees are
escalated as well as the first round of taxes,
an explicit cost. What is not considered are
the implicit costs of entitlement. This might
change over time, but in 2013, entitlement
of micro-apartment buildings is no easy task.
In fact, applying for any zoning variance can
take an inordinate amount of time and ener-
gy from the developer, architect, and consul-
tants. Any delays that occur to the project as
well as costs incurred in fees for architects,
consultants, and employees come out of the
developer’s bottom line.
The operating costs and capital expenses
are greater in a micro-apartment building
due to the increased infrastructure. The in-
creased ratio of kitchens and bathrooms will
require more maintenance and capital ex-
penses. Compared to a typical luxury apart-
ment building with lots of empty square
footage and therefore fewer building sys-
tems to maintain, the cost of operation for a
high-density apartment building is intuitively
higher. This will drive up operating cost line
items such as repair & maintenance and ad-
ministrative costs. Commenting on NYC’s
micro-apartment plan, Michael Pyatok, an
Oakland based architect with experience de-
signing such units, says designing the units
52
will be the easy part, but “what Bloomberg
should realize is that this housing is transi-
tional and highly transitory. It has high turn-
over and is difficult to manage” (Multifamily
Executive, 2013).
Given the demographics, lifestyles, and
life stages of people who rent micro-apart-
ments, the rates of turnover are assumedly
higher. Costs for turning a property range
from $600-$1000+ per unit to cover salaries
of personnel, management fees, administra-
tive fees, marketing, contract services, and
physical touch up work at turnover. For a
275 unit building in Phoenix, generating
$120,000 per year, turnover costs run about
$110,000 per year. In addition, for each day
the unit is unoccupied thereafter, the cost is
$50+ per day (ccim.com, 2013). A building
consisting of micro-apartments will have a
much higher turnover rate than normal due
to the short term leases, requiring additional
costs for both leasing and touch-up work.
For all of the above reasons, the cost per
square foot of these smaller units comes at
a premium. In order to make up for the in-
creased costs of construction, entitlement,
and lost rentable square footage, the devel-
oper must increase the rents per square foot.
The rents must increase enough to make the
project worthwhile financially.
San Francisco put their pilot program for 375
units to be built as low as 220 square feet in
place in November of 2012, and a year later,
only one project has come through with 120
such units (CBS.com, 2013). This dispels
notions of critics claiming that developers
will rush to build these smaller units in order
to increase profits. If that notion were true,
there would be 375 units in process, with
more developers attempting to get more
entitled. The fact is, most developers who
pencil out the costs associated with such de-
velopments and are hesitant to proceed.
III. Gentrification and Rising Cost of
Land
Another theory exists that micro-apartments
will drive up the cost of land, and as a result,
will exacerbate the effects of gentrification.
In order to assess this theory, it is important
to understand the concept of gentrification,
which is essentially a function of the cost of
land.
Background
During each building boom, developers build
an incredible amount of stock in U.S. cities
to keep up with demand. With the demand
for housing constantly rising and land supply
growing thin, the cost of land has been ris-
ing rapidly. The land cost per unit has a di-
rect correlation to projected rents; the fewer
units built on a piece of land, the higher the
land cost per unit. Developers must charge
higher rents to cover the extra cost incurred
for land, which will inevitably impact the cost
of living in the neighborhood.
Gentrification shifts urban areas toward
wealthier residents and business owners,
which naturally raises the costs of land, often
times at the expense of the poorer residents
of the neighborhood, who experience rising
costs of living that can result in displacement
(Leinberger, 2002). Much of what is known
about this process is based upon history.
During the post-war period, there was a dra-
matic shift to life in the suburbs. Americans
who had the choice abandoned cities and
headed for small- and large-lot single-family
homes with yards that were being built by
the millions. Many believed this was the
only safe place to raise a family, a percep-
tion further supported over time by the ac-
companying disinvestment in cities. Low-in-
terest home loans, tax-deductible mortgage
interest, and the development of the Federal
Interstate Highway System pushed people
53
towards suburban areas. Unlike many other
countries in the world, the United States be-
came a predominantly suburban nation dur-
ing the latter part of the 20th century. From
1950 to 2000, the share of people living in
the suburbs rose from 27% to 52%, growing
from 41 million to 141 million people (Nel-
son, 2006). Types of housing that had been
acceptable for decades, such as duplexes,
row houses, and stacked flats, were forgot-
ten and replaced by single-family homes on
large lots (Hinshaw, 2007). As for the ex-
isting urban housing stock, similar to the re-
sponse to the wave of immigration in the late
1800s, homes left behind were subdivided
into apartments for the working class, who
called them home for decades (Leinberger,
2002). In Boston’s South End neighborhood,
many single-family homes were converted
into apartments and lodging houses, hous-
ing the urban working class and immigrants
(Southendhistory.org, 2013).
After some time, cities found themselves
in states of disrepair and called upon gov-
ernment sources for aid. The government
decided to invest in urban renewal. Begin-
ning in the 1990s, many cities around the
United States went through a process of re-
vitalization. Demand for urban living began
to grow, and families began relocating from
suburbs to cities. Once again, great wealth
was invested from the private sector in cit-
ies and people began buying homes, esca-
lating demand and prices. Revitalization can
have a ‘double-edged sword’ effect: the ris-
ing housing values for one family might be
another family’s reason to move out of the
neighborhood. The down side of the revi-
talization process is that prices increase as
well as rents, often more quickly than antici-
pated when the revitalization began. There
are dozens of examples today, including the
Mission District in San Francisco, Greenwich
Village in Manhattan, and Lodo in Denver.
Revitalization can have a positive impact,
though; it raises the tax base for cities and
makes them an enjoyable place to live. The
key is to keep options for affordable housing
as well.
Back to the Theory
The theory that micro-apartments exacer-
bate the effect of gentrification is based in
part on this history. As addressed previous-
ly, smaller apartments logically cost more to
build on a per square foot basis, and so they
must rent for more per square foot. Critics
contend that this higher cost per square foot
will dilute existing costs, raising all rents in
the city. This is a valid concern, which will
be mitigated by market conditions. The mar-
ket rate for an apartment is what the mar-
ket will pay for it. During a housing deficit,
rents will be inflated, for a while. However,
once things come to equilibrium, the market
will only pay what it deems fair. People rent
apartments based on total cost of the unit,
not relative costs per square foot. The loca-
tion and total cost of housing is what is most
important to renters, not whether the rent
is $2.00 or $3.00 per square foot. Smaller
apartments rent for less total cost, expand-
ing the range of rents for apartment typolo-
gies as a whole, helping people realize they
have more than one option.
The second reason critics believe that small
apartments increase the cost of land has to
do with density. Typically, higher allowable
densities increase the cost of land, as the
opportunity for the developer is enhanced.
However, as a subsequent section address-
es, developing these high-density buildings
does not necessarily promise higher returns
to the developer as compared with building
a luxury apartment building. This has been
made clear by the lack of developers seiz-
ing the opportunity to build such units. If
these buildings are not creating higher than
average net operating income for the opera-
tor, the cost of land will not increase but will
rather continue on its current course.
54
The third reason critics believe the introduc-
tion of micro-apartments to cities will have a
gentrifying effect is because they are not for
families. The director of the San Francisco
Tenants Union says, “If they become urban
crash pads for high-tech employees, then
we fear they could have a gentrifying effect
on the neighborhoods as they get built. We
do have a strong need for family-size hous-
ing as well as affordable housing, and we
have limited development sites in San Fran-
cisco” (Riley, 2013). Micro-apartments are
not just for the tech worker, but the pres-
ence of the tech worker should be analyzed.
In 2011, approximately 8,000 tech workers
moved to San Francisco (Noevalleyvoice.
com, 2013), and there was a net gain of only
269 housing units in the city (San Francisco
Planning Department, 2012). This raises a
more pressing question: where will these
workers live if there is no housing stock for
them? As addressed earlier, the intent of
micro-apartments is not for families but rath-
er the rising demographic of single-person
households. These smaller units have the
potential to reduce the demand for unrelated
adults sharing multiple-bedroom units, mak-
ing such units available and more affordable
to families (Infranca, 2013).
In the end, the overall effects of revitalization
hinge on policy. Effective policies can coun-
ter-balance market forces to balance gen-
trification. With such policies in place, the
results of revitalization can be remarkable.
In a city that lacks good policy to promote
mixed income housing, questions about the
future of affordable housing opportunities
are raised.
IV. Threatening the Supply of
Affordable Housing and SROs
Alternative theory has been put forth that
the introduction of micro-apartments will
threaten the supply of single room occupan-
cy units (SROs) and the production of afford-
able housing.
Single Room Occupancy Units
SROs have long served as a form of afford-
able housing for people who live alone or
who are at transitional stages in their lives.
These are multi-tenant buildings with a num-
ber of private rooms occupied by one or two
people, and most commonly have a shared
bathroom and no kitchen. As mentioned
previously, SROs are essentially what board-
ing houses were in the past, taking on the
name SROs in the 1930s in large cities such
as San Francisco and New York.
Given their central locations, SROs became
quite popular for renovation during the urban
renewal process in cities, beginning a few
decades ago. The supply of SRO’s has been
“dwindling for decades, largely because
they’ve tended to be located near downtown
areas that have been revitalized and owners
across the country have sold their buildings
to developers or converted them into luxury
properties on their own” (Klinenberg, 2012).
SROs were converted at a rapid pace before
people began to notice. Many stakeholders
around such projects did not raise concern
on the topic, as they often subtly objected
to the presence of their marginal tenants in
their neighborhoods. The trend continued,
and the effects of evicting SRO residents be-
gan to take hold. Many of the tenants were
on the verge of homelessness, and when
the SROs were bought and turned over,
these tenants found themselves left with
few other options, and many often took ref-
uge on the streets of the neighborhood.
Given the strong similarity to SRO units,
55
many fear that the growing need for single-
person housing might spark a development
trend of converting SROs to ‘micro-apart-
ments.’ The locations of SROs are ideal
sites for high-density, small apartment devel-
opment. Although the projects would be a
significant undertaking, they could potential-
ly offer healthy returns to developers willing
to take them on. With sound claims, the act
of converting SROs into market rate apart-
ments has become an issue of controversy,
as the SROs are such an important ingredi-
ent to the healthy complexion of a city.
The best solution to such concerns is enact-
ing policy to preserve existing SROs. San
Francisco passed an ordinance in 1980 disal-
lowing the use of SRO hotels to tourist use,
but this did not stop their conversion to other
uses. In 2003, the city passed an ordinance
to preserve all SROs, disallowing conver-
sions of SRO buildings to private apartments
or hotels. In San Francisco, the Central City
SRO Collaborative was formed to help pre-
serve the SROs that remained (ccsro.org,
2013). In San Francisco, there are about 500
SRO buildings that are home to more than
30,000 people, or roughly 4% of the popula-
tion (ccsro.org, 2013).
San Francisco is a good example of a city
that has addressed the concern of convert-
ing these buildings to other uses. They sim-
ply passed policy measures to disallow the
conversion of the buildings. This is an easy
policy change for any city to put in place if it
is concerned about losing this housing stock
to other uses. SRO housing should by no
means be replaced by apartments, as it is
clear that it serves an important need.
Affordable Housing
A similar alternative theory has been put
forth about the production of new affordable
housing, claiming that micro-apartment de- be ignored. Many micro-apartments could
velopment should not take its place in terms become affordable through inclusionary zon-
of priority. ing. They could also be included in afford-
able housing projects to accommodate the
Today, cities need a sound approach towards need for the growing number of low-income
the issue of affordable housing. The need single-person households.
for family affordable housing continues, with
a growing portion of the need for single-
person households. Without sound policy
in place, cities will be full of neighborhoods
like Manhattan’s Lower East Side, where the
family households living comfortably have
an income of $250,000 or more (Leinberger,
2002).

Many city stakeholders and organizations

simply ask for more affordable housing and
more land allocated for it. This is an unsus-
tainable approach for two primary reasons.
First, there is a lack of government funding
to subsidize affordable housing, and what is
available is always at risk of being cut pend-
ing political elections or current events. In
addition, a typical below-market-rate unit is
still expensive to build. In San Francisco, it
takes about $250,000 in government subsi-
dy to produce one unit. That said, to house
10,000 households in subsidized affordable
housing, the government would need to
spend $2.5 billion (SPUR, 2013). Putting this
in context, San Francisco’s Housing Trust
Fund, which passed in November of 2012,
will allocate $1.2 billion over the next 30
years for affordable housing (SPUR 2012-
2013 Annual Report, 2013). Second, grow-
ing cities with rising costs of living face sup-
ply constriction in the housing development
pipeline. If cities were to set aside all prime
development sites for affordable housing,
which they cannot afford to build, the hous-
ing supply would become more constricted.
Third, the demand for affordable housing
for the growing number of single-person
households should not be ignored. Micro-
apartments satisfy the need for housing mid-
dle-income workers, but their applicability
to affordable housing programs should not
56
V. Transient and Marginal People
Alternative theories have been suggested
in the media that the development of micro-
apartments will attract transient and mar-
ginal people to neighborhoods. Historically,
single-person households have had negative
connotations around them. In 1950, there
were few single-person households and
people who lived in them were considered
unglamorous. Rooming houses, known as
‘plain hotels for plain people,’ were precur-
sors to the SROs of today. The perception
then and now is that small units house tran-
sient people, the destitute, or substance
abusers. Many influential writers over time
have contributed to labeling the lifestyles as-
sociated with these urban dwellers, such as
Walt Whitman with his famous essay enti-
tled, “Wicked Architecture,” an essay about
rooming houses and what types of vagrants
they attract (Whitman, 1936). In contrast,
Michael Pyatok, an Oakland-based architect,
recalls “an earlier era when SROs served as
second homes for the wealthy and safe ha-
vens for young women who had come to cit-
ies for employment” (Multifamily Executive,
2013).
When high-density developments with small
units are proposed in neighborhoods, people
are quick to oppose them. They tend to as-
sume that these units will house those with
the least amount of income, or people who
will not pay taxes but use all the services
of the neighborhood. Due to history, high-
density is often viewed negatively by many
established city residents. This is a direct
result of cities having been filled first with
crowded tenements and after by rows of
public housing developments. Even today,
many people relate even moderate density
to murder, crime, and drugs (Hinshaw, 2007).
When analyzing the single-person house-
holds of cities today, it is clear that such ste-
reotypes are untrue. In fact, singles increase
57
the tax base for cities, since they pay taxes
and do not use many of the services provid-
ed, such as schools. In addition, the choice
to live alone benefits the area’s economy.
Many people who live alone are immersed
in social life, and their higher average use of
digital social media keeps them even more
engaged (Klinenberg, 2012). People who live
alone tend to become more socially active
than people who choose not to live alone.
Cities with high numbers of people who live
alone tend to have more engagement from
citizens in public life. Those who live alone
are “twice as likely as married people to go
to bars and dance clubs, they eat out in res-
taurants more often, are more likely to take
art or music classes, attend public events,
and go shopping with friends” (Klinenberg,
2012). For those who make such stereo-
types about single-person households, it is
important to consider that any household’s
composition can change overnight due to
external factors such as divorce, death in a
family, job loss, or job relocation. This single
household population consists of a diversity
of people who are living alone for myriad
reasons, few of which have to do with the
stereotypes associated with them.
 chapter 5:
Additional benefits of micro-apartments

58
affordability by
design
Micro-apartments are a logical way to pro- mensely to providing more affordable hous-
vide the benefit of lower-cost housing to ing to an even broader array of individuals.
people who need it. Given their reduced This “Micro-Suite” concept could fill another
square footage, micro-apartments will logi- gap in the housing supply stream, broaden-
cally cost less to build, thereby enabling ing the menu of available housing not widely
them to command lower rents than existing available today.
alternatives. With a lack of subsidy available
for affordable housing and none available for
middle-income housing, the concept of af-
fordability by design becomes compelling.
Units that cost less because they are small-
er in size, efficiently designed, parking free,
and strategically value engineered to cut un-
necessary costs but preserve quality, are a
viable solution to housing deficits around the
country. This potentially creates a class of
housing that serves the gap of residents be-
tween low and high income.

In addition to less square footage and clever

design, employing strategies such as modu-
lar construction, utilizing building dimensions
that conform with building product sizes,
acquiring lower cost land, eliminating park-
ing from buildings, building housing on the
ground floor podiums, or stacking kitchens
and bathrooms back to back to ease rough-
ins, could all contribute to buildings that cost
less on a per square foot basis, enabling a
landlord to pass the savings on to the ten-
ants. Planners and policymakers should
consider embracing these strategies if they
are to meet the diverse demand for housing.
Furthermore, building smaller, more afford-
able options for single-person households
can be expanded into multiple-bedroom
dwellings. A two-bedroom apartment that is
550 square feet instead of 1000, or a three-
bedroom apartment that is 800 square feet
instead of 1200. Both would contribute im-
59
retaining young
professionals &
companies
Micro-apartments are also a good strategy square footage per employee, offices have a
for cities to retain young professionals and higher density of employees working in their
attract large companies. A city benefits spaces, which enables them to operate at a
when a company chooses to relocate within lower cost. Micro-apartments could provide
its boundaries. It is beneficial for the econ- a similar solution to housing employees who
omy and well being of a city since the tax prefer to live close by. Cities should consid-
base increases, produces jobs for city resi- er building high-density housing within close
dents, moves existing employees into the proximity to such innovation districts or cen-
city, and stimulates businesses surround- tral business districts to provide options for
ing the office space. ‘Innovation Clusters’ both entry level and senior employees in or-
have become prime examples of such logic, der to make the city a more viable location
where a city attracts a few larger companies, for the companies.
and a plethora of smaller feeder companies
descends upon the area to benefit from be- Young professionals are in high demand, as
ing close to the larger companies, enabling they are the lifeblood of such companies.
them to participate in the employee pool They are up to date with the digital age and
and thought sharing occurring in such areas. fresh out of school, ready to be trained.
Kendall Square in Cambridge and downtown However, they are not being hired right out
San Francisco are good examples of such of college or graduate school at high sala-
centers, which have increased revenues for ries. Many entry-level positions provide
the cities (MIT Technology Review, 2013). salaries that are not ideal when considering
the high costs associated with city living, an
The majority of employees working for these
companies prefer to live close to work, en-
abling them to walk or bike and avoid a com-
mute by car. Given the limited supply of
housing in cities, locating close by typically
comes with barriers. This is something that
companies consider when choosing a loca-
tion: where will their employees live? Inno-
vative companies like Google have located
near transit hubs or provide transportation
for their employees to non-urban locations
via bus. The former is a much better option
for cities, as it enables them to retain both
the company and its employees within their Map of a cluster of start-ups in San Francisco’s
borders. With companies using less and less Soma and Mid-Market neighborhoods.

60
entry level job in San Francisco pays an aver-
age of $46,000 (Indeed.com, 2013). Many
young professionals are discouraged by city
living, deeming it too risky to make a low sal-
ary and still live below their means (SPUR,
2013). Cities that do not have appropriately
priced and accessible housing for company
employees might not be considered a viable
location by company executives. Oakland
based architect and affordable housing advo-
cate Michael Pyatok hopes more cities will
build micro-housing to lure younger people
starting out into lower-income neighbor-
hoods, where they could be “tremendously
valuable. They are educated, highly idealis-
tic, and have the time to get involved in the
community. Otherwise, if you just put them
into one building in the center of town, all
you’re creating is a ghetto for young people
(Multifamily Executive, 2013).

61
Sustainability
Micro-apartment development also benefits When looking at the high demand for single-
the environment. Smaller units require less person households in cities, it appears that
embodied energy to construct, require less simply meeting this market demand with
energy to heat and cool, take fewer furnish- micro-apartments will achieve significant re-
ings, and encourage the dweller to consume ductions in carbon footprint from a number
less. Building micro-apartments close to of sources.
transit and amenities such as restaurants
and grocery stores allows dwellers to not
own a car, and eliminates the need to build
intensive underground concrete structures
to house such cars. Residents can walk,
bike, or ride public transit to work. The aver-
age American has a 22-minute one-way driv-
ing commute to work (American Community
Survey, 2012). According to the EPA, if new
residential development were to occur in in-
fill locations rather than the suburban fringe
of cities, energy consumption associated
with vehicle transportation would fall to 60%
of current levels (Nelson, 2013). Such de-
velopment also alleviates the further devel-
opment of green-field sites on the fringe of
cities. Micro-apartments are a creative way
to achieve high-levels of density in urban lo-
cations.

DAYLIT STAIR PROMOTES

ACTIVITY / INTERACTION
GREEN SCAPE GREEN ROOF
GREEN / COMMUNAL
GREEN WALL
NATURALLY VENTILATED /
COMMUNAL BOOKEND DAYLIT CORRIDOR

PERSONAL FACADE INTEGRATED

PLANTING SUN SHADING

COMMUNAL
CABIN
BOOKEND PLANTED TERRACE /
FITNESS ROOM

NATURALLY VENTILATED
/ DAYLIT LAUNDRY

LENS NATURALLY VENTILATED COVERED BIKE STORAGE

LOBBY / RETAIL
/ LOBBY / RETAIL
SOCIAL / COMMUNAL / GREEN OVERALL COMPONENTS SUSTAINABILITY

In addition to small footprints, micro-apartments can employ many sustainability elements for tenants to appreciate.
Source: Curtis & Ginsberg Architects
62
 chapter 6:
conclusion and recommendations
A clear imbalance between housing supply and demand has become undeniable in cities across
the United States. The demographics of today have changed radically from those of fifty years
ago, when the majority of urban housing was constructed. The nuclear family household
continues to decline, while cities continue to approve housing developments with floor plans
designed exclusively for such households. Instead, floor plans in developments need to shift
with the demographic makeup of today’s society. The menu for housing must be diversified to
meet demand, allocating new housing typologies that meet the needs of a larger portion of the
population. Over the next decade, the demand for rental housing will continue to grow. Almost
half of this growth will be from single-person households with various income levels, and this
growth indicates a significant demand for small units of modest means.

Developers are on the leading edge of understanding demographic demands and providing
housing product types to fit such needs. Even though many have responded somewhat to
demand, they are limited by high costs of land, construction costs, and zoning code limitations.
In addition, though an abundance of studio and one-bedroom apartments has been produced
over the past few decades, the cost of production has been too high to meet the needs of
households of modest means. This high cost of production has created a significant gap in the
availability of such housing for a large proportion of the demand.

While micro-apartments are not for everyone, these smaller apartments would offer the
opportunity to live alone to a variety of people including new arrivals to cities, young professionals,
and people at transitional stages in life such as a recent divorcee or even a young couple. Micro-
apartments would not replace the production of larger studio units and one-bedroom-apartments
but rather balance the production to meet the diverse needs of society.

Today, urban housing is at a crossroads. Regulations and development patterns of today will not
suffice in meeting the demands of tomorrow’s society. Rising rents, housing deficits, climate
change, and a lack of affordable housing are serious problems faced by planners and policymakers
of today and will inevitably affect the future of housing in U.S. cities. In analyzing solutions to
these problems, this research finds that arguments against the proposition of micro-apartments
lack merit. The potential benefits of smaller, high-density housing offer hope for the future of
urban housing. If, as a society we are serious about addressing the mismatch between housing
supply and demand, we need to do so through sound policy. Planners and policymakers will
need to reprogram the regulatory framework in relation to housing, and developers will need to
respond by building innovative product types to meet the demand of today.
63
recommendations
ZONING POLICY REFORM

In transit-rich areas of cities, planners and
policymakers should consider amending
zoning requirements to allow developers to
fully respond to the demographic demand
for housing in cities. Through such reform,
cities could allow developers to meet de-
mand for alternative types of housing, taking
strain off existing family housing in the city.
•Minimum square footage requirement in
cities should be reduced to allow for units
as small as 220 square feet in total. Given
technological advancements and lifestyle
changes, zoning laws like New York’s 1987
requirement for 400 square-foot units are
no longer applicable. At least cities should
reduce unit size to the International Building
Code Section 1208.4 standard of 290 square
feet; with 220 square feet of living area plus
a separate kitchen, bathroom, and closet.
•Land area per dwelling unit requirements
should be reduced to allow for higher-densi-
ty, more efficient housing in cities. With land
costs so high, developers must maximize the
rentable square footage that they build. Lim-
iting how many units they can build on a site
forces them to build larger, more expensive
units to the point at which they meet other
limitations such as height and bulk. Allow-
ing developers to build more units inside the
as-of-right building envelope will help reduce
the construction cost per unit, and savings
can be passed on to future tenants.

Efficiency Dwelling Units

Often called studio, efficiency,
or single-room-occupancy units

Based on 1208.4, a single-person unit would contain:

A living/dining/sleeping room of 220 sf

In addition to the 220 sf, each unit requires:

A cooking area with a sink, cooking appliances,
and a refrigerator with 30” clear space in front

A separate bathroom with a water

closet, lavatory, and bathrub or shower

A separate closet (of undefined size)

International Building code guidelines for unit size should be the norm for cities, while smaller sizes should be
considered.
Source: 2012 International Building Code
64
•Open space requirements should be dis-
connected from the overall number of units.
Given the shrinking household phenomenon,
requiring open space in relation to the num-
ber of dwelling units is no longer a sound
policy. A single-person household surely
does not command the same need for open
space as a nuclear family household. Cities
with such zoning ordinances should consider
shifting the open space requirement to cor-
relate with overall rentable square footage
instead.
•Parking requirements for residential devel-
opments should be reduced, and in some
cases, eliminated. A growing number of
city residents prefer to not own a car given
their proximity to work, public transit, and
new car-share options available. The cost of
building underground parking drives up the
construction costs per unit, thereby increas-
ing rents for tenants. Forcing tenants who
choose not to drive to subsidize the costs of
parking for those who drive does not make
fiscal sense. Eliminating parking require-
ments in such developments will encourage
city-dwellers to live close to work, reducing
carbon emissions associated with commut-
ing by car.
•Unit-mix requirements should be more flex-
ible. Requiring developers to build two- and
three-bedroom units is not achieving its in-
tent of accommodating families in need of
housing. Instead, with a lack of housing sup-
ply that fits their needs, young profession-
als and other unrelated adults are banding
together and renting these units to reduce
their rent burden. This trend causes direct
competition and rising rents for families
looking to rent such units. If planners and
policymakers allocate room for more eco-
nomical and efficient units, they could ease
the strain put on the multi-bedroom units be-
ing released.
•For applicable sites, planners and policy-
65
makers should consider providing incentives
to developers who build small apartments
intended for moderate-income housing.
Such incentives could include density bo-
nuses, expedited permitting, or waived per-
mit fees. Inclusionary zoning could also be
considered for these moderate-income units
in exchange for a density bonus. Such a re-
quirement would not take the place of inclu-
sionary housing for affordable housing, but
rather complement it, encouraging projects
with a diverse mix of options for tenants.
If planners created zoning overlay districts
where demand for such units was high, de-
velopers would respond.
•Planners and Policymakers should choose
optimal locations for micro-apartments.
The concept works best on transit nodes
& areas with a high concentration of public
amenities. Locating projects where density
makes sense will be essential, such as ar-
eas within a ten minute walking radius to a
primary mode of public transit. Mapping out
such locations and naming them as overlay
districts that encourage micro-apartment de-
velopment is a good strategy.
For their pilot project, the San Francisco Planning
Department strategically mapped out viable locations
for micro-apartments.
Source: San Francisco Planning Department
Building Code Revisions to Preserve
Quality of Life
For units of 300 square feet or less, plan-
ners and policymakers should ensure that
all relevant building codes be applicable and
consider a few additional revisions. These
revisions will enhance the quality of life with-
in such units and prevent developers from
taking advantage of zoning reforms that en-
courage high-density housing. These propo-
sitions are modifications of the International
Building Code, upon which many cities have
based their own codes.
•Ceiling Height (Section 1208): Minimum
ceiling height in living areas could be amend-
ed from 7’6” to 8’6”.
•Sound Transmission (Section 1207): the
STC (sound transmission coefficient) could
be enhanced beyond the minimum require-
ment to promote more peace of mind in the
units.
•Natural Light (Section 1205): Depending on
the climate zone, net exterior glazed open-
ing areas could be increased from 8% of the
floor area to 10% of the floor area. In a 300
square foot unit, this would increase the win-
dow area from 24 square feet to 30 square
feet. The head height of windows should be
a minimum of 7’6” unless otherwise inhib-
Additional natural light in combination with higher
ceilings could make micro-apartments feel spacious
and desirable, despite the reduced square footage.
Source: Panoramic Interests
66
ited by a structural entity. The extra glaz-
ing and minimum head height will allow for
more natural light to be cast into the unit,
reducing the need for artificial lighting during
the daytime.
•Proper Ventilation (Section 1203): In addi-
tion to the requirement for mechanical ven-
tilation for any unit with less than 5 ACH (air
changes per hour), all units should have op-
erable window area equal to 4% of the floor
area to allow for natural ventilation. Bath
fans and range hoods should also be provid-
ed in each unit.
•Indoor Air Quality: All building materi-
als used for the construction of such units
should be low-VOC or better. Each unit
should also undergo a fresh air flush at the
completion of construction to clear out all
contaminants prior to occupancy.
•Energy Efficiency: All such developments
could conform to the International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC, 2012).
Design and Programming
•The programming of micro-apartment build-
ings should be done cautiously. As explained
previously, building smaller units drives
down rentable square footage while driv-
ing up construction costs. Accommodating
too much common space and amenities can
easily have the unintended effect of driving
up rents. Simply moving excess space from
within units to common areas will not be a
sustainable solution to supplying housing
for people with middle and lower incomes.
Common space and amenities are certainly
desirable and should be provided for micro-
apartment projects, but this should be done
efficiently. The project proposals for the
adAPT NYC project arguably had too much
amenity and common space, averaging only
50% rentable residential square footage. As
a result, the rents needed to be higher to
compensate, which works against the goal
of providing housing for moderate-income ACTIVITY MOVING
people. UP THE BUILDING
If you live here, there are many

Roof
places where you can meet people

•The design goals of building micro-apart-

and find relief from your small unit.
The diagram shows the multi-
Terrace/Green Roof purpose social spaces and programs
Grill Parties
that will be held on the plaza, in the

ments should continue to evolve with tech-

Online Grill Reservation
Sunbathing lobby/living room/kitchen/bar, TV/
Urban Farming- Farm Share Blast game/library mezzanine, fitness
‘How to grow your own’ classes rooms, and grill terrace.

nology and products available to minimize

4th of July Party

5
space. However, products that unnecessar- Balcony/Lounge
Outdoor sunset dinner parties

3
Mixology classes- Grey Goose, etc.

ily drive up costs of construction/furnishing

Quiet reading, sitting, googling area

Fitness II

2
Cardio Sculpt

should be avoided to maintain the goal of Treadmill

Bikes/Ellyptical
Turbo Fire
Yoga - Boot Camp Fitness I

producing housing for middle-income peo- Crunches Weights - Strength training

Pilates
Living/Lounge/Movies
DJ Night

ple, and not another high-end product. It is

Arthouse, Indie, Noir movie nights

Mezz
Dance Classes- Salsa, Belly
Card Games: Hold-em
Trivia Night
Academy Award, Grammy’s

important to note that the HPCD micro-apart-

Games/Library Superbowl
Foosball
Yankees vs. Red Sox
Wii, Xbox, Playstation
DVD Lending Library

ment that was displayed at the Museum of

the City of New York had its furniture donat- G
ed from Resource Furniture. This furniture
Kitchen/Bar/Laundry
Sushi & Pizza-making classes
Happy Hour
Craft Beer + Wine tastings Plaza

works very well for micro-apartments but

Cyber lounge use DJ Night
Chinese New Year celebrations Cocktails
Sunbathing
Yoga Class
Lobby/Main Desk

should be used wisely, as it is very expen-

TaiChi Class
Twitter Wall

Plaza
Googling
Lifestyle Concierge
Package, Dryclean, Grocery Pickup/Dropoff

sive and will drive up rent for such an apart-

ment. For example, the list price for the bed
is over $11,000 (Resourcefurniture.com).
•Micro-apartments employ simple design,
and simple design is inherently flexible.
Converting two micro-apartments into a two-
bedroom apartment requires simply cutting
a doorway in their demising wall. This logic
should be employed in the design process to
ensure future flexibility of the buildings.
NYC
REE F
Developers should be cautious with the ratio of
amenities and rentable square footage. With too
much amenities, rents will not be reduced as the
square footage is simply shifted from inside the units
to common areas. Despite the appealing appearance,
the image shown would create units with high rents
due to the amount of rentable square footage lost to
accommodate such amenities.
Source: ADD inc.

•Developers should consider producing a

mix of unit sizes, rather than just one. This
way, different levels of pricing can be offered
to accommodate a dynamic group of tenants
that seek housing of modest means. Devel-
opers building more typical apartment build-
ings should consider utilizing a few micro-
apartments within their design, as buildings
do not necessarily need to be one-hundred Variation of Sizes for a Variation of Incomes
percent micro-apartments.
250-300
Financial Capital Markets

Rather than classifying them as non-con-

325
400
315

forming, capital markets should work to ex-

300
250
260
270
270

pand their investment portfolios to increase

lending opportunities for innovative real es-
tate products. It is inevitable that lenders
and investors will approach new areas of the
67
Developers should consider creating a variety of
micro-apartment sizes for a variety of income levels.
SOURCE: HWKN
market with caution, but they should work to
provide more risk-weighted return for devel-
opers willing to innovate new product types.
Rather than specializing in one product type
and refusing to underwrite the risk of innova-
tive products, equity investors and bankers
should entertain the idea of eliminating risk
with the demonstrated power of demand for
such products. Providing developers with
more opportunities for subordinate debt such
as mezzanine loans could help make proj-
ects more viable and would promise healthy
returns. A product with clear demand in the
marketplace will create new opportunities;
this could include a REIT specializing in small
units, or a crowd-source funding opportunity
for housing young professionals in cities.
Land, Labor, and Entitlement Costs
Planners and policymakers should address
the enhanced costs of development driven
by costs of land, labor, and entitlement.
Such high costs often render projects in
prime locations of cities not viable. If a city
is to be successful, developers must be able
to provide all ends of the spectrum, from af-
fordable housing to innovative office space.
They need to be able to build affordably and
efficiently.
With the high cost of land, developers have
few options about what to build. Cities should
consider creating more RFPs (requests for
proposals) using city owned land to encour-
age development of innovative housing
types, such as what New York City did with
its “adAPT NYC” RFP for micro-apartments.
Allowing higher densities on such land and
selling it at a discount to the right developer
can be a good long-term investment for eco-
nomic development of a city. It will create
housing for middle-income workers, help
retain young professionals, and stimulate
the economy and safety of a neighborhood
by introducing 24/7 living accommodations.
Some might question the availability of land
68
in cities, but when considering the number
of parking lots and dilapidated low-rise build-
ings scattered throughout urban areas, the
opportunity for high-density infill housing
close to transit becomes more of a possi-
bility. Planners and policy makers have the
power to make this possibility a reality.
Cities should also consider discontinuing
their implicit support of unions and prevailing
wage requirements in cities. Construction
costs make up the largest portion of devel-
opments, and they have been rising rapidly.
Union construction costs are estimated in
some cases to be 20-30% higher than non-
union costs (Cohen, 2013). Much of this in-
flation has been attributed to inefficiencies
of unions such as how workers are compen-
sated and how jobs are allocated. Unions
have been gradually shrinking. Policymakers
should consider easing the requirements for
developers and general contractors to use
unions for certain construction projects in
cities, especially innovative and affordable
housing.
In addition, long entitlement processes and
high permit fees drive up the soft costs of
housing. Such processes are essential to the
success of a city but should be made more
efficient to help reduce the costs of housing.
Cities should work to simplify their permit-
ting processes to reduce costs for develop-
ers. San Francisco’s permitting process has
been continuously blamed for contributing to
the high cost of housing in the city (SPUR,
2013). Such an entitlement process can
render an already risky project a non-starter.
Planners and policymakers should consider
expediting projects that promise innovative
housing types and affordable housing. The
implicit costs saved by the developer, such
as carrying costs of land and consultant fees,
could translate into savings for future ten-
ants.
Housing Stock Inventory
Cities should update the inventory data of
their existing housing stock and use it to
their advantage to create better housing op-
portunities for its residents. In analyzing the
building stock of primary cities, it became
evident that cities do not have a clear picture
of what their housing stock looks like. Due
to lack of technology and proper filing in the
past, assessor records in cities are largely in-
complete. For example, housing inventory
unit counts in San Francisco are done with
the American Community Survey, which
infers assumptions from a sample of the
populations about characteristics such as
the number and type of units. This informa-
tion has a large standard deviation and does
not ask questions about specifics that would
help supply of housing meet demand. The
city of San Francisco has not historically kept
records of unit sizes but plans to add this
characteristic in 2014. Without proper and
accurate documentation of housing stock in
a city, new supply cannot sufficiently meet
current demand. Planners and policy mak-
ers should leverage new market research
and technology companies that are aggre-
gating this data. Such companies include
Trulia, Zumper, Zillow, Redfin, LiveLovely,
and AXIOMETRICS. By compiling such data,
planners and policymakers can accurately
project exactly what types of housing they
need, enabling them to create relevant poli-
+ build two and three-bedroom units will not
+ ers to build housing that caters to unrelated
Using big data to their advantage, planners and
policmakers can better understand their housing
stock, leading to better planning policy.
Source: Zumper, Axiometrics, & Trulia
69
cies and requests for proposals to help meet
the demand and bring down the high costs
of housing.
Regulate the Underground Housing
Market and Better Accommodate
Families
Planners and policymakers should address
the growing underground housing market
and the ramifications it has on family hous-
ing. More pressure should be put on land-
lords, and they should be held accountable
for rentals they post on web portals such as
Craigslist. Planners and policymakers should
consider getting a better handle on illegal
housing arrangements through policy reform
and stiff fines for landlords found in violation
of it. Planners should consider establishing
legal types of shared living accommodations
to meet the demand.
The American Community Survey does not
properly reveal the true share of households
that consist of unrelated adults living to-
gether. Planners and policy makers need to
know how many people live in a unit and at
what price so that they can make informed
decisions on housing policy. Cities should
assess the true share of their households
that are unrelated adults living together so
that they can create sound policy to allocate
proper housing for them.
Planners and Policy makers should create
new methods to ensure that families can
find affordable housing that meets their
needs in cities. Requiring developers to
suffice. The solution to this problem just
might be the opposite: encouraging develop-
adults sharing apartments that might want
to live alone instead. Another product type
that could be considered is the ‘micro-suite,’
which could accommodate many unrelated
adults that seek to share an apartment, but
do not desire ample space requirements.
further research
Upon completion of micro-apartment proj-
ects in several U.S. cities, efforts should
be made to collect empirical data regarding
their characteristics and impact on society.
The majority of information regarding the
effects of smaller apartments is hypotheti-
cal; collecting empirical data about them will
help test such hypotheses. Research con-
ducted with such projects should include:
•Impact on rents in the area. The rents
of such units should be compared with all
other similar properties in the area to de-
termine to what extent they offer an op-
tion to households of modest means.
maximizes the benefit to the community.
•Capital market opportunities for invest-
ment in innovative product types such as
micro-apartments should be further as-
sessed for risk to make equity investors
and bankers feel more comfortable with the
underwriting process. Pro-formas should
be analyzed, comps should be identified,
and demand should be weighed against
risk to help determine a viable way forward
for micro-apartments and other innova-
tive housing types that society demands.

•Demographic profiles of tenants and their

assessment of living with less square foot-
age should be collected. Conducting sur-
veys and interviews with tenants who live
in the smaller units after twelve months
will reveal what kind of effects the hous-
ing is having. Comparing their profiles
with what types of people were projected
to live there will help assess to what ex-
tent that these smaller units fill the hous-
ing gap for households of modest means.

•In-depth cost analysis regarding the goal

of affordability by design should be con-
ducted. Hard costs, soft costs, and oper-
ating costs should be compared with more
typical apartment buildings within the city
to assess financial viability of the projects.
Characteristics such as complexity in design,
construction materials, and the premium for
union labor should all be variables in the
analysis. Conducting sensitivity analysis on
the ratio of rentable square footage, amount
of common space, amenities, and their rela-
tionships to rents will help determine the op-
timal way to offer such spaces at a cost that
70
 APPENDIX A
additional adapt nyc entries

71
ADD inc. Source: HPCD
250 SF
250 SF

300 SF 400 SF

ADD inc. is known for their intricate exterior

facades, and they do not fail to disappoint with
this one.

Providing a variation in unit

sizes allows for different price
ranges, catering to different
30’-8” 51’-4” 17’-0”
5’-1”

UP DOWN

DOWN UP
4’-10”

55’-8”
6’-0”
10’-8”
5’-8”
5’-0”

37’-9”
39’-2”

14’-4” 9’-8” 14’-4” 9’-8” 14’-4” 9’-8” 14’-4” 9’-4”

The range of sizes can really be seen in the floor plate, allowing for a range of modest rents for tenants.
72
HWKN Source: HPCD

Unit contains two folding beds, one primary and

one for guests. The layout shows the challenge
Building has a ‘hat’ that contains different levels
of laying out a micro-apartment on a square
floor plan, resulting in the closet being located

Rendering with bed folded up.

75'-0"
18'-9" 37'-6" 18'-9"

UP DN
15'-0"

DN UP

DN DN

open to below
45'-0"
15'-0"

cinema
15'-0"

18'-9" 18'-9" 18'-9" 18'-9"

The architect provided amenity space in the core of the building, cinema shown here.
73
Dattner Architects Source: HPCD

1
1
3

2 2

1
3 3

Building fits well in the neighborhood, adding a

OPTION A OPTION B OPTION C

This floor plan provides flexibility in layout for

the tenant, allowing the bed to be located in
three convenient locations. The recess in the
wall on the bottom right makes a nice space for
a closet, bed, or desk.
1

Rendering shows functionality of space.

The efficiency of the jogged demising wall allows for maximum flexibility of each unit.
74
Fogarty : Fingers Source: HPCD

Exterior Rendering

The architect strategically placed the bathroom

in the center of the unit, creating to separate
spaces on each side. One floor plan shows a

Rendering showing the centrally placed bath-

room creating two nooks on each side, one for
living and the other for sleeping.

The floor plan raises questions about the efficiency of applying acute and obtuse angles to micro-apart-
ments, as they are inherently inefficient.
75
Evolve Source: HPCD

Units have expansive balconies, allowing ten-

ants access to the outdoors.

Unit has a modest kitchen to al-

low for more living space when

Circulation is placed in a central open court, providing fenestration on both sides of the units. This al-
lows for more natural light and natural ventilation.
76
Greenberg Source: HPCD

View of South West Corner

Each unit is recessed with a Units are a narrow 10’3”

Juliette balcony provided. wide, but lay out nicely.

Expansive feeling interior. TV is mounted

on the back side of the murphy bed. View to the Juliette balcony.

Long narrow units allow for one extra unit to be squeezed in as compared to some other floor plans with
77
Concrete Design Source: HPCD
Impression nighttime 35’ 10’ exterior

egress
balcony
desk
bed dressing area private terrace

9’-8” gross
unit 1
308 sf nett. living and dining entrance unit 1

bathroom kitchen communal table

bathroom

unit 2 entrance unit 2

308 sq ft netto living and dining

9’-8” gross
private terrace
bed dressing area

desk
J

Long and narrow units have fenestration on both

At night the building stays alive with the open transparent first floor
sides, allowing for natural ventilation. The bed
spaces and light fixtures that are hung in every porch on each floor

Each unit opens up to a communal porch with

shared tables.

3D view of the units shows the communal table on the porch, the ample millwork in the
units, and how furniture lays out inside.
105 ‘
interior

elevator
45’

unit 1 unit 3 unit 5 unit 7 unit 9

elevator lobby

unit 2 unit 4 unit 6 unit 8

private terraces
exterior

communal porch

egress balcony

The communal porch is an interesting approach to circulation space.

78
Method Design Source: HPCD

SLAB ABOVE
MURPHY BED

BATHROOM

KITCHEN

ENTRY
CAST STONE
EYEBROW

RAINSCREEN

WINDOW BOX

PARTITION WALL 14”x24” LIGHTS

TREE
EYEBROW
PLANTING MEDIUM

GLASS

Exploded Axonometric of Unit + ALUMINUM

A plethora of outdoor communal space is pro-

Construction Systems / Assembly.

vided to tenants. Units are provided with plenty of natural light, a Ju-
liette balcony, and a tree outside each apartment.

Units are laid out densely around a communal amenity on each floor, library shown here.
79
Micro Green Source: HPCD
FROSTED GLASS PARTITION

WET ROOM

BATHROOM SINK

STAINLESS STEEL CABINETRY

STORAGE BOX
LOW STORAGE CABINET

MURPHY BED

KITCHENETTE

Vegetation provided on the balconies and

communal space creates a nice aesthetic from BALCONY

PLANTER

TYPICAL UNIT PLAN

SCALE: 1/4” = 1’-0”

A mobile & multi-functional box housing stor-

age and a murphy bed allow for flexibility inside
the unit. Juliette balconies provide a nice access

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

105'-0"
8'-6" 24'-3" 15'-9" 22'-6" 22'-6" 11'-7"

D
13'-3"

295 sf
C
255 sf
45'-0"
21'-4"

255 sf
B 260 sf 260 sf 260 sf 260 sf 260 sf 260 sf
UP DN
10'-5"

7'-0"

Smaller units averaging 260 square feet allow for a higher ratio of units per acre.
80
Cooper Carry Source: HPCD

The building offers many communal balconies

on the roof and on each floor.

Each unit has a little variation on each floor.

The rectangular layout feels spacious from the

inside.

Units are laid out efficiently & a common balcony and lounge is provided on each floor.
81
HELIxs SRC/Studio MDA Source: HPCD

Building has angled Mobile box that houses a bed,

bands around the couch, and table offers flex-
exterior. ibility to the units.

3D views of the unit shows the multi-functionality of the space.

Identical floor plans are repeated on each floor for simplicity of construction.
82
Loci Architecture Source: HPCD

MICRO UNIT
Some units have balconies while the rooftop (GROSS) 333 SF (GROSS)
deck is a communal area for all residents. 271SF (NET)

BALCONY

Long and narrow

unit with a double
sided kitchen shown.

14'-4" 15'-9"

UP DN
TRASH STAIR STAIR
MICRO UNIT A B MICRO UNIT
CHUTE ELEV A ELEV B
DN UP
319SF (GROSS) 307 SF (GROSS)
17'-4"

17'-3"

272 SF (NET) 263 SF (NET)

45'-0"

23'-3"
25'-5"

STUDIO MICRO UNIT MICRO UNIT STUDIO

BALCONY

MICRO UNIT 349 SF (GROSS) 333 SF (GROSS) MICRO UNIT

433 SF (GROSS) 433 SF (GROSS)
375 SF (NET) 271SF (NET) 271SF (NET) 375 SF (NET)
288 SF (GROSS) 288 SF (GROSS)
253 SF (NET) 253 SF (NET)

BALCONY BALCONY BALCONY

15'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 10'-2" 15'-2"

75'-0"

Each floor has 6 micro-apartments and 2 studios, with three different layouts for the
83
references
“2012.0237U.pdf.” 2013. Accessed December 4. http://commissions.sfplanning.org/
cpcpackets/2012.0237U.pdf.

“A Short History of Boston’s South End.” 2013. Accessed December 6. http://www.south-end-

boston.com/History.

“ADA.gov Homepage.” 2013. Accessed October 22. http://www.ada.gov/.

“Affordable by Design | SPUR.” 2013. Accessed November 7. http://www.spur.org/publica-

tions/library/report/affordablebydesign_112107.

“AMF Development Targets Millennials with California Micro Units | Multi-Housing News
Online.” 2013. Accessed November 1. http://www.multihousingnews.com/news/amf-develop-
ment-targets-millennials-with-california-micro-units/1004076024.html.

“Article II Chapter 8 - Art02c08.pdf.” 2013. Accessed December 6. http://www.nyc.gov/html/

dcp/pdf/zone/art02c08.pdf.

“Average Rent For A Studio In San Francisco: Over $2,300 A Month.” 2013. SocketSite. Ac-
cessed November 9. http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2013/08/average_rent_for_a_studio_
in_san_francisco_is_over_2300.html.

Bahamón, Alejandro. 2005. Small Apartments / Alejandro Bahamón. New York, N.Y. : Collins
Design, 2005.

“BeyondChron: San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily News » San Francisco May Finally Stop
Illegal Apartment Rentals.” 2013. Accessed November 1. http://www.beyondchron.org/news/
index.php?itemid=10048.

bhollingsworth. 2013. “Living in a Shoebox: Cities, Suburbs Relax Zoning for ‘Micro Apart-
ments’ | CNS News.” August 20. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/
living-shoebox-cities-suburbs-relax-zoning-micro-apartments.

Boonbanjerdsri, Kimberlee, and Institute of Technology Massachusetts. 2012. Capsule Homes:

Creating Space Within Space.

Bosma, Koos, Dorine van Hoogstraten, and Martijn Vos. 2000. Housing for the Millions : John
Habraken and the SAR (1960-2000) / Koos Bosma, Dorine van Hoogstraten, Martijn Vos. Rotter-
dam : NAI Publishers ; New York, NY : DAP/Distributed Art Publishers [distributor], c2000.

84
“Boston Backs Development of Smaller Living Units - Business - The Boston Globe.” 2013.
Accessed November 1. http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/07/25/boston-backs-devel-
opment-smaller-living-units/fRdGirr9DkCplNgfXu6GSI/story.html.

Brand, Stewart. 1994. How Buildings Learn : What Happens after They’re Built / Stewart Brand.
New York, NY : Viking, 1994.

Burchell, Robert W. 2005. Sprawl Costs : Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development / Rob-
ert W. Burchell ... [et Al.]. Washington, DC : Island Press, c2005.

Bureau, U. S. Census. 2013. “American FactFinder - Results.” Accessed November 19. http://
factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?fpt=table.

“Central City SRO Collaborative Part of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc.” 2013. Accessed
November 7. http://www.ccsro.org/.

Ching, Frank, and Steven R. Winkel. 2012. Building Codes Illustrated : a Guide to Understanding
the 2012 International Building Code / Francis Ching, Steven Winkel. Building Codes Illustrated:
6. Hoboken, New Jersey : Wiley, [2012].

Cohen, Hope. 2013. “The High Price of Union Construction: Fix Work Rules or Jobs Will Van-
ish.” NY Daily News. Accessed December 5. http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/high-price-
union-construction-fix-work-rules-jobs-vanish-article-1.109244.

“Cost Cutters - Multifamily Executive Magazine Page 1 of 2.” 2013. Accessed October 29.
http://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/construction/cost-cutters_1.aspx.

“Craigslist | About > Scams.” 2013a. Accessed November 30. http://www.craigslist.org/about/

scams.
———. 2013b. Accessed November 30. http://www.craigslist.org/about/scams.

“Currenthvspress.pdf.” 2013. Accessed October 24. http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/

currenthvspress.pdf.

“Developer Begins Building Micro Housing in Seaport - The Boston Globe.” 2013. Accessed
November 1. http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2012/07/27/developer_begins_
build_micro_housing_in_seaport/.

“Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online.” 2013. Accessed December 8. http://

www.merriam-webster.com/.

“DPD Director’s Rule 6-2004 - Small Efficiency Dwelling Units - DR2004-6.pdf.” 2013. Ac-
cessed November 1. http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/codes/dr/DR2004-6.pdf.

Edminster, Ann V. 2009. Energy Free: Homes for a Small Planet. 1st ed. San Rafael, CA: Green
Building Press.
85
“Entry Level Salary in San Francisco, CA | Indeed.com.” 2013. Accessed November 30. http://
www.indeed.com/salary/q-Entry-Level-l-San-Francisco,-CA.html.

“Euromonitor International - Analysis.” 2013a. Accessed October 20. http://www.portal.euro-

monitor.com.libproxy.mit.edu/Portal/Pages/Search/SearchResultsList.aspx.
———. 2013b. Accessed October 20. http://www.portal.euromonitor.com.libproxy.mit.edu/Por-
tal/Pages/Search/SearchResultsList.aspx.

Firley, Eric. 2009. The Urban Housing Handbook. Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

“First Look at New Micro-Apartment by LifeEdited.” 2013. TreeHugger. Accessed November

26. http://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/first-look-new-micro-apartment-lifeedited.html.

“Flexible Micro-Unit Designs Appeal to Gen Yers.” 2013. MultifamilyExecutive. Accessed

November 20. http://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/multifamily-building/flexible-micro-unit-
designs-appeal-to-gen-yers.aspx.

Friedman, Avi. 2012. Fundamentals of Sustainable Dwellings / Avi Friedman. Washington, DC :
Island Press, c2012.

Friedman, Lawrence M. 1968. Government and Slum Housing; a Century of Frustration [by]
Lawrence M. Friedman. Rand McNally Political Science Series. Chicago, Rand McNally [1968].

“Full Text of ‘Tenement House Reform in New York, 1834-1900’.” 2013a. Accessed October
22. http://archive.org/stream/tenementhouseref00veilrich/tenementhouseref00veilrich_djvu.txt.
———. 2013b. Accessed October 22. http://archive.org/stream/tenementhouseref00veilrich/
tenementhouseref00veilrich_djvu.txt.

Gauer, James, and Catherine Tighe. 2004. The New American Dream : Living Well in Small
Homes / by James Gauer ; Photographs by Catherine Tighe. New York : Monacelli Press, 2004.

“General Laws: CHAPTER 140, Section 22.” 2013. Accessed December 6. https://malegisla-
ture.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section22.

Glaeser, Edward, and Joseph Gyourko. 2002. “Zoning’s Steep Price.” Regulation 25 (3): 24.

“Goldman Explains Why The Amount Of Total Student Loan Debt Has Quadrupled Since The
Year 2000.” 2013. Business Insider. Accessed December 7. http://www.businessinsider.
com/goldman-explains-why-the-amount-of-total-student-loan-debt-has-quadrupled-since-the-
year-2000-2012-4.

Harvard Joint Center for Housing. 2013. “The State of the Nations Housing 2013”. Annual 3.
Demographic Drivers.

Hayden, Dolores. 2002. Redesigning the American Dream : the Future of Housing, Work, and
Family Life / Dolores Hayden. New York : W.W. Norton, c2002.
86
“Here Comes a New Generation of Tech Workers.” 2013. Accessed November 26. http://www.
noevalleyvoice.com/2012/March/Tech.htm.

Hinshaw, Mark L. 2007. True Urbanism : Living in and Near the Center / Mark L. Hinshaw. Chi-
cago : American Planning Association, 2007.

“Home | Ashrae.org.” 2013. Accessed October 22. https://www.ashrae.org/.

“Housing Changing Households: Regulatory Challenges for Micro-Units and Accessory Dwell-
ing Units by John Infranca :: SSRN.” 2013. Accessed November 1. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=2339136.

Housing for Niche Markets : Capitalizing on Changing Demographics / Urban Land Institute.
2005. Washington, D.C. : Urban Land Institute, c2005.

“How Big Is a House? Average House Size by Country.” 2013. Accessed November 8. http://
shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house.

“How Changes in the Nation’s Age and Household Structure Will Reshape Housing Demand in
the 21st Century - Demographic_trends.pdf.” 2013. Accessed October 20. http://www.huduser.
org/Publications/PDF/demographic_trends.pdf.

“How to Find a Room/roommate on Craigslist (and Avoid the Freaks).” 2013. Accessed Novem-
ber 30. http://www.brickunderground.com/blog/2012/06/an_insiders_guide_to_finding_a_room-
roommate_on_craigslist_and_avoiding_the_freaks.

“HPD - Developers - adAPT NYC Request for Proposals.” 2013. Accessed December 8. http://
www.nyc.gov/html/hpd/html/developers/HPD-adAPT-NYC-RFP.shtml.

“IBGE :: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística.” 2013. Accessed November 26. http://
www.ibge.gov.br/english/estatistica/populacao/censo2010/calendario.shtm.

“IBISWorld US - Industry, Company and Business Research Reports and Information.” 2013.
Accessed November 10. http://clients1.ibisworld.com/reports/us/industry/productsandmarkets.
aspx?entid=1349.

“Illegal Conversions NYC | Affordable Housing NYC.” 2013. Accessed November 3. http://the-
realdeal.com/blog/2013/10/14/affordable-housing-advocates-push-to-loosen-illegal-conversion-
rules/.

“Income Limits | HUD USER.” 2013. Accessed November 19. http://www.huduser.org/portal/

datasets/il.html.

“Into Thin Air | SF Bay Guardian.” 2013. Accessed November 3. http://www.sfbg.

com/2013/08/06/thin-air.

87
“Is Small Beautiful Again? The Sudden Interest in Micro-Apartments.” 2013. Urban Land Maga-
zine. Accessed December 6. http://urbanland.uli.org/infrastructure-transit/is-small-beautiful-
again-the-sudden-interest-in-micro-apartments/.

“It’s Official: Japanese Small Apartments Are World’s Coolest - LifeEdited.” 2013. Accessed
November 7. http://www.lifeedited.com/its-official-japanese-small-apartments-are-worlds-cool-
est/.

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. [New York] Random House
[1961].

Jodidio, Philip. 2006. Minimum Space, Maximum Living = Espace Minimum Expérience Maxi-
male. Australia: Images Publishing Group.

Kirsner, Scott. 2013. “CrashPad Sets up Communal, Short-term Living Space for Entrepreneurs
in Cambridge.” Boston.com, March 13. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/inno-
eco/2013/03/crashpad_sets_up_communal_shor.html#comments.

Klinenberg, Eric. 2012. Going Solo : the Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone
/ Eric Klinenberg. New York : Penguin Press, 2012.

Leinberger, Christopher B. 2002. “Taming Gentrification: Using Rising Values to Finance Afford-
able Housing Through ‘Value Latching’”. Brooking’s Institution.

———. 2005. “The Need for Alternatives to the Nineteen Standard Real Estate Product Types.”
Places, College of Environmental Design, UC Berkeley Places, 17 (2): 6.

———. 2008. The Option of Urbanism : Investing in a New American Dream / Christopher B.
Leinberger. Washington, DC : Island Press, c2008.

Lovins, Amory B., and Mountain Institute Rocky. 2011. Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solu-
tions for the New Energy Era. White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Green Pub.

“‘Making Room’: Why Should We Care? | CHPC New York.” 2013. Accessed October 29.
http://www.chpcny.org/2011/02/making-room-why-should-we-care/.

“Making Tenements Modern - New York Times.” 2013. Accessed October 22. http://www.
nytimes.com/1999/04/04/realestate/making-tenements-modern.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.

“Mansions for All! - LifeEdited.” 2013. Accessed November 23. http://www.lifeedited.com/

mansions-for-all/.

Mau, Bruce, and Jennifer Leonard. 2004. Massive Change / Bruce Mau with Jennifer Leonard
and the Institute Without Boundaries. London ; New York : Phaidon, 2004.

88
“Maximize Apartment Value Through Strategic Management.” 2013. Accessed November 19.
http://www.ccim.com/cire-magazine/articles/maximize-apartment-value-through-strategic-man-
agement.

“Micro Units: Perfect Pad, Imperfect Price - The Boston Globe.” 2013. BostonGlobe.com.
Accessed April 17. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/11/24/micro-units-perfect-pad-
imperfect-price/E0bP8tQkGfPRdN0rp0XmEI/story.html.

“Micro-Units May Be The Future Of Boston Housing - CBS Boston.” 2013. Accessed April 17.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/03/25/micro-units-may-be-the-future-of-boston-housing/.

Millburn, Joshua Fields. 2013. “The Minimalists.” The Minimalists. Accessed November 24.
http://www.theminimalists.com/.

Miller, John D. 2012. Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2013. Washington, DC: Price Waterhouse
Cooper and Urban Land Institute.

“Monthly Rent : Curbed SF.” 2013. Accessed November 6. http://sf.curbed.com/tags/monthly-

rent.

“More Americans Move to Cities in Past decade-Census | Reuters.” 2013. Accessed November
10. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/usa-cities-population-idUSL2E8EQ5AJ20120326.

“More Detail on New York’s Stunning Micro-Unit Competition Winner.” 2013. TreeHugger. Ac-
cessed April 17. http://www.treehugger.com/modular-design/more-detail-new-yorks-stunning-
micro-unit-competition-winner.html.

“Multiblock Underground Shared Parking.” 2013. Urban Land Magazine. Accessed November
21. http://urbanland.uli.org/economy-markets-trends/multiblock-underground-shared-parking/.

“My City Is My Living Room - LifeEdited.” 2013. Accessed December 14. http://www.lifeed-
ited.com/my-city-is-my-living-room/.

Nelson, Arthur C. 2006. “Leadership in a New Era.” Journal of American Planning Association
72 (4): 17.

———. 2013. Reshaping Metropolitan America : Development Trends and Opportunities to

2030 / Arthur C. Nelson. Metropolitan Planning + Design. Washington, DC : Island Press,
c2013.

Norwood, Graham. 2006. “The Future’s Tight...it’s Micro.” Telegraph.co.uk, December 13.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/3355325/The-futures-tight...its-micro.html.

Nuijsink, Cathelijne. 2012. How to Make a Japanese House = Nihon No Ie No Tsukurikata. Rot-
terdam: NAi Publishers.

89
“Paper.PDF - Gentrification.pdf.” 2013. Accessed October 30. http://www.brookings.edu/~/me-
dia/research/files/reports/2001/4/metropolitanpolicy/gentrification.pdf.

Peiser, Richard B., and David Hamilton. 2012. Professional Real Estate Development : the ULI
Guide to the Business / Richard B. Peiser and David Hamilton. Washington, DC : Urban Land
Institute, c2012.

“Population and Energy Consumption.” 2013. World Population Balance. Accessed November
23. http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/population_energy.

Qiu, Si Yuan, and Institute of Technology Massachusetts. 2009. SmartSpaceT̳M̳: Opportunities

for a New Real Estate Product.

Regalado, Antonio on July, and 2013. 2013. “Innovation Clusters and the Dream of Being the
Next Silicon Valley.” MIT Technology Review. Accessed December 8. http://www.technologyre-
view.com/news/516501/in-innovation-quest-regions-seek-critical-mass/.

“Rental Competition Fierce in S.F.’s Market - SFGate.” 2013. Accessed November 9. http://
www.sfgate.com/business/article/Rental-competition-fierce-in-S-F-s-market-3543722.php.

“REQUIRED MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT MIX IN RTO, RCD, NCT, DTR, AND EASTERN
NEIGHBORHOODS MIXED USE DISTRICTS.” 2013. Text. Accessed December 6. http://plan-
ning.sanfranciscocode.org/2_207.6/.

Riis, Jacob A., and Luc Sante. 1997. How the Other Half Lives : Studies Among the Tenements
of New York / Jacob A. Riis ; with an Introduction and Notes by Luc Sante. Penguin Classics.
New York : Penguin Books, 1997.

Riley, Neal J. 2013. “S.F. Supervisors Back Micro-apartments.” SFGate. Accessed November
26. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-supervisors-back-micro-apartments-4055493.
php#src=fb.

Ross, Casey | Globe Staff July, and 2013. 2013. “Boston Backs Development of Smaller Living
Units - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com. Accessed December 6. http://www.boston-
globe.com/business/2013/07/25/boston-backs-development-smaller-living-units/fRdGirr9DkC-
plNgfXu6GSI/story.html.

Ross, Casey | Globe Staff March, and 2013. 2013. “Micro Apartments a Tight Squeeze but Liv-
able - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com. Accessed December 4. http://www.bostonglobe.
com/business/2013/03/25/micro-apartments-tight-squeeze-but-livable/vDRdMnChgdhCdFOr-
mupnyN/story.html.

Said, Carolyn. 2013a. “Micro-apartment Developments on Rise in S.F.” SFGate. Accessed

November 6. http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Micro-apartment-developments-on-rise-in-
S-F-4951775.php#src=fb.

90
———. 2013b. “Micro-apartment Developments on Rise in S.F.” SFGate. Accessed Novem-
ber 30. http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Micro-apartment-developments-on-rise-in-S-
F-4951775.php#src=fb.

Salcedo, Alejandrina, Todd Schoellman, and Michèle Tertilt. 2009. Families as Roommates :
Changes in U.S. Household Size from 1850 to 2000 / Alejandrina Salcedo, Todd Schoellman, Mi-
chèle Tertilt. NBER Working Paper Series: Working Paper 15477. Cambridge, Mass. : National
Bureau of Economic Research, c2009.

“San Francisco County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau.” 2013. Accessed October 29.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06075.html.

“San Francisco Likely Has Tens of Thousands of People Living Under the Stairs | Development |
San Francisco | San Francisco Examiner.” 2013. Accessed November 1. http://www.sfexaminer.
com/sanfrancisco/san-francisco-likely-has-tens-of-thousands-of-people-living-under-the-stairs/
Content?oid=2337031.

San Francisco Planning Department. 2012. “San Francisco Housing Inventory”. San Francisco,
CA.

“San Francisco Rental Construction Soars - San Francisco Business Times.” 2013. Accessed
October 29. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/print-edition/2013/05/17/san-francisco-
rental-construction-soars.html?page=all.

“San Francisco Rental Market Drives Applicants to Extremes | KQED.” 2013. KQED Public Me-
dia. Accessed November 30. http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2012/10/23/109957/.

“San Francisco Rents Rattle Tenants, Excite Investors - WSJ.com.” 2013. Accessed October
29. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324694904578602013087282582.

“San Francisco Supervisors Approve 220 Square Foot Apartments « CBS San Francisco.” 2013.
Accessed November 1. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/11/20/san-francisco-supervisors-
approve-220-square-foot-apartments/.

says, Bertram Mancine. 2013. “San Francisco-Based Zumper Makes the Apartment Rental Pro-
cess More Intuitive.” Tech Cocktail. Accessed November 30. http://tech.co/san-francisco-based-
zumper-makes-the-apartment-rental-process-more-intuitive-2012-10.

“sbresguide2.PDF - California_Building_Code.pdf.” 2013a. Accessed October 22. http://san-

bruno.ca.gov/comdev_images/California_Building_Code.pdf.

———. 2013b. Accessed October 22. http://sanbruno.ca.gov/comdev_images/California_Build-

ing_Code.pdf.
Schittich, Christian. 2004. High-density Housing : Concepts, Planning, Construction / Christian
Schittich (ed.). In Detail. München : Edition Detail ; Basel ; Boston, Mass. : Birkhäuser, 2004.

91
Schumacher, E. F. 1989. Small Is Beautiful: Economics as If People Mattered. New York: Peren-
nial Library.
“SF’s Illegal In-law Units Could Number In Tens of Thousands | NBC Bay Area.” 2013. Ac-
cessed November 3. http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SFs-Illegal-Inlaws-Could-Number-
In-Tens-of-Thousands-206693571.html.

“Sfgov.org | San Francisco Fire Department: Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotel Fire Safety.”
2009. January 17.

“SFMOMA | Explore Modern Art | Our Collection | Jacob August Riis | Lodgers in a Crowded
Bayard Street Tenement--‘Five Cents a Spot’.” 2013. Accessed October 22. http://www.sfmo-
ma.org/explore/collection/artwork/19465.

Shafer, Paul, and Jean Weiner. 1984. Small Space Design : Remodeling Apartments for Mulitple
Uses / Paul Shafer and Jean Weiner. New York, N.Y. : Van Nostrand Reinhold, c1984.

“Sleeping Giants: 12 Sky-High Abandoned Buildings | Urbanist.” 2013. Accessed December 3.

http://weburbanist.com/2010/10/04/sleeping-giants-12-sky-high-abandoned-buildings/.

“SmartSpace | Panoramic Interests.” 2013. Accessed November 19. http://www.panoramic.

com/smartspace/.

“South End History.” 2013. Accessed December 6. http://www.southendhistory.org/.

“SPUR 2012-2013 Annual Report.” 2013. SPUR. Accessed December 3. http://www.spur.org/

publications/spur-report/2013-11-13/spur-2012-2013-annual-report.

“SPUR_2012-2013_Annual_Report.pdf.” 2013. Accessed December 3. http://www.spur.org/

sites/default/files/migrated/anchors/SPUR_2012-2013_Annual_Report.pdf.

“Stage 3 Properties and RoomMatchers.com Unveil Strategic Partnership at ULI.” 2013. Ac-
cessed November 30. http://www.americanownews.com/story/23909460/stage-3-properties-
and-roommatcherscom-unveil-strategic-partnership-at-uli.

Stege, Elinor Hope, and Institute of Technology Massachusetts. 2009. What Next for Accessory
Dwellings?: Getting from Bylaws to Buildings.

Stokes, Jon -Nov 20, and 5:49pm EST. 2013. “Judge Rules for Craigslist in Discriminatory
Housing Ads Case.” Ars Technica. Accessed November 30. http://arstechnica.com/tech-poli-
cy/2006/11/8257/.

“Student Accommodation London | Student Housing - Nido.” 2013. Accessed December 3.

http://www.nidostudentliving.com/.

“Sweden.se.” 2013. Sweden.se. Accessed November 10. http://sweden.se.

92
“The Big Apple Aims Smaller in Its Housing Plans.” 2013. MultifamilyExecutive. Accessed
November 20. http://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/urban-design/the-big-apple-aims-smaller-in-
its-housing-plans.aspx.

“The San Francisco Exodus | SPUR.” 2013. Accessed November 1. http://www.spur.org/

blog/2013-10-17/san-francisco-exodus.

“The Three Biggest Objections to Small Living - LifeEdited.” 2013. Accessed November 23.
http://www.lifeedited.com/objections-to-micro-apartments/.

“The Wall Street Journal.” 2013. Accessed December 7. http://blogs.wsj.com/speak-

easy/2011/09/29/will-tablets-change-the-way-we-read-and-write/.

“Time to Make Room | SPUR.” 2013. Accessed October 20. http://www.spur.org/publications/

library/article/time-make-room.

“Top 10 Priciest U.S. Cities to Rent an Apartment - CBS News.” 2013. Accessed November
20. http://www.cbsnews.com/8334-505145_162-57593520/top-10-priciest-u.s-cities-to-rent-an-
apartment/?pageNum=10.

“Tough Love: Should Boomerang Kids Pay Rent To Their Parents?” 2013. Forbes. Accessed No-
vember 23. http://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2013/10/17/tough-love-should-boomerang-
kids-pay-rent-to-their-parents/.

“Units Are Getting Smaller, But Not Everywhere.” 2013. MultifamilyExecutive. Accessed
November 20. http://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/apartment-trends/units-are-getting-smaller-
but-not-everywhere.aspx.

“Welcome To The Dollhouse: Seven Mico-Living Proposals From The adAPT NYC Competition
- Architizer.” 2013. Accessed November 1. http://architizer.com/blog/welcome-to-the-dollhouse-
seven-mico-living-proposals-from-the-adapt-nyc-competition/.

“What Is a Micro Apartment? - LifeEdited.” 2013a. Accessed November 7. http://www.lifeed-

ited.com/what-the-heck-is-a-micro-apartment/.

———. 2013b. Accessed December 8. http://www.lifeedited.com/what-the-heck-is-a-micro-

apartment/.

“What You Need To Know About Renting In San Francisco: Craigslist Edition.” 2013. Curbed SF.
Accessed November 30. http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2012/03/28/what_you_need_to_know_
about_renting_in_san_francisco_craigslist_edition.php.

“Where Can the Middle Class Afford to Buy a Home.” 2013. Tableau Software. Accessed
November 17. http://public.tableausoftware.com/shared/FG5W9PQPG?:embed=y&:host_
url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublic.tableausoftware.com%2F&:toolbar=yes&:animate_
transition=yes&:display_static_image=yes&:display_spinner=yes&:display_
93
overlay=yes&:display_count=yes&:loadOrderID=0.

Whitman, Walt, Emory Holloway, and Ralph Adimari. 1936. New York Dissected, by Walt Whit-
man; a Sheaf of Recently Discovered Newspaper Articles by the Author of Leaves of Grass;
Introduction and Notes by Emory Holloway and Ralph Adimari; Illustrated from Old Prints and
Photographs. New York, R. R. Wilson, inc., 1936.

Wilson, Lindsay. 2013. “How Big Is a House? Average House Size by Country.” Shrinkthatfoot-
print.com. Accessed November 19. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/how-big-is-a-house.

Wong, Venessa. 2013. “Micro-Apartments in the Big City: A Trend Builds.” BusinessWeek:
Innovation_and_design, March 14. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/micro-
apartments-in-the-big-city-a-trend-builds.

Yadegar, Daniel Aziz, and Institute of Technology Massachusetts. 2012. Affordable Housing and
Upward Mobility: Bridging the Divide at The Community Builders, Inc.

“You Can’t Build What People Want: Building Codes Vs Affordability -- Rooflines.” 2013. Ac-
cessed November 3. http://www.rooflines.org/3106/you_cant_build_what_people_want_build-
ing_codes_vs_affordability/.

Young People and Housing: Transitions, Trajectories, and Generational Fractures. 2013. 1st ed.
Housing and Society Series. London ; New York: Routledge.

“Zoning Ordinance Maps - City of Cambridge, Massachusetts.” 2013. Accessed December 6.

http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/zoninganddevelopment/Zoning/Maps.aspx.

94