Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mit
Mit
by
Zachary Shore
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
February, 2014
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
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
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.
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
400,000
200,000
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 mortgages. During this time, children also
designed our cities around past demograph- became used to having their own room.
ics and their housing demands. As the Yale According to the 1960 U.S. Census, the av-
historian Dolores Hayden has shown, “most erage family had 2.4 children and 0.7 bed-
modern cities and, especially, suburbs were rooms per child, suggesting that many chil-
designed for nuclear families in which the dren shared bedrooms. In contrast, in 2000,
mother stayed at home to do domestic work the average family had 1.9 children and 1.1
while the father labored elsewhere; so, too, bedrooms per child (Klinenberg, 2012). The
were most residential units, both apartments production of more space spread from the
and stand-alone houses” (Klinenberg, 2012). suburbs back into cities, where apartments
The namesake of residential buildings carries were produced with unusually high square
with it familial ties, such as ‘single-family’ footages, tending to be built like suburban
homes and ‘multi-family’ buildings.(“‘Mak- homes, a practice that comes at a high cost
ing Room’: Why Should We Care? | CHPC in the urban core. Given such development
New York” 2013) Currently, people search- trends, Americans have grown accustomed
ing for housing often have to adjust to these to an unusually high square footage per per-
existing housing types by making monetary son, commanding an average of 832 square
or locational sacrifices. According to the Ur- feet per person. In contrast, other countries
ban Land Institute, “aiming for a mass mar- get by with much less average square foot-
ket with a limited number of tried-and-true age per person; Japan has 379 square feet,
housing products—the products that were the United Kingdom has 356 square feet,
once the profit-producing staples of most Russia has 237 square feet, and China has
developers—is no longer a viable develop- 215 square feet per person (Wilson, 2013).
ment strategy. This is because the market Because of the growing expectation of high
has become too fragmented, too diverse” square footage in the U.S., developers have
(Urban Land Institute, 2005). built increasingly larger households, and as
07
a result, the current supply of housing avail- to meet the demand of single-person house-
able is based on past, not current, demand. holds. The rate of production for studio and
one-bedroom units has increased with the
Because developers, who look for ways to demand. However, current policy restricts
profit, tend to be on the leading edge of un- developers from fully meeting the demand
derstanding demographic change, they have for units of modest means. As a result, cit-
attempted to change the supply of homes ies face supply constriction for smaller units
based on changing demographics. With that meet the needs of their middle-income
high costs of land and construction com- residents.
bined with zoning code limitations on what
can be built, they have been doing their best
Average New Home Size by Country (Square Feet)
United States-2,480
Germany-1,173
Sweden-893
United Kingdom-818
China-646
Hong Kong-484
Source: Shrinkthatfootprint.com
08
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.
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
(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
1,600
Number of Persons (thousands)
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
13
ii. The Rise of Single-Person
Households
The most remarkable demographic shift that are comprised of single people (American
has impacted housing demand, one that Community Survey, 2012). Cities in par-
has had the most profound effect on the ticular have seen a burgeoning presence of
mismatch between housing supply and de- single households, accounting for 48% (Eu-
mand, is the rise of the single-person house- romonitor International, 2013) of all house-
hold over the past fifty years. This demo- holds on the island of Manhattan and 39.4%
graphic shift has resulted from young people in the San Francisco Bay Area (American
delaying marriage until a later age, a divorce Community Survey, 2012). According to Ar-
rate hovering around 50%, the move away thur Nelson, of the 26.3 million households
from traditional family structures, and more added by 2030, “53% will be the growth of
women entering lifelong careers (Euromoni- households among single people, including
tor International, 2013). By 2025, the num- Boomers who lose their partners and the
ber of single households will equal the num- emergence of Millennials, who will be most-
ber of households containing families with ly in their twenties in 2030” (Nelson, 2013).
children, each representing just below thirty
percent of households (Leinberger, 2008). In 1950 one in three adults were single.
This household type has come to be known Sixty years later, according to the 2010 Cen-
as the SINKS (Single Income No Kids). In sus, 48% of all adults were single, but not
1950, 9% of the U.S. population lived alone. necessarily living alone (Infranca, 2013).
Today, 27.6% of all households in the U.S. These single people consist of a broad array
30%
Percentage of Single-Person Households
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012
Year
1950
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 of Americans held eighty percent of the na-
housing, driven primarily by single-person tion’s wealth. In 2009, the wealthiest fifth of
households, will further exacerbate the Americans held almost ninety-nine percent
mismatch between housing supply and de- of the nation’s wealth (Nelson, 2013). The
mand. It is important to note that housing primary reason for this shift is that much of
for single-person households has tradition- the nation’s wealth was in the real estate eq-
ally been rental housing, primarily because uity of American single-family homes prior
single-person households tend to view their to the recent great recession of 2008. The
situation as temporary. In urban areas, stu- aftermath of the recession clearly exacerbat-
dios are largely rental housing stock. Ac- ed the wealth disparity in the country by de-
cording to the 2012 American Community creasing the value of many people’s homes.
Survey; in New York City, 87% of studios In addition, banks have become increasingly
are occupied by renters, in Boston, 89% cautious of releasing money to people with
of studios are occupied by renters, and in little wealth, allowing fewer people quali-
San Francisco, 96% of studios are occupied fied to buy homes in the U.S. Furthermore,
by renters (American Community Survey,
2012). Although some choose to buy, studio Single-Person Households Will Account for Almost
units are not viewed as permanent places Half of All Renter Growth Over the Next Decade
of residence. They serve as a vital source Share of Projected Renter Growth (Percent)
of housing for people at transitional stages Married without Children
in life. Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing 18%
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010 2011 2012
Decade Year
Source: Harvard Joint Center for Housing
17
Another barrier to homeownership will be debt outstanding increased by 39 percent
the inordinate amount of student debt that between the start of 2005 and the end of
young people carry with them today due 2012, with the average amount rising from
to increased tuitions at colleges around the $13,300 to $21,400” (Harvard Joint Center
country. Over the past decade, student for Housing, 2013). With this kind of debt,
debt has nearly quadrupled (Business In- many members of this generation will not
sider, 2013). According to the Federal Re- qualify for a mortgage until later in life. This
serve Bank of New York, “the number of will drive a large majority of households to-
young adults under age 30 with student loan wards rental housing options.
$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
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
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
them to live there. Currently, rather than pay Annual Salary is correlated to monthly rent, showing
that some cities are more manageable than others for
high rents for downtown apartments, many single-person households.
choose to live outside the city, known as the Source: LiveLovely Data Collection
19
‘drive until you qualify’ housing solution. Al- $60,000. If this person aims to spend 33%
though this reduces rent costs, it increases of her income on rent, she has a rental bud-
transportation costs. Transportation is the get of $1,667 per month. What can $1,667
second largest expense for households in get her if she wants to live alone? SROs in
the United States, which spend an average the city run by a non-profit cost between
of 18% on transportation needs each year. If $400 and $600 (ccsro.org, 2013), but they
there were more affordable options in cities have long wait lists and her income disquali-
that were close to transit, carbon emissions
could be reduced while making people hap- San Francisco Rent Gap for Single-Person Households
pier and more connected at the same time $3,500
(Nelson, 2013). $3,000 Average One-Bedroom
$2,500
Monthly Rent
Average Studio
Using San Francisco as an example, it is help-
ful to consider the options on a monetary lev- $2,000
Median rents for one-bedroom apartments across the San Francisco Peninsula.
Source: Zumper data collection
20
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.
$3,000
$2,500
Monthly Rent
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$3,000 $108,000
$86,278
$2,225 $72,888 $81,000
$1,500 $54,000
$750 $27,000
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.
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.
$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
26
A studio apartment is defined more vaguely: SALON
ATTIC GARDEN
17’
24’
12’
33’ W/D
29’ Murphy Bed
25’
W/D W/D
Multi-Functional Furniture
Bedroom
Bedroom
Bathroom
25’ 25’
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 At 2,480 square feet as its average home
in other countries for many years. Square size (U.S. Census Bureau), the United States
footage is not so much an objective issue has the highest average square footage for
as it is a cultural one (Lifeedited.com, 2013). homes in the world, with other countries pal-
Many countries in the world did not experi- ing by comparison. This makes international
ence the post-war suburban flight to the ex- cities effective case studies on the topic of
tent that the United States did. As a result, efficient housing. Foreign cities with high-
these countries did not have the single-fam- density housing can provide useful models
ily home mentality that became viral in the for how to build alternative housing to meet
United States in the 1950s. Many countries the needs of city residents. Dwelling units
did not have access to subsidized gasoline under 400-square feet that cater to single-
and home mortgages, making sprawl an person households are a prevalent form of
expensive proposition. Many countries are real estate outside the United States.
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)
United States-2,480
Germany-1,173
Sweden-893
United Kingdom-818
China-646
Hong Kong-484
Source: Shrinkthatfootprint.com
31
I. Sweden
85%
of the population
lives in cities Another view of efficiency apartment in Sweden
Source: Sweden.se Source: Innerstadsspecialisten
32
II. Japan
Micro-flat interior
Source: Nido Properties
United States
2,480 square feet
United Kingdom
818 square feet
Source: PBS
36
II. adAPT NYC Request for Proposal Responses for Micro-Apartments
Rogers Stirk Harbour & Partners Source: HPCD
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"
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
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
Each unit lays out roughly the same, each with either a balcony or a Juliette balcony.
38
nArchitects Source: HPCD
image: mir.no
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
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
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 For example, many cities in the United
feasibility of developing micro-apartments in States establish minimum square footage
cities. Many of the zoning and building code requirements for newly developed housing
regulations were put in place decades ago units. In New York City, according to Article
to mitigate past problems such as ridding II: Residence District Regulations, Chapter
neighborhoods of tenement housing, densi- 8 – The Quality Housing Program, Section
ty, and lack of parking in a car-driven society. 28-21: “A dwelling unit shall have an area of
Today, the issues are different. Given other at least 400 square feet of floor area” (nyc.
innovative building and zoning regulations gov, 2013). Boston planners typically allow
put in place over the years, progressive plan- units as small as 450 square feet near transit
ners and policymakers are not as concerned hubs, and just recently are allowing experi-
with the possibility of tenement housing, mental 350 square foot units in the city’s “In-
the effect of density in the urban core, or novation District” (The Boston Globe, 2013).
the lack of parking spaces. The issues they
face today are more related to housing defi- Currently, many cities also have require-
cits, rising rents, constrained supply, climate ments for the minimum land area per dwell-
change, and lack of affordable housing. ing unit or maximum dwelling units per acre.
Many of these problems are the direct result This means that a building has a limit on how
of the antiquated zoning laws. many units it can have within its otherwise-
permitted envelope. San Francisco, Boston,
Developers need more flexibility in what and New York all have a similar mechanism,
they can build in order to accommodate intended to limit high-density housing. Den-
the needs of an economically diversifying sity limits typically vary by neighborhood.
population. More affordable housing can be Few developers can afford to build less than
achieved if certain zoning and building code the allowable square footage with costs of
regulations are amended to allow for more land so high in cities (Infranca, 2013). This
compact units, higher levels of density in drives developers to build out all of their
buildings, less parking, and alternative re- units at whatever square footage allows
quirements in regard to unit mix.
44
financing barriers
In addition to zoning laws, securing financing sulted in what is referred to as the ‘nineteen
for a project consisting of micro-apartments standard real estate product types’ that Wall
is also a barrier for many developers. A devel- Street knows, understands, and can be trad-
oper trying to raise capital for an innovative ed in large quantities. Any deviation by build-
project such as one with micro-apartments ing a product that was ‘non-conforming’, a
would have difficulty getting financing from term of art on Wall Street, meant that it was
lenders and equity sources due to their un- not one of the nineteen and that you either
familiarity with the product. These sources did not get financing or, if you did, it was far
of money have an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix more expensive” (Leinberger, 2008).
it” mentality when it comes to housing prod-
ucts. To mitigate their risk, lenders prefer Given the familiarity of underwriters
the developer to stick with something that on Wall Street to the standard product types,
conforms to other successful projects in it has been much easier for developers seek-
the area. Some believe it might be time for ing financing to make their projects conform
banks to assess the actual demand for hous- to the standard specifications. For the same
ing in cities and realize the potential for suc- reason, conforming product types are more
cess of new types of housing (Leinberger attractive to institutional buyers. Noncon-
2008). forming product types are typically only of
interest to local buyers, a much smaller pool.
The real estate financial system in the U.S. This makes building anything with variation
adheres to well-understood decision-making difficult on a large scale. In the interest of
rules. As a result of the 1980s real estate securing financing they can count on, most
boom, followed by a downturn, the RTC developers tend to produce conforming
(Resolution Trust Corporation) stepped up to product types.
remedy the upside-down financial system.
The market was reintroduced to REITs and
other ways to provide liquidity to a histori- The Nineteen Standard Real Estate Product Types 2006
cally illiquid asset type. At that point, real INDUSTRIAL APARTMENT
estate joined bonds, stocks, and cash as the Build to Suit Suburban Garden
most widely held and most valued forms of Warehouse Urban High-Density
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.
25’ Yard
Hall
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.
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
25’ Yard
Hall
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 second reason critics believe that small In the end, the overall effects of revitalization
apartments increase the cost of land has to hinge on policy. Effective policies can coun-
do with density. Typically, higher allowable ter-balance market forces to balance gen-
densities increase the cost of land, as the trification. With such policies in place, the
opportunity for the developer is enhanced. results of revitalization can be remarkable.
However, as a subsequent section address- In a city that lacks good policy to promote
es, developing these high-density buildings mixed income housing, questions about the
does not necessarily promise higher returns future of affordable housing opportunities
to the developer as compared with building are raised.
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
IV. Threatening the Supply of
Affordable Housing and SROs
Alternative theory has been put forth that many fear that the growing need for single-
the introduction of micro-apartments will person housing might spark a development
threaten the supply of single room occupan- trend of converting SROs to ‘micro-apart-
cy units (SROs) and the production of afford- ments.’ The locations of SROs are ideal
able housing. sites for high-density, small apartment devel-
opment. Although the projects would be a
Single Room Occupancy Units significant undertaking, they could potential-
SROs have long served as a form of afford- ly offer healthy returns to developers willing
able housing for people who live alone or to take them on. With sound claims, the act
who are at transitional stages in their lives. of converting SROs into market rate apart-
These are multi-tenant buildings with a num- ments has become an issue of controversy,
ber of private rooms occupied by one or two as the SROs are such an important ingredi-
people, and most commonly have a shared ent to the healthy complexion of a city.
bathroom and no kitchen. As mentioned The best solution to such concerns is enact-
previously, SROs are essentially what board- ing policy to preserve existing SROs. San
ing houses were in the past, taking on the Francisco passed an ordinance in 1980 disal-
name SROs in the 1930s in large cities such lowing the use of SRO hotels to tourist use,
as San Francisco and New York. but this did not stop their conversion to other
Given their central locations, SROs became uses. In 2003, the city passed an ordinance
quite popular for renovation during the urban to preserve all SROs, disallowing conver-
renewal process in cities, beginning a few sions of SRO buildings to private apartments
decades ago. The supply of SRO’s has been or hotels. In San Francisco, the Central City
“dwindling for decades, largely because SRO Collaborative was formed to help pre-
they’ve tended to be located near downtown serve the SROs that remained (ccsro.org,
areas that have been revitalized and owners 2013). In San Francisco, there are about 500
across the country have sold their buildings SRO buildings that are home to more than
to developers or converted them into luxury 30,000 people, or roughly 4% of the popula-
properties on their own” (Klinenberg, 2012). tion (ccsro.org, 2013).
SROs were converted at a rapid pace before San Francisco is a good example of a city
people began to notice. Many stakeholders that has addressed the concern of convert-
around such projects did not raise concern ing these buildings to other uses. They sim-
on the topic, as they often subtly objected ply passed policy measures to disallow the
to the presence of their marginal tenants in conversion of the buildings. This is an easy
their neighborhoods. The trend continued, policy change for any city to put in place if it
and the effects of evicting SRO residents be- is concerned about losing this housing stock
gan to take hold. Many of the tenants were to other uses. SRO housing should by no
on the verge of homelessness, and when means be replaced by apartments, as it is
the SROs were bought and turned over, clear that it serves an important need.
these tenants found themselves left with
few other options, and many often took ref- Affordable Housing
uge on the streets of the neighborhood.
A similar alternative theory has been put
Given the strong similarity to SRO units, forth about the production of new affordable
55
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).
Alternative theories have been suggested the tax base for cities, since they pay taxes
in the media that the development of micro- and do not use many of the services provid-
apartments will attract transient and mar- ed, such as schools. In addition, the choice
ginal people to neighborhoods. Historically, to live alone benefits the area’s economy.
single-person households have had negative Many people who live alone are immersed
connotations around them. In 1950, there in social life, and their higher average use of
were few single-person households and digital social media keeps them even more
people who lived in them were considered engaged (Klinenberg, 2012). People who live
unglamorous. Rooming houses, known as alone tend to become more socially active
‘plain hotels for plain people,’ were precur- than people who choose not to live alone.
sors to the SROs of today. The perception Cities with high numbers of people who live
then and now is that small units house tran- alone tend to have more engagement from
sient people, the destitute, or substance citizens in public life. Those who live alone
abusers. Many influential writers over time are “twice as likely as married people to go
have contributed to labeling the lifestyles as- to bars and dance clubs, they eat out in res-
sociated with these urban dwellers, such as taurants more often, are more likely to take
Walt Whitman with his famous essay enti- art or music classes, attend public events,
tled, “Wicked Architecture,” an essay about and go shopping with friends” (Klinenberg,
rooming houses and what types of vagrants 2012). For those who make such stereo-
they attract (Whitman, 1936). In contrast, types about single-person households, it is
Michael Pyatok, an Oakland-based architect, important to consider that any household’s
recalls “an earlier era when SROs served as composition can change overnight due to
second homes for the wealthy and safe ha- external factors such as divorce, death in a
vens for young women who had come to cit- family, job loss, or job relocation. This single
ies for employment” (Multifamily Executive, household population consists of a diversity
2013). of people who are living alone for myriad
reasons, few of which have to do with the
When high-density developments with small stereotypes associated with them.
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).
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.
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.
COMMUNAL
CABIN
BOOKEND PLANTED TERRACE /
FITNESS ROOM
NATURALLY VENTILATED
/ DAYLIT LAUNDRY
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 Code Section 1208.4 standard of 290 square
policymakers should consider amending feet; with 220 square feet of living area plus
zoning requirements to allow developers to a separate kitchen, bathroom, and closet.
fully respond to the demographic demand
for housing in cities. Through such reform, •Land area per dwelling unit requirements
cities could allow developers to meet de- should be reduced to allow for higher-densi-
mand for alternative types of housing, taking ty, more efficient housing in cities. With land
strain off existing family housing in the city. costs so high, developers must maximize the
rentable square footage that they build. Lim-
•Minimum square footage requirement in iting how many units they can build on a site
cities should be reduced to allow for units forces them to build larger, more expensive
as small as 220 square feet in total. Given units to the point at which they meet other
technological advancements and lifestyle limitations such as height and bulk. Allow-
changes, zoning laws like New York’s 1987 ing developers to build more units inside the
requirement for 400 square-foot units are as-of-right building envelope will help reduce
no longer applicable. At least cities should the construction cost per unit, and savings
reduce unit size to the International Building can be passed on to future tenants.
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- makers should consider providing incentives
connected from the overall number of units. to developers who build small apartments
Given the shrinking household phenomenon, intended for moderate-income housing.
requiring open space in relation to the num- Such incentives could include density bo-
ber of dwelling units is no longer a sound nuses, expedited permitting, or waived per-
policy. A single-person household surely mit fees. Inclusionary zoning could also be
does not command the same need for open considered for these moderate-income units
space as a nuclear family household. Cities in exchange for a density bonus. Such a re-
with such zoning ordinances should consider quirement would not take the place of inclu-
shifting the open space requirement to cor- sionary housing for affordable housing, but
relate with overall rentable square footage rather complement it, encouraging projects
instead. with a diverse mix of options for tenants.
If planners created zoning overlay districts
•Parking requirements for residential devel- where demand for such units was high, de-
opments should be reduced, and in some velopers would respond.
cases, eliminated. A growing number of
city residents prefer to not own a car given •Planners and Policymakers should choose
their proximity to work, public transit, and optimal locations for micro-apartments.
new car-share options available. The cost of The concept works best on transit nodes
building underground parking drives up the & areas with a high concentration of public
construction costs per unit, thereby increas- amenities. Locating projects where density
ing rents for tenants. Forcing tenants who makes sense will be essential, such as ar-
choose not to drive to subsidize the costs of eas within a ten minute walking radius to a
parking for those who drive does not make primary mode of public transit. Mapping out
fiscal sense. Eliminating parking require- such locations and naming them as overlay
ments in such developments will encourage districts that encourage micro-apartment de-
city-dwellers to live close to work, reducing velopment is a good strategy.
carbon emissions associated with commut-
ing by car.
•Ceiling Height (Section 1208): Minimum •Indoor Air Quality: All building materi-
ceiling height in living areas could be amend- als used for the construction of such units
ed from 7’6” to 8’6”. should be low-VOC or better. Each unit
should also undergo a fresh air flush at the
•Sound Transmission (Section 1207): the completion of construction to clear out all
STC (sound transmission coefficient) could contaminants prior to occupancy.
be enhanced beyond the minimum require-
ment to promote more peace of mind in the •Energy Efficiency: All such developments
units. could conform to the International Energy
Conservation Code (IECC, 2012).
•Natural Light (Section 1205): Depending on
the climate zone, net exterior glazed open- Design and Programming
ing areas could be increased from 8% of the
floor area to 10% of the floor area. In a 300 •The programming of micro-apartment build-
square foot unit, this would increase the win- ings should be done cautiously. As explained
dow area from 24 square feet to 30 square previously, building smaller units drives
feet. The head height of windows should be down rentable square footage while driv-
a minimum of 7’6” unless otherwise inhib- 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
Additional natural light in combination with higher 50% rentable residential square footage. As
ceilings could make micro-apartments feel spacious a result, the rents needed to be higher to
and desirable, despite the reduced square footage.
Source: Panoramic Interests compensate, which works against the goal
66
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
5
space. However, products that unnecessar- Balcony/Lounge
Outdoor sunset dinner parties
3
Mixology classes- Grey Goose, etc.
Fitness II
2
Cardio Sculpt
Mezz
Dance Classes- Salsa, Belly
Card Games: Hold-em
Trivia Night
Academy Award, Grammy’s
Plaza
Googling
Lifestyle Concierge
Package, Dryclean, Grocery Pickup/Dropoff
71
ADD inc. Source: HPCD
250 SF
250 SF
300 SF 400 SF
UP DOWN
DOWN UP
4’-10”
55’-8”
6’-0”
10’-8”
5’-8”
5’-0”
37’-9”
39’-2”
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
UP DN
15'-0"
DN UP
DN DN
open to below
45'-0"
15'-0"
cinema
15'-0"
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
The efficiency of the jogged demising wall allows for maximum flexibility of each unit.
74
Fogarty : Fingers Source: HPCD
Exterior Rendering
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
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
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
9’-8” gross
private terrace
bed dressing area
desk
J
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’
elevator lobby
private terraces
exterior
communal porch
egress balcony
SLAB ABOVE
MURPHY BED
BATHROOM
KITCHEN
ENTRY
CAST STONE
EYEBROW
RAINSCREEN
WINDOW BOX
TREE
EYEBROW
PLANTING MEDIUM
GLASS
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
STORAGE BOX
LOW STORAGE CABINET
MURPHY BED
KITCHENETTE
PLANTER
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
Units are laid out efficiently & a common balcony and lounge is provided on each floor.
81
HELIxs SRC/Studio MDA Source: HPCD
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
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"
23'-3"
25'-5"
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
“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/.
“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.
Firley, Eric. 2009. The Urban Housing Handbook. Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
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.
“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/.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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/.
“The Three Biggest Objections to Small Living - LifeEdited.” 2013. Accessed November 23.
http://www.lifeedited.com/objections-to-micro-apartments/.
“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 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.
94