Making Micro-Apartments Livable

In my last post, I wrote of the continuing momentum toward micro-apartments, small, usually urban apartments of less than 400 square-feet and usually targeted for singles.

Not surprisingly given the market interest in the concept, developers and interior designers are finding more and more clever ways to make micro-apartment living seem surprisingly comfortable. 

Sarah Goodyear of Atlantic Cities writes about a 325-square-foot micro-apartment in an exhibit at the Museum of the City of New York.  She’s particularly impressed by the number of storage nooks that are provided and compares the layout favorably to a larger apartment she once rented.  But she also notes that many cities don’t allow apartments to be less than 400 square-feet.

Eric Jaffe of Atlantic Cities reviews a number of micro-apartment projects and notes that San Jose and Santa Barbara permit micro-apartments as small as 150 square-feet.  Which raises a question.  Why do we even need specified minimums?  Building codes specify elements that must be included in dwelling units and minimum spacing for many of those elements.  If a developer can comply with the building code and meet market acceptance, what is gained from another level of constraint in the form of a minimum apartment area?

Emily Badger of Atlantic Cities provides a partial answer to that question by noting living spaces in Hong Kong that may well be unhealthy places to live.  But a consistently enforced building code can address that concern.

If your Friday permits, you may also enjoy the video linked near the bottom of the Badger article, showing that the height of a micro-apartment can also provide options.  A property owner, with a 182-square-foot apartment that was over 10 feet in height, found a way to build multiple levels, creating a quirky but livable home.  Although given some of the maneuvers required to move between levels, it’s not a unit in which one could age in place.

Lastly, Badger returns with a proposal from a recent architectural graduate, suggesting the shared and conveniently located common spaces could make micro-apartments more livable.  Each apartment would retain a separate door, but internal doors would provide access to shared space for occasional entertaining.

Micro-apartments aren’t for everyone.  But they are a trend with enough momentum that they’re not going to disappear.  Nor should they.  They can be a key element in an appropriate urban housing mix.  Now, as is true with many aspects of urbanism, it’s up to municipalities to get in front of the trend rather than being reactionary.  Such as changing impact fee tables that work against micro-apartments.

Friday Ruminations

A few miscellaneous thoughts with which to conclude the week:

Batkid: Perhaps one can quibble about the civic disruption or the cost, but it’s more mentally healthy just to admit that last week’s Batkid phenomenon in San Francisco was cool.  Furthermore, is it possible to conceive of Batkid happening anywhere except in an urban public place?  If I squint my imagination, perhaps I can see Batkid in Sonoma Plaza.  But a big box parking lot?  Never.  Big boxes are where people look to buy cheap Christmas gifts on Thanksgiving Day.  Urban settings are where people create great memories.

John F. Kennedy: Today is the 50th anniversary of the assassination of JFK.  (I was sitting on the family room couch watching “Concentration” and nursing a 5th grade case of mononucleosis when the first news bulletin broke in.)

Fifty years later, I find myself wondering if the assassination affected the urban perceptions of my generation.  We were the first generation to fully experience drivable suburbia.  And the first national memory for many of us was the charismatic young president being shot from a tall building while being driven through a downtown plaza.

Personally, I don’t recall feeling anti-urban because of the assassination, but I also know that I passed on several opportunities to live in a city during the years of my early adulthood.  Except for my college years, I was nearly 30 before I first lived in a city.  So maybe there were subconscious lessons to be unlearned.

City Repair Petaluma:  Momentum continues to slowly build around City Repair Petaluma.  Spurred by the November 12 meeting, several neighborhood groups are making plans for further activities.  And yesterday’s Argus Courier included a positive article.  If you want to participate or to receive email updates about the projects being bandied about, please email me.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)

Micro-Apartments Revisited

Nearly eighteen months ago, I took a look at “micro-apartments”, which can be roughly described as apartments of 300 square feet or less.  Single-occupancy seems the most likely use of such small apartments, although some jurisdictions, by putting an occupancy cap of two people on the units, acknowledge the possibility of a couple making a home in one.

To give a sense of scale, a hotel room in a mid-range hotel is often between 400 and 500 square-feet, so a micro-apartment dweller is making a life, including meal preparation, in a space significantly smaller than a hotel room.

Since my earlier post, much as happened in the world of micro-apartments.  In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg spearheaded a push for 300 square-foot units.   Interestingly, one of the proposed developers is a tech millionaire who, after having lived the lifestyle of the elaborate and out-sized “crib”, decided that life was better lived with less stuff.  He reduced himself to a 420-square-foot home.  It’s invigorating to see a developer with that level of philosophical commitment.

In San Francisco, a political battle erupted over a proposal to allow 220-square-foot units.  Opponents argued that the micro-apartments would provide housing for young tech workers, forcing families from the city and demeaning the tenants by forcing them to live in tiny spaces.  I can’t grasp either objection.  Wouldn’t providing small units for tech workers reduce pricing pressure on larger units?  And how can it be demeaning to live in a micro-apartment if one does so voluntarily?

Eventually, San Francisco allowed 375 micro-apartments as a test.  After the units are complete, the impacts on the housing market will be assessed and a long-term policy developed.

Looking at the bigger picture, Business Insider commented on the national trend toward micro-apartments.

Nor are micro-apartments limited to new construction.  A shopping mall in Providence, Rhode Island dating from 1828 has been redeveloped into micro-apartments above small-scale retail.

Given the market trend, it’s not surprising that developers are finding effective ways to make micro-apartments more livable.  I’ll share several examples in my next post.

Despite the puzzling objections in San Francisco, micro-apartments still seem an essential component of urbanism.  Obviously, they can’t be the only living units, but they should be a component of a well-balanced housing mix.  Micro-apartments provide an opportunity for certain demographics, including newly-launched single millennials and active single seniors, to live affordably in settings where they can enjoy the benefits of urban life.

Unfortunately, policies in many smaller cities often work against micro-apartments.  Typical issues are minimum parking standards for units that are often occupied by people who don’t own a car and impact fees that are based on units rather than square footage, incentivizing developers to build a 900-square-foot apartment when three 300-square-foot apartments might better meet the market demand and community needs.  

It’s just one more way that inertia and a mindless clinging to the past are impeding urbanism.

As always, your questions or comments will be appreciated.  Please comment below or email me.  And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)