by Alice Anigacz
“Big data” and “the future of cities.” Two phrases so synonymous that it is hard to think about future cities without thinking of the implications of ride-sharing apps, sensor-laden buildings and roadways, and other technologies that would not have been imaginable even ten years ago. These advances are often talked about as the best—the only—path to equitable, environmentally friendly, and vibrant cities. Yet, there are low-tech, policy solutions that cities can apply now to achieve similarly high-impact results. Decreasing the minimum legal size of residential units, for example, would allow more people to live in safe spaces with access to job opportunities, and help solve New York City’s rental affordability crisis.
By 2030, New York City is anticipated to have an additional 600,000 residents,1 exacerbating the existing shortage of affordable housing. Demand for affordable housing is outpacing construction2,3 and projected changes in demographics, lifestyle preferences, and the increasing unaffordability of housing suggest increased demand for smaller (and presumably more affordable) units in the future.4 These shifts also suggest that lowering minimum unit size requirements to allow for the development of micro-units—units that typically have their own bathroom and kitchen (or kitchenette) but are much smaller in size than average studios—can help address the housing gap. There is general agreement that decreasing the minimum unit size in New York City would help address the increasing demand for single-occupancy homes while preventing sprawl, and that many of the challenges raised by micro-units could be addressed with regulatory approaches. However, the square footage of these micro-unit apartments is often so small as to be below the minimum 400 square feet required by New York City’s zoning codes, so realizing the potential of this solution would require policy changes.
The benefits of decreasing the minimum unit size to allow for more micro-units include creating a source of housing for young singles, the elderly, and immigrants; increasing the supply of housing and especially affordable housing; and decreasing sprawl. New York City has seen a rapid increase in young singles and retirees, as well as continued migration from other countries and cities within the United States, trends that are projected to continue. These populations often do not arrive in New York City with families and do not require large living spaces, and are typically lower-income than the general population.5 Micro-units, priced to reflect their smaller size, could provide housing that is more suited to the needs of these populations. If more micro-units are available for these groups, the larger units that they now occupy may become more available to other populations (such as low-income working families) that are currently outbid by young earners and retirees for family-sized units. Even if this shift does not occur as expected, allowing the development of micro-units would allow for more units per square foot and increase housing supply. Additionally, allowing smaller minimum unit sizes would allow more individuals to locate within the City and prevent further sprawl which results in extra commuting time and drains on natural resources caused by car travel. Finally, by allowing more people to live closer to the City center, these people would have easier access to more jobs, allowing for better matches of employers and employees and thus increased productivity.
Though micro-units clearly have potential, they also present challenges including the prospect of unsafe living conditions and drains on neighborhood infrastructure. Many of those opposed to micro-unit development cite concerns including overcrowding (will low-income families with children move into micro-units to take advantage of lower rents?) and unsafe living conditions (a lack of adequate light, air, and egress). However, there is little evidence that decreasing minimum unit size below 400 square feet would have such consequences.6 To address this concern, regulations such as maximum density (which dictates the maximum number of occupants of a property), and building code and housing and maintenance code (which specify minimum standards for light, air, and egress) should be set for micro-units. In terms of infrastructure, not all neighborhoods are suitable for micro-unit development; a low-density residential neighborhood with poor public transit access would likely be burdened by the addition of a micro-unit development. Again, though the market would make this kind of development unlikely, the City could control which neighborhoods see micro-unit development through the use of zoning and other restrictions
New York City is exploring micro-unit development, but still has room for improvement. New York City’s current minimum unit size is well above the minimum requirement in many other developed cities, even in the United States. Figure 1 below shows minimum unit sizes in select cities and as recommended by policymakers and experts. The three minimum unit sizes related to New York City (the minimum unit size proposed by Mayor Bill DeBlasio in his housing plan, the average unit size in New York City’s first micro-unit development, and the City’s standard minimum unit size required per the zoning code) are all higher than international building standards, and the minimum unit sizes required in other dense U.S. cities. Mayor Bloomberg’s adAPT NYC initiative issued an RFP for micro-unit development, for which no minimum unit size was set.7 The winning bidder, the Carmel Place project, will feature units as small as 286 square feet—28.5% smaller than the typical New York City requirement of 400 square feet, but still 30% larger than the 2012 International Building Code standard of 220 square feet.8
Figure 1. Minimum Unit Sizes in Select Cities 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16
If New York City desires to be in line with national trends, and fully realize the potential benefits of micro-unit development, it should allow micro-units as small as 220 square feet. Concerns about overcrowding and infrastructure can be addressed through the thoughtful creation of regulations around micro-unit development. Further research is also needed to say what exact minimum unit size is likely to generate micro-units that best serve New Yorkers and their neighborhoods. Such a strategic approach would allow more New Yorkers to live in more affordable homes with better access to public transit and the City’s many jobs and amenities, while ensuring that micro-units are safe for their residents and their neighborhoods—all without the need for data from your smartphone.
[1] Kleiman, N., A. Forman, J. Ko, D. Giles, and J. Bowles. Innovation And The City. Rep. NYU Wagner Center for an Urban Future, June 2013. Web. Retrieved from: https://nycfuture.org/pdf/Innovation-and-the-City.pdf
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Chapple, K., J. Wegman, A. Nemirow, and C. Denzel-Post. “Yes in My Backyard: Mobilizing the Market for Secondary Units.” EScholarship. UC Berkeley: University of California, June 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2015. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6fz8j6gx.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. “adAPT NYC Request for Proposals.” n.d. Web. Retrieved from http://www1.nyc.gov/site/hpd/developers/adapt-nyc-rfp.page.
[8] Been, V., B. Gross, and J. Infranca. 2014.
[9] http://codes.iccsafe.org/app/book/toc/2015/I-Codes/2015%20IBC%20HTML/index.html
[10] http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ibc/2012/index.htm
[11] http://www.tentcityurbanism.com/2014/09/navigating-minimum-square-footage.html
[12] http://www.cityofboston.gov/isd/housing/habitable.asp
[13] http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cs/groups/pan/@pan/documents/web_informational/p2194501.pdf
[14] http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/ordinances12/o0242-12.pdf
[15] http://www.nyc.gov/html/housing/assets/downloads/pdf/housing_plan.pdf