Micro-Housing: Rethinking Urban Living

BostonUrbEx

BostonUrbEx

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
4,340
Reaction score
127
1195.jpg
 
This is getting idiotic. There's plenty of room to build normal sized housing. The only obstacles that exist are malicious zoning rules that were put into place to effectively force people out of the city.
 
Matthew said:
This is getting idiotic. There's plenty of room to build normal sized housing. The only obstacles that exist are malicious zoning rules that were put into place to effectively force people out of the city.
Click to expand...

I plan to go and ask, "Did you ever consider not making it so absurdly difficult to develop normal sized apartments?"
 
Massive like for this comment.

Matthew said:
This is getting idiotic. There's plenty of room to build normal sized housing. The only obstacles that exist are malicious zoning rules that were put into place to effectively force people out of the city.
Click to expand...
 
Matthew said:
This is getting idiotic. There's plenty of room to build normal sized housing. The only obstacles that exist are malicious zoning rules that were put into place to effectively force people out of the city.
Click to expand...

But but but trendy! Hip! Follow the money crowd sourced next big thing in design!

If I throw out enough buzzwords, I might be able to sucker enough idiots into believing this is a good thing that I can make bank!
 
Matthew said:
This is getting idiotic. There's plenty of room to build normal sized housing. The only obstacles that exist are malicious zoning rules that were put into place to effectively force people out of the city.
Click to expand...


So who put through these rules that maliciously force people out of the city?
 
It's a good, sustainable way of living. You can pack more people in a building with micro-units, increasing the density of people living in the building and area. Americans have to shed their wasteful thinking of the 1950s when it suddenly became the norm to have all of this ridiculous extra square footage. Innovation is constantly happening with micro-units and there are all sorts of different types that feature movable walls and incredible modular furniture.

Micro-units are not for people unwilling to shed the suburban fantasy way of life, but they are for progressive people that have a modern 21st century life that want to reduce their footprint. With this said, Boston has faltered so far with the implementation of them because the rents they are charging are slightly too high. Micro-units are supposed to be (primarily) affordable and the projected rents have ballooned up $300-$400 more than the original estimates.

Sorry, I studied/investigated micro-units with one of my friends during my final studio semester last year. I realize that I'm "in" the architectural think-tank on this issue and my views might be slightly skewed because of it. As I've said in the past, it's for a niche demographic - single, young professionals. I think the recent construction catering to this demographic (Boston has an insane number of this particular demographic) has been entirely appropriate. Price just needs to fall slightly.
 
datadyne007 said:
It's a good, sustainable way of living. You can pack more people in a building with micro-units, increasing the density of people living in the building and area. Americans have to shed their wasteful thinking of the 1950s when it suddenly became the norm to have all of this ridiculous extra square footage. Innovation is constantly happening with micro-units and there are all sorts of different types that feature movable walls and incredible modular furniture.

Micro-units are not for people unwilling to shed the suburban fantasy way of life, but they are for progressive people that have a modern 21st century life that want to reduce their footprint. With this said, Boston has faltered so far with the implementation of them because the rents they are charging are slightly too high. Micro-units are supposed to be (primarily) affordable and the projected rents have ballooned up $300-$400 more than the original estimates.

Sorry, I studied/investigated micro-units with one of my friends during my final studio semester last year. I realize that I'm "in" the architectural think-tank on this issue and my views might be slightly skewed because of it. As I've said in the past, it's for a niche demographic - single, young professionals. I think the recent construction catering to this demographic (Boston has an insane number of this particular demographic) has been entirely appropriate. Price just needs to fall slightly.
Click to expand...


Most of the target demographic is living in prewar apartments that have more square footage for less rent than these units. I don't think these people are stuck in any sort of mentality, 50s or otherwise: they are living in the same spaces that housed workers for nearly 100 years comfortably. Our city has traditionally very well balanced housing needs with comfort and density, hence the advent of the triple decker. This seems like a step backwards to the tenanamts of the 19th century. On top of that, this isn't Manhattan, or Tokyo, or anyother superdense island city. Boston still has a TON of developable space that could house apartments on par with these old prewar buildings. Actually smaller, since the dining room is now unnesscary and the pantry has fallen to built in cabinetry. I just don't see the need for these, at all. Its a solution in need of a problem. If the rent was around $300 a unit that would be one thing, but when I am faced with a $1300 closet vs a $1300 two bedroom, the choice is pretty obvious.

*bad spelling, on my phone*
 
datadyne007 said:
It's a good, sustainable way of living. You can pack more people in a building with micro-units, increasing the density of people living in the building and area. Americans have to shed their wasteful thinking of the 1950s when it suddenly became the norm to have all of this ridiculous extra square footage. Innovation is constantly happening with micro-units and there are all sorts of different types that feature movable walls and incredible modular furniture.

Micro-units are not for people unwilling to shed the suburban fantasy way of life, but they are for progressive people that have a modern 21st century life that want to reduce their footprint. With this said, Boston has faltered so far with the implementation of them because the rents they are charging are slightly too high. Micro-units are supposed to be (primarily) affordable and the projected rents have ballooned up $300-$400 more than the original estimates.

Sorry, I studied/investigated micro-units with one of my friends during my final studio semester last year. I realize that I'm "in" the architectural think-tank on this issue and my views might be slightly skewed because of it. As I've said in the past, it's for a niche demographic - single, young professionals. I think the recent construction catering to this demographic (Boston has an insane number of this particular demographic) has been entirely appropriate. Price just needs to fall slightly.
Click to expand...

Having a living room, a dining room, and two closets is ridiculously excessive within the context of a one-person apartment for "single, young professionals."

But you* have gone way too far in the other direction when you start talking about axing an apartment's kitchen, or downsizing it to the point where it's a mini-fridge and half a table. If you're lucky, you'll even get an extra sink so that you don't have to use the bathroom's! Wow! Two sinks, talk about wasteful and unsustainable. And god forbid I find the idea of living out of a suitcase distasteful and want an actual dresser or closet to put my clothing in, I should just get with the program! Or, you know, take my wasteful lifestyle out to the suburbs because there's absolutely no middle ground whatsoever between "micro unit" and 1 bed / 1.5 bath / 6 room luxury condo. Right?

Take the communal kitchen away from this "micro-unit" farce and you're left with something completely unfit for human habitation by any reasonable standards. As it stands, the hovels you* are trying to pass off as 'healthy, sustainable living' are only barely on the correct side of the "Is this fit for human habitation?" question.

500~750sf apartments are every bit as sustainable as <300sf "micro" apartments, but unlike the "micro-unit," you can actually live in a 500 square foot apartment. I agree with davem - this is a brave step backwards and we should in no way be encouraging this. At best, it's an awful fad that will pass quickly - at worst, it's going to actually harm the "urban lifestyle" and drive people who are otherwise more than willing to stay in the city out of it.

(* In the context of these statements, "you" means "the architectural think-tanks that cooked up this farce.")
 
I'm not sure what's going on here, but it seems some (Datadyne) think everyone is against microunits existing and the rest of you (everyone else just about) think that Datadyne is trying to force microunits onto everyone. It's more a problem of finding the middle ground.

Our zoning, restrictions, study requirements, etc are so convoluted that it's becoming harder and harder to find profitable working and middle class developments. The way things work around here, you have to be in the loop or otherwise connected in order to get anything even remotely "controversial" done in this city. It is absurd.

Microunits absolutely do have their niche! And many wouldn't mind living in them. However, when this starts looking like the new the norm, something is wrong. These are absurdly priced for what you get. I, and I think an overwhelming majority, wouldn't mind living in a studio -- I'd need my own bathroom and kitchen -- but microunits just cross a line. It's a sign that we need to rework the way things are in this city.

We have plenty of space, I mean, just LOOK at the Seaport for example! It's still ridiculously vacant and devoid of anything! On top of that, we have yet to go vertical in massive swaths of the city. We could building thousands upon thousands more "normal" units for a fair price, but it just isn't being done. There's something wrong. The solution isn't for people to be forced into sacrificing space/kitchens/bathrooms just because it's a hassle to build anything.
 
^that's pretty much my arguement. I don't have an issue with these things per-se, but I do have an issue with the absurdly high price, and the marketing that is being pushed that they are somehow innovative or the new frontier in building. They aren't about being sustainable, they are about getting saps to pay triple per sq/ft of what you can get in normal apartments all over the city and lining developers pockets. Again, if I could rent a micro unit for $300-400 a month right downtown I would be moving into one this instant. But once it hits $600 I could get a roommate and live in double, if not triple the space. Once you start talking $1000-1200 I can get my own place within easy walking distance of a t stop if I look hard enough.

My fears about this taking off have a few fronts: it may raise rents in existing units (vs what should happen of rents going down as more comparable units come on market), change the perception of city living as an alternative to the burbs (which has taken 50 years to do, and is still very much an uphill battle), and halt construction of normal units as developers see they can make tons more with micro units on the same floor plates.

These are a niche product, and should be marketed as such. However as evidenced by data's think tank's opinion of our turn of the century apartments being "wasteful thinking of the 1950s", it is not being done that way. Its fucking genious if you think about it, developers are guilting tenants into believing anything but living in a closet is wasteful and unsustainable, and then charging them through the nose for the privalage to live in one.

*ill be on my phone all week, you guys are going to start to see just how bad a speller I am*
 
In case my position wasn't clear enough already, I don't have a problem with the concept of micro-units. I would never be an ardent micro-unit supporter and I would most likely never live in one, but I don't have a problem with the concept. My problems begin when it turns out that no, you can't fit a livable space into 300 square-feet, and you then find yourself making tough decisions like whether to axe the kitchen or the bathroom.

At that point in time, what should have happened was that the developers would take a step back, realize that "300" isn't a realistic goal (and there's nothing special about the number 300 anyway), and added an extra 50sf to the unit. 350 is still pretty "micro," but that extra 50 square feet is enough to squeeze in a full, if cramped, kitchen with room for a full fridge/freezer combo, a serviceable food preparation area, space to store cookware and a second sink to hand-wash dishes in - and that would make all the difference.

What actually happened was some chickenshit designer shat out the idea of a communal kitchen, and everyone else on the team decided that was good enough to roll with. SPOILERS: It's Not.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
What actually happened was some chickenshit designer shat out the idea of a communal kitchen, and everyone else on the team decided that was good enough to roll with. SPOILERS: It's Not.
Click to expand...

So despite all the research, experiments, and public outreach/surveying over the years, you, with no architectural or planning experience at all, can make the final call that it doesn't work?

Seriously, just because you wouldn't like a communal kitchen, doesn't mean that everyone else won't either. Micro-unit buildings are about more than the physical design of the buildings themselves. They are about a new sense of community and social interactions.

Josep Lluis Sert experimented with communal engagement in apartment buildings as well, mainly via rethinking the way building circulation engages people (Case study: Peabody Terrace). Sert noticed that most Americans in apartment communities don't know their neighbors and experimented with ways to get people to actually interact with each other. The result was essentially a bunch of 6-unit brownstones stacked up on top of each other. His medium for influencing these behaviors was building design.

Micro-unit buildings are of the same ideological background - they are for people who want a strong sense of community and increased interaction with their peers. These buildings have features that encourage people to be outside of their rooms, like lounges, kitchens, studies, etc and their personal unit is essentially for sleeping or private matters. It's about a new way of living and an increasing number of people are interested in this sort of thing.

With all of this said, this is only the theory/reasoning behind the matter. None of this will work as designed if the prices are too high or inflate at a rapid rate.
 
What research? What experiments? Who did you survey? Let's see the evidence you're citing before you instantly dismiss anyone taking the opposite position as you.

Can you even provide any specifics on what the communal kitchen entails, other than the fact that it will exist? How many units per kitchen? How large will the kitchen be? Bring your own groceries, or are groceries provided as part of the cost of the rent? What if the number of people cooking or the level of involvement required by said cooking overwhelms the space allotted? Cross-contamination? Who cleans? Is the space monitored? Some idiot prepares food wrong or doesn't sanitize properly, and they or anyone else in the kitchen comes down with food poisoning, what happens then?

I can't make the final determination that it won't work, but I can sure as hell make the initial determination and call for a re-examination of the idea by someone who CAN make the final determination, which I intend to do. I can't believe I'd be the first person calling for it, either.

You still haven't answered the question of how a full kitchen in a micro-unit isn't sustainable, by the way. And you're sure talking a good game about encouraging public interaction and cutting down the micro-unit to "only for sleeping or private matters" - but guess what? Preparing food falls under that banner just as much as sleeping does.
 
This event will soon become "the event I shoulda gone to but didn't b/c I was sleeping" event, unfortunately.

Perhaps what Boston needs is a "housing czar". I know we have the BRA but something better than that. Someone who can be the in-between between the city, the planners, the developers, and the residents.

I dunno. Maybe it doesn't exist for a reason.
 
Heading there soon. Anyone else? Probably have to bail before the end though.
 
Does anyone know if the BRA puts out any sort of annual report, "The State of Boston's Housing" similar to what Barry Bluestone at Northeastern puts together?

I'm guessing (hoping) they do, but perhaps it's not for public consumption?

If they don't, I think that speaks loudly of a lack of planning from ... our planning authority?
 
I wouldn't mind living in a unit for one with 500sf (heck my dorm is I believe 25X12 for 300sf and I already love it. A little bit bigger would be perfect). However, $1600/mo (the price I got from the Boston Globe article), is absolutely ridiculous and borders on extortion and price gouging. Until it is a more reasonable $1000-1200/mo, f*ck them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top