"What's In?" Micro Apartment Model on Display

Hutchison

Active Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
720
Reaction score
1
Saw this on Bostinno and thought I'd post it. Micro Apartment unit on display in Atlantic Wharf through March 8.

"ADD Inc., Boston Properties and Suffolk Construction, What’s In? is hosting an event from Wednesday through the middle of next month to help Boston residents imagine themselves living in a micro-apartment."

Link to the site: http://whatsinmicrounits.myw2m.com/
 
Interesting. Micros could be a huge component of future housing. They say though their demographic target is 20-34. My widowed grandmother lived alone in a downtown Waterbury, CT elderly high-rise "efficiency" apartment that was probably not much bigger than 300sf and loved it. She didn't drive but had walkable access to most of what she needed right in her own neighborhood.
 
More likely a small but useful component. I've lived in a studio apartment, and I've lived in a single wide trailer, so I have no problem with small spaces. But as a rule, even people who seek out small apartments want to move up before long. And seniors won't have much interest in living with recent college grads up and down the hall.

Following the link, I found this:

"Yet the Boston "brain drain" is a very real condition affecting the city's economy year after year. The city welcomes students in the fall and lets them go in the spring."

Yeah, and Athens and Austin and Madison see the same phenomenon. College kids come to town, and college kids leave. That's the nature of college. If they didn't, it wouldn't take long before we'd have college grads 30 feet deep. There is a need for moderate price housing - period. No need to keep every Northeastern and BU grad in town.
 
/\ Think the problem is right now we're not keeping any. Dating for 20-34 year olds for example: come back to my shared bedroom to meet my 5 roommates? Or, come back to my studio?

EDIT: I was wrong, n/m, nothing to see here. Thank you commuting student for teaching me about college graduates living in Boston. Or not.
 
Last edited:
I saw this at Atlantic Wharf yesterday. My first reaction was: where do I store anything? I didn't see any room for a dresser, or a place to put toiletries, or towels, or shoes, or boots.
 
/\ Think the problem is right now we're not keeping any. Dating for 20-34 year olds for example: come back to my shared bedroom to meet my 5 roommates? Or, come back to my studio?

My personal experience has been that the two housing options in the city of Boston for college students boil down to "get a dorm" or "get out." Once you graduate, of course, the "get a dorm" option evaporates, or turns into "get 3+ roommates so that dorm life can continue even after leaving your dorm." It's not even that I've set my standards too high because I've yet to find even a studio that would run me less than $1000 a month.

Maybe I'm looking in all the wrong places. I don't know.
 
I agree -- and that's what I'm saying. The current option (a bucket of roommates living on top another) is about it. A microapartment would be terrific.

Ron, adjust your thinking from decades of collecting stuff and think like someone who's been in a cramped dorm or shared bedroom. Likely someone who was born elsewhere or travels and is used to living out of a suitcase.


EDIT: I was wrong, n/m, nothing to see here. (How the hell do you make strikeout?!)
 
Last edited:
I'll withhold my judgment of the "micro apartment" until I find the time to get down there and see it myself, but even without seeing it, I have some reservations as to whether it is actually going to be affordable. I have a sneaking suspicion that (surprise!) it's going to turn out that instead of paying big cash for space, you end up paying big cash for location.

I would consider $600~$800/month (or about $20~27 a day / $2~2.67 per square foot) to be the upper limits of "affordable" for a micro apartment, for reference. It'd be nice if they cost less, but I somehow doubt that they will. My main fear is that they're going to turn out to be priced at $1000~$1200, which is about the low end of proper studio apartments.

Also, I don't think Ron's entirely off the mark. I recognize that I'm probably not actually the target demographic even if I'm in the target age group (for a number of reasons including that most people my age seem to think I'm insane for willingly commuting ~100 miles each way), but I would think that one of the important things for any potential renter is going to be enough space to not have to live out of a suitcase anymore, to have enough room for a dresser - never mind actually starting to collect things.
 
No, no, no. That's not going to happen. It will be $1,800 minimum. Easily.
 
No, no, no. That's not going to happen. It will be $1,800 minimum. Easily.

I would love to tell you you're wrong, but I can't. I really, really can't.

Having said that, let me say right now for the record that a price tag of $1800 (or even a price tag of $1500) WILL cause me to devote a significant amount of my time and effort to opposing the construction of any of these. Full stop.
 
I wasn't trying to be a buzz-kill and I have no knowledge of how much they expect to charge in any of these proposed projects. However, it seems to me illogical for a developer/owner to charge less than what the free-market would demand. Since Boston has more demand than supply, even in that neighborhood, even given the coming supply, then why would they charge less?

We can discuss whether or not these "tiny" units will appeal to the "regular" apartment-renter, but I think they will. As someone said about New York City, "People will rent an apartment where they have to stand up to sleep," or something similar.

The other variable is, how could a developer build something where it can charge less than $1,500 - $1,800 per unit? The units at Hong Luk, the senior affordable-housing project, cost ~$472,000 each to build - and that's a project built at a bare minimum cost with no profit requirement.

I don't have the patience to find the articles that have been published about the pricing for Boston's micro-units, but here's one that popped up right away. It's an older story and he only discusses generalities, but it gives us at least an idea of where this might all be going.

From an earlier archBoston.org thread: http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?p=132120&highlight=microunits#post132120

The tiny apartments that are a staple of New York City may soon be more available in Boston. Mayor Thomas M. Menino is pushing developers to build units as small as 375 square feet - barely enough to squeeze in a bed, bathroom, and galley kitchen.

The administration is promoting the idea in the Innovation District on the South Boston Waterfront, where construction is expected to begin in coming months on scores of micro-apartments.

Beyond convenience, the chief attraction will be price, developers say. Such units are expected to rent for about $1,500 a month, about half the cost of a typical one-bedroom downtown.

The apartments, though roughly the size of a living room in a large suburban home, have the advantage of being near restaurants, stores, and offices for technology companies on the waterfront.

“The whole idea is to make housing units reachable so young people working in the innovation economy can afford to rent them,’’ said Kairos Shen, chief planner for the Boston Redevelopment Authority. It has made the development of smaller units a policy goal, but not a requirement for builders.

“It’s an important component of the strategy of the Innovation District,’’ Shen said. “A lot of these people are having a hard time finding the right housing.’’

The small units are meant to cater to a distinctly urban lifestyle, with the apartments used for little more than sleeping. Residents could entertain in lounges and work areas incorporated into the buildings, or at the many restaurants and bars expected to open along nearby streets. For transportation, residents can rent Zipcars, use public transit, or ride bicycles.

Current city regulations allow units as small as 450 square feet. The new recommended minimum would shrink them by 75 square feet, but more important is the statement the policy makes: that Menino wants builders to respond to his call for this type of housing.

So far, about 300 such units are planned on the waterfront. Most would be included in buildings that would also have one- and two-bedroom apartments.

“It’s more eclectic, funky space,’’ said developer John B. Hynes III, who is planning to build about 150 such units in three buildings at the Seaport Square project near the federal courthouse. The Hynes apartments would be 400 to 500 square feet and would rent for $1,500 to $2,000 a month, depending on size.

The renters, Hynes said, “will only be there to sleep and maybe do a little work. If they want to entertain people, there will be other common spaces within the buildings where they can host a Super Bowl party or whatever it happens to be.’’

Smaller units are also included in apartment projects that are proposed for Pier 4 along Northern Avenue, 63 Melcher St., 381 Congress St., and 411 D St.

The apartments’ layouts and sizes would vary, but the unifying trait would be extreme efficiency with space. Many would employ fold-out couches or Murphy beds and kitchen countertops that double as tables or desks.

Draft plans for 400- to 550-square-foot units designed by the architecture firm ADD Inc. show compact bathrooms and kitchens around an open room that could double as a living room and bedroom, or be divided with a sliding door. ADD is working on several projects on the waterfront that will include dozens of similar-size units.

Tamara Roy, a senior architect at the firm, said such apartments can be made to feel larger and more open with 9-foot ceilings and big windows that offer city views and a strong connection to the neighborhood.

If the effort succeeds on the waterfront, Shen said, the city will expand it to other neighborhoods. The current 450-square-foot minimum was put in place to prevent developers from meeting their affordable-housing targets, required under city code, exclusively with tiny units.

Under the new regulations, the smaller units would be counted under a separate “innovation housing’’ category and cannot be used to meet affordable-housing requirements.


Builders are having less trouble securing construction funding for apartments than for other housing projects. But some industry specialists caution that extremely small units may be difficult to finance because so few have been developed.

“The question becomes, how deep is the demand for this?’’ said David Begelfer, chief executive of NAIOP Massachusetts, a commercial real estate association.

“And can you quantify it to the point where it will be acceptable to a lender?’’ he asked. “If you move out of the comfort zone of the banks right now, the money is not going to be there.’’

City officials say the potential for such units is strong. Boston has had a huge surge of residents 20 to 34 years old and boasts the largest percentage of residents in that age group among major US cities - around 35 percent of the population, according to recent census data.

Boston recently surveyed that age group and found, not surprisingly, that housing was a major concern. A large percentage of respondents said they would make compromises to live downtown, however.

“What we found is that they were willing to give up many of the comforts that housing developers thought were standard,’’ Shen said.

That includes expansive entertainment rooms, which can be built as common areas elsewhere in the buildings, as well as dining rooms and large kitchens.

And having communal areas, Shen said, creates more opportunities for socializing and discussion among residents who may be working in related businesses.

“We’re trying to build a living environment that fosters interaction with neighbors and [professional] collaboration,’’ Shen said.

“That’s really the theme of the Innovation District.’’

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...OdXNMV3Dl5NESi50K/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw
 
I expect them to make money by building a lot of them, for one. A high density of apartments both helps drive the cost down by spreading out the cost of the land, drives the cost down by increasing the supply of available residencies, and makes sense from a goal-oriented standpoint of "promote the urban lifestyle" - which I think suggests high-rises and a lot of neighbors.

That having been said, one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments outright advertising as luxury units (at Harbor Point on the Bay) start at $1800 and change and you could reasonably expect to pay $2100~$2400. If we're going strictly by square feet as a metric of cost, the micro-apartments that have half as much space or less should cost half as much, which is where I pulled the $1000~$1200 figure from. If you're outright pushing for "affordable" housing, the cost should go even lower, because I expect an "affordable" unit to cost less per metric than a luxury one.

$600 to $800 sounds like a perfectly reasonable price range - it's $7200~$9600 a year, which represents a range between about 14% and about 20% of a $50,000 yearly income - just above three times that of the minimum wage, which seems appropriate (at least in my mind) for an entry-level position held by a graduate fresh out of college with a good degree.

The general rule as I understand it is that you shouldn't be spending more than 30~33% of your income on rent. Using the $50,000 baseline, anything above $1250/month is really straining a reasonable definition of "affordable." $1500's well outside it, and $1800's well outside it.

And yes, I know you aren't TRYING to be a buzzkill, but considering that I am a college student, this entire housing issue hits very close to home for me. So, sorry if I get a bit snippy.
 
Micro-units are not actually targeted at typical students (ie. mommy and daddy aren't paying for everything). The target demographic is single, recently graduated young professionals. They are the least likely to actually spend a significant amount of time in those tiny units. They work all day and typically will go out to enjoy the nightlife or shopping at night. Then they go home, sleep and do it all over again. That's why the prices are so high and that's actually why they are justified.
 
I was actually at a Samuels & Associates presentation where they floated the idea of building micro units on one of their parcels next to the Fenway Trinagle to cater to grad housing for BU and Northeastern. They were talking $1,100 minimum for a 3 person micro unti (individual rooms and shared common room) and closer to $2,000 for individual units. They gave the presentation in conjunction with the developer currently building all the untis out in San Fran.
 
Last edited:
My Friend has an attic Apartment which about the same size as a Micro Apartment and it costs about 500$ a Month. Of Course she lives in Philly which is very cheap , you can find a 2 bedroom apartment for 1600$ or a high rise apartment for 1200$ in Center City... Boston , San Fran and NYC are way more expensive , my other friend has a slightly bigger apartment in Manhattan and pays about 1400$....So charging 1800$ is a far off bet....
 
From WCVB-TV regarding the ADD exhibit:

ADD Inc.'s 300-square-foot apartment has an L-shape design and room for a full-size bed. Eight-and-a-half foot ceilings allow for tall wall space, perfect for a plasma TV.

There are large windows for added light. Its cozy kitchenette has a wrap-around counter, under sink-refrigerator and storage, and there's a lot of open "flexible" space, allowing each individual home owner the chance to create what they want and need.

There are also built-in benches for storage and a bathroom that meets new fair housing constructions regulations at eight-feet by five-and-a-half-feet.

Because these units were designed for the "Innovation District," they range in price from about $1500-$2000 a month.

"That's a very expensive part of the city to build in," says Roy. "If you can build these somewhere else in the city, where land costs are more affordable, and construction costs are more affordable, then generally, the price goes down."

And that "somewhere else in the city" is Queens.

Read more: http://www.wcvb.com/news/money/Bost...18505974/-/rwp9j5z/-/index.html#ixzz2KwCHMmRN
 
Swung by the display yesterday - agreed with someone who wrote on the chalkboard that without walls in parts that you can't get a sense for how big the space would feel when enclosed. Also there is so little room for storage that a pre-war walkup would seem to have massive closets. Not sure how they would be able to work around that since people accumulate so much stuff now that storage is a requirement.

If someone wants to swing by and take some pictures of the datajam they did on one side of the display, it may generate more discussion as they factor in commuting costs versus housing costs and how it's better to live in a built up area rather than the burbs.

I do feel though that the micro space would only work for single, young professionals. Pretty sure my fiancee and I would argue much more if we tried to live together in 300 sq ft of space.
 
I think the point is that the types who would live here would be at work and out socializing and living their life elsewhere. The Globe article pretty clearly articulated this. The analog is small dorm rooms with huge common areas. Instead of hiding away alone in your room get out and live.

AdamBC calls it. Americans have too much stuff and have never been forced to prioritize or be creative. The Asians are brilliant at living in this type of space.


EDIT: I was wrong, n/m, nothing to see here. Also, AMERICA FUCK YEAH. WERE NUMBER 1.
 
Last edited:
And these units are any different than prewar studio apartments throughout the city how? These are nothing more than an exercise in marketing and academic masturbation.
 
The average entry level salary in Boston, according to a cursory google search, is $44,000. If that's not the right number, please feel free to correct me.

It's $6,000 less than the $50,000 baseline I came up with in a previous post, but that's okay, since I figure that there's easily a $10,000 or more swing between the starting salaries in various fields.

I just wanted to preface my post with that, because those are the numbers on which I am basing my argument.

Swung by the display yesterday - agreed with someone who wrote on the chalkboard that without walls in parts that you can't get a sense for how big the space would feel when enclosed. Also there is so little room for storage that a pre-war walkup would seem to have massive closets. Not sure how they would be able to work around that since people accumulate so much stuff now that storage is a requirement.

If someone wants to swing by and take some pictures of the datajam they did on one side of the display, it may generate more discussion as they factor in commuting costs versus housing costs and how it's better to live in a built up area rather than the burbs.

I do feel though that the micro space would only work for single, young professionals. Pretty sure my fiancee and I would argue much more if we tried to live together in 300 sq ft of space.

There's always the option of paying some amount of money per month to put things into dedicated storage, which I'm fairly certain is not factored in to their cost estimations - although I would like to see those, as well. I'll probably be heading down on Monday, for want of anything better to do.

I think the point is that the types who would live here would be at work and out socializing and living their life elsewhere. The Globe article pretty clearly articulated this. The analog is small dorm rooms with huge common areas. Instead of hiding away alone in your room get out and live.

AdamBC calls it. Americans have too much stuff and have never been forced to prioritize or be creative. The Asians are brilliant at living in this type of space.

Americans Suck!™ is a really shitty argument to fall back on, just so we're clear.

That having been said, it doesn't really matter what type of person would prospectively live in this type of housing if the apparent cost of living there is well outside what they can reasonably expect to bear.

It is my feeling - although I'm sure there's no concrete evidence for this - that once a recent graduate leaves Boston due to being priced out or for any other reason, that they will not even consider moving back the instant they gain the financial ability to support the rent. Certainly not if they moved any farther away than Providence or Worcester.

That doesn't mean that a 24 year old "young professional" who moves out on the city wouldn't entertain moving back into the city at age 34, but by that point, they are almost certainly outside of the target demographic and looking at one-bedroom apartments with room to live in, two-bedroom apartments to settle down with their significant other in, or larger apartments to start a family in. The "micro-apartment" has long since exited the potential list of living spaces.

Put a more direct way, you can quite easily say "our apartments are affordable for 'young professionals' on an $80,000 salary with little to no unpaid debt remaining" - but how many people do you know who graduate directly into an $80,000 or more job without loans large enough to dramatically mitigate the amount of that money which can realistically be funneled into rent? And by the time that they've been in the work force long enough to move up into that category, what makes you think they're going to be eager to pack everything up again and move back into the "affordable" housing that wasn't actually affordable on a $50,000 or even a $60,000 salary?

If you're claiming the target demographic is 20~34 "young professionals" but can't realistically expect the average 20~25 year old to afford living there, you've failed at your goal.

And these units are any different than prewar studio apartments throughout the city how? These are nothing more than an exercise in marketing and academic masturbation.

An exercise that will by all apparent indications end up producing absolutely nothing of any value to the city.

What a shame.
 

Back
Top