Microunits--the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The Real Estate section in this weekend's Washington Post has an interesting article on so called microunits. 

First off, some definitions.  We're not talking about microwaves here.  Or those microplates at high end restaurants.  No, we're talking about apartments.  Really small ones.  There's no official measurement criterion, but most microunits are between 250 and 400 square feet.  For comparison's sake, the average hotel room is about 325 feet.  And, by average hotel room I don't mean that luxury suite at the Bellagio.  I'm talking about a Red Roof Inn off the interstate.   

Right now microunits are confined to the city, but there's talk of building some in inner suburbs like Crystal City.

What's good about microunits.  The main social benefit in urban areas is that microunits can be used in places where the supply of housing is less than the demand for it.  In New York City, for example, former mayor Michael Bloomberg relaxed the city's minimum floor space required for apartments (400 square feet) to allow developers to build a building full microunits on government land.  Bloomberg's reasoning?  There were 1.2 million 1 and 2 person households in the city and only 1 million apartments for them.  Essentially, you can cram more people into a building if each unit is 'micro.'

The Bad.  Microunits are not a solution to a lack of housing.  They are a quasi surrender.  Why?  Because they are designed to house singles.  And, I'm not talking about marital/significant other status here.  I'm talking literally.  Microunits are designed to house one person per unit.*  For example:  a millennial who is just starting out and hasn't accumulated a lot of junk, an elderly woman who wants to live near her daughter but have her own space, or a wealthy businessperson who has a larger house in the 'burbs but wants an 'in-city' crash pad.  There's nothing wrong with building housing for single people.  But, you shouldn't build a housing policy around niche markets.  You need to be able to provide for the full spectrum of households--singles, couples without kids, couples with kids, people who live in multi-generational families.  If you only build housing for the niche market described above you also risk turning cities into places that lack diversity of social structure.  Do we really want our cities to look like college campuses where only students and their Head Residents live?  College campuses are scary places a night.  Mixing liquor and Foucault is never advisable. 

The Ugly.  The ugly has to do with how developers and city officials legitimate microunits.  In the Washington Post article that prompted this post developers cited cost--theirs and their prospective renters--as the reason to build microunits.  Surprise surprise, it is expensive to build in the city, so your neighborhood developerMontgomery Burns needs a way to insure he still get sizable returns, and by sizable I mean 'daddy needs a new yacht, STAT!'  But never fear, those kindhearted souls aren't trying to rip you poor renters off.  No, they are offering bargain basement prices for their closetsapartments.  The renter profiled in the Washington Post article was paying the paltry sum of $2,500 a month.  That's right, you'll pay more for a micro unit than the average one-bedroom apartment in the city, but never fear, you'll get a sticker that says "I'm micro!"

* Yes, couples and even couples with a kid can live in micro units.  But, most people want a little more space and privacy once they have a kid, or grandma moves in.