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. 

Who is the 'New' DC for Anyway?

Who does DC belong to and who is it being remade for?

When I moved to DC in 1998 no one asked these sorts of questions. The city wasn't in good enough shape for there to be any real scrambling for pie pieces.  In 1995, 3 years before I arrived, the city hit rock bottom when then Mayor Marion Barry approached Congress for help covering city expenses.  Instead of a bailout Congress ordered an austerity plan.  The Financial Control Board took over the city's budget, and not surprisingly, lots of slashing and burning ensued.*  

These questions matter now, though, because the work that began in 1995 to remake the city has borne fruit.  Lots and lots of people want to live in DC.  As a result, rents are high, vacancy rates are low, and houses on the market don't sit for a spell.

Suddenly, a lot more people want pieces of the pie than there are pie pieces to be had. 

There's been a lot of coverage of what this means for the city's African American population, who used to comprise a majority of city residents.  Many mourn "chocolate city"--the affectionate nickname the Parliaments gave the city in the 70s--and resent the appropriation of black culture to sell cocktails and even entire neighborhoods.  

Here, I want to discuss what this means for the city's class makeup.  And, as usual, it was a Washington Post article that prompted my thoughts. The article, which showed up this weekend, describes the attempt to turn City Center, a new development in Penn Quarter, into a luxury shopping area equivalent to Rodeo Drive in Los Angeles. Can TMZ be far behind? 

So, who exactly are developers hoping to woo to Penn Quarter?   

Sorry bureaucratic cubicle dwellers, it's not you.
My apologies underpaid denizens of NGO land.  This is way above your pay grade.
Professors?  You can't be serious--did Chomsky teach you nothing?   
Excuse me Mr. Firemen, but you know the drill.  We let you work 72 hour shifts because you already live in West Virginia.   
I hate to pile on, dear DCPS teachers--first Michelle Rhee, then Common Core--but you're out too. 
DC United fans--snap out of it!  This relationships has been going no where for years.

No, in Penn Quarter, at least, here's who the new DC is for (per the Post):   

"A lawyer leaves a deposition and pops into Tumi for new carry-on luggage ($680). A tourist ducks out of the rain and treats herself to a classic trench coat from Burberry ($1,695). Two conventioneers skip the plenary session for a couple hours of power shopping: a flirty dress at Kate Spade ($448), a cashmere sweater from Zadig & Voltaire ($535), maybe a leather Le Pliage tote from Longchamp ($555)."   

I know.  I can't believe they left the lobbyists out.  Life is so unfair. 
Just don't come north.  Please.  


* None of this means, of course, that people living in DC didn't love it, or at least love it when they weren't busy hating it (as a southerner by birth I know a little about love/hate relationships with home).  It's just that a lot of outsiders weren't clamoring to join them.