But one often overlooked issue is the complete lack of smaller units for individuals and small households. With the proliferation of smaller household sizes, unit sizes have instead continued to increase. Since larger units cost more (having more s.f. obviously) and often take up more land which is another cost contributor, it's clear that affordability is a complex and multidimensional problem that is more than just NIMBY-ism. Regulations and incentives should focus on allowing the production of units from 150 to 500 s.f. for both permanent and temporary occupation. Units should cover the gamut of quality as even more affluent single households often demand smaller units (e.g. Tumbleweed Tiny Houses). Such units could serve the least affluent, single-occupant households, people who want small footprints or don't want a lot of space to maintain, people who actually like small and intimate spaces, and other situations or preferences.
 |
| From boston.curbed.com |
Units for temporary occupation used to be limited to SRO hotels, executive housing, or other similar polar opposite products. But a wide range of people need and demand temporary space and it doesn't need to be large space. Often business people who be satisfied with a small efficiency as long as it was well appointed and laid out. Sometimes people need a unit for a few hours to change and shower before a meeting and do not want the space or price of a market rate hotel room (see http://www.dayuse-hotels.com).
But one key is making sure that these smaller units are sited where most appropriate and compatible such as apartment buildings in denser city or town centers that are walkable and have transit as an option. If any state legislation is needed on this front, such legislation should define to the extent possible siting criteria for housing and identify it as a human right.
