Luc Schuster
In 1929, the YWCA of Boston opened a 13-story building at 140 Clarendon Street, providing affordable single-room accommodations for young women moving to the city in search of work and opportunity.
This was not unusual for the time. Across Boston, thousands of single-room occupancy (SRO) units – modest, private rooms with shared kitchen and bathroom facilities – offered an affordable housing option for lower-income workers, students, and newcomers.
While SRO-style housing gradually disappeared over the decades, the YWCA’s historic building recently found new life in a similar role: In 2021, it was redeveloped into affordable and supportive housing, including units specifically intended for people transitioning out of homelessness.
This transformation highlights the important role SROs once played in Boston’s housing landscape –and the potential for them to do so again.
The South End: Lodging Houses to Luxury Homes
At Boston Indicators, we recently explored the history, decline, and potential future of SRO’s in our new report, “Single Small Rooms, Big Impact: Could SROs Help Fix Boston’s Housing Crisis?”
Lucas Munson
At the turn of the 20th century, there were more than 50,000 SRO units in the city, providing a low-cost, flexible option for people who couldn’t afford an entire apartment or a longer-term lease. The South End was once even known as the Lodging-House District, with entire sections dominated by short-term rental lodging houses.
The rise of SROs in the neighborhood was driven in part by a process known as “filtering,” in which wealthier residents moved to newly developed neighborhoods like Beacon Hill, leaving behind townhouses that were then converted into SROs. But SRO housing declined throughout the 20th century, and by the 1980’s there were only around 3,000 legally operating SROs in Boston. And that’s roughly the level we’re at today.
The decline of SROs was largely driven by urban renewal efforts, restrictive zoning laws intended to promote homeownership and public concern about blight and safety. Many were demolished and zoning codes were rewritten to favor single-family homes and larger apartments. Even well-intentioned policies, such as requiring minimum unit sizes and private bathrooms in new developments, made the construction of SROs nearly impossible.
Over time, these regulations significantly reduced the supply of low-cost housing options for individuals who didn’t need or couldn’t afford a traditional apartment.
The instinct to regulate away undesirable types of housing is understandable. But rather than guarantee that everyone lives in a nicer, larger home, it instead increased housing costs and likely contributed to higher rates of homelessness.
An Inexpensive Housing Fix
Today’s housing shortage and affordability crisis have many causes, but a return to SROs could provide one opportunity to create smaller, more affordable units that are financially feasible to build and operate. While they are not a solution for everyone, they could meet the needs of students, new immigrants, young professionals, older adults on fixed incomes and people transitioning out of homelessness who need stable but low-cost housing options.
However, significant challenges remain in bringing SROs back.
Current zoning laws in many Boston neighborhoods either prohibit or severely restrict their development. Additionally, financing models for housing projects tend to favor larger, more conventional units, making it difficult for developers to secure funding for SRO-style projects.
There are also valid concerns about ensuring that new SROs are well-maintained and provide safe, dignified housing, rather than becoming a return to the substandard conditions that plagued some rooming houses in the past. Addressing these concerns will require thoughtful regulation, community engagement, and creative financing mechanisms to make SROs a viable option once again.
Yet, despite these hurdles, there is reason for cautious optimism.
The successful redevelopment of the YWCA building into affordable housing is one example of how Boston can reintroduce this housing type in a way that meets modern needs. Cities like San Francisco and Seattle have also begun experimenting with modern SRO-style housing, showing that it is possible to create well-managed, high-quality developments that provide much-needed affordability.
Of course, SROs alone won’t solve Boston’s housing crisis. The city and region need a mix of housing solutions – more multi-family buildings, deeply affordable units and policies that promote transit-oriented development. But bringing back SROs would be an important step in creating the diverse range of housing options necessary to meet the needs of a growing and changing population.
By allowing this one additional form of housing to return, Boston can take a meaningful step toward ensuring that everyone – regardless of income – has a place to call home.
Luc Schuster is the executive director of Boston Indicators, a part of The Boston Foundation. Lucas Munson is a former senior research analyst with Boston Indicators.
