Multifamily developers could build smaller housing units and fewer parking spaces beginning this fall, offering potentially significant project cost savings as the city prepares to embrace the microapartment movement.
The tradeoffs: new requirements for larger windows, minimum ceiling heights and common area square footage, and a first-ever city review process for interiors.
The proposed new “compact living” guidelines reflect shrinking average household sizes and changing tenant tastes that place a premium on common areas and socializing rather than private spaces, housing specialists say.
“The way communities are organized is very different. The amount of communal space and the social aspect of communities means that doing these much smaller units makes sense,” said Nick Iselin, general manager of development for Lendlease’s Boston office.
The proposed two-year pilot program is the result of a lengthy study by city agencies. Applying to new developments containing 10 or more units, it would create maximum unit sizes of 450 square feet for studios and 625 square feet for one-bedroom units. Two- and three-bedroom units would be capped at 850 and 950 square feet square feet respectively.
Units proposed under the compact living rules – whether a portion or all of a development – would qualify for lower parking ratios expected to cut development costs. Underground parking can cost over $100,000 per space to build in downtown Boston, with some developers using automated stacking systems to cut costs. Garages cost approximately $30,000 per space, said David Bois, a principal at Arrowstreet architects.
While offering cost savings, reducing parking can backfire on developers if they deter potential tenants and buyers, Lendlease’s Iselin said. But in transit-friendly locations, ratios as little as 0.25 per unit have been widely accepted, he said. Parking ratios vary by zoning and neighborhood, but ratios as high as two per unit were common a decade ago, Iselin said.
“The parking ratios are right in line with what developers are seeing,” he said. “The developers are the ones taking the big risk with parking, because they want their projects to be marketable. We’ve used data from other properties that tell us most projects are now overparked.”
The policy does not spell out minimum unit sizes. But studios could be as small as 330 square feet if they comply with building codes, which require minimum 225-square-foot living areas not including kitchens and bathrooms, officials said at a public forum July 26.
The reduction in private spaces would be partly offset by new minimum square-footage for common areas, starting at a 40-square-foot per unit minimum for projects with 15 to 29 units.
Steve Adams
Sacrificing Rentable Space for Social Perks
Some of the policy’s goals are already being adopted as developers try to outdo each other with lavish common-area amenity packages ranging from indoor basketball courts to tasting rooms. Some are sacrificing leasable residential space on upper floors to add more gathering spots.
“The market is going this way anyway,” Bois said. “Developers are finding ways to put outside amenities in these buildings, such as restaurants that are subsidized by the development but create a neighborhood amenity for the building. It’s necessary to be competitive with the other developments.”
Taking it a step further, some developers are experimenting with hotel-style services and social programming in projects targeted at single-person households. A majority of the 250 units at National Development’s 7INK by Ollie at 217 Albany St. in South End would be studios, and the development would have four times as much common space as a conventional apartment building.
That reflects a decline in average household sizes, with only 30 percent of Boston households containing three or more people, according to a report by Imagine Boston 2030.
Transit-oriented projects would get the biggest parking requirements relief. Most Boston residents no longer commute by car, with 36 percent using public transit and 27 percent walking to work, according to Boston transportation department research released in 2015. And private vehicle use is expected to decline further as bicycle rentals and ride-hailing services grow, Bois noted.
Under the proposed compact living regulations, parking requirements would be lowest for developments near transit stops. Projects within a quarter-mile of public transit would qualify for parking ratios of 0.25 spaces per unit, increasing to 0.75 spaces more than a half-mile from transit. Residents wouldn’t be eligible for resident parking stickers. And developers could receive additional parking reductions by providing bike rental subsidies and other alternative transportation.
It’s unclear whether the new rules would significantly reduce development costs that could be passed onto renters and condo buyers.
Pricier building elements such as kitchens and bathrooms would be unaffected, Iselin noted, and residents’ prices per square foot are likely to be similar to those in a traditional development.
“They could be less in terms of face rents, and they may be more in terms of price per square foot,” he said. “You’re giving someone a benefit of living in a desirable location for a lower rent, and trading off for more communal space. More and more, it’s the face rents and the location that’s driving the (tenants’) comparisons.”
Being able to squeeze more units into a site could make the numbers work for developers who want to provide more workforce housing for moderate-income households, Bois said. And the denser layout could make it profitable to build more multifamily housing on smaller parcels.
“It’s one of the things that would allow for some smaller infill development where you can’t get the economies of scale of a large project, but could add a lot of housing into neighborhoods that really need it,” he said.
The proposal is subject to approval by the Boston Planning and Development Agency and the Zoning Board of Appeal, both of which are expected to review it this month.
