Gov. Maura Healey’s Unlocking Housing Production Commission suggested removing government mandates for how much car parking must be included in development, letting market demand for parking decide, instead. iStock photo

Like most of the country, Massachusetts is in the midst of a widely-acknowledged housing crisis. As architects with a focus on the multifamily sector, our firm, The Architectural Team (TAT), has collaborated for decades with leading developers, nonprofits, municipal officials, and public agencies to uncover creative opportunities for maximizing apartment production and improving livability and affordability in cities and towns across the state.

But truly addressing the shortage requires a holistic and proactive approach to every aspect of housing production – including at the statewide policy level.

Fortunately, state leaders are prioritizing solutions. The final report from Gov. Maura Healey’s Unlocking Housing Production Commission outlines important potential policy shifts and new approaches that should excite any real estate leader committed to housing issues. To understand the potentially dramatic impact of these recommendations, it’s worth zooming in on two proposed reforms, one to the building code and one to land use policy, that could on their own in fact generate thousands of new housing units.

Single-Stair Code Reform Overdue

One of the most significant sections of the new report is a proposal to allow single-stair apartment buildings up to six stories.

Single-stair designs are common in some U.S. markets, including New York City, and are the norm worldwide. Bringing this approach to Massachusetts presents a unique opportunity to unlock housing potential across the state, especially for smaller and infill sites.

Per the current Massachusetts code, a single-exit apartment building is only allowed for a building with a maximum height of 3 stories, and with no more than 12 units. The code reform would effectively double these numbers, in many cases allowing twice as many apartments on the same site.

This proposal is supported by the findings in “Legalizing Mid-Rise Single-Stair Housing in Massachusetts,” a report by Utile, Boston Indicators and Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. It demonstrates that similar reforms have successfully increased housing production while maintaining safety and livability.

Expanding the allowable height and unit count for single-stair buildings could create new multifamily housing opportunities, particularly on constrained sites where two-stair designs are impractical.

Allowing a modest increase in the size of buildings allowed to have only one staircase can be done in a safe way while also opening the way for better-designed and more affordable developments. iStock photo

Why Single-Stair Buildings?

The potential benefits for developers targeting smaller and infill sites are substantial. Many urban and suburban parcels are underutilized because the requirement for two stairways reduces net rentable floor area and limits overall design efficiency, making mid-sized multifamily housing less feasible.

Allowing single-stair buildings would create more flexibility, maximizing the usable space for residential units and improving project viability especially on constrained lots. These reforms would also improve unit layouts and livability. A single-stair configuration allows more opportunity for units with multiple exposures – increasing access to daylight, passive solar gain and cross ventilation. This configuration also enables corner and through-units, improving the quality of living spaces.

Crucially, reducing stair requirements also unlocks substantial cost savings. Eliminating one stairwell can reduce construction costs, as stair cores require additional structure, fireproofing and fire protection systems such as sprinklers and standpipes. For small and mid-sized buildings, these savings can improve project feasibility, making housing more financially viable.

Ultimately the result is increased density and net rentable space. With less vertical circulation, more of the building’s area can be used for rentable residential units rather than stairwells and corridors, maximizing efficiency. This allows for potentially more housing units within the same building footprint, helping to address housing shortages.

Improving Layouts in Larger Buildings

Developers of larger apartment buildings will benefit from single-stair reform also, although they are less likely to see cost savings. In these cases, the opportunity is for better design and unit layouts.

Many larger apartment buildings today are designed with a single elevator core and two stairwells, serving a double-loaded corridor. A single-stair model in larger buildings – clustering 20 to 24 units about a single stair and elevator core – would reduce horizontal circulation (fewer or shorter corridors) and allow for more design flexibility but would require additional stairs and elevator cores for most designs.

More stair and elevator cores increase structure, fireproofing and mechanical system costs, potentially offsetting any efficiency gains.

Although unlikely to reduce costs in larger projects, single-stair or point-access designs offer a significant opportunity to enhance the design quality of multifamily buildings. In larger apartment buildings, unit layouts are often constrained by double-loaded corridor designs, which optimize efficiency but can sometimes limit design flexibility.

Parking reform can limit housing project costs as illustrated by the 1,000-unit Anne M. Lynch Homes at Old Colony redevelopment project in South Boston (pictured), which does not include off-street parking. Image courtesy of The Architectural Team

Parking Reform Tied to Market Demand

From a land use and zoning perspective, one of the Unlocking Housing Production Commission report’s most significant recommendations is to eliminate parking minimums statewide for any residential use.

Many municipalities nationwide are exploring this approach as a means of reducing development cost and boosting the number of actual residential units for a given development. There are important benefits to this reform, too. The key is to recognize that while requirements would be eliminated, developers will still be able to tie parking provision to market demand.

Regardless of zoning mandates, developers must meet actual parking demand – because a project’s viability depends on it. If parking is inadequate, people won’t rent there. The market, not outdated zoning codes, is the best determinant of parking needs. Yet many municipalities still require two or more spaces per unit, even when real-world demand is significantly lower.

And in transit-rich neighborhoods, outdated parking minimums limit housing production by forcing excessive parking lots and garages that often sit underutilized.

Edward R. Bradford

Better Parking, Better Urban Design

Removing these mandates allows for more units, better urban design and greater affordability. After all, parking construction is a major cost driver: Structured parking – whether a freestanding garage, a wrap-around configuration, or podium parking – can add $50,000 or more per unit to development costs. These costs often make projects financially unfeasible, limiting the production of much-needed housing.

Eliminating parking minimums also allows greater design flexibility and ultimately leads to better housing, better urban design, and better neighborhoods. For instance, developers can prioritize more efficient site layouts instead of dedicating large portions of land to parking. This in turn allows for more active streetscapes, better open spaces, and new mixed-use development opportunities.

Reducing unnecessary parking supports sustainability goals, too. Less parking means less land paved over, lower heat island effects and reduced stormwater runoff. It also encourages transit-oriented development (TOD), helping reduce congestion and carbon emissions.

By eliminating one-size-fits-all requirements, cities can let the market dictate parking needs – just as they do with unit mix, amenities and retail spaces.

These kinds of smart shifts in land use policy and building codes put forward in the Unlocking Housing Production Commission report may seem like small changes on the margins, but their impact would be substantial.

And as just two elements of this much broader, comprehensive proposal to rethink how our state approaches housing, the clear benefits of single-stair and parking reform should give real estate leaders confidence that Massachusetts is on the right path to addressing one of our most urgent challenges.

Edward R. Bradford is a principal at The Architectural Team Inc. in Chelsea.