Background
 |
| Marion Micro Housing by Neiman Taber |
In response to the ongoing
controversy over micro housing, Councilmember Mike O'Brien has proposed new
legislation that would significantly change the rules for micro housing
development in Seattle.
Depending on your point of view
this proposal is either a welcome reset of the development standards for the
zone, or a step backwards in terms of accommodating the real world needs of our
housing market. Putting this question
aside, the proposal is based on the premise that current forms of micro housing
have a unit density that is inappropriate (too dense) for the low-rise (LR)
zones.
 |
| Ravenna Micro Housing by Neiman Taber |
Current micro housing
development is mostly built in the form of congregate housing (private sleeping rooms
with shared kitchens and other amenities) and produces an average unit size of
about 150 ft.². Councilmember O'Brien's proposal would ban private development
of congregate housing in LR zones, replacing them with conventional studio
apartments with a minimum average size of 220 ft.². Development under this new
proposal would result in a unit density roughly two-thirds of what is typical
today.
Land-use regulations should
always be as simple and as flexible as possible. Since the purpose of the
proposal is to limit density, the straightforward way to do so is to impose a
density limit. Instead, the proposal attempts to regulate density indirectly by
restricting unit type, size, and features in a manner that is unnecessarily
restrictive, complex, and likely to lead to unintended consequences.
As architects that specialize in
infill housing we have designed a number of small unit housing projects. Some
of the projects are congregate style micro housing with shared communal spaces.
Some of the projects are conventional studio apartments that have few shared amenities.
While these two types of small unit housing serve a similar sector of the
housing market, the unit designs for the two types are quite distinct from one
another and neither type matches very well with the unit sizes that are
anticipated by the new proposal.
The Difference Between Micros and Studios
Small studios
and micros are not the same thing. Micros are generally designed with built-in
amenities along the perimeter of the room and a walkway down the middle.
Studios are generally designed with bathrooms & kitchen areas clustered
into a zone so that the remaining living room area can be set up with loose
furniture arrangements.
Because of
their efficient configuration, micros generally average around 150sf (Figure
1a). As they get bigger, the built-in
amenities get roomier, resulting in larger bathrooms, kitchenettes, desks, and
beds. In all sizes, a double loaded walkway down the middle remains more or
less a constant (Figure 1b).
Because of
the pragmatics of furniture settings (and a code dictated minimum living room
size), most studios are larger than 220sf (Figure 2a). In our projects, it is rare for us to design
studio smaller than 250sf. As studios
get smaller, they get progressively more difficult to furnish in a useful
manner (Figure 2b). 220sf is very close
to the lower limit for a studio.
So, while it
is quite possible to design a useful dwelling unit at 220sf, or even 180sf (the
minimum size currently proposed), the low end of the range anticipated by the
proposal is not realistic in the studio format.
The floor plan arrangement that works
best at that size is the one we use for micro’s, but this kind of floor plan
cannot meet the minimum living room area required for studio apartments
(currently 150sf, proposed 120sf).
Conclusion
The
legislation, as proposed, would make it impossible to provide a small unit in
the format that makes it most useful for the end user.
If the goal
is to regulate density, then regulate density.
Council member O’Brien’s proposal would work out to roughly a density
limit of 1/150 in LR3 and 1/230 in LR2 (units /land sf). LR1 already has a density limit for apartments.
Enacting a
density limit would achieve the council's stated policy goals while making large
parts of the remaining legislation unnecessary.
With a density limit in place, there is no need to regulate minimum unit
size, both small apartments and congregate housing could be allowed, and there
is no need for the land use code to micromanage the interior design of housing
units. The outcome is predictable,
flexibility is preserved, and individual developers and architects remain able
to design housing that best fits the needs of users.
Table A for
23.45.512: Density Limits in Lowrise Zones
Zone
|
Units allowed per square foot of lot area by category of
residential use
|
|
Cottage Housing Development (1) and
Single-family Dwelling Unit
|
Rowhouse Development
|
Townhouse Development (2)
|
Apartment (3)
|
LR1
|
1/1,600
|
No limit
|
1/2,200 or 1/1,600
|
1/2,000
|
LR2
|
1/1,600
|
No limit
|
1/1,600 or No limit
|
1/1,200 or No limit 1/230
|
LR3
|
1/1,600
|
No limit
|
1/1,600 or No limit
|
1/800 or No limit 1/150
|
