Why This Tiny Apartment is Taking Over American Cities

Why are apartments shrinking across America — and why does every tiny unit look exactly the same? In 2017, Chicago's first purpose-built micro-apartment building opened, and people couldn't understand why anyone would choose to live in 350 square feet. But since then, these tiny units have become the norm in cities across the country — renting for $1,000 to over $2,000 a month, roughly what a two-bedroom costs elsewhere. In this video, I break down why micro-apartments all share the same oddly specific layout, why building them actually costs more than larger units, and why the real story behind their spread isn't developer greed — it's a collision of plumbing logic, accessibility codes, zoning laws, and a massive demographic shift toward single-person households. Topics covered: — Why micro-apartment floor plans are essentially dictated by building codes — The surprising math of micro-unit development costs vs. revenue — How the average American household shrank from 3+ people to about 2.5 — Why 40% of Chicago households are just one person — What happened when Seattle tried to restrict micro-housing — The real housing types that are missing from American neighborhoods _Special Thanks_ Evan Montgomery: Producer Daniela Osorio Sanudo: Graphics _Sources & further reading_ Urban Land Institute. *The Macro View on Micro Units*. Washington, DC: ULI, 2014. Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University. *The State of Rental Housing in Cook County*. Chicago: DePaul University, 2023. U.S. Census Bureau. "Households by Type and Size: Chicago City, Illinois." *American Community Survey*, 5-Year Estimates, 2022. Parolek, Daniel. *Missing Middle Housing: Thinking Big and Building Small to Respond to Today's Housing Crisis*. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2020. Glaeser, Edward L., and Joseph Gyourko. "The Impact of Building Restrictions on Housing Affordability." Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 9, no. 2 (2003): 21–39. Sightline Institute. *Micro-Housing in Seattle: Policy Lessons from the Front Lines*. Seattle: Sightline Institute, 2016. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. *The State of the Nation's Housing 2024*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2024. National Low Income Housing Coalition. *The Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Homes*. Washington, DC: NLIHC, 2024. Pew Research Center. "Americans' Views of Housing Affordability and Supply." Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2024. Klinenberg, Eric. *Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone*. New York: Penguin Press, 2012. City of Chicago. *Chicago Building Code, Title 14B: Chicago Zoning Ordinance*. Municipal Code of Chicago. --- ``` Create a detailed outline of this video. Make a timeline of events and places. What are the implications for City Housing policies? ``` Micro-apartments emerge here as a **spatial symptom** of deeper zoning, finance, and demographic shifts rather than a simple design fad, and the policy implications center on fixing the broader housing system rather than banning tiny units. --- # Detailed outline of the video 1. **Opening: The strange rise of tiny units** ts:0–40{ts:0–40}ts:0–40 - 2017: Residents move into Chicago’s first purpose-built micro-apartment building; units about the size of a hotel room. - Similar buildings now “sprouting up almost everywhere”; in Seattle they’re nearly two-thirds of new apartments under construction. - Neighbors and community groups worry about crowding, instability, and “shrinkflation” in housing as unit sizes fall by ~50 sq ft over the last decade. - These micro units average ~350 sq ft or less; yet their floor plans are strikingly similar across cities. 2. **Why every micro-apartment looks the same: codes and constraints** ts:40–144{ts:40–144}ts:40–144 - Typical layout: narrow entry strip, bathroom near hallway, wall kitchen or tiny alcove, one main multipurpose room. - When a full set of “home functions” is compressed, the plan becomes a “transparent reflection” of code minimums. - Plumbing logic: kitchens and bathrooms stack in vertical lines; bathrooms form a thick band near the corridor, lateral pipes run to a central chase. - Accessibility: minimum clearances for doors, kitchens, turning radii, etc., set non-negotiable strips of space. - Structure: load-bearing walls or structural modules further fix widths. - Egress, daylight, and ventilation set the depth and window allocation, based on minimum ceiling heights and widths. - Result: the “balancing act” of costs and laws leaves architects with only a thin veneer of creative freedom. 3. **Developer math: costs, revenues, and lender logic** ts:149–359{ts:149–359}ts:149–359 - Case site: formerly an empty lot in Chicago next to a bus stop, qualifying it as a transit-oriented development (TOD). - In this TOD zone, developers can: - Avoid parking requirements for each resident. - Build a project made entirely of small, efficient units—both forbidden if farther from transit. - Max building area: ~50,000 sq ft. - Option A: ~50 “normal-sized” 1,000 sq ft units. - Option B: ~100 units at 500 sq ft each. - More units ≠ cheaper: double the number of kitchens, baths, doors, and connections; studies suggest 5–15% higher construction costs for the same area with more, smaller units. - Design complexity: even with copy-paste units, lots of work goes into built-in ledges, nooks, higher ceilings, or robotic furniture to make spaces flexible. - Micro units often rent for less total dollars, but more per square foot—sometimes twice as much per sq ft. - Lenders post-2008 prefer micro-unit projects: - Construction loans are fewer and more conservative than in 2007. - Micro projects lease up fast and stay full, produce stable income, and lower rents widen the pool of potential tenants. 4. **Demand side: demographics and “missing middle” housing** ts:365–487{ts:365–487}ts:365–487 - Shrinking household size: from well over 3 people in the 1960s to below 2.5 today in the U.S. - In Chicago: - ~40% of households are single-person. - In the Loop, over half the population lives alone. - Existing stock: - Single-family homes (workers’ cottages, bungalows) ≈ 25% of buildings. - 2–4 flats ≈ 25%. - Condos ≈ 20%. - Larger buildings (5+ units) ≈ 30+%. - Few were built for one-person households; over decades, zoning has locked huge areas into single-family-only, layered with parking ratios and lot coverage rules that make modest apartments hard to pencil out. - Many people are happy to trade space for: prime location, amenities, and transit access. - The result: lots of one-person households, a large-family-oriented stock, and a mismatch between changed lives and static building types. - The U.S. is short over 2 million homes; Chicago alone needs 100,000+. - Micro apartments are one tool to close that gap quickly in high-demand, high-transit-access areas. 5. **Are micro-units helping or hurting? Substitution and displacement** ts:487–575{ts:487–575}ts:487–575 - Even as “luxury,” micro-units bring “front doors” to locations where zoning, land costs, and incomes make larger, cheaper units hard to deliver. - They reduce pressure on the genuinely affordable stock by absorbing some demand at slightly higher price points. - They can look like “gentrification in physical form”; finishing and rents may displace previous residents’ options. - Counterfactual: if micro-units were banned, many sites would see nothing built or just a few large, expensive units instead. - Seattle example: tightening micro-housing rules didn’t yield generous, cheap apartments; it cut production by hundreds of units per year and raised rents on what did get built. 6. **Perceptions, politics, and the supply skepticism problem** ts:575–607{ts:575–607}ts:575–607 - Poll data: - 79% of Americans say housing costs are too high or way too high. - 62% say it’s harder to find housing they can afford. - Only ~25% believe that building more housing locally would lower costs. - Tension: micro apartments are blamed for the housing crisis they’re actually embedded in; they become visible villains, while the real structural causes remain invisible. - Real problem: when micro units are the _only_ thing that can get built, neighborhoods become lopsided and brittle. 7. **Toward a complete housing ecosystem** ts:607–717{ts:607–717}ts:607–717 - Missing variety: what’s absent isn’t just square footage but **range of types**. - A healthy neighborhood needs: - Studios for newcomers/solo workers. - 1–2 bedroom units for couples, roommates, small families. - 3+ bedrooms for larger households. - Flexible buildings that can cycle through these types over time. - The crucial “fight” is over **rules and laws** determining what buildings are possible: zoning, parking, FAR, and incentives. - With thoughtful incentives and restrictions, micro-units are one tool among many; without them, micro-units become easy money and dominate. - Cities are experimenting: preserving SROs, legalizing ADUs (backyard/basement units), converting offices to housing. - Design angle: micro-units compress all home functions into a diagram that forces careful thinking about every inch. - City angle: micro-units are a “pressure valve” signaling larger systemic problems; they are symptoms, not the disease. --- ## Timeline of events and places (within the narrative) |Time (approx.)|Event / Topic|Place / Context| |---|---|---| |{ts:0–16}|First purpose-built micro-apartment building opens, residents move in|Chicago, 2017 | |{ts:9–16}|Micro buildings spreading rapidly, especially dominant in new supply|Seattle: ~2/3 of new apartments are micro-units | |{ts:40–144}|Explanation of typical micro-apartment layout and the role of codes|General U.S. cities, examples framed around Chicago buildings | |{ts:176–212}|Description of an empty lot redeveloped into micro-units; TOD rules|Chicago site next to a bus stop (Transit-Oriented Development) | |{ts:217–245}|Build-out options: 50 × 1,000 sq ft vs 100 × 500 sq ft units|Same Chicago parcel, illustrative pro forma | |{ts:324–335}|Lenders post–Great Recession favor micro-unit projects|U.S. lending environment after 2008; data up to 2025 | |{ts:384–404}|Shrinking household size nationally and in Chicago; rise of solo living|United States; detailed Chicago and Chicago Loop data | |{ts:421–433}|Composition of Chicago housing stock by building type|Chicago (workers’ cottages, bungalows, 2–4 flats, condos, large apartments) | |{ts:445–452}|Single-family zoning, parking ratios, and lot coverage squeeze out “in-between” housing|Chicago as example of U.S.-wide zoning patterns | |{ts:482–495}|U.S. housing shortage of 2M+ homes; 100k+ needed in Chicago alone|National U.S. housing market; Chicago region | |{ts:549–575}|Seattle’s micro-housing restrictions and their outcome (fewer units, higher rents)|Seattle, post–micro-housing rule changes | |{ts:575–595}|Poll results on housing affordability and attitudes toward new construction|U.S. national polling (Pew Research, etc.) | |{ts:661–673}|Policy experiments: preserving SROs, legalizing ADUs, converting offices|Various U.S. cities; not all named but framed as nationwide trends | --- # Implications for city housing policies ## 1. Don’t scapegoat micro-units; broaden the housing toolkit - Micro-apartments are **one response** to tight zoning, reduced lending appetite, rising land costs, and a surge in one-person households; banning them doesn’t fix those drivers. - Where Seattle restricted micro-housing, the result was fewer total units and higher rents, not large, cheap apartments. - Policy implication: instead of prohibitions, integrate micro-units as one allowed housing type within a larger strategy, ensuring they **complement** rather than crowd out other forms. ## 2. Reform zoning to restore “missing middle” variety - Single-family-only zoning, parking mandates, and lot coverage rules have quietly eliminated many small, modest multi-family formats (duplexes, triplexes, courtyard buildings, small walk-ups). - This leaves a polarized stock: large single-family homes and big multi-family buildings, with very little in between, despite a large share of one- and two-person households. - Policy implications: - Legalize duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and small multifamily in more neighborhoods. - Reduce or remove parking minimums, especially near transit. - Loosen lot coverage and floor-area rules that make small, lower-rent buildings infeasible. ## 3. Align codes and incentives with small-unit feasibility without over-constraining form - Current building codes and accessibility standards effectively **dictate micro-unit layouts**, leaving almost no design freedom. - While safety and accessibility are non-negotiable, incremental reforms could allow more varied floor plans and building types (e.g., small walk-ups, shared-core layouts) that still meet life-safety and accessibility goals. - Policy implications: review how accessibility, mechanical, and egress requirements interact at very small unit sizes, with an eye toward enabling more forms of small, modest housing beyond the single narrow-corridor micro-unit template. ## 4. Use micro-units to relieve pressure on affordable housing, but not as the default - Even “luxury” micro-units add supply in high-demand, transit-rich areas where larger, cheaper units can’t be delivered under current rules, and they can absorb demand that would otherwise bid up older, cheaper units. - However, if micro-units are _all_ that can get built, neighborhoods become “lopsided and brittle,” with few options for families or people whose needs change over time. - Policy implications: - Tie micro-unit approvals to requirements or incentives for a mix of unit sizes in a neighborhood or building portfolio. - Pair micro-unit projects with preservation or creation of larger family units (e.g., inclusionary requirements, land trusts, SRO preservation). ## 5. Address the perception gap about supply and affordability - Most Americans believe housing costs are too high but only a minority believe more construction will lower prices. - This perception fuels opposition to new housing, including micro-units, even when evidence suggests supply constraints raise costs. - Policy implications: - Couple zoning reforms with clear public communication and data (e.g., local dashboards on permits, rents, and vacancy). - Use pilot projects (e.g., ADUs, converted offices, SRO preservation) with measured outcomes to demonstrate benefits over time. ## 6. Plan for full life-cycle and household transitions - A robust housing system allows people to “move through” different unit sizes as their lives change: studios → 1–2BR → larger units, without leaving the neighborhood. - Micro-units work well as an entry point (students, new workers, people temporarily solo) but are weak if they become the only urban option. - Policy implications: deliberately plan for **unit-type diversity** in neighborhood plans and zoning, not just total unit counts—bake in targets or guidance for various bedroom counts and building types.