Revitalizing Urban Spaces: A Solution to Affordability and Homelessness
In numerous American cities, we witness an alarming trend: downtown office buildings stand largely vacant, their absence of occupants straining local businesses that once thrived. Concurrently, countless individuals, unable to secure affordable housing, find themselves sleeping on the streets. Fortunately, the solutions to these pressing issues are within our reach.
One potential starting point is the reevaluation of outdated local regulations, such as those mandating that apartment windows must be operable. It’s worth pondering—when was the last time you opened a window in a towering office high-rise or in a hotel room in a bustling city? These regulations were established long before the advent of modern air conditioning and mechanical ventilation, rendering them largely obsolete today. While an open window can be refreshing under the right circumstances, it also presents significant challenges in tackling some of our nation’s most critical dilemmas: housing affordability, homelessness, and the revitalization of downtown areas.
Recently, I collaborated on research at the Pew Charitable Trusts alongside the esteemed global architectural firm Gensler. Our findings revealed that eliminating the requirement for operable windows could pave the way for a new category of affordable housing: college-dorm-style single-room units. Each unit would be equipped with its own window, closet, fridge, and microwave, while shared spaces on each floor would facilitate cooking, bathrooms, laundry, and social interaction.
This innovative model leverages the plumbing systems typically found at the core of office buildings, allowing for a significantly higher density of living spaces—potentially accommodating three times as many apartments on each floor compared to traditional designs. Moreover, this approach can reduce construction costs by an impressive 25 to 35 percent. As a result, developers could set rental prices at approximately $750 per month in Minneapolis, $850 in Denver, and $1,000 in Seattle. These figures represent roughly half the median prices for standard apartments in these cities, making them accessible to residents earning 30 to 50 percent of the local median income. For those requiring subsidized housing, this model offers a more efficient use of government funds; for instance, the $300,000 subsidy required for a single low-income studio in Denver could instead finance the construction of 13 of these new units.
The potential benefits for cities and society at large are substantial. We would see a significant decrease in the number of individuals experiencing homelessness, a revitalization of downtown areas, improved walkability to jobs and public transit, and the fostering of a sense of community among residents. Each building floor would feature secure key-card access, transforming it into a small, vibrant neighborhood. Institutions such as hospitals, universities, and local governments seeking supportive housing solutions could easily rent entire floors for their needs.
By welcoming a diverse mix of residents of varying ages and income brackets—newcomers to the city, seniors, young professionals, and those in search of affordable housing—these developments could mitigate the issues historically associated with public housing. Unlike past projects that were often situated far from employment centers and concentrated poverty by exclusively accommodating individuals with very low incomes, this new approach could help address the complexities of today’s housing crisis.
