Boarding Houses

[RailBaronYarr]

Interesting tweet from CM Bender:

https://twitter.com/lisabendermpls/stat ... 3885817857

Some great background here (part of a must-read larger series on unlocking a variety of market-rate housing that is affordable to lower-income residents)

[MNdible]

That article is a little bit loose with its definitions.

If by boarding house / rooming house, you mean a very efficient efficiency apartment, I'd be supportive of that. If instead you mean a true SRO (no toilet or kitchen facilities within the unit), I don't think that is a good direction, or at least not as a permitted use within a standard residential zoned parcel.

[seanrichardryan]

Perhaps someone should look into why they were unzoned in the first place.

[Avian]

There are quite a few SRO buildings in the Twin Cities already, with shared baths and a central kitchen where food is served to the residents. They are part of the GRH program run by the state. They are privately owned but many receive all of their funding from the public and some of them make a tidy profit. The owners are paid by the bed, not by the room, so most houses cram 2-4 beds in each room. The owners receive $876 per month per bed. In the case of residents who are inmates on supervised release, the owners of these houses get $1400 per month per bed.

Given that there is already a publicly-funded version of boarding houses, an expansion of the concept to private housing is hard to argue against.

[MNdible]

But those are pretty tightly regulated and monitored, so not really the same thing.

To ask the question slightly differently, were we to allow these, where would we allow them? Would you be supportive of one being built, say, right next door to your house?

They carry a stigma with them, and for not an entirely baseless reason.

[RailBaronYarr]

I guess I'm confused why an ultra-efficient 150 sqft studio with a tiny toilet but no real kitchen - just a mini-fridge + microwave would be okay but stripping out the toilet from the unit all of a sudden brings a negative stigma. Dormitories in college have shared bathrooms between two rooms but no allowance for kitchens. They're about 13x13, and fit 2 people usually (I lived in a single in Pioneer Hall that was 7x13). Obviously they're much larger and more institutional, but I don't know why 18 year olds in college can live like that but we don't offer that option to 18 year olds who choose to enter the workforce but still want to live on the cheap.

I agree we'd probably want to be careful regulating how they're managed and maintained. But I can't see them being more of a nuissance to neighbors than any other apartment...

[Tcmetro]

I think the problem is that historically these types of housing attract people who have very low incomes. Essentially what happened in the past is that poverty was extremely concentrated, and these neighborhoods became "problem areas", with heavy social issues like homelessness, unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. This type of housing is prevalent in the Tenderloin in SF, which is quite an unpleasant area that is generally considered unsafe. From what I understand, Bridge Square was pretty much like this until it was urban renewed out of existence, as was Selby-Dale until that area gentrified.

In an ideal world, I think that these types of housing could be quite useful, but I think in the current state of American society they could reopen a lot of problems.

Take my words with a grain of salt, as this is an issue which is quite beyond my knowledge.

[xandrex]

I think a big problem with boarding houses is who, exactly, they are appealing to?

In a city like San Francisco or New York, they answer is pretty obvious: There are a lot of people (including people in white-collar jobs) who just can't afford the housing market there or have to go far into the outer boroughs. I have a friend in NYC who was apartment hunting recently. His budget for his share of a two-bedroom apartment was $1500. And even finding a place like that was a struggle in Manhattan. He found such a place (that wasn't that great, except for location), but eventually found a hidden gem in Williamsburg for $1200 plus utilities (he ends up paying approximately $1350 or so, I believe), but that was a stroke of luck.

In Minneapolis, apartments can be found for pretty cheap. Even in highly-desired areas like Uptown, you can find apartments in the sub-600 range. You don't need to go super far out to reach affordable apartments. Because of that, I have to wonder how cheap a bedroom with shared building amenities could be. Maybe $400-500? Unless you can get them substantially cheaper than a studio apartment, I just can't see the demand.

And if you're looking to save cash and are willing to share amenities, why not simply live in a two- or three-bedroom apartment? One of my cousins lives in the Wedge with a rent around $400/month to share with two other people. You get cheap rent and have to share a toilet/shower/kitchen with far fewer people than any boarding house.

I can see these working in maybe two locations: downtown and the U. Downtown could appeal to recent college grads or service workers in the core who aren't making a whole lot of money. The U option would be an attractive selling point for students who are used to dorm life and maybe paying their way through college. Still, the downtown location could very quickly get a "reputation," deserved or not and the U can't offer much more than a Como house can (except, perhaps, being closer to campus).

[FISHMANPET]

I think a boarding house can just be a firmer form of the X people each get a bedroom in a house, or something like that. I think a 1 bedroom or studio is a little bit too expensive for some people, even people that aren't "poor" or whatever. Or people that just need to much space and want to spend money otherwise, but don't want to deal with finding roomates and all that drama (because it's not zero effort to find people to live with and keep a house full etc etc).

[xandrex]

I think a boarding house can just be a firmer form of the X people each get a bedroom in a house, or something like that. I think a 1 bedroom or studio is a little bit too expensive for some people, even people that aren't "poor" or whatever. Or people that just need to much space and want to spend money otherwise, but don't want to deal with finding roomates and all that drama (because it's not zero effort to find people to live with and keep a house full etc etc).

But how cheap can these actually be? Yes, some old boarding houses in decrepit buildings can get away with low rent. But unlike some other big cities, a studio can actually be quite affordable in Minneapolis...I've seen decent ones (as in, maybe a little old, but very clean and well maintained) for $450. I just have my doubts you could actually push (newly constructed) unit prices low enough to sway any number of people.

On a related note, Politico seems to have caught wind of the micro-apartment trend in Seattle, calling them "hipster hovels". One micro-apartment discussed is 192 sq. ft. and is priced at $822.

[RailBaronYarr]

I wonder what % of public/subsidized housing is units for 1 person. If we could alleviate the burden on public budgets (not that we maybe couldn't put more priority on that vs other spending initiatives...), give options to those on the waiting list for vouchers/etc, put more properties on the tax roll, and give those folks housing at the same price they're paying via subsidies, why wouldn't we? As FMP says, this is just a more formal version of living with multiple people in a house/3 BR apartment without hte hassle of finding those people and committing together to a lease.

Also, as the link above points out, these things are gaining traction in Seattle. A city with (overall) similar demographics, incomes, housing prices, etc as MSP. I don't think we'd see 5,000 units flood the market right away, but they could easily have a place in many neighborhoods outside the U/DT.

[xandrex]

I wonder what % of public/subsidized housing is units for 1 person. If we could alleviate the burden on public budgets (not that we maybe couldn't put more priority on that vs other spending initiatives...), give options to those on the waiting list for vouchers/etc, put more properties on the tax roll, and give those folks housing at the same price they're paying via subsidies, why wouldn't we? As FMP says, this is just a more formal version of living with multiple people in a house/3 BR apartment without hte hassle of finding those people and committing together to a lease.

Also, as the link above points out, these things are gaining traction in Seattle. A city with (overall) similar demographics, incomes, housing prices, etc as MSP. I don't think we'd see 5,000 units flood the market right away, but they could easily have a place in many neighborhoods outside the U/DT.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I don't think these are even a bad idea. The units mentioned in the article really only share a kitchen with a few units and probably some dining space. For a busy person who eats out a lot, that's probably not a big deal.

My only question is: How many of these can we actually fill up while rents remain cheap. I agree that Seattle has similar demographics and incomes, but rents aren't the same. The Seattle Times did an article earlier this year that found the average rent for a 1 bed/1 bath in the city was $1445 before utilities. I found one website--can't confirm credibility--that says the average price for Minneapolis in May (when the Seattle numbers were crunched) was $941. That's a $500/month average difference, which is nothing to snuff at. Units work there because housing near the core is incredibly expensive.

If these can work, I say go for it. But they've really got to be tightly regulated/monitored, otherwise expect neighborhoods to go all Linden Hills on these projects.

[MNdible]

If the City of Minneapolis does one more thing "because Seattle/Portland/San Francisco" is doing it, I'll puke. I really will.

[IllogicalJake]

If the City of Minneapolis does one more thing "because Seattle/Portland/San Francisco" is doing it, I'll puke. I really will.

Cities always look to each other for what's successful and what's not. It's not new, it's not just Minneapolis, and it's not going away...

[MNdible]

Except lately, the criterion isn't even whether or not it's successful. It's just a headlong, desperate rush to do what the cool kids are doing.

"I read in a magazine that Seattle is building opium dens. How urbane!"

[RailBaronYarr]

Well, I certainly hope my advocacy for these didn't come across as "because Portland!" I just think they're a good idea to add to the available housing options, even if (like ADUs) we may only see a couple hundred units a year come of it. That the link I shared happened to be a Cascadia-oriented one is simply because they did a great job detailing these units. It's also nice to use cities like Seattle/Portland as examples because they're NOT NYC, San Fran, DC, etc where the historical built form, geography, job draw, or any other factor reeeally makes the comparison to MSP pretty tough.

[FISHMANPET]

First, I think "nobody will build them now" isn't a good reason to not legalize them. I don't think they'll revolutionize the city, but they could add a few units her or there on the margin. And maybe someday in the future they will make more sense, at which point we'll have the regulations in place.

But if boarding houses were legal I could see the conversation around something like 2320 Colfax being completely different. What if we restored the exterior, gutted the interior, and made it into a nice boarding house, maybe use historic tax credits or something. There could be houses around the city that might be too big for a family but not really work to be split up into apartments, where a boarding house type thing would work.

I've had two friends live in a boarding house type situation (one in Dinkytown as a college student, one in an older house a few blocks from Lake Calhoun) and they both found it beneficial, I don't see why we should prohibit an expansion of that system.

[clf]

There are many current boarding houses in Minneapolis. In my general neighborhood I can think of at least four, all very well maintained from the outside, in cool old houses. When they changed the boarding house rule many were grandfathered in. By re-legalizing it would offer better control of "slumlord" type practices and require landlords to be up to code, which is how they have that stigma. I have many friends who have lived in units like these, with a private lockable bedroom, shared kitchen and bath. With rent that is month to month, many have found themselves in situations where this is convenient. Examples- after a divorce, new in town, laid off, and I have one friend that has lived in the same unit for years, he just likes the low rent (350.00/month ) and convenience.