Policy is an important way to help create urban eco-friendly change in Washington. We’re going to look at housing policies and explore how changes in these policies could impact future sustainability and living options. Specifically, in what ways could the legalization of inexpensive, smaller living options influence economic and environmental sustainability in the Pacific Northwest? This inquiry addresses occupancy standards and limitations, shared living quarters such as rooming houses and micro-apartments, as well as accessory dwelling units and the popular “tiny house.” Research focuses on the effectiveness of current housing policies across Washington regarding smaller, more affordable living options, the benefits of community living, and the ways in which smaller living options are better for the environment. This is critical in confronting outdated and historically biased housing policies and exploring ways to address urban growth and climate change solutions through more economically and environmentally sustainable housing options.
Small Living
The idea of living small has gained popularity in recent years. The topic has been widespread throughout social media and is featured on several documentaries and television series about “tiny houses”—typically defined as being less than 500 square feet. Many people have opted to join this architectural and social movement of small living for a variety of reasons. Yet, in cities across the nation, tiny homes and other small living options are largely illegal. When affordable housing is scarce, urban areas are growing beyond capacity, and larger homes have larger carbon footprints, does it really matter if a smaller home has no closet or off-street parking? This essay examines the ways in which the legalization of inexpensive, smaller living options could influence social, economic and environmental sustainability in Washington through simple changes in housing policies. It also looks at the reasons many smaller housing options are illegal and argues those policies to be socially and environmentally unjust.
Many people see a reduction of living space as beneficial. The economic cost and environmental burden of average American homes serve as motivation for some, while others claim psychological relief from reducing clutter and living more simply. However, municipal codes and building regulations label certain dwellings as illegal or substandard when they lack a window in each bedroom, off-street parking, or a private kitchen. Even if a homeowner wishes to build a small dwelling on their own property, building codes make this process extremely difficult if not impossible altogether. Moreover, sharing existing living space with individuals other than family members can also be considered criminal.
Occupancy Standards and Limitations
Occupancy limits exist in almost every city and are applied to residences regardless of size. In Seattle, Washington, the limit is eight unrelated people in one home—in Portland, Oregon, the limit is six. These limits are applied to a studio apartment just the same as a ten bedroom mansion. Occupancy limits should not be blanket policies for entire communities. If a person owns a large home and wants to rent out empty bedrooms, it could very well be illegal. Occupancy limits hinder some of the most affordable, sustainable housing options by criminalizing multiple roommates and often deeming the occupation of existing bedrooms by non-family members illegal. These policies are repressive and perpetuate classism and racism; the groups most affected are low-income households, immigrants, people of color and young adults. Simple changes to occupancy standards can help improve economic and environmental sustainability by alleviating housing costs, controlling urban sprawl, and allowing energy sharing.
Rooming Houses and Micro-Apartments
Occupancy limits are not the only challenge; there are many policies which constrain housing options for marginalized groups. Another way this occurs is by outlawing rooming houses, more recently known as micro-apartments. These communal housing units allow tenants to share amenities such as kitchens and bathrooms, while providing small private bedrooms to each renter. This type of living arrangement is far more affordable, and carbon emissions are reduced when people share utilities—making them more environmentally sustainable than larger units. Rooming houses were historically used by many working-class individuals, immigrants, and single occupants in search of basic and affordable accommodations. However, over the last century, droves of federal, state, and local policies have driven rooming houses almost completely off the market. Below is and example of a micro-apartment/rooming house floor plan.
Photo credit: Colorado Rentals
Historically Unjust Policies
At the turn of the 20th century, early zoning laws began to systemically separate land uses. Some laws mapped industrial and residential districts, while others directly prohibited unwanted races from living in affluent, white neighborhoods. Racial zoning spread across American cities like wildfire. These practices were incredibly transpicuous, and in 1917, a unanimous Supreme Court ruling outlawed the practice of racial zoning. The ruling, however, did not outlaw zoning by area or land use.
Regulation became rampant; zoning laws and municipal codes shapeshifted from direct racial outlining to a more discreet approach. One of the most common tactics used excluded rooming houses and apartments from residential areas; others enforced apartment-specific fire and building codes. Rooming houses and apartments were systemically separated from newly developing areas, and existing apartment buildings struggled to accommodate the new regulations. Each unit, which previously shared amenities, was now legally required to contain a private bathroom and kitchen. Many owners could not afford to comply with these standards. White city officials stated the purpose of these regulations was to improve conditions, stop the spread of disease or improve fire safety, but mostly these redlining practices were aimed directly at keeping various lower-class, racial and ethnic groups segregated from the growing middle class. This is an ongoing issue resulting in social, economic and environmental injustice.
In Seattle specifically, deadly apartment fires in the 1970s brought about new safety codes and required building owners to comply with new standards. The mandatory upgrades were costly, and federal funding was only made available to up-to-date apartment buildings with private bathrooms and kitchens in each unit. Within months, Seattle saw over 5,000 low-cost housing units boarded up and permanently closed. It is important to note, certain regulations are functional and truly address issues of health and safety—such as lead paint laws—but others are arbitrary and impede affordable and sustainable living for many residents. Rooming houses and other communal living arrangements are still either illegal or highly regulated by size and design restrictions.
Accessory Dwelling Units
Yet another way of criminalizing affordable, small living is with restrictions on accessory dwelling units (ADUs), also known as mother-in-law apartments. Although ADUs typically range up to 1000 square feet and follow modern housing standards, tiny houses also qualify as ADUs if built or settled in the backyard of an existing home. Some cities, such as Seattle, further categorize ADUs by attachment—if they are built onto or separate from existing structures. Units separate from the existing structure are referred to as detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs), and if it is on wheels—such as many tiny houses are—it is considered a large vehicle and does not even qualify as a DADU. As of 2017, it is altogether illegal to reside in a tiny house on wheels in Seattle city limits.
In addition to policies outlawing tiny houses on wheels, other ADUs face a multitude of frivolous and unjust restrictions. These restrictions vary by city, but all are economically repressive. In Spokane, Washington, to build any variation of ADU, the unit is required to aesthetically match the exterior design of the main house. If someone cannot afford to comply, they cannot build. Often the property owner must live onsite for an ADU to be built or occupied; if a landlord owns a house and a perfectly livable backyard cottage, essentially two rental properties, only one may be rented out because the landlord must live in the other. Other policies state anyone living in an ADU must be related to the persons living in the main dwelling. This limits occupancy in yet another regard. Furthermore, in most Northwest cities, it is required for every ADU built to have one space of off-street parking available, even if the occupants do not own a vehicle. Below is an infographic from Reality Based Housing to help promote a more affordable Seattle via relieving restrictions on ADUs and DADUs.
Photo Credit: Reality Based Housing
Benefits of Smaller Living Options
Changes in these policies would foster many socioeconomic and ecological advantages. Bringing people together in such ways as rooming houses and shared living quarters creates a greater sense of community. There are known psychological benefits to community living such as a greater sense of security and belonging. Fully occupying existing homes can relieve the effects of sprawl and homelessness, as well as promote resource sharing. People who live with or near each other are more likely to share rides, again reducing carbon emissions. By using less building materials and resources, tiny houses cost less economically and environmentally. Every one of these elemental aspects helps promote a more sustainable and affordable future for our urban areas.
Current options for affordable housing are sparse and limited. Most cities continue to grow, becoming more expensive and forcing residents onto the street. Cities are battling homelessness and creating comprehensive plans to address growing numbers of homeless individuals and families due to a lack of affordable housing. Yet, within cities across the Pacific Northwest, more than 5 million bedrooms are empty on any given night. When it comes to homelessness, the problem is not a lack of space. However, when it comes to housing, space is a constant issue. Minimum square feet and amenity requirements prevent more affordable units from being built. If allowed, micro-apartments could expand housing options across many demographics and serve as a far more affordable option for people with a limited income.
With regard to climate change, more and more people are expected to be without homes due to rising sea levels, heat waves, and intensified weather events. According to Biermann & Boas, “Climate change threatens to cause the largest refugee crisis in human history.” Some researchers argue climate-driven migration is forecasted to greatly affect the Pacific Northwest due to more preferable climate conditions here versus other regions of the world. This will create an even larger influx of people moving to Washington in the next decades. If changes are made in housing policies now, there will be a greater chance of reducing current levels of urban sprawl, homelessness, and help provide inexpensive living quarters for climate-driven migrants in the years ahead.
Conclusion
Restrictive housing policies are hindering small living options in Washington. For a progressive and eco-friendly area which is rapidly growing, we should be doing more to encourage sustainable living and energy sharing. Tiny houses, micro-apartments, and other small living choices could help to ease the shortage of affordable housing in the Northwest and the nation. When considering climate change, urban and industrial growth and future sustainability, a team of researchers stated:
Cities are responsible for up to 70% of global carbon emissions and 75% of global energy consumption. By 2050 it is estimated that 70% of the world’s population will live in cities. The critical challenge for contemporary urbanism, therefore, is to understand how to develop the knowledge, capacity, and capability for public agencies, the private sector and multiple users in city regions to reengineer systemically their built environment and urban infrastructure in response to climate change and resource constraints (Eames et. al, 2013).
As researchers around the globe conduct studies to address impending population growth, water and food crises, and climate change issues, there is a very simple, accessible, and immediate way to alleviate some of the current pressures in Washington. Instead of condos, build micro-apartments; bring back rooming houses. Make equitable reformations to occupancy standards. Stop outlawing tiny houses, and relieve accessory dwelling units of their design limitations. Create a culture that helps promote the benefits of small living and dismantles the stigma associated with shared living. These housing restrictions are unjust, unsustainable, and politically fear-based. Legalizing small, inexpensive living options would not only benefit urban growth, climate stability and relieve economic pressures—it would help to sustain Washington along with its current and future community members.
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO HELP MAKE CHANGE IN YOUR COMMUNITY?
Write to your local politicians, housing and land-use committees!! Here is a free, generic template for you to send in your housing policy recommendations. Take action today to help make a difference!
Leave a Reply