Co-creating Boston's Future-Decker

In May of this year, the  BSA  and  Housing iLab  launched a Housing Innovation Competition titled “ Co-creating Boston’s Future-Decker ” asking participants to ideate and propose new housing models for multifamily housing by drawing inspiration from the triple-decker. Made up of two phases, the competition begins with the release of a Request for Ideas (RFI, Phase I), where participants shared innovative ideas for housing that could be built on one or more preselected city-owned sites, to help inform what will eventually be included in a Request for Proposals (RFPs, Phase II) for a yet-to-be-selected city-owned site. Showcased here are the ideas and perspectives from unique individuals and groups who together, seek to find ways to improve the lives of Boston’s residents one idea at a time.

Below are 5 key themes that emerged from the 19 ideas submitted, each with their perspective barriers that currently stand in the way of this scale of housing from being build.

The BSA and iLab’s hypothesis is that multifamily housing, like the triple-decker and its future iteration here described as the future-decker, can help bridge a gap between small- and large-scale development in Boston. This type of middle-scale housing not only helps provide diverse and affordable housing options for residents, but also helps to create more sustainable, accessible, and equitable neighborhoods in our city.

ADAPTABILITY AND FLEXIBILITY

While the classic triple-decker featured three stacked units with the exact same layout on each floor, the future-decker imagines an even more flexible plan, by offering a diversity of home sizes with the building and the ability to change and add to each unit over time. This flexibility allows people to stay in their homes as their family expands or shrinks and as they age. Some options even allow for an accessory dwelling unit or a workspace to build more economic opportunity.

Adaptive and flexible housing ideas are often tied to alternative methods of construction, such as modular construction. Many of the RFI responses included flexible interior elements that could be periodically moved or added (e.g., walls). To achieve this level of flexibility, a project would require early integration of a modular infrastructure that would then facilitate the spatial transformation of a home, depending on the resident’s needs.

Community was a strong theme throughout many of the RFI submissions. From co-living spaces with many shared amenities to community-supported commercial spaces to community financing models, there was the sentiment that we need to build homes, and not just individual housing units, that are part of a broader, supportive neighborhood.  

Shared spaces were essential to many of the RFI responses. The challenge lies in finding a balance between the public and private—for example, of balconies and streetscape—particularly when envisioning the potential for small and scattered site development. Many responses highlighted opportunities for the creation of shared alleyways and pathways to expand the areas of communal interaction beyond the building itself. Finally, several ideas highlighted mixed-use future-deckers as an alternative way to bring people together. The challenge would be in the makeup of existing zoning, particularly in areas zoned solely for residential use.

SUSTAINABILITY AND HEALTH

Home should be a place that contributes to our overall well-being. Design and building materials can and should contribute to physical and emotional health inside the building and at a neighborhood scale. The RFI asked submitters to consider how design, materials, and construction can respond to the urgent need to curb carbon emissions from buildings, run more efficiently, and be more resilient to climate change.

BARRIERS & OPPORTUNITIES

The use of sustainable design, material selection, and construction methods are beginning to take hold in new development projects, but widespread adoption has not. With the City of Boston’s efforts to reach net-zero carbon emissions through policies and zoning measures, as well as pilot programs, there is a great opportunity for buildings to be constructed and operate more sustainably in the near future. To reach net-zero carbon emissions and to prepare all homes to be climate-change resilient, there will also need to be financial incentives and support from national to local levels, particularly for smaller-sized developments.

We must be innovative both in the way we construct homes and the materials we use to build homes in order to create affordable, healthy, and flexible spaces. Prefabricated construction and modular construction were introduced in many proposals for their ability to save time, offer replicability, ease future adaptation, and help build resilience to increased flooding.

Although modular and alternative methods of construction can be advantageous to the overall cost of a project, several challenges remain, such as the need for sites that can accommodate crane placement and swing radii. This, in turn, affects the potential for replicability of future-deckers across the city. And, as with many innovations, regulatory processes are often lagging, which presents challenges for development project approvals. Finally, without the existence of nearby facilities to create the materials necessary for the faster production of homes, it can be relatively expensive to transport full-size components from beyond Boston, in addition to the costs from having to  rent cranes needed to lift these components into place .

Creating housing that is affordable to residents of all income ranges in the city of Boston remains a critical challenge that must be addressed. RFI respondents shared ideas to help create affordable homes, economic opportunities, community support, and neighborhood resources that consider affordability in a holistic manner.

Those creating more affordable housing face many barriers, which, in turn, offer many opportunities for change. Zoning limitations, parking requirements, and lengthy development processes were all noted throughout several submissions. Many respondents identified increased height and unit count and decreased parking requirements and setbacks as ways to create more units, which could make financial sense for development projects. Some suggested new ways of building and allowing homeowners to grow into their homes over time or creating more shared spaces. Still others addressed the issue of financing and suggested community funds to uplift neighborhood housing without displacing residents.

Each unique response to this Request for Ideas highlighted the importance of a collective process of imagination when it comes to the creation of housing in Boston’s neighborhoods. Participants proved that in order to address a complex housing-development challenge, many communities must come together to propose alternative solutions at each step of the process. This showcase marks the midpoint of the Housing Innovation Competition, and in the coming months, the BSA and iLab will continue to engage with residents, architects, students, RFI participants, and all who are interested to help shape the second phase of the competition.

Please take the time to share your feedback and insight on the different themes shared by completing the short survey below. We look forward to hearing from you!

Contact: future-decker@boston.gov or (617)-635-0259