I agree with your assessment. I live in Boston and conducted some research on this same topic a couple of years back.
I took a look at the state sanitary code too. I thought that may be prohibitive, but was surprised to find that it really isn’t.
The Massachusetts state sanitary code (410.420 (D) Minimum Square Footage) provides:
(1) Every dwelling unit shall contain at least 150 square feet of habitable floor space for its first occupant, and at least 100 square feet of habitable floor space for each additional occupant.
(2) A rooming unit shall contain a minimum of 100 square feet of habitable floor space when: (a) The unit contains one single room for living and sleeping only; and (b) Is occupied by no more than one person.
(3) In every residence, each room used for sleeping purposes by one occupant shall contain at least 70 square feet of floor space.
(4) In every residence, each room used for sleeping by more than one occupant shall contain at least 50 square feet of floor space for each occupant.
My assumption had been that maximum occupancy requirements would so restrictive as to prevent most families from living with housemates. This was based on a presumed strong, positive correlation between families seeking to live with unrelated housemates to offset their rent and families living in homes with a relatively high number of people per square foot of living area.
Families seeking to offset the cost of living with an unrelated housemates are also probably seeking to offset the cost of living in other ways too, right? One such way would be not splurging on more living space than is necessary. Less space typically equals lower living cost.
But, living in smaller spaces results in a higher person per square foot, placing the occupants closer to the state sanitary code maximum occupancy thresholds.
I still feel these to be reasonable assumptions.
But they aren’t actually dependent on the state’s thresholds. So, are most families seeking to add housemates to offset their rent actually near or over the actual state maximum occupant / square foot thresholds?
Some back of the envelope math suggests no. Let’s assume the following:
The average Boston—and immediately surrounding areas—apartment provides approximately 250 square feet of living space per person. (anecdotal)
The average Boston bedroom is approximately 90 − 150 square feet. (anecdotal)
Now, imagine a family of 3 living in an ~750 square foot home. Let’s also imagine that home has two bedrooms, each 100 square feet. Based on the minimum square footage requirements under the state sanitary code, that household compliantly support 4 individuals.
If the bedrooms were 150 square feet each—let’s assume this home now just has a smaller kitchen and living room to compensate—the house could compliantly support 6 people.
I recommend determining the maximum occupants based on your living space’s square footage. Or maybe a friends. You’ll likely be surprised how many folks can compliantly (as far as the sanitary code is considered, anyways) live in a given space.
I agree with your assessment. I live in Boston and conducted some research on this same topic a couple of years back.
I took a look at the state sanitary code too. I thought that may be prohibitive, but was surprised to find that it really isn’t.
The Massachusetts state sanitary code (410.420 (D) Minimum Square Footage) provides:
My assumption had been that maximum occupancy requirements would so restrictive as to prevent most families from living with housemates. This was based on a presumed strong, positive correlation between families seeking to live with unrelated housemates to offset their rent and families living in homes with a relatively high number of people per square foot of living area.
Families seeking to offset the cost of living with an unrelated housemates are also probably seeking to offset the cost of living in other ways too, right? One such way would be not splurging on more living space than is necessary. Less space typically equals lower living cost.
But, living in smaller spaces results in a higher person per square foot, placing the occupants closer to the state sanitary code maximum occupancy thresholds.
I still feel these to be reasonable assumptions.
But they aren’t actually dependent on the state’s thresholds. So, are most families seeking to add housemates to offset their rent actually near or over the actual state maximum occupant / square foot thresholds?
Some back of the envelope math suggests no. Let’s assume the following:
The average Boston—and immediately surrounding areas—apartment provides approximately 250 square feet of living space per person. (anecdotal)
The average Boston bedroom is approximately 90 − 150 square feet. (anecdotal)
Now, imagine a family of 3 living in an ~750 square foot home. Let’s also imagine that home has two bedrooms, each 100 square feet. Based on the minimum square footage requirements under the state sanitary code, that household compliantly support 4 individuals.
If the bedrooms were 150 square feet each—let’s assume this home now just has a smaller kitchen and living room to compensate—the house could compliantly support 6 people.
I recommend determining the maximum occupants based on your living space’s square footage. Or maybe a friends. You’ll likely be surprised how many folks can compliantly (as far as the sanitary code is considered, anyways) live in a given space.