Complexities in SRO's (Single Room Occupancy)

2025, May 1 - May 8

SROs or Single Room Occupancy units, sparked my curiosity about one of the most overlooked forms of housing in American cities. I decided to look deeper into their role, especially in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where affordable housing is increasingly rare. SROs are typically older buildings divided into small, single rooms rented out individually, often with shared bathrooms or kitchen facilities. As a cost-effective option for low-wage workers, single individuals, and those leaving homelessness, they gained popularity in the early 20th century. They continue to be a contentious but essential component of the urban housing scene today. SROs were frequently viewed as slums and the focus of urban regeneration initiatives in the 1960s and 1970s. Hotels or office buildings were erected in place of the thousands of units that were destroyed. As a result, low-income housing in American cities was drastically reduced. Still, there was always a need for extremely inexpensive homes.

SROs provide incredibly affordable accommodation in core metropolitan locations, something that many contemporary developments fall short of, despite their decaying appearance and small square footage. However, they frequently experience poor maintenance, dilapidated infrastructure, and neglect. Many SROs are more than a century old and do not meet current health and fire regulations. In an effort to turn the property into more lucrative ventures, some landlords purposefully allow them to deteriorate. Yet, not all SROs are abandoned or illegal. Since removing these units will only make the housing situation worse, communities like San Francisco have actually attempted to protect them through preservation ordinances. Maintaining affordability while preserving tenants' safety and dignity is a major concern. Since removing these units is likely to make the housing crisis worse, the areas like San Francisco have in fact attempted to protect them through preservation ordinances (SF Gov). Maintaining affordability while preserving tenants' safety and dignity is a major concern. The financial justification for preserving SROs is that rebuilding would be costly and would unavoidably result in higher rents. Rental prices for SROs can be as low as $600 to $800 per month, which is unthinkable for new buildings in the same places. Many landlords would just sell or redevelop if they were required to upgrade or rebuild completely, which would contribute to displacement and gentrification. Destroying operational SROs will result in massive waste production and the eviction of vulnerable inhabitants.

SROs are an important aspect of urban history, shaped by housing policy, migration, and economic need, despite the fact that they may appear antiquated or even dangerous. Similar to dingbats, they depict rapid, affordable, and useful development during periods of rapid population expansion. They served as a survival mechanism due to their price and simplicity, particularly for the most vulnerable members of society. These days, they draw attention to the conflict between safety and shelter, development and equity. Cities should provide incentives for rehabilitation—retrofitting apartments with shared amenities, fire safety, and modern plumbing—instead of demolishing them and keeping rents affordable. Despite their lack of architectural genius, SROs speak to a more fundamental reality: cities cannot afford to lose their remaining inexpensive housing stock without replacing it with equally accessible housing.