Dear Nip and Tucker,

Assuming that a significant proportion of your current and future renters are Millennials, indeed it is! My recommendations are based on this assumption. But if that assumption is incorrect and you have more Boomers than Millennials, then the tradeoff of unit size for amenities would not be wise. However, if your research concludes that a majority of units would be rented for use as pied a teres, then the tradeoff would work even for the older market segments.

Particularly if you foresee a Millennial market, be sure you provide sufficient bike storage space, which typically is one of the larger personal items that has to be stored in the unit if an off-unit space has not been provided. If you do not provide bike storage space, I suggest you forget the roof garden and provide more bike space per unit than you think you need! Yes, some of your tenants will not own a bike, but multi-tenant units often have two. Another important amenity is to have sufficient package storage where your tenants have both an easy and reliable method to pick up their “daily” packages. Most Millennials have limited furnishings, unlike Boomer tenants, so somewhat less space is typically not a problem, even if the unit is occupied by two people.

Your decision to reduce costs in order to become more market competitive is particularly relevant in market areas like Washington DC, where many jobs are government related and don't offer the high salaries that the tech industry does, though I understand there is also a growing tech industry in the area as well. Good luck.

SAN FRANCISCO—Wouldn't it be convenient if someone had clear, intelligent answers to most of your CRE-related questions? Problem solved. Nina J. Gruen, a.k.a. Ms. Real Estate, a.k.a. the principal sociologist overseeing market research and analysis at Gruen Gruen + Associates, is here to answer readers' questions.

Dear Ms. Real Estate,

I develop multifamily mid-rises in the greater Washington DC area. Rents and costs have been steadily rising in the DC market area, not to the astronomical levels of New York and the Bay Area, but to the extent that many younger workers are increasingly being priced out. My existing one bedroom rentals range in size from 575 to 650 square feet and the two bedroom from 700 to 875 square feet. I am considering reducing the size of my one and two-bedroom units by about 100 square feet in order to reduce my construction costs, while at the same time maintaining my building's amenities, which include a first class gym, community room with large screen for sports events and movies, and when feasible, a roof garden. This reduction in size, while maintaining the amenities, would permit more competitive rents. Ms. Real Estate, do you think this is a good idea?

—Prospective Apartment Nip and Tucker

Dear Nip and Tucker,

Assuming that a significant proportion of your current and future renters are Millennials, indeed it is! My recommendations are based on this assumption. But if that assumption is incorrect and you have more Boomers than Millennials, then the tradeoff of unit size for amenities would not be wise. However, if your research concludes that a majority of units would be rented for use as pied a teres, then the tradeoff would work even for the older market segments.

Particularly if you foresee a Millennial market, be sure you provide sufficient bike storage space, which typically is one of the larger personal items that has to be stored in the unit if an off-unit space has not been provided. If you do not provide bike storage space, I suggest you forget the roof garden and provide more bike space per unit than you think you need! Yes, some of your tenants will not own a bike, but multi-tenant units often have two. Another important amenity is to have sufficient package storage where your tenants have both an easy and reliable method to pick up their “daily” packages. Most Millennials have limited furnishings, unlike Boomer tenants, so somewhat less space is typically not a problem, even if the unit is occupied by two people.

Your decision to reduce costs in order to become more market competitive is particularly relevant in market areas like Washington DC, where many jobs are government related and don't offer the high salaries that the tech industry does, though I understand there is also a growing tech industry in the area as well. Good luck.