It's all relative, my friend, different people have different priorities. Having lived in a house for most of my childhood, I once rented a 550 sf apartment. In fact, I did it twice at different stages of my life, and for different reasons. 550 sf was simply unbearable for me. I absolutely had to have a bigger place. I found that I can survive as a single person in 900 square feet, and be perfectly content. Even though I'm missing a few "must" ammenities such as washer/dryer in my unit, and a private bathroom accessible only from my Master Bedroom. I do have a walk-in closet, a coat/shoe closet, and a big balcony, all must's in my book.
I know other people who's tolerance is at 1200 sf, or even 1500 sf. They simply can't live in a smaller place. Standards are shifting and most renters want a certain floor plan, they want granite countertops, they want washer-dryers in the unit, they want walk-in closets, and the all-important master bedroom suite including a luxurious tile bathroom. If Hackensack can't provide these, we go the way of Paterson.
It's barely economical to build in this economy, and if high rents cannot be achieved, the builders will simply go away. Hackensack is lucky, at this time, that there are developers who want to build the more upscale buildings. Otherwise the housing stock in general just gets older and older, and more and more substandard. And then instead of looking for "luxurious", there will be no prospective tenants other than poor struggling families who's only concern is having 3 tiny bedrooms with 3 tiny closets, for their kids.