Just the inkling of a thought for you to consider: How much of the issue of "fit" as you describe it is about the perception that homes/housing should be permanent/generational?
I think that’s a big part of it, Lee. Excellent point! We need options for all stages of life and can’t assume that anyone’s needs stay constant over the course of a generation.
This is another nice post about our housing troubles. I would guess that the builders market these houses because they are more profitable to build. It would be nice to have some kind of incentive to build smaller. And smaller houses are going to be more climate friendly as well.
Hi Kevin, I think local governments can provide the incentive mostly through zoning reform. If I buy a 7,500 square foot lot today for $90,000 on which I am only permitted to build one home, but tomorrow the local government allows me to subdivide that lot into three 2,500 square foot lots, each with homes no larger than 1,500 square feet, the incentive gets baked in for the developer. Meanwhile, instead of one $400,000 home, the neighborhood gets three $300,000 homes.
I think the reality check that we're facing right now in the U.S. is that the single-family detached, auto dependent suburbia we're used to is actually economically infeasible (not to mention environmentally unsustainable). We've been kicking the can on this for decades now, and the bill is coming due. There's a reason there aren't many other examples of it in the world, it's simply the most expensive way to house humans. I work in residential construction and most builders here still only see that old way. Anything dense, or multi is just Greek to them. They just bang there fists and say "there's no land, building is too expensive, it must be the energy code!" Mean while people have a vision of themselves in the house with the yard, because there aren't enough good examples of dense living in much of the U.S. I think we're staring down a serious cultural reckoning in the near future. But who knows, there's a lot happening at once right now.
IRL there’s nothing infeasible about suburbs. Some people hate them, but the reality is suburbs predate the automobile. A lot of people just don’t want to live in cities.
In most of the US, land is far cheaper than density, and density is very energy intensive.
All I want to add is that the mismatch is unavoidably linked to third-rail political and cultural preferences. No one wants anyone else telling them how to live. Any approach to housing reform that expects the market alone to accomplish the reallocation may face unexpected resistance from powerful nonmarket influences.
The sheer number of single retirees in family homes is enormous and unsustainable, even as Boomer retirements swell the ranks. But merely saying so can be perceived as an attack on one of our most influential political constituencies, many of whom firmly believe their lifestyle is both earned and normative. The same backlash risk attends efforts by any faction in the “culture wars” (political, economic, religious, ethnic, regional, environmental, etc.) to nudge family structure, child-rearing habits, community behavior, and homemaking habits. It’s not just about the size and expense of your house. It’s about what the proverbial Joneses in the neighborhood do or don’t expect from you.
How does housing relate to childcare and schooling? Are children meant to be neither seen nor heard? Or is the community literally built for children from the get-go, as GI-Bill-funded post-WWII America was built to benefit the Boomers? Does visibility for children come with expectations about their behavior? If so, is the effort to meet those expectations funded by the community, or is it an unfunded burden on households?
All of which to say, I think it’s necessary to do something I know your team works on: to wrap your recommendations above in local political coalitions that reach beyond housing into placemaking philosophies and norms. Such norms must balance privacy and household autonomy against local value systems. Many local communities have to face hard choices about which lifestyles and value systems are going to drive placemaking and which are going to give way. If those choices cater to dwindling elite demographics and rule out growing subcultures, the housing problem probably won’t improve, even if all the other policies are enacted.
Communities that pretend this process of selectivity isn’t happening may actually face more hostility and paranoia than those that openly confront the tradeoffs that will be inextricably linked to housing policy change.
Do you have any info about how we group together similar type housing vs having a variety all mixed together? I so often see plans that address the need for a mix of different sizes & styles, but will group each type together in a part of the design. It would seem that the ideal would be a street with a mix of multi unit rentals, smaller footprint homes, & family homes, all mixed together as neighbors.
Hi Julie. Great comment. In my opinion, the answer lies in good design and careful integration of building types based on scale and massing - not the number of dwelling units inside.
I think the way we perceive our environment as humans requires a design that creates some sense of consistent patterns and intuitive elements of scale. So, we tend to bristle at small houses being overshadowed by big apartment buildings. This is also true when we build big apartment buildings that are overly setback in the midst of mostly meaningless lawns and berms. In both instances, the built environment feels inconsistent and incoherent.
So, instead, designing neighborhoods to have similar building sizes and forms clustered together makes much more intuitive sense. And, there are some excellent architects out there designing two-family, three-family, and four-family buildings to look perfectly appropriate in the midst of single-family homes. In fact, I prefer mixing these buildings as opposed to have a separate block that is filled with semi-identical 4-plexes, and another block where all the single family homes are located, and yet another block where there are a series of cottage courts. I say, mix 'em up! Just do it wisely.
Do you think the “do it wisely” and the nuance of yes/and is what trips planners & developers up? Is it just much easier to get it 75% of the way “right” by providing the appropriate variety of housing and call it good instead of taking the risk of either doing it completely wrong in terms of scale or getting it closer to 100% with great, intentional planning? It feels like the safer option, and I’m grateful for it because it’s much better than how we have been doing it, but it’s so painful to see it soooooo close to what would be even better & have such a huge impact on the real ways that people live in community.
I like a lot of developers and local officials are still wary of putting multi-unit buildings next to single-family homes because of an unfounded fear that the multi-units will reduce the value of the single family homes. In study after study, there is ample evidence that the opposite is actually true. Neighborhoods with more diversity of housing options and price points tend to be more stable over time and create more value for homeowners and landlords alike. But this is counter to the popular cultural narrative that emerged in the 1970s and 80s.
Just the inkling of a thought for you to consider: How much of the issue of "fit" as you describe it is about the perception that homes/housing should be permanent/generational?
I think that’s a big part of it, Lee. Excellent point! We need options for all stages of life and can’t assume that anyone’s needs stay constant over the course of a generation.
This is another nice post about our housing troubles. I would guess that the builders market these houses because they are more profitable to build. It would be nice to have some kind of incentive to build smaller. And smaller houses are going to be more climate friendly as well.
Hi Kevin, I think local governments can provide the incentive mostly through zoning reform. If I buy a 7,500 square foot lot today for $90,000 on which I am only permitted to build one home, but tomorrow the local government allows me to subdivide that lot into three 2,500 square foot lots, each with homes no larger than 1,500 square feet, the incentive gets baked in for the developer. Meanwhile, instead of one $400,000 home, the neighborhood gets three $300,000 homes.
I think the reality check that we're facing right now in the U.S. is that the single-family detached, auto dependent suburbia we're used to is actually economically infeasible (not to mention environmentally unsustainable). We've been kicking the can on this for decades now, and the bill is coming due. There's a reason there aren't many other examples of it in the world, it's simply the most expensive way to house humans. I work in residential construction and most builders here still only see that old way. Anything dense, or multi is just Greek to them. They just bang there fists and say "there's no land, building is too expensive, it must be the energy code!" Mean while people have a vision of themselves in the house with the yard, because there aren't enough good examples of dense living in much of the U.S. I think we're staring down a serious cultural reckoning in the near future. But who knows, there's a lot happening at once right now.
IRL there’s nothing infeasible about suburbs. Some people hate them, but the reality is suburbs predate the automobile. A lot of people just don’t want to live in cities.
In most of the US, land is far cheaper than density, and density is very energy intensive.
Hi Bob. You should check out Strongtowns.org if you haven’t heard of them before. Here’s an interesting starting point.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/6/14/greatest-hits-the-growth-ponzi-scheme
Great insights, Ryan.
All I want to add is that the mismatch is unavoidably linked to third-rail political and cultural preferences. No one wants anyone else telling them how to live. Any approach to housing reform that expects the market alone to accomplish the reallocation may face unexpected resistance from powerful nonmarket influences.
The sheer number of single retirees in family homes is enormous and unsustainable, even as Boomer retirements swell the ranks. But merely saying so can be perceived as an attack on one of our most influential political constituencies, many of whom firmly believe their lifestyle is both earned and normative. The same backlash risk attends efforts by any faction in the “culture wars” (political, economic, religious, ethnic, regional, environmental, etc.) to nudge family structure, child-rearing habits, community behavior, and homemaking habits. It’s not just about the size and expense of your house. It’s about what the proverbial Joneses in the neighborhood do or don’t expect from you.
How does housing relate to childcare and schooling? Are children meant to be neither seen nor heard? Or is the community literally built for children from the get-go, as GI-Bill-funded post-WWII America was built to benefit the Boomers? Does visibility for children come with expectations about their behavior? If so, is the effort to meet those expectations funded by the community, or is it an unfunded burden on households?
All of which to say, I think it’s necessary to do something I know your team works on: to wrap your recommendations above in local political coalitions that reach beyond housing into placemaking philosophies and norms. Such norms must balance privacy and household autonomy against local value systems. Many local communities have to face hard choices about which lifestyles and value systems are going to drive placemaking and which are going to give way. If those choices cater to dwindling elite demographics and rule out growing subcultures, the housing problem probably won’t improve, even if all the other policies are enacted.
Communities that pretend this process of selectivity isn’t happening may actually face more hostility and paranoia than those that openly confront the tradeoffs that will be inextricably linked to housing policy change.
Do you have any info about how we group together similar type housing vs having a variety all mixed together? I so often see plans that address the need for a mix of different sizes & styles, but will group each type together in a part of the design. It would seem that the ideal would be a street with a mix of multi unit rentals, smaller footprint homes, & family homes, all mixed together as neighbors.
Hi Julie. Great comment. In my opinion, the answer lies in good design and careful integration of building types based on scale and massing - not the number of dwelling units inside.
I think the way we perceive our environment as humans requires a design that creates some sense of consistent patterns and intuitive elements of scale. So, we tend to bristle at small houses being overshadowed by big apartment buildings. This is also true when we build big apartment buildings that are overly setback in the midst of mostly meaningless lawns and berms. In both instances, the built environment feels inconsistent and incoherent.
So, instead, designing neighborhoods to have similar building sizes and forms clustered together makes much more intuitive sense. And, there are some excellent architects out there designing two-family, three-family, and four-family buildings to look perfectly appropriate in the midst of single-family homes. In fact, I prefer mixing these buildings as opposed to have a separate block that is filled with semi-identical 4-plexes, and another block where all the single family homes are located, and yet another block where there are a series of cottage courts. I say, mix 'em up! Just do it wisely.
Do you think the “do it wisely” and the nuance of yes/and is what trips planners & developers up? Is it just much easier to get it 75% of the way “right” by providing the appropriate variety of housing and call it good instead of taking the risk of either doing it completely wrong in terms of scale or getting it closer to 100% with great, intentional planning? It feels like the safer option, and I’m grateful for it because it’s much better than how we have been doing it, but it’s so painful to see it soooooo close to what would be even better & have such a huge impact on the real ways that people live in community.
I like a lot of developers and local officials are still wary of putting multi-unit buildings next to single-family homes because of an unfounded fear that the multi-units will reduce the value of the single family homes. In study after study, there is ample evidence that the opposite is actually true. Neighborhoods with more diversity of housing options and price points tend to be more stable over time and create more value for homeowners and landlords alike. But this is counter to the popular cultural narrative that emerged in the 1970s and 80s.