You might get more house for your money in an outer-ring suburb. But if you have to own and maintain multiple cars, are you better off? Common measures of housing affordability don’t include transportation costs, and so they fail to capture a realistic view of the true cost of living in certain places.
That high-end apartment building over there has nothing to do with the low-income families who need affordable housing over here, right? In fact, we’re all more connected than we tend to think—and a new study demonstrates this in a surprising way.
It’s hard to have a coherent conversation on affordable housing when most of those involved in the discussion directly benefit from — and in some ways depend on — higher housing prices.
What would it actually cost to put a roof over the head of every person experiencing chronic homelessness? Some number crunching suggests not as much as you think, and an amount we could afford—especially given what it already costs not to.
How is it possible that so many of our cities are seeing their footprints grow, but their populations shrink? The answer to this paradox might surprise you.
In many areas of modern life, the market provides a cornucopia of choices to accommodate people’s diverse needs, wants, and tastes: just visit a supermarket to see this. When it comes to housing options, though, the reality is starkly different.
Most apartments built today are in huge complexes along busy streets, not tucked away in quiet neighborhoods in “missing middle” buildings like fourplexes, which used to be common. But how did the missing middle go missing, anyway?
Every week, we take one of the best questions submitted to the Strong Towns Knowledge Base and answer it. This week, we tackle the arguments for allowing more housing across the board in your city, from a Strong Towns perspective.
An excerpt from our upcoming AMA webcast guest Alan Mallach’s book The Divided City explores the havoc that the Great Recession’s continuing aftermath has wrought on homeownership patterns, profoundly destabilizing many urban neighborhoods.
The newer generation of public housing projects offer a superficially pleasant facsimile of a New Urbanist neighborhood. But these are places built all at once, to a finished state, and deeply dependent on fragile institutional arrangements.
Not every city’s situation is the same—but just about every city that needs more homes could benefit from one or more of these policies.
Making Room: Housing for a Changing America is a new report from the AARP and the National Building Museum that explores how the way Americans live together has changed—and how our housing stock hasn’t, but could.
You probably use Zillow to shop fantasy mansions in cities you could never afford. But would you sell them your house?
Academic evidence doesn’t do much to shift public opinion about housing policy. What’s missing is trust—and cultivating that requires a different approach.
Building an accessory apartment is one of the gentlest ways you can increase the housing stock in your town. But does that mean that states should be the ones making the rules about how you can do it—even if those rules are permissive?
Incremental development doesn’t mean slow development. Here’s how big places that need housing fast can get there using the Strong Towns approach.
We need to solve our housing affordability problems, but not by ignoring context and embracing “orderly but dumb” means.
New Jersey has been using a “cap and trade” model to let single family neighborhoods buy their way out of growth for decades. Should your city follow suit?
"Developers in my city are only building luxury housing. They're not building anything that ordinary people can afford." If you’ve said this lately, or heard someone else say it, here are five possible reasons why.
Gentrification and concentrated poverty are two sides of the same coin. We’ve engineered our cities so that neighborhoods get either too much investment or too little: the trickle or the fire hose.