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.
Innovative models from around the country address homelessness by starting with small, inexpensive, and imperfect solutions. What can Akron, Ohio learn from these examples?
Urban neighborhoods can appear either stubbornly resistant to change, or prone to sudden, cataclysmic change. One reason is that we’re all constantly adjusting our behavior based on what we think everyone else believes the future holds.
We don’t form our opinions about beauty, the value of a dollar, or the value of a house or neighborhood, in a vacuum—we come up with those beliefs based on a long chain of assumptions about what we think other people think.
Forget Barbie. What does the Millennial Dream House look like?
A proposed bill in Washington State would require cities to allow a minimum housing density near transit stations. It is a well-intentioned response to a very real problem, but its one-size-fits-all nature risks unintended consequences.
A pilot project in Denver aims to help low-income homeowners add accessory dwelling units to their property. If it succeeds, it will help people remain in their communities, build wealth, and deliver affordable homes to a new generation of neighbors.
In Portland, Maine, some established developers are venturing into filling the need for workforce housing without the help of subsidies, even though it is less profitable.