Housing, Reframed

THE AMERICAN DREAM IS DEAD. Or it’s at least delayed, for recent college grads. According to a report earlier this year from mortgageresearch.com, they won’t be able to afford a house until 2034.

We simply haven’t been building enough housing to keep up with population growth. Since the foreclosure crisis (around 2008-10), housing production has stalled, and it took a dip again during the pandemic. A lot of factors play into that, from rising construction costs due to supply chain disruptions to land-use regulations that can stall production and inflate prices. On the consumer side, rising inequality and high interest rates have made it harder to afford a home.

Labor costs to place these homes are lower than building on site, and constructing in a climate-controlled facility reduces the risk of weather damage. One study found that they could be 35-60% the cost of a traditional home, depending on size.

For first-time homebuyers, this is a really promising alternative for starter homes. The generation now graduating from college has lots of student debt, and what’s on the market is often large homes vacated by recent retirees. They could also be accessory dwelling units. As parents are aging, if it is easy to place a home in the backyard, why not do that?

We should address the low-hanging fruit in policy. People view this housing type as inferior and it feeds into NIMBY attitudes, so they oppose them at zoning hearings. States shape how this market is regulated. Maryland just passed a bill that requires local governments to treat manufactured housing the same as other housing, meaning they can’t prohibit it while allowing other single-family homes.

I don’t want to oversell it. My focus has been on the margins, where a little more housing built inexpensively could make a difference. We could scale up so they are 10% of all single-family homes.