The problem is as much about (perceived) quality as quantity.
What people want isn't just cheap housing; they want cheap housing, with at least 3 bedrooms, in a "good neighborhood" with "good schools", with at least a small yard or garden, fee-simple rather than a condo, conveniently located to cultural amenities, outdoor activities, shopping/recreation, and job centers. If all of those boxes are checked and we still have fiscal headroom, then let's start sorting the options by aesthetics or urbanistic details, and so on ad infinitum.
The "housing crisis" occurs because the USA, while possessing of a stunningly vast and beautiful natural environment, is grotesquely deficient in providing built environments which meet all of the above requirements, which is to say "nice places to live". The two-lawyer couple making $600k per year sets the benchmark price in Georgetown, and the family earning merely $200k now gets to choose between a one-acre plot in Culpeper or a one-bedroom near the Navy Yard.
Stated differently, mass-producing five-over-ones next to a highway in Sterling (as proposed by corporate developers and their astroturf groups) doesn't necessarily get you anywhere, because many people don't want to live in a five-over-one next to the highway. So they end up in Winchester or Southern Maryland.
My feeling is that it's mostly a sign of crisis. It's still sprawl, and it still contributes to totally unmanageable distribution of infrastructure and services in metro areas. It leads to individuals spending more - time and money - to do things that would have been easy and cheap in the heart of an urban area. It has all the knock-on effects of long commutes, sedentary lifestyles, and increasing social isolation. I think some people do want it, in a very informed-opinion kind of way, but most people don't know what they want and then they suddenly have a kid that they have to think about, and urban roommate share situations ain't cutting it in that situation.
Another consideration - land is certainly cheaper for developers the farther from the city core you get. And with white collar workers having more flexibility to work anywhere, "close enough" to DC may be just the ticket.
I do think the areas around the wineries and Shenandoah are experiencing a bit of a boom, especially with all the development that happened in Leesburg and then Aldie (Willowsford)- those homeowners go out to the wineries, etc. and that's the lifestyle. It would make sense for many of them to move further out.
The fastest growing cities in the Bay Area - and the only ones that are seeing their school enrollments increase - are so far out, they're not geographically considered "in the Bay" but are considered as such by the Census. Yes, some families are moving out there for the nice house and yard. But plenty are moving because there just isn't any way they can afford a 3-4 bedroom condo/rowhouse/apartment anywhere closer to SF/Oakland,/San Jose. It's rare that those places even exist at all, frankly. And when they do, they still don't come cheap. And if you find the rare 3 bedroom apartment/condo in the peninsula, but it's a place where you still have to drive everywhere, why would you pay a premium for less space, no yard and the same lifestyle you'd have further out? Less commute, family ties - those make it worth it for some. But there are plenty of people who grew up in SF and once they have families, they know they have to move far out.
An anecdote from the heartland: I spent part of my childhood in a tiny town in Iowa that has, as of 2021, 946 people. The closest city has never grown more than 60,000. They've started developing the farmland for residential in recent years. While the median salary in the town is about $43k, the developers who bought and pieced off the land have been selling it with a requirement that the homes built on each plot be valued at at least $300k.
The folks who live in those homes will send their kids to the community school, it's K-12 and again, has less than 1,000 kids total. Very few people who live in the town currently will be able to upgrade to one of these homes so they're only attracting wealth from outside of the community, families who are looking for more space. It doesn't have all the other amenities PRG mentioned so the draw has to be a big yard, a good school, and a small-town feel.
There are some people who move here because they’re okay with the trade off of a 90-minute commute for a “nice town” that’s somewhat affordable.
But there are many more people living here who work in the Boston exurbs. They commute 30 minutes to work, making far less than a comparable job in Boston. They are generally the ones who cannot afford to live any closer, unless they want to live in a small apartment in an area that doesn’t even have the charm and amenities of the big city.
It’s now common knowledge that small towns have been losing population for decades. At this point -- post-Covid, post-2008, etc -- are small towns still shrinking? What contributes to the shrinking or growing of a small town? Are the only ones that are growing within a near-ish distance from metro areas? What regions of the country have growing versus shrinking small towns? Small town economies used to be tied up in the industries and natural resources of that place. Is the highest value resource at this point open land to build a house on?
Interesting to reflect on this from the UK perspective where the current governing party is agonizing over its planning policy of where to encourage the development of new houses we desperately need.
People’s preferences and housing trends change over time. This is natural but can be reinforced by other factors which have been mentioned by several folks. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to move farther from the city.
The problem is as much about (perceived) quality as quantity.
What people want isn't just cheap housing; they want cheap housing, with at least 3 bedrooms, in a "good neighborhood" with "good schools", with at least a small yard or garden, fee-simple rather than a condo, conveniently located to cultural amenities, outdoor activities, shopping/recreation, and job centers. If all of those boxes are checked and we still have fiscal headroom, then let's start sorting the options by aesthetics or urbanistic details, and so on ad infinitum.
The "housing crisis" occurs because the USA, while possessing of a stunningly vast and beautiful natural environment, is grotesquely deficient in providing built environments which meet all of the above requirements, which is to say "nice places to live". The two-lawyer couple making $600k per year sets the benchmark price in Georgetown, and the family earning merely $200k now gets to choose between a one-acre plot in Culpeper or a one-bedroom near the Navy Yard.
Stated differently, mass-producing five-over-ones next to a highway in Sterling (as proposed by corporate developers and their astroturf groups) doesn't necessarily get you anywhere, because many people don't want to live in a five-over-one next to the highway. So they end up in Winchester or Southern Maryland.
My feeling is that it's mostly a sign of crisis. It's still sprawl, and it still contributes to totally unmanageable distribution of infrastructure and services in metro areas. It leads to individuals spending more - time and money - to do things that would have been easy and cheap in the heart of an urban area. It has all the knock-on effects of long commutes, sedentary lifestyles, and increasing social isolation. I think some people do want it, in a very informed-opinion kind of way, but most people don't know what they want and then they suddenly have a kid that they have to think about, and urban roommate share situations ain't cutting it in that situation.
Another consideration - land is certainly cheaper for developers the farther from the city core you get. And with white collar workers having more flexibility to work anywhere, "close enough" to DC may be just the ticket.
I do think the areas around the wineries and Shenandoah are experiencing a bit of a boom, especially with all the development that happened in Leesburg and then Aldie (Willowsford)- those homeowners go out to the wineries, etc. and that's the lifestyle. It would make sense for many of them to move further out.
The fastest growing cities in the Bay Area - and the only ones that are seeing their school enrollments increase - are so far out, they're not geographically considered "in the Bay" but are considered as such by the Census. Yes, some families are moving out there for the nice house and yard. But plenty are moving because there just isn't any way they can afford a 3-4 bedroom condo/rowhouse/apartment anywhere closer to SF/Oakland,/San Jose. It's rare that those places even exist at all, frankly. And when they do, they still don't come cheap. And if you find the rare 3 bedroom apartment/condo in the peninsula, but it's a place where you still have to drive everywhere, why would you pay a premium for less space, no yard and the same lifestyle you'd have further out? Less commute, family ties - those make it worth it for some. But there are plenty of people who grew up in SF and once they have families, they know they have to move far out.
An anecdote from the heartland: I spent part of my childhood in a tiny town in Iowa that has, as of 2021, 946 people. The closest city has never grown more than 60,000. They've started developing the farmland for residential in recent years. While the median salary in the town is about $43k, the developers who bought and pieced off the land have been selling it with a requirement that the homes built on each plot be valued at at least $300k.
The folks who live in those homes will send their kids to the community school, it's K-12 and again, has less than 1,000 kids total. Very few people who live in the town currently will be able to upgrade to one of these homes so they're only attracting wealth from outside of the community, families who are looking for more space. It doesn't have all the other amenities PRG mentioned so the draw has to be a big yard, a good school, and a small-town feel.
I live outside of Boston (waaay outside).
There are some people who move here because they’re okay with the trade off of a 90-minute commute for a “nice town” that’s somewhat affordable.
But there are many more people living here who work in the Boston exurbs. They commute 30 minutes to work, making far less than a comparable job in Boston. They are generally the ones who cannot afford to live any closer, unless they want to live in a small apartment in an area that doesn’t even have the charm and amenities of the big city.
It’s now common knowledge that small towns have been losing population for decades. At this point -- post-Covid, post-2008, etc -- are small towns still shrinking? What contributes to the shrinking or growing of a small town? Are the only ones that are growing within a near-ish distance from metro areas? What regions of the country have growing versus shrinking small towns? Small town economies used to be tied up in the industries and natural resources of that place. Is the highest value resource at this point open land to build a house on?
Interesting to reflect on this from the UK perspective where the current governing party is agonizing over its planning policy of where to encourage the development of new houses we desperately need.
Love the comments and discussion.
People’s preferences and housing trends change over time. This is natural but can be reinforced by other factors which have been mentioned by several folks. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to move farther from the city.