The Lincoln Institute provides a variety of early- and mid-career fellowship opportunities for researchers. In this series, we follow up with our fellows to learn more about their work.

With a master’s degree in urban planning and a PhD in anthropology, Adriana Hurtado Tarazona has long been fascinated by the intersection of human behavior and urban form—especially how and where people choose to live. After receiving a graduate student fellowship from the Lincoln Institute’s program on Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), she spent years studying social housing megaprojects on the outskirts of Colombia’s cities, speaking at length with the people who lived in them to learn how they experienced their community and built environment.

Today, Hurtado Tarazona is an associate professor of planning, governance, and territorial development at the Interdisciplinary Center for Development Studies (CIDER) at Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá, Colombia. “I teach an introductory course on land planning instruments, so I’m still talking about what the Lincoln Institute taught me back in 2005, when I went to a course in Quito,” she says.

In this conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, Hurtado Tarazona discusses why housing ought to be a social policy versus an economic one, shares some of the surprising sentiments she’s heard from residents of social housing, and explains why paying people to upgrade existing homes may be a better solution than subsidizing new homebuyers.

JON GOREY: What is the general focus of your research, and how did your Lincoln Institute fellowship support that work?

ADRIANA HURTADO TARAZONA: I received the fellowship for my master’s thesis in 2006. I was doing an analysis of the impact on land values of some of the BRT infrastructure in Bogotá —the TransMilenio. It was one of the first studies; at the time, the TransMilenio had only four years of implementation, so it was very new. I was trying to document the changes in the urban space around the two big stations, from the perspective of the land market and from the perspective of the residents of the area.

It was very nice to be in that program, because I got to meet a lot of the professors linked with the Latin America program. I loved the experience. And three years ago, one of my students got the same fellowship that I got almost 20 years before. So it was really nice to now be in a different position, sponsoring my student, and she got to live the benefits of that fellowship.

JG: What are you working on now, and what are you hoping to work on next?

AHT: Right now I have four research projects—two of them are related to the main topic of my PhD thesis, which is social housing, specifically the production and urban expansion of social housing megaprojects in urban borders. One project, which we are finishing this year, is called vertical peripheries, with York University in Toronto. We analyze the subjective impact of living in the periphery, but also the impacts on urban planning and governance of this metropolitanization process, where the social housing overflows the urban limits of Colombian cities. The other one is focused on the economic impact of access to social housing. So we are going to analyze specifically how women-led households have to change their domestic economies to keep up with the costs of accessing homeownership for the first time.

The third one is the care infrastructure project, led by the University of Washington in Seattle. It’s a comparative project between Belfast, Belo Horizonte in Brazil, and Bogotá. We are trying to analyze stories of urban change in general, and specifically, in Bogotá, we are analyzing how care became a focus of urban policy, which was not the case until very recently, and we are analyzing the birth of the district CARE system as urban infrastructure. We have these new regulations that understand care infrastructure at the same status as water, sewage, and roads, which is very interesting, and we are trying to document how that could happen, under what conditions did that happen?

And another thing I’m doing with the Lincoln Institute is a small research grant from last year. The main researcher is from Brazil, and along with Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia, we’re trying to do a comparative analysis of interventions that try to support densification.

JG: What’s something surprising or unexpected you’ve learned in your research?

AHT: I have been asking people if they’re happy with their homes, in general, and the first surprise was from an urbanistic perspective. Local urbanists are very critical of these peripheral, massive, standardized, social housing megaprojects, because they are far away from the city, disconnected, with problems of accessibility. I knew all that, and I came to the fieldwork with this very critical perspective.

But then I sat with people, and the first thing they told me was, ‘No, I love this. I love the order. I love that everything is standard.’ Everything that urbanists see as the ‘unlivable city’ and the ‘nonplace,’ the people were saying, ‘No, I like this because it’s planned, it’s orderly, it’s clean.’ That was the first thing that surprised me.

And it surprised me more because they had lived before in self-constructed houses where they had more space, more flexibility of spaces, and they were better located in the city. But then when I spent time with them, I started realizing that this is part of the trade-off people make, because the housing market didn’t allow them to buy anywhere else, and they prioritized homeownership in the formal city over the time they had to spend in transport, over being close to family, to friends, to networks of support.

They knew what they were losing, but this was part of a very conscious trade-off: I am losing this, but I’m gaining this. And the thing they were gaining was the stability of their own home, even if it was small, far away, and very expensive. And that has a lot to do with the opportunities that this country gives to people for social mobility, which are narrowly focused on having access to property. Being part of the new middle class in Colombia means primarily having your own home in the formal city, not in the informal neighborhoods.

JG: When it comes to your work, what keeps you up at night? And what gives you hope?

AHT: What worries me is that housing policy in Colombia—and I think this is the case in other countries also—follows the logic of real estate agents, that the only way to solve the housing problem is to build new housing and sell it to low-income households with subsidies. But we also have lots of alternatives and lots of different ways to address the housing problem.

In Colombian cities, including Bogotá, the qualitative housing deficit is three times more than the quantitative housing deficit. So that means three times more households need better housing and not new housing. But our housing policy gives all the resources and all the attention to building new housing. Neighborhood housing upgrade programs exist, but they don’t have enough budget, they don’t have enough attention, and they are not seen as the legitimate way to solve the housing problem.

So what I really wish we would do is to change the focus and to start paying enough attention and giving enough resources to upgrading what we already have, the built city. It would be environmentally better, economically better for people. There are a lot of advantages, but of course, it’s a slower process. It doesn’t show lots of big numbers, and it doesn’t follow the interest of these real estate and financial sector agents.

What gives me hope is that we have some interventions that are showing good results. One of them is the support for densification in informal-origin neighborhoods. These are programs that recognize that there are neighborhoods of informal origin, with self-constructed homes, that are older, they have good locations in the city, they already have access to the urban goods and services and infrastructure, but they need support to grow in height.

So we have a program here that offers help in structural reinforcement, and they offer subsidies for people to build a second floor on their houses, and then that new unit they could use to live in, if they are crowded, or they could rent it to other households, so they have a new source of income. I think it’s a really innovative program, because at the same time, it ameliorates housing availability and the structural security of the houses, and also gives low-income households the opportunity to have new income from these new units.

The state is supporting a thing that will happen anyway, with or without their help. But if the state intervenes, it happens better, it happens more securely, and it’s a different way to invest public resources to solve the housing problem. But these are small pilot projects. So the thing I want to work on in the future is to figure out how to scale this up and make housing and neighborhood upgrading a more central part of urban policy.

JG: Can you talk about the connection between anthropology and urban planning?

AHT: In all my research projects, I try to understand urban processes from above and from the ground, and I think the combination of having studied anthropology and urban planning allows me to do that. It’s a very good way to understand one process from different perspectives. And specifically for technical topics, such as land management instruments or land value capture, when you talk to people that are living the process, you can amplify your understanding.

Since my master’s thesis, I’ve been curious about how people understand land value. In the contexts I studied, people are very preoccupied about the changes in land value of their properties, but they deal with those changes, or prospective changes, in very different ways.

For example, my student’s thesis was analyzing ethnographically how people deal with the uncertainty of the delays of an urban renewal plan, how they understand the prospective land value increment of their home, and how that aspiration of profit implies tensions in daily life with other values of their home, like the use value of their home.

And I have found the same thing in social housing, this constant tension between the home as a place for living and the home as an investment, from which they are interested in profiting. Even if they are very low-income households, those two narratives and values of home are always in tension, and they impact not only their individual behaviors, but also their community behaviors, and even their ways of relating to public institutions and the city.

So that’s my main curiosity, and that’s why I combine talking to people, being with people, and just spending time with them, with more technical things like analyzing documents, laws, regulations, and quantitative data, too.

JG: What’s one thing you wish more people understood about social housing?

AHT: We need to recenter housing policy as a social policy and not as an economic policy. We have the opportunity in Colombia, and other Latin American countries that have not yet fallen into hyper-financialization, to not follow the trajectory of the United States, of Spain, of places in which the housing crisis is worse now than ever; we are not yet in that state.

JG: What’s the best book you’ve read lately, or a favorite TV show you’ve been streaming?  

AHT: I really enjoyed reading Melissa García-Lamarca’s book about people in debt in Barcelona, Non-Performing Loans, Non-Performing People. It’s about the subjective impacts that living in debt has on people, and how we understand debt as not only an economic issue, but also as a moral issue.

I’m trying to link that with our new project. I’m starting to read feminist economic analysis and anthropological economic analysis, to have a very deep understanding about what living in debt, and housing debt specifically, means for people, and what impact does this have on different aspects of their daily lives. Because here, debt is not only restricted to mortgages—low-income people here have to resort to all kinds of formal and informal debt to pay their living costs. So it’s debt with a relative, debt with a bank, the mortgage, and then it also links even to criminal debt, a criminal lender, people that charge illegally high interest rates to low-income households.

I try to watch TV on really unrelated topics. I was watching Silo, which is a dystopian futurist series about people that live in a high rise, but it’s subterranean—which is really depressing! But I like these post-apocalyptic things.

Jon Gorey is a staff writer at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: Adriana Hurtado Tarazona of Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá, Colombia. Credit: Courtesy photo.

Massachusetts está requiriendo que muchas comunidades cercanas a estaciones de tránsito rezonifiquen para permitir viviendas multifamiliares con un mínimo de 15 unidades por acre. La mayoría de las comunidades ha cumplido con la Ley de Comunidades de la MBTA, pero también ha generado un rechazo.

Sin duda, parte de la resistencia es causado por el miedo al cambio y “viviendas por acre” es un concepto abstracto para la mayoría de las personas. Este mapa explora cómo se ve la métrica en el mundo real, con fotografías de las calles en Gran Boston donde la densidad bruta de los barrios es de alrededor 15 viviendas por acre o más.

As the 39th mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, Brett Smiley is addressing public safety, affordable housing, education, and climate resilience. Before being elected mayor in 2022, Smiley—who was born and raised in the Chicago area and moved to Rhode Island to work in politics in 2006—was head of the state Department of Administration, chief operating officer of Providence, and chief of staff for former Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo.

With a population of about 191,000, Providence is the third-largest city in New England after Boston and Worcester, Massachusetts. Once home to extensive manufacturing and mills, the city in recent years became known for embracing New Urbanism, historic preservation, and adaptive reuse, and for culinary, cultural, and arts innovations. The Congress for the New Urbanism is returning to Providence in the summer of 2025 for its annual summit.

Smiley sat for an interview with senior fellow Anthony Flint this spring at City Hall. Their conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, is available as a Land Matters podcast.

Anthony Flint: The narrative arc of Providence over the last 30 years has been remarkable: a second city brought out of economic doldrums by dismantling highways and daylighting rivers and paying attention to urban design. Now there are concerns about affordability, beginning with housing. Where does the city go from here?

Brett Smiley: I appreciate you mentioning the remarkable progress that the city has made. We’ve come a long way, and while many postindustrial cities continue to struggle, Providence is on an entirely different trajectory. Through the pandemic, we had an influx of people wanting urban amenities, wanting arts and culture and diversity and walkability, but with a little bit less work than it is to live in Manhattan or Brooklyn, certainly less expensive than living in those places or in Boston.

One of our competitive points is that we were less expensive. But we’ve not kept pace with building, and as a result, housing prices are skyrocketing. We are on the top five list of net inflow migration, but 50 out of 50 for new housing starts. Our task is to make it easier to build more densely, and to do so in the context of the world in which we find ourselves, so that means incorporating green infrastructure, preparing for climate change, while also allowing for more growth.

We think we can actually lead the way in doing both. It’s an exciting time in the city. We don’t have a hard time selling Providence. What we have a hard time doing is making sure that there’s a home available for everyone who wants one.

AF: You’ve got different places where you can build infill, including surface parking lots. You’ve got some places that don’t require tearing anything down.

BS: We have plenty of places to build. One of our economic challenges has always been that we are in, from a cost perspective, the same economic market as Boston, and yet our rents or sales prices are significantly discounted to Boston. We’ve got a gap to fill there in terms of the price that the housing unit can command and the cost it takes to construct it, which is why we’re working so hard on allowances for things like bonuses for density and the relaxation of parking minimums, ways to try to allow developers to help projects become financially viable; while also looking at some more innovative solutions that cities around the countries are trying, such as changes to the fire code and other ways that actually will reduce the cost of construction by relaxing some of the regulatory requirements.

AF: Unlike the mayors of Boston or Paris, you’ve been a little less enthusiastic about the complete streets concept of pedestrian, bike, and bus lanes. How has your thinking evolved?

BS: I remain convinced that pedestrian safety is of critical importance. We know that one of the reasons that people like living in Providence and want to move to Providence is because of its walkability, and pedestrian safety is super important to me and to the city. We’ve also been working closely with the AARP. Pedestrian safety is really important to older residents. I’m convinced that Providence is a great city to retire to.

The dilemma that I see is that the discussion around bicycle lanes and those who commute by bicycle seems to consume a disproportionate share of the conversation. We know that only two to four percent of the population commutes by bike. We have aspirations of doubling or quadrupling that number. It’s still going to be less than 10 percent of people commuting by bike. We do want to see more people choosing that as an alternate means of transportation. When we’re talking about five percent of the commuting public, sometimes it feels like 75 percent of the conversation.

That’s the shift that I’ve been sensitive to, and I try to devote time and resources to the means and methods of transportation that most people actually use, which is not, in fact, biking. We’re in the Northeast. We have real winters. It’s a city of seven hills, famously in its history, and it doesn’t work for everyone to be able to commute by bike year-round. Most of those folks still have a car. I just try to be realistic about how much time and energy and resources we put into a slice of the commuting public that represents a relatively small minority.

AF: Can you reflect on the challenge of retaining major employers, like the toy manufacturer Hasbro, and the practice of offering things like tax breaks for economic development?

BS: The tactics for economic development have changed in my career in public service. At first, when I was working in government, people were trying to woo headquarters based upon incentives. Then corporate leaders were making decisions, and then the conversation shifted where it became all about talent. Headquarters were choosing where to go based upon where the talent was, maybe less so based upon the financial incentives. Then the pandemic changed it a third time, where with the increase of remote or hybrid work, people are starting to work anywhere and everywhere.

The really meaningful growth that we’ve seen over the last decade, and particularly since the pandemic, are people moving here with good jobs in hand that are located somewhere else or nowhere at all. They’re moving here with good jobs, and it doesn’t matter where their job is. The way in which we think about economic development has shifted. The way I think about economic development has shifted, which is one of the reasons that housing is so primary in my priorities because housing is, in fact, an economic development strategy.

When people can choose where they live and their job is not dependent on that location, you have to give them a high quality of life and an affordable home, and so that’s what we’re working on. Nevertheless, there is still a role for major site-based employers. In terms of municipalities’ reputation, companies that people know can be very important to your identity and to your city’s economic prospects and its brand, if you will, and Hasbro is one of those. It’s got a century-long history in Rhode Island. It’s currently headquartered in neighboring Pawtucket, Rhode Island.

The CEO there has said that that site is no longer working for them, and we found ourselves in a competition with Boston. To date, they’ve not made a decision, but we put forward a very compelling package and proposal, and I hope that they choose Providence. Part of our pitch, in addition to being competitive on an economic package, is again, back to this quality of life and livability. It’s really easy for me to convince the executive suite at Hasbro that mid-career professionals and young workers want to be here, that this is the kind of city that has a youthful vibrancy that other cities have, but it’s a place that they can actually afford to be.

We made a compelling economic package, and we would do that for other major employers as well to choose Providence. I will say, despite the comments about the importance of embracing the hybrid and remote workers, the other thing about having a corporate headquarters that really does matter is it impacts the investments that that company makes in the community, its philanthropy, and its volunteer time. Whereas hybrid or remote workers are often not doing the same level of investment in a community as a headquarters does.

There’s real value in making sure that there is a core corporate community that helps support and sustain our civic institutions, our artistic organizations, and other groups that rely on that corporate philanthropic support that seems to be most generous in the headquarters city as opposed to a regional office or a place in which they just happen to have hybrid or remote workers.

AF: A recent study found that Providence nightlife generates nearly a billion dollars a year in economic activity, but pointed out that many workers can’t catch a bus to go home after the bars and restaurants close. What can Providence, lacking a light rail or subway, do to improve transit?

BS: It’s important that we refer to it as life at night, because it’s not just nightlife. There are thousands of employees that work during what we refer to as “the other nine to five”: 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. That’s restaurants and hospitality and nightclubs, but also someone working the overnight shift at a hospital and other jobs like that.

We don’t have a subway or light rail system here in Providence or anywhere in Rhode Island. We have a bus system that works reasonably well during the day but is less frequent—and in the case of some lines, shuts down—late at night. The solutions are to look at other means of transportation like ridesharing and micromobility, and with our bus system, RIPTA, to provide better service to these major employment centers. We don’t need brand-new innovations. We just need to think about the delivery of services for this other period of time that often gets overlooked and forgotten.

I talk about arts and culture, but nightlife is a big part of it too. This is a fun city, and I think the most thriving nightlife in New England to be sure, with some pretty impressive statistics. On a per capita basis, Providence has more nightclubs than New York City. In terms of percentage of our population, we’re a more diverse city than Los Angeles. There’s something for everyone here and we know for a fact that people come down 95 to go out in Providence from the much bigger neighbor to our north, Boston.

Our reputation as a place of theater, live music, a growing comedy scene, a really vibrant Spanish language club scene, there is really something for everyone here and we want to make sure that not only do people have a safe, fun time, but that that really important contributing part of our economy continues to thrive.

AF: Given the experience of a major bridge having to be closed because of structural integrity issues, what is your vision for investing in infrastructure, particularly now that cities might be looking at a different framework from the federal government?

BS: Part of the story of the Washington Bridge on I-95, which is a major artery here in the city—it’s a state-owned bridge and a Rhode Island DOT-funded project—was inadequate maintenance. The lesson I draw from that is the importance of ongoing maintenance to avoid the much bigger price tag that comes for replacement.

We need to make sure that we’re all taking care of this infrastructure, particularly after four years of significant investment in some real big infrastructure projects here at home and all around the country. Secondly, we need predictable revenue to be able to pay for these projects [such as user fee tolls on heavy trucks]. You can repair it today or replace it tomorrow, and the replacement is always the worse investment.

AF: Similarly, are you worried about the health of the “eds and meds” anchor institutions, which continue to be a critical component of the Providence renaissance, amid the disruptions in federal funding?

BS: I’m very worried about the financial stability of the eds and meds. The change of the indirect cost recovery for NIH grants is affecting Providence already. Both our hospitals and our primary research institution, which is Brown University, depend on those funds. To change the rules of the road midstream is hugely disruptive.

Our largest employers are the hospital and the colleges. It will find its way into our community one way or another with these cuts, whether it’s job losses, depressed real estate values, diminished investment. And all of the good things that might not come as a result of this—the cures to diseases that may not be discovered and solutions to real problems none of us get to benefit from, if the research never happens. It’s a real problem and a real shame. It’s no way to treat really critical partners.

AF: You’re a different kind of politician compared to some past leaders in Rhode Island who might be described as more old-school. How would you rate yourself in terms of engaging with constituents? In a recent interview, you said, “There are times when public leaders need to say, pencils down, we’ve heard enough. This is what we’re doing.”

BS: I think about things in two ways. One is around priorities, and the other is around style. With respect to priorities, I didn’t know him, but the late Boston Mayor Tom Menino talked about being an urban mechanic, [and that] has always been a phrase that resonated with me. I’ve tried to set my priorities on core quality of life issues, things that impact people’s daily lives, and try to make them better. Just try to fix the problems that people actually care about.

I think there’s going to be a huge erosion in trust in government in general. The antidote to that is to show competence and efficiency and effectiveness, particularly at the local level, because our residents know us by name. They’re not shy to tell us what they think isn’t working well. I try to stay focused on those things and not on solving all the world’s problems, but solving a neighborhood’s problems.

In terms of style, I’m a pretty low-key person, and I don’t have high highs, I’m not bombastic, I try to listen to people. We do a lot of community engagement. We’ve tried to do community engagement in some new ways [like Zoom and online surveys]. There does come a moment where the leader just needs to make a decision and move on. That’s what I got elected to do. I’ll be on the ballot again next year. If the voters of Providence don’t like it, they can pick someone else.

I feel like it’s my job to say, “Okay, we’ve heard everyone’s feedback. We’ve made modifications where we think it makes sense. We can agree to disagree on other things. This is what we’re doing moving forward and the day of accountability is election day.” I’m entirely comfortable with that. I think that’s what it takes to get things done. That’s what I think our residents actually want us to do, is to get things done. Inaction is the enemy of progress. It’s something I don’t want to fall victim to.

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, host of the Land Matters podcast, and a contributing editor of Land Lines.

Lead image: Mayor Brett Smiley. Credit: City of Providence.

In 2001, a good friend became pregnant with twins. As a single parent, she decided to move into a newly established co-living compound, which she hoped would provide support and company as she raised her new family. A seem­ingly radical idea nearly 25 years ago, co-living—a housing approach that offers a combination of private and shared space—is now a fast-growing market. Its increasing popularity under­lines an obvious truth about housing in America: Our household demographics are changing, and our housing designs need to change too.

Since World War II, most housing in America has been built to support a nuclear family structure: two parents living with their children. But in the last several decades, family structures have evolved to include fewer nuclear families and more single-parent families, intergeneration­al families, nonfamily groups, and downsizing or unrelated seniors. As the American family evolves, housing design must evolve with it.

In cities and towns large and small, commu­nities are struggling to provide adequate and affordable housing that meets the varied needs of today’s population. Changing the way we design houses—and offering more housing choice at more price points—will not only better meet the needs of our evolving house­holds, it will also help provide more affordable and attainable options, which will lead to more stable, thriving, and sustainable communities.

Changing Demographics

In the era after World War II, the majority of the adult American population was married: 87 percent in 1950. By 2022, that figured had dropped to 47 percent. The same time period saw a dramatic rise in people living alone, growing to almost 28 percent of the population in 2023 from less than 10 percent in 1950. US Census statistics from 2022 tell us that American households are now just as likely to include single-parent families (31 percent), extended or multigenera­tional families (8.1 percent), families without children (36 percent) or stepfamilies whose household size changes weekly based on custody schedules, and nonfamily groups (8 percent).

Economic factors are also changing housing needs. Baby boomers, numbering more than 76 million, are finding that aging in place in car-centered exurbs is more difficult than they thought. Many who can afford to move also want to downsize. Millennials (representing almost 22 percent of the population) and Gen Z (representing more than 20 percent in 2023) are struggling to launch careers and pay off college debt, and are slower than previous generations to marry or have children. Homeownership is lower for these generations than it was for previous generations due to factors including a high debt-to-pay ratio, low inventory, and high interest rates.

Finally, most cities in the US are facing an incredible housing shortage, which drives demand and prices for the available housing stock. Estimates suggest that the US is currently short approximately 4.5 million to 5 million homes. The stock that does exist provides little variety or flexibility. In 2023, around 1.45 million homes were built; that included one million single-family units and about 450,000 multifamily units.

These forces are prompting an urgent examination of how local governments can incentivize new housing, including housing designs that better accommodate how people are living now.

Evolving Housing Design

Since the post–World War II era, the housing market has been dominated by single-family homes. This was due in large part to local and federal policies that supported the creation of suburban neighborhoods through disinvestment in downtown neighborhoods by redlining practices and transit disinvestment, new highway investments, and the marketing of the “American Dream” targeted to returning service members. Little has changed in the last 50 years.

The lack of variety and stagnant housing design contribute to the national housing shortage as people are forced to live in housing situations that fail to meet their needs. To better meet the housing needs of the 21st century, builders, developers, and local governments should offer a wider range of choice and variety. Expanding housing designs will not only help increase the housing supply, it will also enable more people to live as they want and choose.

1. Restore the boarding house. Traditionally, the boarding house was a transitory step between family life and independence. Boarding houses offered meals and housekeep­ing, providing a valuable housing option for single adults. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, between one-fourth and one-third of urban households took in boarders. However, after World War I, boarding houses morphed into single-room occupancy (SRO) units, which became associated with low-income housing. As such, many local governments put significant zoning restrictions on where and how they could be built. Approximately one million SRO units were demolished in major cities between 1960 and 1980, including Chicago, New York, Denver, Seattle, and San Diego.

That negative perception is slowly changing as more businesses realize the value of—and demand for—housing with shared amenities. A global company called Cohabs offers co-living for people 18 or older in shared homes in New York, London, Brussels, and Paris, among other cities. In 2024, the company opened 16 houses in the NYC area and 36 rooms in DC, with plans to increase supply to 500 or even 1,000 beds.

Each tenant has their own bedroom, which comes furnished with a bed, desk, and safe, and bathrooms are shared by up to three people. The kitchens—a central one on the first floor and a smaller one on each floor above—have dishes and basic provisions. Each tenant gets a shelf in a refrigerator, as well as a locker to use as a pantry. The common areas include living rooms, work­spaces, a movie room, a gym, and a laundry room, as well as an outdoor terrace and a roof deck.

The growth of co-living arrangements is predicted to significantly increase, with esti­mates suggesting the market will grow from $13.3 billion to $63.8 billion by 2028. As housing in urban areas becomes more expensive, co-living offers an affordable alternative, especially for young professionals and students. By sharing living spaces and communal facilities, residents can significantly reduce expenses such as rent, utilities, and maintenance.

The demand for all types of living space is in many places matched by an enormous potential supply. Large old homes can easily be converted into co-living spaces. To facilitate these conver­sions, in 2022, the City of Toronto legalized rooming houses citywide. Expanding the design options for the boarding house and enabling homeowners to legally transform their houses could be a sustainable business model; it could also provide a housing alternative in cities and towns of all sizes, providing income for home­owners and much-needed housing for renters.

2. Expand the boarding house concept. In addition to retrofitting existing homes, some developers are meeting the demand for boarding houses with new builds. Eli Spevak, a developer in Portland, Oregon, is integrating the boarding house model into his practice. His Flora and Ulysses Courtyard Co-Living model comprises two side-by-side structures, each consisting of a primary home and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), that share a central courtyard. The structures are built on adjacent standard-sized lots, creating an alternative housing option within existing residential zoning regulations. Each side has a common area with a living room and kitchen on the ground floor. Space for smaller social gatherings is available on the ground floors of the ADU and on the second-floor decks overlooking the courtyard. The Flora and Ulysses offers one-bedroom and two-bedroom options.

Renters are selected carefully—within the parameters of fair housing laws—to ensure a safe, welcoming, and supportive community. When an opening arises, existing residents give tours and make recommenda­tions to the management company. The on-site manager, who is a resident and receives a slight rent discount, manages and facilitates this process.

This raises a critical point: This type of housing can come with unconventional manage­ment responsibilities. Most management companies are not set up or even prepared to navigate the process of facilitating community. When neighbors share a large kitchen or even a courtyard, their relationships become essential. In fact, these living situations can succeed or fail based on the connections among the people living in them.

Some new houses include living spaces that are designed to be more separate from the rest of the house; these could be used by an aging parent, a returning college student, or a tenant, or all three over time. These spaces are generally not considered legally separate units and often have built-in amenities, so the space could be used as an entertainment area or as a short- or long-term rental.

As housing stock continues to be constrained in many cities, the traditional and expanded boarding house concept can offer immediate housing options for a number of demographic populations. To facilitate an expansion of these options, local governments would need to modify or change zoning codes that currently prohibit or limit them.

3. Legalize and incentivize ADUs. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), sometimes referred to as granny flats, come in many forms. They can be created by building a basement apartment, modifying the space above a garage, or even constructing a backyard cottage. These units can help increase the housing in a neigh­borhood by integrating into the existing fabric and using existing infrastructure. Additionally, they can provide an income stream for homeown­ers, which in turn can help residents age in place or enable a home purchase.

Many local and state governments are taking steps to legalize ADUs, as these smaller living spaces can provide more affordable housing in high-demand areas. In 2023, the ADU market was $16.5 million, and it is projected to more than double by 2032.

Santa Cruz, California, was one of the first municipalities to make ADUs easier to build. The city revised its zoning ordinance to eliminate a parking requirement for single-family homes, which freed up space for accessory units. In addition, the revision included design elements that ensure ADUs complement the surrounding homes. Seven architects designed compact building prototypes (500 square feet) that address a variety of site needs. These plans were pre-reviewed by city departments, and homeowners can select from any of these designs to expedite the permitting process and reduce planning and design costs.

Santa Cruz was on the forefront of broader legislative reform allowing ADUs in California, which led to a 15,334 percent increase in permits between 2016 and 2022, resulting in nearly 84,000 completed units. Seattle followed a similar regulatory path, and by 2022, construc­tion of ADUs had outpaced construction of single-family homes in the city.

In most places, however, the promise of ADUs has not been fully realized. While these accessory units are now legal in many communi­ties, local governments are often imposing significant requirements, such as dictating the minimum lot size or limiting ADU residents to relatives of the homeowner. Even when these restrictions are removed, the cost of building a small, simple backyard cottage can easily exceed $300 per square foot, which puts it out of reach for many homeowners.

Given the current suburban landscape, integrating ADUs into existing neighborhoods represents an incredible opportunity for local governments to increase housing supply. To maximize the potential of this housing model, local governments should simplify and stream­line ADU regulations, work with architects and designers to develop preapproved designs, and offer incentives such as five years of reduced property taxes to help offset the construction cost burden to the homeowners.

4. Expand intentional living communities. The hippie communes of the 1960s and 1970s have given way to intentional living compounds, which consist of a group of people who choose to live together or share resources based on common values. Intentional communities usually consist of a small number of apartments or single-family homes built around central squares or common spaces; they operate with a focus on connection, often including weekly dinners at a community center or other common area, shared babysitting services, and shared gardens or games. They are rising in popularity as a way to save money, create community, and reduce the stress of modern living. Such a living situation is especially attractive to young families, single-parent households, empty nesters, and seniors who are still living independently and want to combat isolation.

It’s hard to gauge how many people live in intentional communities, as they can be anything from friends living together with an open-door policy for each apartment to urban developments designed to house multiple families. The Founda­tion for Intentional Community estimates that 10,000 to 30,000 intentional communities likely exist worldwide. One of the greatest attributes of intentional communities is that they can be formed within existing building stock (e.g., a duplex or other multifamily configuration), or be designed and built to meet specific population needs and values.

Intentional communities can range from those created around a singular purpose—such as Arcosanti, an Arizona community whose founding “arcology” concept mixes architecture and ecology to minimize the impact of human-built structures on the environment—to more organized social communities such as Takoma Village Cohousing in Washington, DC, where my friend with twins moved. In some cases, two or three families buy a multifamily house together, where each manages their own unit but they live together as a community.

Intentional communities are also well suited for seniors. Rushall Park, a retirement village in North Fitzroy, Australia, provides independent and assisted living accommodation and support. Unlike most assisted living communities in the US, Rushall Park has exceptional architecture and community design, which enables seniors to live in their own houses. The homes are located near public transit, shops, restaurants, and medical centers. The community center includes a communal dining room, activities area, informal sitting room, and library.

At a time when senior living options are both expensive and unappealing, creating a family compound can provide support for aging seniors, growing young families, and young adults. Some organizations have turned to well-planned “multigenerational villages” to help simultane­ously support aging seniors and foster children. Hope Meadows, established in 1994 on a former military base in Rantoul, Illinois, was the first to provide a place for foster families with similar challenges to share resources and experiences, and to live among older adults who needed community and could support families with their time, skills, and care. Inspired by Hope Meadows, the Treehouse Foundation created a community to support foster families and older adults in Easthampton, Massachusetts.

Blue Zones, LLC, an organization that studies place-based longevity, has researched the effects of multigenerational living, finding that children who live with—or who have frequent contact with—their grandparents have lower rates of disease and mortality. The research also suggest­ed that grandparents who care for their grandchil­dren can increase their longevity. This may be because the grandparent stays more active and engaged. (Ed. note: The author formerly served in a leadership role at Blue Zones, LLC.)

Realtors can help facilitate intentional and multigenerational communities by identifying and marketing existing housing structures that could easily be divided into separate units. Local governments can also support intentional communities by streamlining permit require­ments for developers. Given increasing housing costs, the isolation many people experience, and the documented health impacts from loneliness, supporting and facilitating intentional living arrangements can ease housing shortages as well as improve quality of life.

5. Encourage cottage courts. While intentional communities can be created within existing housing stock and have the expectation of integrated community, cottage courts are small groupings of housing around a shared public space that offer more independent living. Cottage courts can be built in urban, suburban, or rural contexts, and offered as for-sale or rental units.

In some communities, a cottage court can be built as of right in areas with multifamily zoning. With the right design, a cottage court can achieve the same 14 to 16 dwelling units per acre as a group of two-story “garden apartments,” with buildings that are more easily accepted by neighbors than generic apartment buildings.

Even with multifamily zoning, cottage courts are still not permitted by many municipalities. The density is higher than single-family zoning typically allows, and the units sit on a very small footprint, which often is prohibited by lot size and setback requirements. The houses tend to be smaller than average. The parking is grouped, rather than individual to each unit. Often these kinds of developments need zoning adjustments for parking, setbacks, and minimum lot sizes.

As with the co-living examples mentioned earlier, it’s essential to develop management mechanisms to support and facilitate commu­nity as these kinds of developments evolve and expand. For example, in one cottage court community, the common space fell into disrepair, a “tragedy of the commons” situation. In another, an owner decided to build a tall fence around their individual property, under­mining the development’s carefully designed sense of community. In many cases, transition­ing from the original residents to new owners can be especially problematic, as new residents may not necessarily be looking for community. Again, realtors can play a key role in supporting cottage courts by identifying and marketing them as properties more focused on community.

Cottage courts have incredible potential to help create supportive communities while allowing residents to maintain a high degree of independence and privacy. They could be an ideal living arrangement for seniors, single-parent households, or families looking for a supportive community in which to raise their children.

6. Support and incentivize manufactured and modular housing. Manufactured housing has been around for decades and has the potential to radically transform the housing industry by providing well designed housing at a lower cost than standard construction. Given the mass production scale, manufactured housing could be used to create the small, more flexible housing options that are increasingly in demand and discussed here.

One example is Katrina Cottages, which are small, affordable, and sturdy residences designed after Hurricane Katrina tore through the Gulf Coast in 2005. The cottages were created as a safer, more livable, and more humane alternative to the FEMA trailers provided to flood victims. The cottages were built on narrow infill lots in walkable neighbor­hoods and were assembled on site from factory-made panels. Ranging in size from 300 to 1,800 square feet, they often had two small bedrooms, a kitchenette, a full bathroom, a living room, a sleeping loft, and a full-size refrigerator. In the same vein as the Sears housing kits of the 20th century, the plans and lumber for these cottages were exclusively provided by Lowe’s, until the company discon­tinued the product in 2011.

Unfortunately, Katrina Cottages did not catch on as an alternative to disaster housing, nor for housing more broadly. In some places, the design faced pushback from local officials and potential neighbors, who viewed its size and factory origins with skepticism. This is not unusual for the manufactured housing industry, which has been burdened by outdated public perceptions about quality.

But that appears to be shifting: The quality, energy efficiency, and design of manufactured housing has evolved dramatically. In 2022, manufactured housing accounted for more than 10 percent of single-home starts in the US. Here, too, community plays a role: 31 percent of manufactured homes are placed in a community setting, and resident-owned communities are gaining momentum across the country.

In addition, more architecture and design firms are using modular techniques for larger projects. David Baker Architects, which has built modular multifamily housing throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, credits the building method for greatly reducing the project timeline of its 145-unit Tahanan building in San Francisco. In Los Angeles, the developer Thrive Living is using a modular design to build 800 rental apartments on top of a Costco, with 23 percent of the units dedicated to low-income residents.

7. Make retrofit and reuse easier. Adaptive reuse has long been a common redevel­opment strategy, but has largely been applied to former industrial buildings. But as single-family homes get larger and families decrease in size, new designs are needed to enable easier retrofits of existing homes into multiple living spaces or apartments. This is not a new concept: The New York City brownstone was originally designed as a single-family home in the early 19th century. Now, almost all of them have been converted into multiple apartments.

The large single-family homes that dominate much of the suburban landscape are primed to be retrofitted into multiple living spaces. Yet two significant barriers prevent such conversions: layouts and local zoning.

Multifamily units achieve economies of scale when essential water and sewer elements are stacked (that is, located in the same place on each floor). Modifying the designs of single-family homes can provide greater flexibility for future uses, either as stand-alone apartments for short- or long-term rental, ensuite living areas for aging parents or returning children, or even as condos or a cooperative structure that allows a single-owner property to be owned by many. Further, developing floor plans that anticipate a future redevelopment, redesign, or retrofit can not only add value for the homeowner, it can also provide maximum flexibility for residents to age in place. And that’s essential because space needs change over the course of a person’s adulthood. Many of these modifications can be done in the architectural design phase.

But these modifications need to be allowed by municipalities. In most suburban communities in the US right now, converting a single-family home to a two-family home would be illegal. Unless expressly allowed, very few developers would be willing to gamble that future zoning would allow two- or three-family homes. While many communities are now considering following the lead of cities like Minneapolis and Cambridge, which have eliminated single-family zoning, one possible intermediate step may be to allow conversions if the second unit meets certain design requirements, such as fitting into the architectural context of the neighborhood.

Local governments can also help incentivize or nudge the broader adoption of these types of retrofits by reducing fees for multiple electric systems or sewer lines for designs that support planned densification, which is a process that plans for and enables the evolution of a property or a piece of real estate. In most cases, developers will build an initial use—single-story retail, for example—because that’s what the market supports at the time of construction, but will design the first floor and utilities to accommodate future floors or expansions. Local governments can put approvals in place that accommodate future possibilities, which is essential for securing financing for the future project.

Planned densification can occur at all scales, from a single building to an entire block. A good example of large-scale densification is the Potomac Yard project in Alexandria, Virginia. The development was originally constructed as a standard strip mall in the mid-1990s, as that was the only use prevailing market trends would support. However, the county, developers, and owners were confident that once a new Metro station stop was added, the property would be primed for redevelopment. Therefore, only 20-year leases were made available for tenants. The entire area is now being redesigned into a high-density, transit-oriented development that will contain 7.5 million square feet of office, retail, and residential space, as well as open space.

Benefits of Evolving our Housing Designs

Providing development opportunities for a variety of housing types promotes diversity in housing price, style, and size. It also contributes to neighborhood stability by offering more affordable and move-up homes and accommo­dating a diverse income mix. And integrating more housing variety into existing neighborhoods gently increases density, which can lead to improvements in housing values, walkability, and social interaction.

Additionally, living in a community with greater population variety provides significant health benefits. Loneliness is quickly becoming a serious problem. It now affects half of all Americans. Lack of social connection has been found to be as dangerous as smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day.

A housing gap exists between market-rate housing and subsidized affordable housing; providing housing choices that better meet the needs of more families and individuals can reduce that gap without additional subsidy. For example, rent for a 500-square-foot ADU will be lower than for a 1,200-square-foot apartment. Co-living arrangements will often cost less due to the shared spaces such as kitchens, courtyards, and guest rooms. The gap between market-rate housing and subsidized housing can be further reduced when interiors are streamlined and made more energy efficient. Consequently, providing a variety of housing types and enabling a range of living situations creates significant economic value.

Locating these housing options in walkable areas can further support stronger local econo­mies. Walkable downtowns, town centers, and neighborhoods comprise only 1.2 percent of metropolitan land area—and 0.07 percent of total US land area—yet they generate 20 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Despite walkable places taking up only “a tiny sliver of land,” they have an outsized impact on the US economy. Expanding housing choice not only supports a community’s residents, it can also be good for its economy.

Legalizing Housing Variety

One of the primary reasons America has limited housing variety is zoning and building codes. In most towns and cities, land development regulations limit building types. Without regulatory reform, innovative housing designs will not be widely adopted. Cities can make it easier to build variety into the housing market through regulatory reform. For example, Colorado banned limits on household size in 2024.

“This issue is both a housing issue and a civil rights issue,” Colorado Governor Jared Polis said when he signed HB24-1007 into law, prohibiting local governments in Colorado from restricting how many unrelated roommates could live under one roof unless a strong case can be made for health, safety, or fire code needs. “For housing, the opportunity for people to officially be on the lease—it gives them protections, allows them to start establishing their credit, gives them the certainty that they get to live here.”

Additional regulations that could be modified to better support housing variety include:

• allowing boarding houses as a by-right use;
• eliminating minimum lot sizes;
• eliminating minimum parking requirements;
• legalizing ADUs and simplifying related requirements;
• adjusting sprinkler requirements for smaller multifamily buildings;
• allowing more units on a lot;
• removing provisions that prohibit inclusionary zoning;
• allowing adaptive reuse of any building for residential use; and
• allowing by-right building conversions from single units to multiple units.

Changing land development regulations and building codes provides a strong incentive to developers to build more housing variety. Updating zoning is the number one action local governments can take to promote more affordable housing.

Next Steps

The housing design changes discussed here can be built almost anywhere; for example, in a greenfield for new development or as part of an urban redevelopment project. They can be built as part of a broader community or added to an individual house or lot. To facilitate broader adoption of these housing types, cities and towns across the country should adopt a “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” approach and seek to remove or modify many of the regulatory barriers that prevent wide-scale adoption.

Changing where and how housing is designed and built does not happen overnight. But local and state governments can take several incremental steps to help support the process:

• Lead with adjustments. For communities that want to unleash the market potential of evolved housing choices, the first step is to lead with adjustments, or variances, in a specific neigh­borhood or district. Instead of making wholesale zoning changes, make it easier (and less time-consuming) to apply for variances or apply zoning code changes to an overlay zone, if a particular geographic area or neighborhood would benefit from—or become more desirable with the addition of—different housing designs. (For example, in neighborhoods surrounding a university or with a fixed rail stop or a natural amenity such as a park or lake.) When several homes or neighborhoods have been successfully built with the adjustments, a local government can complete a wholesale code change to enable broader adoption.
• Establish desired outcomes. Be clear about the goal (housing variety) but don’t be too prescrip­tive (sticking to a specific kind of housing). Often a local government will modify its zoning codes to require “first-floor retail” when the desired outcome is a vibrant street experience. This one zoning change has the unintended consequence of requiring only retail, thereby limiting other activities that could serve the desired outcome.
• Establish metrics for success. This will provide information on when and how to expand zoning changes to another geographic area or to the whole city. Additionally, success metrics may vary for different stakeholders. Identifying what success means for each stakeholder group is critical.
• Use governmental tools, such as streamlined permitting or infrastructure improvements or upgrades, to incentivize the type and location of housing variety desired.
• Align political will. Knowing who is likely to support efforts to diversify housing—and who is likely to oppose it—is essential to success. Identifying champions and core supporters is critical in any effort involving housing changes. Equally important is knowing areas of opposi­tion, because that makes it possible to bring opponents into the process.

For much of the post–World War II era, this country has built the same kind of housing, either single-family homes or large apartment complexes. But well into the 21st century, cities and towns need to rethink how housing can better meet the needs of a growing and increasingly diverse population, and of the new household combinations that are increasingly common.

Developers need to rise to the challenge of building a greater variety of housing at different price points to increase our affordable and attainable housing supply. As consumers of housing, we all deserve housing that is more flexible to accommodate our changing household needs, more affordable, and more accessible.

Lynn Richards has spent the last 25 years working to create more walkable, livable, and sustainable communities throughout the US. Most recently, she served as the executive vice president and chief policy and implementa­tion officer at Blue Zones, LLC. Prior to Blue Zones, she served as president and CEO of the Congress for the New Urbanism and had a distinguished career as a policy maker at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Lead image: Flora and Ulysses, a co-living project in Portland, Oregon, consists of two houses on adjacent lots, each with an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The homes face each other to create a sense of community. Credit: Polyphon Architecture and Design.

El Instituto Lincoln ofrece una variedad de oportunidades de carrera temprana y media para los investigadores. En esta serie, hacemos un seguimiento con antiguos académicos y becarios del Instituto Lincoln para obtener más información sobre su trabajo.

Unos años después de obtener su doctorado en políticas públicas en la Universidad de Harvard, Jenny Schuetz participó en el programa Lincoln Institute Scholars, que presenta a investigadores en los inicios de sus trayectos profesionales a académicos sénior y editores de revistas. Schuetz ahora estudia políticas de vivienda y uso del suelo como miembro sénior en la Brookings Institution; también es profesora en el departamento de planeamiento urbano de la Universidad de Georgetown y autora de Fixer Upper: How to Repair America’s Broken Housing Systems (Casa para renovar: Cómo reparar el sistema de vivienda averiado de los Estados Unidos).

En esta entrevista, que ha sido editada con motivos de longitud y claridad, Schuetz habla acerca de como ha incrementado el conocimiento de la zonificación, la dirección confusa de la migración climática en los Estados Unidos, y como el riesgo climático está poniendo en riesgo al mercado de vivienda.

JON GOREY: ¿Cuál fue su experiencia con el programa Lincoln Scholars?

JENNY SCHUETZ: Cuando lo hice, la atención se centró en emparejar a académicos en los inicios de sus trayectos profesionales con algunos de los editores de revistas con experiencia en el campo y obtener información sobre cómo lograr que su trabajo se publique. Y eso fue increíblemente útil, porque es una especie de caja negra cuando comienzas; envías un documento y recibes un “revise y reenvíe” o un rechazo, pero a menudo en realidad no entiendes por qué. Así que hablar con algunos editores de revistas sobre lo que hace que un artículo sea convincente y si creen que emparejar artículos de investigación con los revisores fue muy útil.

Me encanta que Lincoln haga esto. La cohorte de jóvenes con los que compartí el programa, ahora somos un poco canosos y de mediana edad, pero todavía nos vemos. Y es bueno ver a las nuevas cohortes que vienen. Esa es una excelente manera para que el campo transfiera conocimientos y ayude a las personas jóvenes a crecer.

JG: ¿En qué ha estado trabajando más recientemente y en qué le interesaría trabajar después?

JS: Gran parte de mi investigación todavía se centra en la función de las regulaciones de zonificación y el uso de la tierra en la restricción de la oferta de viviendas, y esto se ha convertido en un tema muy candente en los últimos cinco o seis años. Una de las cosas que estoy haciendo ahora es trabajar directamente con los gobiernos estatales que están aprobando reformas de zonificación a nivel estatal, y tratando de que se implementen y se conviertan en más producción de viviendas. La parte de la implementación es muy importante: no solo escribes una política y se implementa por sí misma, sino que es necesario que haya humanos reales haciendo cosas para implementarla.

De hecho, me estoy preparando para un taller con el Instituto Lincoln, donde estamos reuniendo a agencias estatales de vivienda de siete u ocho estados diferentes para hablar entre sí y compartir qué tipo de desafíos se enfrentan, qué tipo de éxitos. Es una gran oportunidad para que los gestores de políticas hablen con sus pares de una manera que no suelen hacer, y podamos aprender en tiempo real lo que está sucediendo en el terreno.

La segunda gran parte de mi investigación es mirar la intersección entre la vivienda y la adaptación al clima. Hay bastantes investigaciones que muestran que, en promedio, los estadounidenses se están trasladando hacia lugares más peligrosos en términos climáticos. Todavía tenemos un movimiento que se aleja del noreste y el medio oeste y se dirige hacia el Cinturón del Sol, por lo que nos estamos mudando a lugares con riesgo de calor extremo, riesgo de sequía, riesgo de incendios forestales, y, luego, las personas que se mudan a Florida se están mudando a una zona con riesgo de huracanes.

Eso va a tener repercusiones reales, por ejemplo, para los mercados de seguros, que ya están viendo un aumento en las primas, y nuestros programas nacionales de recuperación ante desastres. Y en realidad no tenemos una buena idea de por qué la gente está haciendo esto.

JG: ¿Cuál es una de las cosas más sorprendentes que ha aprendido en su investigación?

JS: Que la gente se esté trasladando, de forma abrumadora, hacia lugares riesgosos en un momento en que los desastres se están volviendo cada vez más significativos y caros es contradictorio. Y las razones son complicadas. Parte de esto es que las personas no saben lo que es vivir a 115 grados hasta que se mudan allí, o las personas son demasiado optimistas [sobre su exposición al riesgo de huracanes].

Pero nuestras políticas tampoco están diseñadas para enviar las señales correctas al mercado. Debería ser mucho más caro comprar una casa y asumir una hipoteca y comprar un seguro en lugares que son realmente riesgosos, pero nuestras políticas no lo permiten, porque estamos tratando de preservar la propiedad de la vivienda asequible para los estadounidenses de ingresos medios. Queremos que todos compren una casa e inviertan en ella, por lo que necesitamos hacer que sea barata de manera artificial para que la gente lo haga, y, como consecuencia, se alienta a la gente a comprar en los lugares equivocados.

JG: ¿Qué desearía que más personas supieran sobre la vivienda?

JS: Uno de mis problemas de larga data ha sido que Estados Unidos se apoya mucho en la propiedad de la vivienda para la creación de riqueza. Y como motivación para eso, no hemos proporcionado un buen nivel de vida y protección para los inquilinos, y hemos hecho que el alquiler parezca una opción de segunda clase. Creo que eso ha llevado a una gran discriminación sutil contra los inquilinos y a que muchas personas no se tomen en serio que debemos hacer que el alquiler sea una buena opción. . . . Deberíamos hacer que el alquiler sea una opción razonable para los hogares de clase media durante el tiempo que se adapte a sus necesidades, lo que debería ser una buena opción para las personas de todas las edades y etapas de la vida.

JG: En lo que respecta a su trabajo, ¿qué la mantiene despierta por la noche? ¿Y qué le da esperanza?

JS: El clima me mantiene despierta por la noche. Uno de los capítulos de mi libro fue sobre el clima, y leí mucho más de lo que ya había leído sobre estas cosas y pensé “guau, esto debe ser un enfoque importante de mi investigación”, porque es muy extenso e importante y no se está hablando de maneras productivas que nos lleven a mejores políticas.

En el lado optimista, hay dos cosas. Una es que estamos teniendo muchas más conversaciones públicas nacionales sobre la vivienda, ya sea respecto a la capacidad de pago o las primas de seguros. La zonificación nunca se mencionó en los debates más generales de los medios o en las elecciones presidenciales hasta hace cuatro años, y ahora aparece mucho en las portadas de los periódicos. Así que creo que una comprensión más amplia de algunos de los problemas es realmente útil para comenzar a avanzar.

Y hay tanta experimentación política y energía a nivel estatal y local, tantas ciudades y estados que están probando cosas nuevas. Hemos hecho lo mismo con el uso del suelo durante 70 u 80 años, y ahora, de repente, estamos probando cosas nuevas, lo cual es fantástico. Hay mucha energía de base, y gran parte proviene de hogares más jóvenes, que están muy motivados para solucionar este problema, y se están involucrando con la política local de manera constructiva, tratando de presionar a sus funcionarios electos locales para que lo hagan mejor. Así que los niños me dan esperanza.

JG: Ha escrito bastante sobre unidades de vivienda accesorias (ADU, por su sigla en inglés), entre otras cosas, y ahora varios estados casi han legalizado las ADU en todo el estado. ¿Qué se siente cuando una política o idea sobre la que ha escrito mucho se adopta a un nivel alto?

JS: Es bastante raro poder ver que una idea propia aparezca directamente en las políticas: los gestores de políticas hablan con muchos expertos y reciben muchas opiniones, por lo que, a menudo, es muy difícil rastrear su impacto inmediato. Pero es emocionante ver cómo las ideas toman forma. Tanto al verlas traducidas en políticas, pero creo que, de la misma forma, al esuchar que la gente comienza a hablar de ellas en los términos en que estamos encuadrando el problema. Me gusta decir que tenemos dos problemas de capacidad de pago: la falta de suministro y los hogares pobres que no ganan lo suficiente. Y ese encuadre se ha adoptado en muchos lugares, y están hablando de ello de una manera más constructiva.

JG: ¿Cuál es el mejor libro que ha leído recientemente? ¿O la mejor serie que ha visto?

JS: He estado leyendo muchos libros acerca del clima y la vivienda, y son muy deprimentes. He estado viendo “Killing Eve” (Matar a Eva) . . . que es divertida y escapista. Me encantan las historias de espías y de misterio, y esa es buena. De hecho, me hace sentir que la vida real está bien, ¡porque no hay espías al acecho en cada esquina!

Jon Gorey es redactor del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo.

Imagen principal: Jenny Schuetz de Brookings Institution, declara ante el Comité Económico Conjunto del Congreso de los Estados Unidos sobre la ampliación de la oferta de viviendas asequibles. Crédito: Cortesía de Jenny Schuetz.