Public Housing’s Legacy: Destroying Communities Instead of Building Them

What is Public Housing, and How Did It Begin?

Public housing was established during the Great Depression in 1937. Its original purpose was not to house the poorest but to provide affordable housing for low- to middle-class families struggling due to the economic hardships of the era. Expansion under the 1949 Housing Act led to widespread construction, but segregation remained a persistent issue for decades. Federal support for public housing began to decline after the 1970s, with a shift in focus to housing vouchers. (More on that here: NLIHC Public Housing History).

HOPE VI: A Solution in Theory, a Challenge in Practice

To combat segregation and address the deterioration of public housing, the government introduced the HOPE VI program. HOPE VI provides HUD grants to demolish and rebuild distressed public housing as mixed-income complexes. Tenants receive relocation assistance and Section 8 vouchers to subsidize private market rent during reconstruction, aiming to reduce concentrated poverty.

While the program sounds promising in theory, its reality has been far more problematic. According to Reimagine RPE, HUD has destroyed more homes than it has created.

“As of 2006, 78,100 public housing units had been demolished and an additional 10,400 units were slated for redevelopment. However, a 2004 study by the Urban Institute found that only 21,000 units had been built to replace the 49,828 demolished units. In other words, roughly 42 percent of the demolished public housing had been replaced.”

The Lasting Impact of HOPE VI

Not only has the government failed to replace the housing it has destroyed, but the housing that has been built is often under-maintained and further segregates communities by wealth. This economic segregation exacerbates long-term disparities for low-income communities, which often suffer from underfunded schools, inadequate policing, and poor infrastructure. These conditions trap residents in low-income brackets, perpetuating cycles of poverty.

The social and community impact is equally significant. Children raised in impoverished communities are more likely to encounter crime and substance abuse due to their environment. The lack of stable, well-funded neighborhoods reduces opportunities for upward mobility and stifles the potential of entire generations.

A Path Forward

The solution lies in rethinking the role of public housing at the federal level. The federal government cannot effectively address the unique needs of individual communities. Instead, cities should prioritize building mixed-use developments that integrate:

• Local businesses

• Single-family homes

• Multi-use buildings

• Parks and green spaces

These developments should foster a sense of community by creating "third places" where people can socialize, build relationships, and thrive. By focusing on local needs and creating inclusive spaces, cities can better address housing issues and promote long-term community well-being.

Paving the Way to Gridlock: The Myth of Road Expansion

When faced with traffic congestion, the standard solution seems simple: build more lanes or add new highways. However, research and real-world examples show that this approach fails to solve the problem but often worsens it due to two fundamental phenomena: induced demand and latent demand.

Understanding Induced Demand

Induced demand occurs when road expansion encourages people to live farther away from their daily destinations, believing that additional lanes will make travel faster. Over time, these longer commutes lead to more cars on the road, negating the benefits of the expansion. Essentially, the promise of easier commutes creates more demand for road usage, eventually bringing traffic levels back—or even above—their original state.

The Role of Latent Demand

Latent demand, on the other hand, manifests immediately after a new road or lane opens. People who previously avoided congested highways—using alternative routes or traveling at off-peak hours—are now drawn to the newly expanded road, assuming it will be faster. This sudden influx of additional vehicles overwhelms the new capacity almost immediately.

The False Promise of Road Expansion

Let’s say a highway originally served 10,000 daily users but was expanded to accommodate rising traffic levels. After expansion, the combination of induced and latent demand might increase usage to 15,000 vehicles daily. Instead of easing congestion, the added lane now causes even more delays for the original users.

Bigger Roads, Bigger Problems

Expanding highways also pave the way for sprawling development, making communities less walkable and more car-dependent. Exclusionary zoning regulations, which separate residential, commercial, and recreational spaces, force people to live farther from schools, grocery stores, restaurants, and workplaces. This sprawling design funnels everyone onto the same highways, worsening congestion and perpetuating a vicious cycle of car dependency.

A Better Alternative: Mixed-Use Development

Instead of perpetually widening roads, cities should invest in mixed-use development. These communities integrate homes, schools, businesses, and public spaces, reducing the need for long car commutes. By creating neighborhoods where walking, cycling, and public transit are viable options, cities can reduce car dependency while still accommodating drivers.

The goal isn’t to eliminate driving but to provide people with the freedom to choose how they travel. Mixed-use development fosters more equitable and sustainable urban spaces while reducing highway pressure.

Conclusion

Building more lanes might seem like a straightforward solution to traffic, but the reality is far more complex. Induced and latent demand ensures that road expansions often create more problems than they solve. By rethinking how we design our cities and prioritizing walkability and mixed-use development, we can address the root causes of congestion and build a more sustainable, accessible future.

Published By: Annabelle Hanke

Links:

https://environment.transportation.org/teri-idea/induced-demand-from-operational-efficiency-and-the-impact-on-ghg-emissions-part-1-synthesis/

How Sprawl Costs Communities More Than It Saves.

The Walmart in my community occupies an impressive 20-acre lot. The lot includes a massive parking lot spanning roughly 8.5 acres, a 6-acre building, and the rest allocated to roads and delivery truck space. In perspective, the parking area alone is more extensive than six football fields. But why do we need six acres of parking? For comparison, this Walmart is located in Shakopee, MN, where similar big-box stores dominate the suburban landscape.

Contrast this with a local downtown restaurant on just 0.10 acres of land with three street parking spots directly in front. If we used an equal amount of land as Walmart's for downtown-style businesses, we could fit more than 150 restaurants or small shops. That means 150 times the potential for tax revenue, jobs, and vibrant community life, all in the same amount of space.

The issue concerns more than just land efficiency; it also concerns the cost of city services. Every business needs services such as roads, water, sewage, policing, and fire coverage. The more spread out businesses are, the more expensive it is for the city to build and maintain these services. Sprawling developments like big-box stores drive up costs for everything from asphalt roads to water pipes, while mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods are far more efficient.

Cities with compact, walkable neighborhoods consistently outperform those relying on sprawl in economic metrics. Urban planners and researchers like those at Urban3 have shown that downtown-style developments provide much higher returns on investment for city services. The concentrated tax revenue from mixed-use areas allows cities to fund schools, public safety, and infrastructure more effectively. However, sprawling big-box stores often need more revenue to cover their associated costs.

By rethinking land use and prioritizing compact, efficient development, communities can reduce long-term expenses and foster economic resilience. How can we shift from the sprawl model to a more sustainable, urban future?

Published by: Annabelle Hanke

Homeownership Dreams Deferred: Why Buying a House Is Harder Than Ever for Millennials and Gen Z

In the 1920s, the average home price in the U.S. was around $6,300, which would be approximately $95,000 today after adjusting for inflation. Fast forward to 2024, and the average home price has soared to $404,500. So, what changed?

Let’s start in the 1920s when the typical home was about 950 square feet. During the 1920s and 1930s, cities began implementing stricter zoning codes that separated residential, business, and industrial areas. Zoning laws also designated large portions of land for single-family homes, often with regulations that required minimum home sizes, setbacks (the distance between homes and roads), and spacing between homes. These requirements led to large front, side, and back yards and neighborhoods with long, wide streets and narrow sidewalks.

Now, flash forward to 2024. The average home size is over 2,000 square feet, often on large, disconnected lots. Bigger homes on larger lots increase property costs, but the city infrastructure required to connect these homes—roads, plumbing, water, and gas lines—drives up costs even more. With wider, longer streets between homes, maintenance costs also rise, putting further pressure on city budgets and taxpayers.

In conclusion, I’m not suggesting we eliminate large single-family homes with spacious yards. However, we need to re-evaluate and ease some zoning restrictions to build more sustainable and affordable housing. By allowing more flexibility in how and where we build, we can create communities where future generations can achieve the American dream of homeownership.

Published by: Annabelle Hanke

Links to sources: https://www.familytree.com/blog/prices-in-the-1920s/#:~:text=The%20average%20household%20income%20in,rent%20was%20%2460%20a%20month.