Everyone seems to agree that we don’t have enough housing.
And everyone — except maybe sellers — seems to agree that the housing we do have is too expensive.
Basic economics says the solution to demand outstripping supply is to increase supply — in this case, building more housing.
That is often where the agreement ends. Just about every locality has seen some version of the same political debate: Oh, yes, we need more housing, but not that type of housing — and not here.
The same dynamic often applies with energy generation, as well, so this isn’t unique to housing — except that not every community has or will have a power station, but everywhere has housing, however insufficient or too expensive the supply.
Addressing what we’ve come to call “the housing crisis” or “the housing shortage” is an issue that plays out at every level of government.
At the national level, the Trump administration has floated the idea of 50-year mortgages on the theory that will make monthly payments lower — although the pushback is that people will effectively be in debt for their whole lives while banks make more money.
At the state level, Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger referenced housing in her victory speech: “We’re going to lower the cost of renting, buying, or staying in your home. We are going to cut red tape and build homes families can actually afford.”
Despite all that high-level attention, it’s often local government that has the most say in housing availability and housing prices, through zoning and other regulations.
At least that’s the view of a report recently released by HousingForward Virginia (a pro-housing group) and the National Zoning Atlas (a national nonprofit that studies zoning). It makes the case that zoning decisions that require large lots and only allow multifamily housing with special permission have limited housing options in Virginia and driven up the cost. In other words, it would like to see smaller lot sizes and more multifamily housing. Those will come as controversial suggestions to those who don’t want to see that kind of density in their neighborhood — maybe somebody else’s, but not theirs. That’s why addressing our housing concerns is not as simple as “build more housing.”
Here are some of the highlights from that report, starting with some numbers that seem indisputable and then some conclusions that might be quite disputable depending on your point of view.
Housing is now so expensive that home ownership is beyond the reach of many people
“Housing advocates and researchers generally agree that people should spend no more than 30% of their income on housing,” the report says. However, 46% of renters already pay more than that, the report says, up from 34% in 2000. Of those, half — or 23% of those overall — pay more than 50% of their income on housing
This is why the age of first-home buyers has risen over the years, from 28 in 1991 to 40 today. (That information comes from other reports, not this one, but it validates the concerns expressed here. That’s also why President Donald Trump’s 50-year mortgage is so problematic; even if we went back to first home purchases at 28, that would put people in debt until they’re 78.)
How much new housing do we need?
This report says 164,000 units of “affordable housing.” That may be where the consensus ends.
Report says much current housing was ‘built to be unaffordable‘
This report says “Virginia’s existing housing stock is also part of the problem” because “more than three-quarters of the state’s housing is comprised of single-family homes. These units tend to be larger in size and require more land, which drives up their price. Multi-family housing is far less common: 2% of housing units are duplexes, 3% three- and four-unit buildings, and 19% larger apartments or mixed-use buildings. In other words, the very units that would be most affordable and accessible are much harder to find.”
This is where the report starts to make the case for multifamily housing to be allowed in more places — which often runs counter to what neighborhoods want. The report might be mathematically correct, but the politics on the ground are more complicated.
Only 5% of zoned land in Virginia allows apartments ‘by right‘
That means they don’t need a special exception permit or other special permission to be built. For those who don’t want multifamily housing in a neighborhood of single-family homes — either for aesthetic reasons or because homeowners believe apartments will lower property values or bring in a more transient population — these rules are a good thing. For some housing advocates who see multifamily housing as the key to providing more affordable housing, they’re an obstacle that is preventing construction — and driving up the cost of housing.
This report singles out Loudoun County for particular criticism on that front: “Alexandria and Arlington County permit apartments on around three-quarters of their residential land, while Loudoun County permits apartments on only 1% of its residential land.”
Should multifamily housing be allowed by right? If yes, what impact does that have on the character of neighborhoods? If no, what does that do for accessibility and affordability? Feel free to talk amongst yourselves.
Large lot sizes limit home building and drive up prices
Here’s another sensitive subject the report addresses head-on: lot sizes. For some people, they are integral to the feel of a community. For this report, they are a problem because they limit the number of homes that can be built and therefore drive up prices.
“More than half of single-family land requires minimum lot sizes of at least 40,000 square feet,” this report says. “Within that share, almost a quarter requires between 40,000 and 79,999 square feet, while nearly one-third requires 80,000 square feet or more. For perspective, 80,000 square feet well exceeds the size of a football field, and it is more comparable to the footprint of a large warehouse or city museum. Although such standards are often justified as protecting community health and preserving open space, in practice they increase costs, restrict housing options, and ultimately constrain efforts to create more affordable, diverse, and sustainable communities.”
The report is particularly critical of lot size requirements in Northern Virginia: “Around one-third of single-family land in Northern Virginia, and across the state, requires single-family lots to be at least 80,000 square feet. … The higher proportion of single-family land dedicated to such large lots in Northern Virginia, where developable land is becoming scarcer as the area grows, is one contributing factor to the rising home costs there.”
Roanoke is more pro-apartment than many cities, Lynchburg less so
The report took a closer look at five cities: Charlottesville, Lynchburg, Richmond, Roanoke and Virginia Beach. It found Roanoke and Charlottesville to be the most friendly toward multifamily housing. “Roanoke (70%) and Charlottesville (100%) allow four-or-more-family housing as of right on most residential land,” the report says. “In Richmond and Lynchburg, such housing is prohibited on roughly three-quarters of residential land, while in Virginia Beach, that number is 90%.”
More data: “In Roanoke, one-fifth of single family land allows a mix of single-family types such as manufactured homes, rowhomes, or townhomes, and in Virginia Beach, 3% of single-family land allows for similar alternatives.”
Meanwhile, the report says Lynchburg is unusually keen on large lot sizes on at least some of its land, with some lots required to be 80,000 square feet or more. “Beyond Lynchburg, only one other city requires 40,000 square feet or more: Virginia Beach, where single-family lots on just over half of single-family land must be at least this size,” the report says. “Minimum lot sizes in the remaining three cities are relatively modest. Charlottesville, Richmond, and Roanoke require minimums less than 10,000 square feet (under one-quarter acre) on most of their single family land: 67%, 56%, and 79%, respectively.”
Suburbs discourage multifamily units
Besides looking at the five cities above, the report also looked at their surrounding areas. Not surprisingly, the report found the counties around those cities not particularly receptive to multifamily units. “Apartments are outright prohibited on over 95% of the residential land in both Suburban Lynchburg and Suburban Roanoke,” the report says.
Statewide, the “average suburb” allows apartments on 1% of its land, the report says.
The unasked question
This report is built around calls for more multifamily housing, and smaller lot sizes for single-family houses. What, though, do people want? If they want multifamily housing, great. However, if we’re building multifamily housing and people want single-family housing, where does that leave us as a society? Or do we want things we simply can’t have — houses with large lots and small price tags?
Proposed solutions are controversial
Where should new housing go? All the possible answers spark controversy of some sort.
Build on undeveloped land? Not popular with those who want to protect viewsheds or the rural character of their community. This simply promotes sprawl.
Limit lot sizes? Greater housing density takes up less space but upsets those who want a different feel for their neighborhoods.
More multifamily housing? See above. I live in Botetourt County, outside Roanoke, and the growth of multifamily housing units in the southern part of the county has set social media aflame (although, admittedly, that’s easy to do).
So what is the solution? This report calls for the state to take a stronger hand, which I can’t imagine will be popular with local governments. For instance, take recommendation No. 3 in the report: “The state should move to require or incentivize localities, particularly those in urban cores and inner suburbs, to rezone a meaningful share of residential land to allow four-or-more-family housing by right.” Housing really does seem similar to our energy debates, where one of the ongoing questions is to what extent the state should get involved in making siting decisions that are now left up to local governments — local governments that are more sensitive to local opposition than the state government might be and therefore more reluctant to approve certain projects than some at the state level would like.
Calling for more housing, and more affordable housing, is easy. Actually making it happen is somewhat harder.
Had enough family togetherness over the holidays? Need something to stir up the family dinner table? Sign up for West of the Capital, our weekly political newsletter that goes out Friday afternoons, even this Friday. This week, I’ll look at Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger’s latest cabinet appointments, show off Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s official portrait, offer an example of why you shouldn’t trust artificial intelligence and serve up some political history.
