Should the U.S. Build More Public Housing?

Public Housing in the United States for being underfunded, crime-ridden, and poorly maintained. But with the housing crisis continuing to worsen, is it time to reconsider this housing option?

Resources on this topic:

Produced by Dave Amos and the fine folks at Standard Studios.
Select images and video from Getty Images.
Black Lives Matter.

[wormsblink]

As a Singaporean, the government does much more than what you described for public housing. The government builds a cohesive neighbourhood with commercial malls, schools, public transport stops / stations, parks, etc integrated together. This makes sure people are able to live there, rather than being stuck in some “Low income area” devoid of amenities like the USA. Also the sheer scale of the public housing program cannot be matched, like you said the USA has only 1 million public housing units total, while 80+% of the houses in Singapore are public housing.

[todddammit]

The biggest thing is to not concentrate them in one area, creating a "slum". Low-income housing needs to be spread out so that every city has a share of it. In California, Newsom is passing laws that are bypassing local city zoning restrictions. This is what needs to happen on a national level, or else you'll just get NIMBYs pushing everything out to the cities least capable of supporting all the low-income residents.

[michaelimbesi]

The problem is zoning laws. The only way to even be able to build enough housing is to abolish most of the zoning code. Zoning laws have created a severe housing shortage and have crippled the American economy (see Moretti for reference).

[tardvandecluntproductions]

In the Netherlands, town and suburban houses are most often row houses, 3 stories high.
Now they are building a lot of social housing (our version of public housing) in towns but they keep the apartment blocks up to 3 floors high, so they fit in with the town feeling and look.

[strega-nil]

I feel like this missed the important "local option" for social housing. Seattle's Initiative 135, which will be on the ballot in November, creates a public developer, owned by the city, which will build public housing for everyone under 120% area median income (creating great mixed income developments for individuals, couples, and families)

[johnswanson]

My small city has a housing authority for poor people who are disabled or elderly, but not for families. Families usually are left to rely on the vouchers to get pay for rentals. The Housing Authority buildings are universally fairly well maintained, and unlike other "low income housing" buildings, the safety and accessibility features (smoke detectors and elevators) are always functional. This leads me to believe housing projects didn't suck because of poor people but because of bureaucratic mismanagement.
Also if crime and drugs were a problem, replacing tall towers with midrises would make these buildings easier to manage and police.

[d.b.]

What about mixed-use public housing? Basically, it would be retail-commercial on the ground floor, maybe some office space on the floor above, and then three or four stories of public housing units above that.

- Businesses that lease the building would share some of the maintenance cost, and they would have a vested interest in keeping the building in good working order to keep their customers.
- It would also ensure nearby and readily accessible commercial services for the residents, and jobs available on the ground floor would be open to them if they needed one.
- Keeping the housing above ground floor might also decrease the likelihood of break-ins, which in turn would keep the crime rate lower.

I realize this would require changing zoning laws, but that aside, I'd like to hear what other people think of this idea.

[brandonbollwark]

@City Beautiful you should talk about how social housing works in Vienna, Austria. About half the city lives in social housing that is integrated into neighborhoods with mixed incomes, this practice reduces the likelihood of slums since it avoids concentrated poverty

[matthewparker]

Good public housing should be mixed in with private housing, and near public transport. Proximity to public transport is one of the biggest factors in an individual's ability to escape poverty, and keeping public and private, particularly middle and upper income private, housing will help ensure services and infrastructure is good quality and well maintained.

The goal of public housing should be to put people in a position that they would not need public housing in the future.

[marsgal]

The place to start is losing the "low income" stigma. *Everybody* needs somewhere to live, regardless of their income.

When I moved in 2019 I looked closely at the real estate market here in Kamloops and had a first chat with my bank about a mortgage. Vancouver was out of the question, even for somebody who makes six figures. Kamloops was doable. In the meantime prices have gone through the roof and I'm totally priced out of the market. I live in a (market) rental building instead.

[fhujf]

For a country so obsessed with laissez-faire capitalism, it's pretty bizzarre how many restrictions there are when it comes to things that you can build in cities. On a macro scale(R1 zoning) to micro(regulating what the front of your yard has to look like).

[untruelie]

Just one word: Vienna.

This city is one of the if not THE most liveable cities in the world. With almost half of the residential buildings owned by either the city itself or housing cooperatives, low social segregation and a high standard of living. If you or anyone in the world want to have a successfull example of how things can be done - there it is.

[hawa]

Over here in Germany (or more specifically in Berlin) a big part housing is public through state owned companies. The buildings are usually in relatively good shape and rents are relatively low.

[thetrainhopper]

I'm generally in the build housing co-ops camp which is generally ignored. The problem I have with public housing is what happens when you have someone running the system that doesn't believe in the thing they are running? With co-ops, they do need funding from the government, but after they are established, can effectively self financing. Why co-ops would be better is that they would be owned by the occupiers unlike public housing which is owned by a probably disinterested county. Which would give the people there a reason to not ruin the place. Co-ops can already have income limits and generally set the rent low enough to just break even. This is the opposite mentality of a normal landlord which is high rents, low quality housing. A co-op are high quality low cost. We already have a legal framework for this, its called limited equity co-ops where share value is limited to grow at a set formula. So it can be set at cost and capped at some function of inflation plus a set percent. This will mostly help lower middle income people and could help people with lower income with grants or existing rent aid programs.

[simonkraemer]

My girlfriend lives in public housing in Berlin and actually everyone envy her for her apartment. Rent is incredibly cheap, it’s located in a hip area right in the city center and everything is maintained well. Her dad also found a social housing apartment and it’s very new with a big balcony, quiet neighborhood and good public transportation access. And that’s nothing compared to Vienna‘s quality public housing. This concept works, I hope the US could step away from their fear of „socialism“ and actually implement good policies that make people‘s life objectively better.

[DJTI]

I live in Connecticut and the NIMBYs are terrible. In Westport, for example, the same people who have "All are welcome here, " signs in the front yards showed up in droves to oppose a developer trying to build a new apartment building with SOME affordable units. What we really need is a radical change in zoning laws creating far more dense housing, and we need to restrict the amount of luxury apartments. It is especially bad in places like NYC where tons of luxury apartments sit unoccupied because they are nothing more than a money laundering scheme.

[jakehood]

The United States has a geographical advantage in that we aren't really lacking for space like many other places that need these high rises - we just use it terribly inefficiently and are deluding ourselves for as long as possible before doing what must be done. In my area for instance, I've seen mid-rises just casually going up, corporate businesses at the floor level (grocery store with parking underground) and housing for hundreds of people. Across the street, mid-rise office buildings for other businesses. This area used to be just straight up strip malls.

I've noticed very little increased congestion as people can merely walk to the store or dentist nearby. Medium density is the answer and we can just spread it out and not really even notice the difference. The solutions are likely to be found locally and federal funding should probably not go to these big 'government' projects and just to subsidize private/pubic partnerships.

[chris]

One of the major reasons that public housing is difficult in the US is because a lot of the regulations and systems meant to "help" people are intentionally underfunded and made inconvenient to access because politicians are under the false impression that if they make support structures good, then people will just rely on them. It's a very old fashioned and damaging perspective.

[ten_tego_teges]

Watching this from Eastern Europe, which is known for concrete, grey blocks I have to admit that those units at 5:47 look freaking horrific. I've seem my share of "projects" and while they might not be terrific they have some greenery in between, so when maintained properly can be liveable. No wonder those American blocks turned into slums if they're slabs of concrete packed back to back...

[scorpion]

The question isn't whether public housing is good, it's whether the US is willing to commit to doing it right like other countries have. And sadly I think the answer is a resounding no.