Family in My Backyard: A Strategy for More Family-Friendly Housing

The lack of affordable housing for young families, especially the middle-and working-class, is not a new problem, although it has received quite a bit of attention of late, including here at IFS.

In 1918, John Nolan, a leading land use planner, wrote A Good Home for Every Wage-Earner. In 1919, Edith Wood, an expert on housing economics, wrote The Housing of the Unskilled Wage Earner: America’s Next Problem. Together, these publications succinctly laid out a common solution: First, build smaller, family-sized housing with at least 2-, preferably 3-bedrooms. Second, build either single-family detached homes or townhomes on small lots. Third, use standardized plans. Ironically, their solution from over 100 years ago is applicable today—smaller family-sized homes on smaller lots. 

A Look Back 

Understanding why the Nolen/Wood solution was never implemented will help explain why we still struggle to meet the demand for homes for young families, especially the middle-and working-class. Let’s start with the period around World War I. Efforts were underway to raise housing standards through “restrictive legislation” intended to prevent the erection or maintenance of poor-quality housing deficient in light, ventilation, sanitation, and safety, by addressing perceived shortfalls in tenement housing, setting building standards, lot coverage ratios, and window requirements, among others. At the same time, “constructive legislation” was introduced to ensure that enough homes were built at acceptable standards, in sufficient quantities, and at a price workers could pay. Philadelphia, for example, established the sub-division of land into small lots, which enabled the construction of low-cost, single-family row homes for a large proportion of its working population.

Zoning was considered a core feature of constructive legislation. In 1921, Herbert Hoover, then U.S. Secretary of Commerce, appointed the best and brightest experts in zoning and planning to the Advisory Committee on Zoning. In 1922, the Commerce Department’s Advisory Committee published its first standard state enabling act. By 1925, 19 states out of 48 had passed a standard act in whole or in part based on the state standard zoning enabling act. 

But this constructive legislation had a secondary purpose. It placed limits on residential density that went well beyond quality deficiencies. It created zones limited to single-family detached houses meeting minimum lot size requirements. While this appeared to be race-neutral, it was actually a means to keep out African Americans and immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. In short, prices and rents were pushed up to be just out of their reach. In 1926, the U.S Supreme Court blessed this economic segregation.

Most municipalities shifted to dividing residential districts into sub-districts; one district limited to 1-unit detached housing, separated from all other types of residential development (which was generally lumped into “multifamily”). While this approach differed from the Nolen/Wood solution, which focused on smaller family-sized homes on smaller lots, it did allow by-right zoning of single-family detached homes. After World War II, starter homes (and Baby Boomers) came to the fore. In 1946, there were 1.043 million houses started, up from 326,000 in 1945. The boom continued, reaching nearly 2 million in 1950. In the 1950s, single-family homes had a median living area of 1,350 square feet, enough for 3 bedrooms, and sat on a median lot of 8,700 square feet. 

This approach led to a counter-reaction by many urban theorists, reform advocates, planners, and architects:

The postwar suburban boom [in California] fascinated but also appalled many urban theorists, reform advocates, planners, architects, and others…The critics have reacted to the scale of postwar tract construction, the rapid loss of farmland and other open space, the lack of architectural variety, and the perceived (or imagined) social ills of the new suburbs. Some predicted that the new tracts of inexpensive houses built shortly after World War II would become the slums of the future. 

Administrative discretion replaced by-right, giving rise to the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) movement, followed by the environmental movement in the 1970s. Discretion led to restrictive, not constructive, policies. This resulted in land scarcity, constrained supply, and higher prices. 

Smaller lots are the key to housing affordability and abundance because they unlock more homes on the same amount of land, lowering costs and enabling builders to deliver starter homes at price points families can afford.

The federal government was again destined to play a big role beginning in the 1970s. The government has a tremendous capacity to promote demand, which, when pitted against the constraints of inadequate supply, leads to higher prices. In terms of sources of demand, think Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, Ginnie Mae, the FHLBs, and the biggest of all, the Fed. The constructive housing legislative proposals of Nolen/Wood have morphed into restrictive legislation implemented by the 50 states and 10,000 local zoning jurisdictions of today, with the result being an ever-present federal demand engine working against state and local housing supply constraints.

Recently, IFS Senior Fellow Lyman Stone recommended building more family-friendy apartments as one way to address the affordable housing crisis. But there is another clear solution that is detailed in a new publication from the AEI Housing Center and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Strong Foundations: A Playbook for Housing and Economic Growth. This is the first resource of its kind providing over 6,600 Playbooks for 570+ metro areas, 1,000+ counties, 4,600+ cities and places, 360 HUD continuums of care, and 50 states. 

Smaller Lots—a Key to Affordable Housing

The Playbooks present four “housing abundance options,” each grounded on one simple principle: smaller lots. Smaller lots are the key to housing affordability and abundance because they unlock more homes on the same amount of land, lowering costs and enabling builders to deliver starter homes at price points families can afford.

• First, we need smaller lots in new residential subdivisions. Our analysis of 12 million single-family homes built in subdivisions since 2000 shows that, with minimum lot sizes no larger than 1,200 square feet, the nation could add 414,400 new single-family homes each year.
• Second, we suggest lot-splits and home type flexibilities resulting in smaller lots. We examined 70 million single-family detached homes and found that legalizing lot splits, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes (commonly called single-family 2-4s), five- to eight-unit multiplexes, and townhomes in existing single-family neighborhoods could add 482,000 new homes each year nationwide.
• Third, we need by-right residential development in commercial, light industrial and mixed-use areas. We analyzed 1.5 million multifamily units to discover how allowing residential overlays could transform underused properties into vibrant, walkable communities and add 587,000 new homes annually.
• Fourth, we suggest smaller lot, new residential subdivisions on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. Our analysis of over 170 million acres of BLM land identified 0.1% (110,000) of suitable land, upon which 146,000 homes could be built per year. 

At AEI, we call this solution “Family in My Backyard (FIMBY),” and these four ideas would achieve just that, with the potential to add up to 1.6 million homes per year nationwide. More homes for young families are within reach, without costly subsidies, 70% of which would be family-sized homes with 2+ bedrooms—just as envisioned by John Nolen and Edith Wood a century ago.

Ed Pinto is Senior Fellow and Co-director of the AEI Housing Center at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

*Photo credit: Shutterstock