"There’s no reason we should be so much worse at turning dollars into housing than our closest big city peer"
Why do you categorize Houston as Chicago's closest big city peer? Simply based on population, or is there more to it? In my simplistic view, Chicago and Houston are very different cities with very different histories and development patterns.
I would also really like to see a unit to unit or building to building comparison of affordable housing in Houston and Chicago. Clearly Chicago pays way more for the housing - but is Chicago getting way more out of it. You mentioned that proposals often have to be net zero or carbon neutral to win - I'm guessing it is not the same in Houston. Can it be argued that Chicago pays a lot more, but gets a lot "better" housing?
I also think there is a lot more than just city policies that drives the difference in cost. Houston is a boom town, could the large amount of development in general help drive down cost. What is the comparison of cost between other big cities, like New York or LA ?
Thanks so much. To put it simply, I think the goal of the city's affordable housing program should be to provide housing for people it need it. Relative to the next largest city in the country, we're doing an awful job of that. If you're interested in a deeper dive into the drivers of these costs, with special attention to California (and Los Angeles specifically) vs. Texas, I'd highly recommend this recent RAND report: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA3700/RRA3743-1/RAND_RRA3743-1.pdf
Great article. I have a couple questions.
"There’s no reason we should be so much worse at turning dollars into housing than our closest big city peer"
Why do you categorize Houston as Chicago's closest big city peer? Simply based on population, or is there more to it? In my simplistic view, Chicago and Houston are very different cities with very different histories and development patterns.
I would also really like to see a unit to unit or building to building comparison of affordable housing in Houston and Chicago. Clearly Chicago pays way more for the housing - but is Chicago getting way more out of it. You mentioned that proposals often have to be net zero or carbon neutral to win - I'm guessing it is not the same in Houston. Can it be argued that Chicago pays a lot more, but gets a lot "better" housing?
I also think there is a lot more than just city policies that drives the difference in cost. Houston is a boom town, could the large amount of development in general help drive down cost. What is the comparison of cost between other big cities, like New York or LA ?
Thanks so much. To put it simply, I think the goal of the city's affordable housing program should be to provide housing for people it need it. Relative to the next largest city in the country, we're doing an awful job of that. If you're interested in a deeper dive into the drivers of these costs, with special attention to California (and Los Angeles specifically) vs. Texas, I'd highly recommend this recent RAND report: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA3700/RRA3743-1/RAND_RRA3743-1.pdf