Resolution: Housing Crisis, Shelter, & Homelessness

Before I begin, I want to note that this topic is so vast that it is easy to attack from various angles. My thoughts are based on observations, concepts, and readings from various sources. This writing should be viewed as a conceptual challenge that intends to focus on a subject that needs to be unearthed, but might be somewhat taboo and politically sensitive. My thoughts are written from the perspective of an architect, small infill developer, and builder that consumes the built environment from various perspective. I am simply asking a question that you can interpret and resolve in your own way.

The Housing Crisis. I believe the housing crisis is very real. The response is a complex process of debate and action, even if the reality of my view is shrouded by issues that can only be understood from perches much loftier than my own. From where I am situated, the housing crisis has been going for a long, long time. The news headlines are the same, the people different. The housing products we build today are constructed efficiently at a lower quality, but we still cannot keep up with demand. Why?

The reason is real estate development is a massive sector of the economy. Housing is a subsector of that economy and affordable housing is a sector of that subsector. This is mislabeled - Affordable housing is not the correct terminology that reflects the truth. A better description is that ‘Housing Crisis’ is a subsector of the affordable housing economy, which is a subsector of the real estate development economic sector. Sounds crazy, it is.

Housing Crisis is its own element and there is an economy and industry that is built around it. How did I get to this observational conclusion? It’s strange but this topic was inspired by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a real war resulting in economic destruction, violence, and suffering. Housing Crisis, a type of pseudo war waged in America, can apply the same language and still be coherent and understood.

I do not understand war from direct experience, or a militaristic point, but I do understand the notion of victory. Winning means resolution and the positioning of an end game. That is the difference I see between a real war and the housing crisis. Both are intense human conflicts containing intricate maps, strategic data, and battle plans of action. War and the housing crisis are both fights with tremendous tolls and struggle - one has resolution and a process of maintenance (peace and normalcy), one does not.

The missing component is resolution. In a real war there is a great battle, a grand shift of momentum, a great bombing, or a massive rush to objectives which result in retreat or surrender and occupation. After that victory and resolution, a second plan is installed that maintains a new order.

With the housing crisis, I do not see that conclusive resolution. I see the maintenance and order component, but the definition of the ending is missing. I see and hear the plans of how we are going to address this crisis and how we are going to attack this crisis and how we are going to do this and do that. Unfortunately, this plan of attack is cyclical and has no resolution. Essentially, the housing crisis is the establishment of societal order and maintenance without the terminus of any victory. The housing crisis is the looping train that never stops at the station. This train delivers passengers at random points somewhere close to where you think you are going but no one is quite sure because the station was never built and the tracks don’t even arrive there. The crux is that the looping motion makes you forget that this crisis train has passed the same spot many, many times before.

What does society look like when the housing crisis is solved? Let’s imagine the great housing war has been won, our problems are solved, and life moves toward relative peace and prosperity. It is easy to envision a society where people are sheltered, can provide for their families, and gain purpose through meaningful work. That vision stokes the fire of the American Dream which we were programmed to strive for but is increasingly out of reach. The Dream turned to a struggle and a fight which is not meant to culminate in victory or completion.

Before diving to the dark side, let’s imagine what it would really take to win the housing crisis battle. We would need a massive amount of skilled labor which would require greater investment in secondary school trade education. We once had a robust labor education system. However, that was stunted after education budget cuts and risks from student liability. Labor is the main issue and our progress with automated construction has not yet evolved to a point where it can supplement or supersede the hands-on construction workforce.

Sustained capital investment, public and private, is always available. Our strong real estate economy generates international interests in addition to national funding. As I have always heard: the investment capital is there waiting for worthy real estate projects.

Although we perceive developable land as scarce, we have great room for density. Then the community shouts: “Well I don’t want to live in New York!” “I don’t want to live in another Los Angeles!” Don’t worry, you won’t have to, but it should be understood from an early age that all American cities within ten miles from city centers will become dense and increasingly vertical. The land is there but cities must evolve to capture that land resource. Doing this will require curriculum starting in elementary education with topics concerning urban planning, civics, economics, and design. We need to teach our children how cities are built and evolve. If we do not, you won’t have a choice because that notion of Los Angeles you want to avoid will come true when the city you live in continues to expand outward. This outward expanse required connectivity through a highway system, which will become congested and polluted.

We are always rethinking how to live. There is a disconnect between those thoughts of the idyllic American lifestyle and educating the wide public on how to do it. Buildings are not the enemy, they are highly necessary. One problem is that we label social and economic challenges as wars and fights when these issues are large problems that must be dissected into smaller parts and solved. These issues are not fights, because in a fight, you fight to win, and the housing crisis war is not winning or close to being solved.

The next aspect to winning the housing battle is policy. Cities need to generate income through taxes and fees which increases private interest and investment. Cities must make it profitable for developers to build. This is a challenge because lowering the barriers to develop will allow more developers to enter the fray. The big guys will always do what big guys do; the big work. When we allow the smaller guys to prosper, grow, and profit, they will find their niche through housing. The less barriers, coupled with access to capital, will allow for more smaller developments on the fringes of the city to be built. This will create a increased balance of projects by a wider range of developers and builders. The distribution of capital to developers and builders will redistribute that capital to the labor force and vendors, thus creating more housing and more commerce. This will result in a great elevation of the American quality of life.

Ok, what I have just written is fairly common knowledge. I have not reinvented the wheel, and as mentioned previously, my ideas can be attacked at many levels. Now, join me on the dark side. Again, every battle, war, or crisis has a great toll. There is collateral damages, loss of life, and economic factors integrated within the increased resources and spoils of war. What are the tolls created from the great battle that is the housing crisis? What if we actually solved the issue? What if the housing war was won?

Similar to the brave warriors that eventually return home from combat to find a new purpose, the great army of skilled tradesman and professionals raised to combat the housing crisis will find the slow devolution of projects required and thus the reduction of employment. The need for labor will be reduced and the need for trade education will be reduced. The same solutions to the crisis listed in the paragraphs above will now be played backwards. Labor will be reduced resulting in trade education cuts. This will reduce capital and create new policy shifts which will reconfigure housing economics. Larger developers will scale down slightly and small developers will sustain, transition, or fold.

It is important to note that in times of transition we can see increases of crime, substance abuse, mental illness, and societal instability. Solving the housing crisis will entail all these aspects that we have yet to speak of and delineate. Why?

The issue is that the housing economy put the cart before the horse. We are in a mode of sustaining order rather than actual fighting. In other words, what we call a housing crisis is basically a demilitarized zone with rivaling armies volleying an artillery shell every once in a while to remain relevant and newsworthy. The current trend is to use all the verbose keywords and taglines that insinuate action and progress, but these are more for a skirmish rather than a push towards real victory.

The system is not set up for winning - it is set up for a drawn out and revolving conflict. The current homeless situation in California is a great depiction of this. There are sections of streets in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego that look like war zones. One day I drove through L.A.‘s Skid Row and stopped at a red light. Twenty yards ahead was a woman walking in the middle of the street, dragging her feet on the asphalt. Her filth stained shirt was torn and her breasts were hanging out. Her teeth were gone and she looked like a zombie from a Hollywood film. This is a mental picture from the richest country that has ever existed in history. It is true that some forms of homelessness will exist in a perfect society. There will always be those that cannot mesh within the established norms of society. We should all understand that not all problems result in full solutions. The depth of the homeless issue and it’s spread, in concert with the inability to generate required housing, is disastrous to cities and the health of the American economy.

I will likely be obliterated for saying this, but the question and concept desperately needs to be put forth. My observation on the main source of the problem: Non-Profit Housing developers and Non-Profit Homeless Solution Providers. First, note that this is strictly an observation. It is my hope that these notions can be further developed and detailed by scholars and policy makers to be accounted for and resolved. I stand in my willingness to be corrected while simultaneous issuing a challenge so that the tough questions can be posed. Straight up: Are Housing and Homeless Solutions Non-Profits a key source of the housing problem?

I say this because a non-profit is a economic engine that receives funding to provide a service. Non-Profits employ thousands of people to solve the problems that would entail their demise if actually solved. What is the end-game of a Non-Profit Corporation? More specific, what is the negative aspects associated with the resolution to the problems that Non-Profit companies seek to solve?

Non-Profit housing development companies are important. They have teams that have a wealth of experience and can handle large works which bring much needed for-sale and rental units into the market. One issue that I have seen is their hold on vacant and/or developable land. I recently researched a vacant lot and found it was owned by a Non-Profit developer which has another large project close by. I frequent the area and that lot has been vacant for years. If there is a housing crisis and this large company has access to capital sources and a network of material and human resources; why are they not building? I understand the limitations and unavailability of labor resources and federal capital being allocated to other work, however, the idea that there is a crisis and that land sits vacant, is puzzling. If you cannot build, especially in an area where zoning can accommodate an increase in density, release the land to a developer that can get to work right now and provide the desperately needed housing units.

When viewing scarce land resources in that fashion, we can see clearly that the mission is to sustain the problems, and not move to total victory. This hold strategy comes at a detriment to the public they are selected to serve and the governments and tax dollars that fund them. An analogy would be a football team that runs the ball forward only to stop before getting a first down and then punting the ball away, again and again, for years on end.

An added note is that Non-Profit Housing Developers and Non-Profit Homeless service providers work together to create supportive projects that serve those struggling with various issues. What happens when those issues are solved to a point when those services are sustaining and no longer needed? What is the provider’s exit strategy?

This topic is extremely sensitive and it must be noted that I have seen Non-Profit Companies that are performing astounding work and are seemingly in constant production. Others, I haven’t seen much. Maybe I am uninformed, or cannot see because their work is in progress behind closed doors. As mentioned, if I am writing in error, I welcome the chance to be corrected.

Beyond funding and tax implications, are Non-Profits regulated enough? What are the rules for their existence if the policies written to support them do not clearly delineate a full resolution and exit? It seems that Non-Profits need to be revamped to incorporate a mission statement that illustrates the problems they are formed to solve actually being solved. They should include articles and instruments that detail their disbandment. Non-Profits should include rigid and definitive milestones and how they will achieve those milestones in great detail. Non-Profits should be required to work with other Non-Profits, even those that they are direct competition with, to develop a cumulative strategy for resolution.

Federal and state governments need detailed plans to repurpose those funds to needed issues like education and public transportation. The thought should be: “most people are better and housed, now they need knowledge and the ability to get around the city efficiently.”

This takes me back to the Non-Profit housing developer holding the vacant property for many years. The value of the vacant land is millions of dollars. The potential value of that land with 200, 300, or 400 housing units is astronomical. What is the value being removed from the economy by a company that is sitting on developable land? That land utilized at its highest potential harbors tremendous property tax income for the city. Those are unrealized revenues that can be used to support education programs, build parks, and install or repair basic infrastructure elements like streets, sidewalks, and safe lighting.

There are for-profit developers that hold land as well, some for many years. I am at a neutral stance here, but the for-profit developers tends to use the vacant lots for parking or some other income generating component rather than a fenced off site that is a graffiti collector or target for rocks and squatters. Maybe private developers holding key urban development sites should be required to provide temporary pocket parks or public space. The funds used from a solved housing crisis can be placed towards that.

To conclude I present another subject that is related but a sub section to the topic of Housing Crisis and Resolutions. I go for walks and drives around the city core. I always want to feel present in nature and a city can be considered a natural occurrence.

While driving toward my daily walk, I came to a road just before a bridge crossing. Half a mile down the long road was City Hall. Along the edge of the bridge was situated roughly twenty pop-up tents and people laying about. As I drove passed, I wondered if the city hall folks could look out the window and see this. We all understand they are very busy people set forth to undertake the great task of running a big city. They have many things to read and graphs to review and metrics to scan. What I propose is that the greatest metric resides right out the window. When the mayor looks out the window in March he sees 30 tents. He should get to work and come to that same window everyday. In six months of focused work, the amounts of tents will increase or decrease. That is the measure; That is the gauge. You don’t always need a report to gauge progress.

City leaders, put on a hat, and a hood and get out and walk around. Wear a mask and go incognito. You can pick up all sorts of nuances from being present in the built environment. At worst, drive around. Creative solutions don’t come at the office, they come from direct exposure. Walking around adds value to your review process. I am almost positive that a major city leader walking around is extremely difficult, but will add to the quality of leadership. Go walk. Don’t stop. Don’t shake hands. Don’t smile. Don’t talk. Walk and observe. Listen to the sounds all around, rather than voices.

Then, maybe we’ll see that crisis’ need to be solved, not just sustained. We can also understand that Non-Profit Housing developers do not need to go away completely. They will still develop, most likely at the same rate as they do now. If they are currently sitting on vacant properties, and not producing, when the housing issues are resolved and supply and demand equalize, it is probable that they will continue to function in a similar fashion. Positive resolution and victory is always good for societies.