I posted something from NLIHC earlier in thread that looks at some of this geographic variability. Got to figure out how to get the full article from behind paywall.

And my challenge for myself over is to figure out when to support policies like this in the absence of federal support we know is needed for scaled-up affordable production. Illinois (where I’m orig from) is very different market than West Coast but Chicago area (esp suburbs) appreciating

Seattle is another market where I would believe that filtering up is happening. Very tight market, very rapidly appreciating, development is constrained. People likely being displaced to suburbs as city becomes wealthier.

My challenge to the market developers, though, is to be strong advocates for the affordable housing subsidies needed. You can’t show up with a filtering solution alone and expect rent burdened people to be part of your coalition

But ultimately household growth is happening in these places and demand is there to drive prices. So if we’re not advocating for zoning and policy solutions that address that, and accepting that market development is a big part of that picture… then I feel like we’re burying our heads in the sand

So first track of my argument: I feel like the policy argument is what hurts both of those potential solutions. There are lots of vested interests in not allowing new multifamily and denser development in urban/suburban places. And ESPECIALLY not subsidized affordable development, as we know

Ultimately that can only really be solved with a complimentary, robust subsidized affordable housing production effort that has regulatory priority. And I don’t mean to diminish the harms of displacement and relocation in general

I agree that when you have to demolish existing housing to build new, particularly in rapidly appreciating or high-cost areas, the residents in that former building often won’t find comparable homes they can afford in the area. And in places like SF, you even start to see filtering “up”

www.costar.com/article/1524...

Some sources:

But in lots of places building more housing is essential even if it’s not subsidized. The trouble is it’s really hard to build enough in places where people want to be. High supply markets like Austin have seen rent growth checked and even reversed

I will admit that in some places the conditions needed for filtering seem almost prohibitive — eg Bay Area where high wages and long term underbuilding have made it pretty much impossible to catch up

This is the kind of discussion I want to be in with other smart planning people because I think filtering is in fact an important ingredient to solving the housing affordability crisis… along with major federal investments in housing that we are unlikely to see in the coming years.

Here’s rhe link

docs.google.com/spreadsheets...

@allidejong.bsky.social do you want to / can you share on this to a homeownership collaborative in Houston in 2025? We are (potentially) working on an alternative mapping tool to those found on Zillow & similar… and want to explain why some of the methods on climate, school quality, etc need work

Got an email this week from a non profit I worked with on an EPA Community Change application- program received 2,700 applications requesting over $40 billion in funding. $2 billion was available.