Looking to the Past to Solve Today’s Housing Challenges

Guest Opinion

This year has made one thing clear: even as progress is made, some of the most important structural solutions to Michigan’s housing imbalance remain politically vulnerable.

To be sure, there has been real momentum. A number of communities across Northern Michigan have adopted housing-ready policies, streamlined approvals, and embraced new tools to support development. State leaders have also begun to engage more directly in conversations about supply, cost, and regulatory barriers.

But when it comes to the root causes of our housing shortage—particularly land use policy—the conversation too often slips backward. Instead of focusing on solutions, we hear familiar talking points rooted more in fear and outdated assumptions than in data or lived experience.

Local zoning and layers of state and federal regulation play a significant role in the cost and availability of housing. These rules directly shape what can be built, where it can be built, and how much it costs. And right now, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to build the types of homes most in demand.

That demand is clear. Young professionals, working families, and seniors looking to downsize are not all seeking large homes on large lots. Many are looking for smaller, more attainable options—homes with modest square footage, fewer bedrooms, and access to jobs, schools, and community amenities.

We have many names for this kind of housing: starter homes, duplexes, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), townhomes, and small multifamily buildings. These are not new or experimental concepts. They were once a normal and accepted part of American neighborhoods, including here in Michigan. 

Walk through many older neighborhoods and you’ll find them: a duplex tucked between single-family homes, a carriage house converted into an apartment, a modest home on a small lot near a downtown corridor. These housing types helped create well-rounded, functional communities.

Over time, however, zoning codes became more restrictive. Minimum lot sizes increased. Duplexes and small multifamily housing were pushed out of residential districts. Parking requirements expanded. Bit by bit, many of the housing types that once provided attainable options were regulated out of existence.

Historically, zoning has been used—both intentionally and unintentionally—to exclude certain people and households. We continue to hear the same arguments surface whenever zoning reforms are proposed. Concerns that duplexes will “change the character” of a neighborhood. That smaller homes will reduce property values. That allowing an ADU will overwhelm parking or infrastructure.

The reality is, we have seen these reforms in practice, and the outcomes simply do not match the fears.

Can communities still debate and use zoning to limit large-scale developments in traditional neighborhoods? Absolutely, and that’s where the conversation should be focused. But duplexes and accessory dwelling units are not large-scale developments. They are modest, incremental additions that fit within existing neighborhoods.

We also know that large homes and oversized lots are not what define a neighborhood’s character. Smaller homes and a mix of housing types have always been part of healthy communities.

Research from Michigan-based Flywheel Community Development Services highlights the disconnect between what people want and what current zoning allows. Nationally, 56 percent of households say they would prefer smaller homes with less yard space and closer access to jobs, schools, and amenities. Yet in Michigan’s metropolitan areas, only about 6 percent of land is zoned to allow this type of housing, and just 1 percent of that land is vacant. 

If we want to meet today’s housing demand, we cannot rely solely on undeveloped land. We must also allow for thoughtful, incremental changes within existing neighborhoods.

In northwest Michigan, many communities want more housing, but they don’t want large-scale developments to define their future. That is a reasonable position. But it requires a willingness to allow smaller, more incremental housing options. 

A number of northern Michigan communities are already moving in this direction. In places like Traverse City, Frankfort, and East Bay Township, local leaders have begun aligning zoning policies with current housing needs. They have created more flexibility for homeowners and modest increases in housing supply, without fundamentally altering neighborhood character.

These are not sweeping changes. They are small, practical adjustments that allow communities to evolve over time.

Too often, local leaders attempt to make these changes and are met with intense opposition, driven by misconceptions rather than facts. We should be clear: allowing a duplex will not fundamentally alter a neighborhood. Reducing a parking requirement will not create chaos. Permitting a small home on a smaller lot will not undermine a community’s future. 

The best housing policy is grounded in data, experience, and a clear understanding of today’s realities, not yesterday’s rhetoric. Because the status quo is not neutral. It is actively limiting the housing options our communities say they want and need.

Kent Wood is the founder of consulting firm Borealis Strategic, and serves as Policy Advisor for Housing North, a 10-county housing agency serving northwest Michigan.

View On Our Website