This is one outlet's own report from Newsweek — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
0 Share Newsweek is a Trust Project member See more of our trusted coverage when you search. Prefer Newsweek on Google to see more of our trusted coverage when you search. America is racing to build millions of new homes. But in our rush to solve today’s housing shortage, we’re creating neighborhoods that could become tomorrow’s financial and environmental liabilities.
The country needs millions of new homes. That much is beyond dispute. It is estimated that the country remains short by more than four million housing units today, while home prices and rents continue to outpace wages in many communities. Yet every time housing dominates the national conversation, the debate circles back to the same questions. How quickly can we build? How many units can we approve? Which regulations can we remove?
But here’s the important thing. We’re asking the wrong questions.
Building faster won’t solve America’s housing crisis if we’re filling neighborhoods with developments that cost more to maintain, consume more energy, undermine residents’ health and require expensive retrofits a decade later. Speed has become the benchmark for success, even though housing is one of the few investments expected to serve generations. We should be treating every new development as infrastructure for the next century, not simply another construction deadline.
I work with developers every day, and I see them trapped in a financial vice of skyrocketing interest rates, unpredictable materials costs and shattered supply chains. Every project is now a ticking time bomb where every delay carries an insurmountable cost. But in this hyper-stressed rush to remain fiscally sound, the industry is making a catastrophic mistake in stripping away everything perceived as “optional”.
More often than not, sustainability is one of the first things placed on the chopping block. That is the mistake I believe America can’t afford to make any longer. The hidden irony behind this, which many don’t know, is that many sustainable design strategies don’t require larger budgets. They only require better decisions.
I’ve learned that housing success isn’t a short-term construction metric. When we focus solely on delivering units rather than building lasting communities, we fail the next generation.
Housing policy has become preoccupied with supply, zoning reforms and affordability, and those issues indeed deserve attention. But the quality of life inside the homes we build doesn’t make the cut. Neither does resilience, long-term operating cost or whether the building will still be worth living in three decades from now. We’ve built an entire national conversation around the moment of delivery and ignored everything that happens after the ribbon gets cut.
Good design is an economic decision, and treating it as an option is how we end up with buildings that cost less to build and more to live in.
We often talk about housing as though walls and roofs are all that matter. They aren’t. The way a home is designed determines how people live inside it. Natural light, cleaner indoor air and access to trees and vegetation have all been linked to healthier lives. Walkable neighborhoods encourage movement instead of isolation. Energy-efficient buildings reduce monthly costs, while durable construction protects owners from expensive maintenance later.
Good design pays dividends every single day, even if we rarely acknowledge it.
Every time someone suggests that healthier and sustainable housing is far too ambitious, I think about how much evidence we already have. Better-designed buildings improve physical and mental well-being and support healthier communities. Those same buildings often deliver lower operating costs through greater energy efficiency. We already know what’s possible. Yet choosing not to build that way is exactly that: a conscious choice.
I’ve seen firsthand how relatively small design choices can transform the experience of living somewhere.
One of our projects is located directly beside a busy freeway, hardly an ideal setting for residential housing. But accepting the noise and pollution was never an option. We shaped the building’s geometry to shade residents from the road. We built modern trellised outdoor spaces and worked with our landscape architect to specify plants that block the view of traffic, mask the sound of it and pull carbon monoxide out of the air while they’re at it. Access to greenery matters more than many people realize. There’s growing evidence that links exposure to nature with neural, cognitive and emotional benefits.
That’s one decision on one project. It changes what it feels like to live there every single day.
We continue treating thoughtful design as an optional expense while rising energy costs, climate-driven disasters and soaring insurance premiums keep reminding us how detrimental short-term thinking can be. Still, the industry treats sustainability and resiliency like a premium finish you add if the budget allows, when it should be the baseline. Housing policy, incentive structures, project approvals—all of it should reward developments that produce healthier communities, not just more square footage.
The business case for this isn’t theoretical either. Green buildings have reported almost 20 percent lower maintenance costs than typical commercial buildings (according to the U.S. Green Building Council) with a 10 percent increased asset value. Developers understand return on investment better than anyone, which is exactly why sustainable communities deserve far more attention. Good design compounds value over time: resilient buildings, lower operating costs, reduced turnover expenses and reduced energy consumption. Residents benefit every day they live there, and owners benefit every year they hold the asset.
California has made meaningful progress by encouraging housing near transit, making it easier for residents to walk, cycle and use public transportation. Expanding similar policies ...
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.
