The Legislature’s focus on housing affordability is understandable. Home prices have far outpaced incomes across Utah, and that’s a real challenge for families. But in trying to solve that one problem, lawmakers are putting on blinders to everything else that good planning protects.
Housing isn’t built in a vacuum. When the Legislature’s only lens is “more homes faster,” we risk ignoring the equally vital factors that make communities safe, distinctive, and livable. A one-dimensional approach may produce more housing units, but it won’t produce better communities.
Part of the “affordability gap” isn’t just about price, it’s about home size. For the first half of the 20th century, families were content with homes around 1,600 square feet. Then, decade by decade, we kept ratcheting up our expectations.
By 2020, the Kem C. Gardner Institute shows that median new home along the Wasatch Front were roughly twice that size. According to other sources, the statewide median size has been falling since then, but it’s still over 2,400 square feet, or more than 50% larger than between 1900 and 1955.
So, when people say homes used to be “cheaper,” they’re comparing apples to watermelons: We’re buying a lot more house and then wondering why it costs so much more.
And don’t get me started on what’s inside those bigger houses. The typical new home today would’ve been a luxury build not that long ago. Here’s just one amenity from Richmond American’s Melody model: “a gourmet kitchen offering a double oven, a center island, and a walk-in pantry.” So yes, homes cost more; but they’re also bigger and fancier.
So, it seems to me we’re building statewide policy on a flawed comparison. It’s logical to me that if we don’t separate the cost of housing from the size of houses, and from all the luxury features that have crept in, we’ll chase the wrong solutions.