Key Takeaways from the 2025 ULI Housing Opportunity Conference

07 Mar Key Takeaways from the 2025 ULI Housing Opportunity Conference

The Trump Administration’s proposed tax policies will result in less federal revenue, meaning that the federal funds that have historically existed to support housing-related issues are likely to evaporate, which will precipitate a dramatic localization of responsibility for solving issues related to housing. Other impacts of the Trump administration are likely going to be increased costs of construction due to tariffs, which speakers felt confident would go into place at some point despite others’ assertions that the tariffs represented only a bargaining tactic. Speakers also noted that construction costs increased significantly during the pandemic and that the hopeful reset in these costs has seemingly passed us by. There were also discussions on potential hit that the Trump administration’s deportation efforts and general anti-immigration policy will have on the construction industry, which is estimated to consist of approximately 20% undocumented workers. This will further constrain the available labor pool in most markets, stretching out construction periods even more, which represents added costs to projects. However, some also stated that they felt the only positive that may come out of the Trump administration as it relates to the housing crisis is a relaxation of regulations.

While I think that regulation is a major contributor to the increased cost and underproduction of housing units today, I am less sure that the regulations that the federal government has the power to deregulate will be positive for housing, possibly resulting in more units produced at cheaper price points but also with lower-quality materials and with less deference to the environmental impacts of housing production. A thought that I did have walking away from the conference is that the Federal government could be doing more to incentivize communities to adjust their land use and zoning regulations by making the receipt of funds contingent upon satisfying certain density allowances,

Housing in the Sun Belt

Speakers at the conference repeatedly stated that in some Sun Belt markets, we’ve “overbuilt,” which is ironically marked by the positive result for consumers that because of increased competition, rental prices go down. The idea that we’ve “overbuilt” in certain markets reveals an additional layer to the issue of delivering housing and affordability, which is that developers are always watching the pipeline. We might need thousands of units today, but we’ll get them over a course of years, and in the meantime, the need will continue to grow. It benefits the development community to keep housing supply constrained enough that when they do deliver a new project, they’re doing so at a time that is advantageous for them, ensuring they are not competing against an oversupply of units.

A point of agreement I have on the idea that we’ve overbuilt is that we have overbuilt in certain segments; in markets like Austin, Atlanta, and other Sun Belt cities, we have delivered a great number of luxury apartments and market-rate for-sale products, which ultimately do nothing to satisfy demand for households in need of products at the lower end of the spectrum. The over-delivery of products in the mid to upper end of the spectrum has resulted in a moderation of prices in markets where development activity has been the greatest, but the idea that this new production translates to increased affordability across the board and more options for lower-income households rests on filtering theory, the validity, or at least the expediency, of which is dubious at best. Especially in Sun Belt markets, which have seen growing economic activity and the relocation of major companies, many of the new housing units created capture housing demand from households moving into the region, which are higher-income households.

If They’re Not Driving the Plane and You’re Not Driving the Plane, Then Who Is…?

Last year I walked away from ULI’s Housing Opportunity Conference in Austin with a key takeaway: the market was not going to save us when it comes to addressing housing supply and affordability gaps. This year, what I heard from representatives from the public sector is that cities and counties can and should work to improve public financing tools, but that ultimately these tools would also not be sufficient to overcome the issues we are facing on their own. So, if public finance is only so deep and the market can’t, or lacks the incentive to, fill the significant gaps that exist across every market in the country, what do we do? For one thing, the key phrase is “on its own,” and a repeated theme across the conference was the value of synchronizing public sector goals with private sector interests without compromising on the goals of addressing affordability. The other part of this is addressing what I feel is the elephant in the room, which is local zoning and land use controls.

Our cities are at a transition point. Most of the major metros of the Sun Belt have grown significantly and even more rapidly since the pandemic. Yet, we have not yet come to terms with the fact that we are in a new era of growth and development. Particularly in the state of Georgia, where Atlanta represents a disproportionate amount of the state’s economic activity and GDP, the Atlanta region has sprawled along the interstate highway corridors that link it to the national economy. Sprawl and auto-centric development, while seemingly limitless, impose functional limits on themselves. That is to say that the interstates and roads make it possible for sprawl to occur, and while some people will drive more than an hour and a half one way, the majority of people are not going to want to make that drive. The implication of this built-in threshold means that for the first time, Sun Belt cities, and particularly the Atlanta region, are experiencing a need for additional growth to occur in places where historic development patterns can no longer continue and no longer advance the housing and workforce goals of cities, counties, and the region overall.

Developers in Barrow, Bartow, Cherokee, Fayette, Forsyth, or Rockdale might not run into these problems because they’re on the frontier, on the edges of the practical threshold. However, in Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, and Gwinnett, much of the “easy” (greenfield) development is a thing of the past. This is a generalization, as even within the City of Atlanta, there are hundreds of acres of greenfield in historically disinvested areas. However, the main idea is that core urban and suburban communities are experiencing the greatest demand for housing in growing regions, and their current land use and zoning hinders their ability to evolve and address housing price and supply gaps.

I don’t think we’re in danger of anyone calling it as such, but we should not identify our current situation as a market failure, as the market does only what it can under a given policy ecosystem and fiscal environment. If today’s bottomless pit of unmet housing demand is not a market failure, then our policies are to blame.

One panelist stated succinctly that the costs of “Land, Labor, Lumber, and Lending” change from one cycle to the next, but that “Zoning is Forever.” A major cause of our current set of housing crises stems largely from a lack of land that is zoned appropriately for the types of projects we need. Addressing housing issues will involve reviewing land use and zoning policies and changing them to allow for a variety of new units to be built far more easily. Our cities cannot remain static. They must change and adapt to contemporary issues, as the consequences of maintaining outdated land use and zoning will continue to exacerbate housing challenges.

Technology and Innovation

Another topic that had greater attention this year was the topic of innovation in the production of housing units. An attendee who is enrolled at UC Berkeley’s real estate development program remarked that while the process by which we manufacture cars has changed tremendously since the 1940s, the way that we build homes has remained much the same. This attendee and many of the younger people in attendance seemed to be approaching housing from an innovation through technology perspective, with another attendee asking speakers after the opening session what role blockchain technology has in solving the housing crisis.

On the more grounded end of this push to innovate are those who are advocating for greater attention around the production of manufactured housing as a solution to under-production and affordability issues. Manufactured housing almost certainly has a place role to play, however the construction industry broadly has not accepted manufactured housing, which as a result, or perhaps as a root cause, means that lending and consumers have also struggled to accept manufactured housing as a legitimate and scalable product type. This has a lot to do with how manufactured housing works relative to other types of manufacturing.

In a traditional manufacturing operation, for example, goods are produced and distributed to customers through supply chains as soon as possible. Goods are consumed readily and manufacturing facilities can continue producing in a very consistent way. Manufactured homes, on the other hand, cannot be manufactured and stored because of how much space that would require, and they often cannot just be sent out, because, once again, local land use, zoning and permitting processes hold up a developer’s ability to place a manufactured home on a given piece of land. This means that manufactured home facilities cannot operate consistently, meaning that maintenance and other operating costs may be significant where facilities face weeks or months in which no homes can be produced.

Innovation undoubtedly has its place in helping us to address our current challenges, however it is my opinion that the main space in which we should be innovating are on the frontiers of public finance, land use and zoning, and transportation. Innovations in these spaces will help us to unlock the potential application of new technologies and tools.

Reduced Mobility

With regard to fiscal policy and interest rates, which were a major topic at the conference, there seems to be little chance that they will be coming down drastically anytime soon, which is a function of the Federal Reserve’s mandate to curb inflation. The impact of this on housing is two-fold: development is not occurring at the same rate that it was prior to the rate hikes imposed in response to the pandemic because lending is more expensive for developers, and existing homeowners are moving out less often, as they do not want to give up the relatively low interest rates that they locked in when they bought their homes years ago. This creates a bottleneck effect, restricting both new development and the natural turnover of existing housing stock. The total effect of this is that new housing inventory is not being added at a pace that meets demand, and existing housing units are playing less of a role in satisfying demand than in the past, exacerbating the housing shortage further.

Speakers also noted that across the board there has been an observed lack of movement between multifamily products and for-sale products, which is both a product of the static nature of existing for-sale products and the dampened production of for-sale products, particularly for-sale products that would represent the traditional entry-level housing product. Again, this goes back to land use and zoning; the starter home today is a smaller unit than it was twenty or thirty years ago, and yet most communities have regulated this key market segment out of their communities. Without zoning reform, the missing middle housing crisis will only deepen.

Atlanta Specific Victories

The City of Atlanta has pursued an ambitious goal of creating or preserving 20,000 affordable units by 2030. The city has already reported great success, achieving roughly half of their goal when considering completed and under-construction projects. Atlanta’s success is rooted in an innovative strategy of leveraging publicly owned land, which is either vacant or occupied by a use that may no longer be appropriate for its neighborhood context. Additionally, the city has made private land more attractive to the development community by walking these properties through the rezoning process prior to seeking development partners, meaning that land is already entitled for the projects that the city wants to see. This second component is perhaps even more important than simply just offering public land to developers, and has been greatly effective in attracting the development community, which under this system does not have to deal with the public processes involved in rezoning land, reducing time and resources spent in the preliminary stages of development which supports the goals of expedient affordable unit production.

Funding gaps are endemic to modern development, however they are particularly severe for adaptive reuse projects. Many of these projects are dealing with vacant commercial properties, which simply by nature of being vacant have much higher operating costs, especially in situations like the one that Invest Atlanta is faced with in their 2 Peachtree project, which hopes to be one of the largest affordable apartment towers in the country when complete but is currently faced with the reality of a completely empty office tower. The challenge of financing adaptive reuse projects underscores the need for more creative public-private partnerships. The City of Atlanta’s innovations have also extended into the realm of public finance tools, with the city’s Housing Opportunity Bond available to developers to help close the gap on construction debt for projects with an affordable component, a tool that has been critical in supporting the 2 Peachtree project.

Suburban Growing Pains

In a session called High Growth Suburbs, panelists highlighted the evolution of suburban communities that has taken a major focus in my own recent work, providing the somewhat unsurprising revelation that even between 1990 and 2020, a period marked by the “return to the city” movement, 90% of all household growth was occurring in suburban areas. This fact provided the basis for why suburbs needed to continue to evolve through projects that incorporated greater density. Panelists spoke about the difficulties of overcoming community opposition to projects, even when city-led efforts in crafting small area plans have paved the way for these projects. An audience member suggested that developers and cities seeking to pursue redevelopment projects might employ the services of public engagement firms to find supporters for projects within the community.

While panelists dismissed this as potentially troublesome, my own perspective on this is that this is a strategy we should be deploying more often to counterbalance opposition. In my own experience, people want places that feel like actual places, that are memorable, distinct, and enjoyable to exist in, and those people are often not at community meetings. These preferences need to be captured through more proactive engagement efforts. In the local context, this group constitutes the “silent majority” which never shows up to have their opinion heard, leaving a small, loud minority to hijack the conversations about higher-density development and redevelopment projects. Because these are the only voices expressed through the official channels, local officials are disproportionately subject to the opinions of this dissenting minority, which can endanger the successful execution of project visions.

This idea reminded me of last year’s conference, where a representative from Boise mentioned the way that the city had taken a much more active stance toward public engagement for their comprehensive plan. Instead of depending upon the city’s citizenry to show up to regularly scheduled public engagement events, often held at times when those with the luxury of time and resources were more able or more inclined to attend, the city sought out its citizenry at laundromats, bars, and other places where lower-income residents were present. The opinions gathered through this process created evidentiary support for policies such as increased density, affordable housing, and transit in stark contrast to the opinions gathered through more traditional public engagement events. This model demonstrates the necessity of meeting communities where they are, rather than expecting them to engage on government terms.

Housing and Home: A Manifestation of Deeper American Spiritual Crises

I recently listened to an episode of the Ezra Klein Show called A Theory of Media That Explains 15 Years of Politics, which is largely irrelevant to the topics discussed at the conference. However, the episode underlined the current climate in which everyone, in one way or another, seems to be attracted to solutions that have a somewhat spiritual dimension. The reason that this comes to mind in the context of the conference is because of the conversation between Egbert Perry, Josh Humphries, and Renee Glover during the opening session of the second day.

Mr. Perry and Ms. Glover, alternatively, spoke in colorful, if not spiritual, terms, with Ms. Glover stating that what she felt was at the core of the housing issue was the struggle for universal humanity, something that I agree with deeply. Mr. Perry’s insights were informed by his experience as a developer, acknowledging that housing markets and development activity are both dictated by the interests of capital and that doing the right thing because it is morally right is not often or usually anyone’s primary motivation, especially in the world of housing development. He also expressed a philosophical disagreement with inclusionary zoning in-lieu fees, instead asserting the importance of creating mixed-income communities.

Mr. Perry also grouped projects into what he defined as two categories: the first being projects that are simply taking advantage of placemaking opportunities where community already exists, and the second, which he noted was much more difficult, are projects that must create community in places where it currently does not exist. The notion of creating community in places where it doesn’t exist should not be interpreted as greenfield development. Rather, Perry’s intention was to highlight that there are places within Atlanta and across the country that have been systemically excluded from public and private investment. As a result, projects in these places must aim not only to make way for new residents, which may increase the viability of attracting a regional or national grocer or improving local schools, but also to find ways to integrate the area’s existing residents so that new development does not equate to displacement.

Mr. Perry also highlighted that the debt arm of any given project is never inherently motivated to approach development in a way that is respectful of community development goals that may be held by planners, politicians, advocates, and the communities in which projects are planned. This suggests that developers should aim to demonstrate the benefits of responsible community development where possible, while the public sector should impose requirements where necessary to align development with broader community goals.

Humphries offered a much more political and practical approach to the housing crisis in Atlanta. The one statement from Humphries that stuck out was his assertion that he and others working for the City of Atlanta believe that the government should protect the vulnerable, an idea that I certainly subscribe to, but that I also feel is actively under scrutiny. Part of the transition that we seem to be under in our current moment is a shift from one understanding about what government is and what it should do to another. This shift raises the question: What is a government that does not provide services for those it governs? It’s very interesting to me that at the current moment, the things about government that are under attack are largely related to the things that the government funds or provides to the county’s citizens, like the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The need for mixed-income communities was a shared imperative for all three panelists speaking about the Atlanta Model. The concept of mixed-income communities is something that I have thought about a lot, both as a student of urban planning and as a professional working in planning and real estate. It is clear that there are basically two strategies for creating mixed-income communities: one approach is to create affordable housing within strong, existing communities or provide low-income households with vouchers that theoretically allow them to move to more amenitized areas. The other approach is to develop new, moderate to high-end housing options in historically disinvested neighborhoods, bringing in higher-income households that can attract private investment in retail and greater public investment in amenities and services. Essentially, the choice comes down to whether to relocate low-income households to areas with greater resources or to transform under-resourced neighborhoods by attracting higher-income residents.

Cities are spatially and socio-economically stratified, which makes naturally occurring mixed-income neighborhoods difficult to create. A fundamental part of the American experience is the tendency to place a premium on separation, which has manifested through suburban sprawl, the formation of ethnic enclaves, or the legacy of racial segregation. Our huge, sprawling regions are like a giant sign visible from space that reads: “Get away from me!” There also seems to be a belief rooted in the capitalist system that if one has more money and resources, one is deserving of a home and a lifestyle that is distinct and superior to that of those with fewer resources.

The panelists spoke about the success stories of mixed-income communities and how outside observers often had difficulty discerning between high-income and low-income residents. This raises the question: is the resistance to mixed-income communities more a product of political rhetoric than actual lived experience? It’s all too easy to get [people] riled up over the idea that they, as hardworking people, are living in the same buildings or on the same streets as people who are “living off the government,” but at the end of the day, is our life any worse living adjacent to someone who makes half as much as us?

I think that it is, as Ms. Glover put it, there is a continued struggle for people to accept universal humanity and the acceptance that there are certain things that we are all entitled to. Anytime you find yourself hearing about universal humanity as part of a conversation about housing, most people’s first thoughts are: what’s the action item on universal humanity? While I think it’s a valid criticism, I think it’s almost a natural response to a set of crises that feel so huge and tangled, hence the appeal to something more spiritual and fundamental to our humanity.

I think that while there’s not a specific action item in calling for a greater acceptance around the idea that there are certain things that we are all entitled to by simple nature of being human, including access to high-quality housing, belonging to high-quality communities and networks, and access to services and resources, there is a tremendous amount of validity to the idea that the issues of housing in America run so deep that solving them may require much grander reckonings around race and economic inequality.

Final Thoughts

After returning to the office after the conference closed that Wednesday, my coworker who attended the conference with me asked whether I left the conference feeling better, worse or about the same about the state of housing. I told him that I really felt about the same. Many of the things that I heard at the conference were things that I was already aware of, and hearing them from others did not necessarily feel pointless, if anything it made me feel more confident about some of the ideas that I have around housing and around the strategies and recommendations that I am providing to clients in my work. Affordability is still hard, capital stacks are still complicated, communities are still resistant to change and evolution. It’s always good to compare notes.

The conference helped me to bring into greater clarity the idea that supply-side solutions to housing are aligned more with the conservative elements of our socio-political environment, which is the main reason that wages do not factor into conversations about housing often enough. People at the conference love to say that housing is not a political issue and that we all need housing and that the housing crises impact us all, but I would argue that solutions most certainly do have political implications and that the framing of the conference is one that considers subsidizing affordable unit creation and expanding supply in general as apolitical, when in reality it ignores half of the equation: wages. I doubt that things will change much on this, but maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised next year and I’ll return to find that the conference has greater attendance from the economic development community, my interactions with which have left me with the impression that in their world, housing was not even in the conversation five years ago and that today it is basically half of their world.

I feel that there will always be a need to talk about housing with people from across the country, even in times when we are not in crisis. It’s like therapy in the sense that the best time to go to therapy is before you’re having a crisis. I don’t expect that the issues surrounding housing will be solved anytime soon, in fact they’ll probably get worse before they get better, but that doesn’t mean the conversation is futile. If anything, it underscores why these discussions must continue, why cross-sector collaboration is essential, and why those working in housing must keep pushing for both incremental and systemic changes. The fact that these conferences do not yield immediate solutions is a reflection of the depth and complexity of the problem.

We may return to the office, compare notes, and say, “See you next year,” but that continuity matters, especially in times of transition. Housing is in a constant state of flux, shaped by shifting economic conditions, evolving policies, and the changing needs of communities. Progress will not come from a single conference, a single policy shift, or a single development project, but from persistent effort, from refining our strategies year after year, and from recognizing that we are always in transition, between crises and solutions, between outdated frameworks and new approaches, between resistance and adaptation. The challenge is not just to react to these transitions, but to actively shape them, ensuring that our policies and decisions move us toward a more equitable and sustainable future for housing.

Instagram @kb.advisory

LinkedIn

These are excerpts from Trevor’s full takeaway write-up on his personal substack – click here if you want to read more from his personal takeaways.