How Public Perceptions Are Shaping the Housing Conversation

Urban planners like data. We use it every day to help make good decisions. Looking at numbers and percentages over time is important to see how a community is becoming affected by any given topic. The quantitative part of data analysis, however, rarely tells the whole story. Thus, planners take great stock in hearing from people.

Listening is core to the ethics of the American Planning Association, the professional organization to which RDG’s planners belong. We give equal weight to conversations, incorporating them into a holistic understanding of people’s everyday experiences, as compared to data from sources like the United States Census Bureau. Listening to people is a significant driver for solutions, and community participation and feedback are vital to creating visible changes that improve quality of life. Throughout planning processes such as housing market studies, we stress the importance of both quantitative and qualitative analysis in our projects. RDG planners have spoken face-to-face with tens of thousands of people over the years about their housing needs, and we supplement these conversations with many other tools, including one such important one: surveys.

Surveys allow planners to collect direct input from residents, providing insights into preferences, challenges and priorities related to housing affordability, availability and accessibility. By reaching a broad cross-section of the population, surveys can capture diverse perspectives, including those of underrepresented groups, ensuring that planning decisions reflect the unique needs of all stakeholders. This data-driven approach helps planners identify gaps in housing options, forecast future demand and develop strategies that align with a community's values and long-term goals. Ultimately, surveys can allow planners to make informed, equitable decisions that enhance the quality of life for residents.

How Evolving Survey Data Shape Our Understanding of Housing

Housing is a complex intersection of data, perceptions and lived experiences. While quantitative data sheds light on trends like underproduction and affordability, understanding public perceptions about housing helps planners see how these challenges are felt on the ground. By analyzing nearly two decades of RDG housing survey data, we can better understand how perceptions of housing availability, affordability and variety align with reality, how they’ve shifted over time and how they differ across communities.

The evolution of survey-taking has transformed significantly over the years, shifting from paper-based questionnaires to digital and online platforms. Traditionally, paper surveys were distributed at community meetings, mailed to residents or handed out door-to-door, a process that was time-intensive and limited in reach. The advent of digital technology has revolutionized this practice, enabling surveys to be conducted online with greater efficiency, accessibility and scalability. Online platforms allow planners to reach broader audiences, including those who may not attend in-person events, while also offering multilingual options, accessibility features and mobile compatibility to engage diverse populations.

This evolution makes the survey process more inclusive and cost-effective; it also poses some interesting questions:

• Is there a way to consolidate survey data from our years of housing studies across the Midwest? If so, what does this tell us, and is it useful?

• Will this aggregate data show whether public perceptions of housing issues changed over time?

• Furthermore, how do public perceptions of housing differ from reality?

The answer to the first question is a resounding, “yes.” With some digging, we’ve been able to consolidate a database of online housing survey responses from thousands of people, captured since 2006. In answering the first question, we uncover a few caveats we need to consider to understand whether the data is useful. These considerations include: 

• Paper responses and accessibility: While most of our housing surveys include paper options for individuals without internet or computer access, not all surveys guarantee this option for every respondent. Paper responses are manually entered into the online system, introducing the potential for variability in data entry.

• Statistical validity: The survey data are not statistically valid, as online surveys are not random samples. Instead, these surveys are designed to capture as many responses as possible to provide a broad understanding of community perceptions.

• Question formats and potential biases: Many survey questions were accompanied by brief descriptions or visual aids to help respondents understand terms and objectives. This can result in differences in question formats and introduce potential biases across surveys.

• Community-specific vs. broad trends: The analysis does not infer sentiments in every individual community. Rather, it offers a cumulative view of qualitative data, providing insight into how perceptions of housing have evolved over time on a broader scale.

Key Insights from Our Data

After analyzing the database and considering its limitations, we’ve concluded that this data is indeed valuable in understanding how public perceptions about housing align or don’t align, with objective realities. For example, while many respondents view housing issues more negatively today than in the past – a perception supported by quantitative data – others hold different views. These differing beliefs may be shaped by national narratives or local experiences, but the data helps highlight where public perception intersects with reality and where it diverges. Several key insights emerged from this analysis, offering a deeper understanding of how people perceive housing challenges.

Key Insight #1: Housing is consistently viewed as least available for lower-income populations.

From 2005 to 2023, more than 17,000 respondents identified seasonal workers and hourly wage earners as the groups most affected by housing shortages. This finding is particularly interesting given that our survey participants often skew toward higher-income individuals and homeowners – groups less likely to include hourly and seasonal workers. Notably, this perception hasn’t wavered over time and has even grown stronger since the pandemic, as rising costs have placed greater pressure on renters and homeowners alike. Additionally, respondents have increasingly emphasized housing constraints for families with children and multi-generational households, especially after this became a survey answer choice in 2016.

Digging deeper into the responses, we found no significant differences between cities with populations under 25,000 and those over 25,000. Interestingly, respondents in smaller cities perceived housing for hourly wage and seasonal workers to be even more limited than in larger cities. And the story is the same when filtering for only responses since the pandemic.

The Bigger Picture: Concerns about housing supply challenges aren’t new – they’ve been on people’s minds long before they became a weekly headline. The 2008 Great Recession first brought these issues to the forefront, and the COVID-19 pandemic reignited them. In recent years, rising awareness and research on housing underproduction have brought the issue into sharper focus, with some studies estimating that the U.S. needs an additional 3.85 million housing units to meet demand. For planners, city officials, builders, developers and other partners, this highlights the urgency of taking bold, collaborative action to shift public perceptions (and realities) toward a resounding "yes" response when it comes to questions about adequate housing availability.

Key Insight #2: The “American Dream” is evolving, and people want more housing variety.

The concept of the “American Dream” is changing, with growing recognition that housing variety is essential to meet diverse needs. Public awareness of “missing middle” housing is increasing, and survey responses consistently show favorable attitudes toward a range of housing types. Interestingly, while many still view homeownership as the most desirable option, rental options such as apartments are also seen as viable and important. In fact, respondents suggest that the traditional idea of a large house with a yard may not be the best fit for their communities compared to other housing options.

These preferences have remained steady over time, even as new choices like accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and row housing were introduced in surveys starting in 2020. One exception is a post-pandemic uptick in interest in larger homes and residential lots, which aligns with trends driven by remote work and the desire for more space, including home offices. Initially, the pandemic fueled a move away from dense housing environments for public health reasons, but now this shift seems more tied to lifestyle changes and work flexibility.

Interestingly, respondents in cities with populations under 25,000 are less favorable toward large homes and residential lots, a perspective that challenges density arguments often raised in smaller communities. These respondents, however, are also less favorable toward most other housing types, presenting a nuanced perspective that warrants further exploration.

The Bigger Picture: Housing variety is as important to respondents as the overall housing supply. Offering a broader range of smaller housing types can create more affordable options for lower-wage workers and families facing the added costs of raising children. Respondents also see housing variety as a critical solution for older adults, whether through assisted living models, accessory dwelling units or shared housing arrangements.

However, building housing variety is no simple task. Zoning codes, construction costs and financing challenges are significant barriers that slow progress. To meet the demand for diverse housing options, planners, city leaders, architects and builders must collaborate to find innovative ways to design, fund and integrate these housing types into communities, reflecting what residents want and need.

Key Insight #3: Most people support intervention in the housing market but with caveats.

Survey respondents overwhelmingly support actions to improve property conditions, such as enforcing property maintenance codes, demolishing blighted properties and providing rehabilitation assistance. This support has remained consistent over time, even as housing challenges have evolved. For many city leaders, though, this level of public approval might seem surprising, as these kinds of initiatives often encounter pushback when it’s time for formal approvals or implementation. Respondents themselves seem conflicted as well. The data shows survey responses where respondents rank high-density housing low, but duplex/townhome construction and affordable housing high. Below is a more detailed look at sentiments towards certain interventions.

Lowest-ranked interventions:

• Section 8 subsidies

• Free or reduced-cost infill lots

• High-density or cluster housing

Highest-ranked interventions:

• Down payment assistance

• Housing rehabilitation loans

• A tie: Duplex/townhome construction, large housing developments with low- and middle-income units and affordable housing funds

The Bigger Picture: These findings highlight that people care deeply about the quality and vitality of their neighborhoods. Respondents clearly want to enhance their communities and are open to funding programs that achieve this goal. Despite the strong support shown in surveys, such programs often require educational campaigns to succeed in practice, especially when they rely on local funds and taxpayer resources. While respondents may favor property maintenance codes in principle, it can become contentious when individuals face enforcement actions, such as violation letters or fines. For city leaders, this underscores the need to pair these initiatives with outreach and transparent communication to address concerns and build long-term support.

What Comes Next for Housing Conversations?

This analysis offers communities a valuable lens through which to consider housing needs and address opposition rooted in misinformation or misunderstanding. Individual perspectives on housing priorities vary widely, and it’s not uncommon for the loudest voices in planning processes to represent a vocal minority rather than the broader population. This underscores the critical importance of engaging with diverse viewpoints and using accurate, data-informed insights to guide decision-making.

But the work doesn’t stop here. There is still much to uncover in this data, such as how responses differ by demographic groups or how perceptions evolve in specific community contexts. These nuances could provide an even deeper understanding of the relationship between public sentiment and actual housing needs.

As planners, decision-makers and community leaders grapple with today's complex housing challenges, this raises one more important question: How can we ensure our policies and plans not only reflect the voices of the broader public but also address the realities of underproduction, affordability and housing variety? The answers may lie in continuing to collect and analyze this type of input, which can help us challenge assumptions and build solutions that respond to both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of housing demand.