Who Thinks Housing is Working? It Depends.

In our previous insight, “How Public Perceptions Are Shaping the Housing Conversation,” we explored the powerful role community surveys play in shaping local housing policy. We examined how public input can elevate important needs, but also how it can unintentionally skew decisions if we fail to examine who is responding and why.

We ended with a challenge: don’t stop at the topline results. Dig deeper. Look at responses by demographic group. Ask whether the voices shaping policy reflect the full community.

So, we did.

Across multiple housing studies, we analyzed more than 34,000 individual survey responses. At first glance, many of the overall results appeared consistent across communities. But when we broke down the data by income level, homeownership status and age, clear patterns emerged: Perceptions about whether housing needs are being met vary depending on where someone sits in the market; preferences for certain housing types shift based on whether someone rents or owns; opinions about public investment change as household income rises; and assumptions about what seniors want don’t always match what older adults say themselves.

Housing is deeply personal. It touches stability, wealth, identity and independence. Seeing these differences quantified across tens of thousands of responses reinforces an important point: housing conversations are not just about supply and demand. They are about lived experience.

When communities rely on survey input to guide decisions, understanding those lived experiences (and the demographic lenses behind them) becomes essential. What follows is a closer look at what our qualitative data reveals, where perceptions diverge and where common ground still exists.

A Note on Methodology

Before diving into the findings, it’s important to reiterate the limitations of our survey data. As with any community engagement effort, there are caveats. Some residents respond on paper, some online. Accessibility varies. Surveys were not distributed randomly. Question wording can introduce bias. And each community brings its own context, culture and housing market conditions.

In addition, demographic information in most of our surveys, including household income, age, housing situation and race, is optional. While tens of thousands of people participated overall, fewer respondents provided demographic details. That limits the size of some comparison groups, particularly among nonwhite households.

The analysis focused on consistent questions asked across communities, including:

• Whether current housing supply meets the needs of various household types

• What types of housing would be successful locally

• What types of housing seniors are most interested in

• Whether respondents support public funding for maintenance enforcement, demolition or rehabilitation

• What housing solutions they would support overall

Even with limitations, patterns across income, ownership and age emerge.

Income and Ownership Status Shape Perception

One of the clearest findings? Higher-income households and homeowners are more likely to believe their community’s housing needs are being met, while lower-income households see things differently. Respondents in households earning between $25,000 and $50,000 annually feel the greatest strain and are consistently more likely to say housing supply falls short, particularly for working families.

Interestingly, respondents earning under $25,000 express slightly more optimism than the next income bracket. That group likely includes seniors with paid-off homes, students and households living in subsidized housing — situations that may reduce direct exposure to today’s tight market conditions.

The gap between low- and high-income respondents is especially pronounced when discussing housing for people with disabilities. Lower-income households are far less likely to believe adequate options exist. This aligns with national research showing that people with disabilities are more likely to have lower incomes and face disproportionate housing barriers. For these respondents, the shortage is not theoretical; it’s personal.

Despite income differences, respondents largely agree that housing is least available to seasonal workers, hourly workers and multigenerational families. Across demographics, there is recognition that the market does not adequately serve everyone.

Socioeconomics and the Shape of “NIMBYism”

Housing preferences also reveal important divides. Across nearly all demographic groups, small- and medium-sized single-family homes rank as the most desirable housing type. Townhouses, duplexes and independent senior living options also receive broad support. But the data shows stronger “Not In My Backyard” tendencies among higher-income respondents and homeowners. These groups are significantly less favorable toward apartments and manufactured housing. At the same time, they show a greater preference for large homes and large-lot residential development.

Interestingly, responses show fewer substantial differences by race or ethnicity than by income and ownership. While more robust demographic data is needed to draw definitive conclusions, socioeconomic status appears to be a stronger predictor of NIMBY-leaning attitudes in our survey sample. There is, however, a promising nuance. Even respondents who express less support for apartments show slightly more openness to mixed-use development and downtown living. That suggests a potential bridge: when density is framed around vibrancy, walkability and economic vitality, resistance softens.

Perception often hinges on how housing types are described and what people imagine they will look and feel like in their neighborhoods.

What Seniors Actually Want (and What We Think They Want)

Age also plays a role, though in more specific ways. Respondents over 65 are much less interested in large homes and large-lot residential development than younger age groups. They show greater favorability toward accessory dwelling units and cottage court-style housing.

Those preferences alone are notable. But what’s more revealing is how differently each generation interprets senior housing needs. Younger respondents often believe seniors are most interested in assisted living, apartments with services or living attached to family members. Older respondents say otherwise. Those aged 65 and up consistently express a stronger preference for owner-occupied homes — with or without shared maintenance — over assisted living or service-enriched apartments. In short, many older adults want to maintain independence in a smaller home they own for as long as possible.

That difference in perception makes sense. Adult children want aging parents to be supported and feel safe. Older adults want autonomy. Both perspectives are valid. But when planning for senior housing, communities should prioritize what seniors themselves are saying — not what others assume they need.

In the data, age differences are most pronounced among respondents 75 and older. Many in this group may not be actively participating in today’s housing market, which could influence how they respond. Still, the broader message is clear: assumptions about what older adults want do not always align with reality, and planning decisions should reflect lived experience, not guesswork.

Support for Public Investment Is Not Universal

When asked about public funding for housing initiatives, including maintenance enforcement, demolition of dilapidated housing, and rehabilitation programs, responses vary sharply by income and homeownership status.

Higher-income respondents are less likely to support public funding for rehabilitation or demolition efforts. However, they are somewhat more open to solutions tied directly to development, such as construction assistance or infrastructure investment. Homeowners and older respondents show similar patterns. They tend to favor maintenance code enforcement over broader housing market interventions. Overall, support for direct public involvement in housing decreases with age.

This presents a policy tension: The households most affected by housing affordability challenges often show stronger support for public intervention, while those less directly affected may be more hesitant to use public funds. For communities, this underscores the importance of clearly communicating the purpose and impact of housing investments. When people understand how solutions benefit workforce stability, economic growth and neighborhood vitality, support can expand.

Race and Ethnicity: Inconclusive, but Worth Watching

Our data does not reveal strong, consistent differences in housing perceptions across racial and ethnic groups. However, the limited number of respondents who provided race and ethnicity demographic information restricts firm conclusions. National research suggests that lower-income and nonwhite households are less likely to complete demographic questions in surveys, particularly when anonymity feels uncertain. That dynamic may contribute to smaller sample sizes in our data.

One notable exception appears among Hispanic respondents, who are more likely to believe seniors are interested in living with family members. This aligns with research on multigenerational living patterns and cultural norms in many Hispanic communities.

These nuances matter. But they also reinforce the need for intentional outreach strategies to ensure survey participation reflects the full diversity of a community.

What This Means for Communities

So, what do 34,000 responses ultimately tell us?

First, perception depends heavily on personal experience. Income and homeownership status significantly shape how residents view housing adequacy and potential solutions. Age influences preferences, particularly for senior housing, but socioeconomic factors appear to drive broader differences in opinion.

Second, there is more common ground than we sometimes assume. Across demographic and socioeconomic lines, respondents support smaller homes, townhouses, duplexes and independent senior living. Many support helping residents access and maintain homeownership. Renters, in particular, express a strong interest in pathways to ownership.

Third, surveys are powerful but imperfect tools.

Survey respondents often skew toward higher-income households and homeowners. If communities rely solely on survey data without comparing respondent demographics to the broader population, they risk amplifying NIMBY-leaning perspectives while underrepresenting renters and lower-income households.

This does not mean surveys lack value. They remain one of the most effective ways to gather broad input. But they should be paired with direct conversations, focus groups and quantitative housing data. Open-ended survey responses, in particular, often provide candid — sometimes blunt — insights into community sentiment. Ignoring those narratives means missing context.

Finally, education matters. Communities can strengthen housing conversations by:

• Providing clear information about accessibility and Universal Design retrofits

• Examining how zoning codes either enable or restrict aging in place

• Explaining how different housing types function and what they look like in practice

• Conducting targeted outreach to renters and underrepresented groups

Housing debates are often framed as binary: growth versus preservation, density versus character, public investment versus private market. The data suggests something more complex. People’s views reflect where they stand — economically, generationally and personally — within the housing system. Recognizing that reality allows communities to move beyond surface-level disagreements and toward more informed, empathetic conversations.

When we understand who is speaking, we better understand what they’re saying. And when communities ground housing decisions in both data and dialogue, they build solutions that reflect not just the loudest voices, but the full spectrum of lived experience. In short, housing planning works best when it listens carefully, analyzes thoughtfully and acts inclusively.