Alex Schwartz discusses why Americans can't afford housing

Alex Schwartz gives a lecture at Hayes Hall.

Alex Schwartz gives the Clarkson Chair lecture at Hayes Hall

BY KELLY SHELDON

Published March 21, 2025

More than 30 years ago, the University at Buffalo School of Architecture and Planning established the Will and Nan Clarkson Visiting Chair program. Its purpose is to bring distinguished scholars and professionals to campus for lectures and seminars that engage students, faculty, practitioners, and the public in knowledge sharing, scholarship, and debate on critical issues in architecture, planning, and design.

This year, Alex Schwartz was selected as Clarkson Chair to lend his expertise to a variety of discussions on the important and increasingly problematic subject of affordable housing. Schwartz is a professor of public and urban policy at the New School, and he earned a doctorate in urban planning and policy development from Rutgers University. His research centers on housing and community development, including public housing and other affordable housing programs. He also serves on New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board, which establishes rent adjustments for the approximately one million dwelling units subject to the city’s rent stabilization law.  

“Affordable housing is such a big issue in the United States,” explained Ernest Sternberg,  professor in UB’s Department of Urban and Regional Planning. “We wanted to bring in someone who has demonstrated comprehensive understanding of the matter. We want to build up our capacity with this problem locally and nationally and to have the ability right here at UB to learn more about it. Professor Schwartz has developed a great reputation and wide-ranging knowledge about all aspects of housing, especially affordable housing, in the U.S.”

In a way, UB students have already been learning from Schwartz through his widely utilized textbook, Housing Policy in the United States, now in its fourth edition. And on March 12, he gave a public lecture at South Campus’ historic Hayes Hall titled, “Why Americans Can’t Afford Housing and What to Do About It.”  

Schwartz argued that, contrary to popular opinion, we don’t have a housing shortage in the U.S.; a surplus of housing that was produced between 2000-2010 has not yet been absorbed enough for that to be the case. 

To see the full picture, he points out that it’s important to consider the correlation between housing costs and income. Data from the National Low-Income Housing Coalition’s 2023 Out of Reach report illustrates the reality for minimum wage workers across the U.S. Schwartz explained, “Nowhere in the country, regardless of the zoning regime or relative housing prices, can a worker earning either the federal fair minimum wage or a higher local minimum wage afford a two-bedroom unit at fair market rent. And only in a small percentage of counties can they afford a one-bedroom unit.” In fact, the hourly rate necessary to afford that two-bedroom unit is $32.11/hour according to national average statistics.

It’s important to note that the standard measure on housing affordability is considered to be 30% of a household’s gross monthly income. Data on the correlation between income and housing cost burden shows that individuals earning less money also have a higher housing cost burden, meaning they’re paying a higher percentage of their income on housing – this is true of both renters and homeowners. While the cost burden for renters paying more than half of their salary on housing has risen for all income groups since 1999, that number sits close to a staggering 80% for those making $15,000/year or less, 55% for those in the $15,000-$29,999 range, and 31% for those between $30,000-$44,000.

Graph titled "Percent of Renters of Severe Cost Burden (50%+) by Income Category in 2023 Dollars, 1999-2023." This is broken down by income bracket: $0 to $15,000 (increases from 72%-78%), $15,000 to $29,999 (increases from 39%-56%), $30,000 to $44,999 (increases from 9%-31%), $45,000 to $74,999 (increases from 3%-11%), and $75,000+ (increases from 1%-3%).

The percentage of low-income renters facing severe housing cost burdens is high and continues to increase.

Graph titled "Percent of Renters with Any Cost Burden (30%+) by Income Category in 2023 Dollars" (between 1999-2023). This is broken down by income bracket: $0 to $15,000 (increases from 87%-89%), $15,000 to $29,999 (increases from 77%-86%), $30,000 to $44,999 (increases from 54%-73%), $45,000 to $74,999 (increases from 22%-49%), and $75,000+ (increases from 4%-17%).

The percentage of renters across multiple income categories who are facing cost burdens of any amount is high and continues to increase.

“Nowhere in the country, regardless of the zoning regime or relative housing prices, can a worker earning either the federal fair minimum wage or a higher local minimum wage afford a two-bedroom unit at fair market rent. And only in a small percentage of counties can they afford a one-bedroom unit.”
- Alex Schwartz

For those of us living in Buffalo, the correlation between housing costs and income was illustrated well by Schwartz by comparing our data with that from Brooklyn and Manhattan. We all know that rent is notoriously high in New York City, but Buffalo renters are actually saddled with higher cost burdens despite paying much less in rent because we’re also, on the whole, earning that much less.

Graph titled "Rents, Income, and Cost Burdens: Buffalo, Brooklyn and Manhattan in 2023" shows: Buffalo city has a median gross rent of $1,022, median income of $36,527, percent cost burden of 30%+ of 50% and percent cost burden of 50%+ of 31%. Buffalo metro has a median gross rent of $1,054, median income of $41,989, percent cost burden of 30%+ of 46% and percent cost burden of 50%+ of 26%. Brooklyn has a median gross rent of $1,762, median income of $65,759, percent cost burden of 30%+ of 47% and percent cost burden of 50%+ of 25%. Manhattan has a median gross rent of $2,169, median income of $81,237, percent cost burden of 30%+ of 45% and percent cost burden of 50%+ of 24%.

Buffalo renters face higher cost burdens than renters in Brooklyn or Manhattan.

Chart titled "Total Renter Households in 2023 by Income Group and the Number of Rental Units That are Affordable and Available to Them (in millions)." Income Group $0 to $14,999 has 6.2 million total households, 2.5 million total affordable units, and 1.6 million total affordable and available units. Income Group $0 to $29,999 has 12.6 million total households, 7.4 million total affordable units, and 5.1 million total affordable and available units. Income Group $0 to $44,999 has 19.1 million total households, 16.8 million total affordable units, and 11.9 million total affordable and available units. Income Group $0 to $74,999 has 29.3 million total households, 32.6 million total affordable units, and 26.1 million total affordable and available units. Income group $0 to $75,000+ has 43.4 million total households, 46.9 million total affordable units, and 46.9 million total affordable and available units.

There aren't nearly enough affordable and available units for lower-income households. 

A huge factor at play for lower-income households is that the total number of those households exceeds the number of affordable units. Compounding the problem, many higher-income households are living in units that are priced below what they can actually afford. “In other words, people in the lowest income group are being squeezed,” Schwartz added. “There’s not enough housing that they can afford, and much of the housing that they could afford is actually occupied by people of higher means.” 

Chart titled "Percentage of Households Occupying Units Priced to Income Group, Priced Below, and Priced Above in 2023." Income Group $0 to $14,999 has 24% priced to income group, none priced below, and 76% priced above. Income Group $15,000 to $29,999 has 24% priced to income group, 6% priced below, and 69% priced above. Income group $30,000 to $44,999 has 30% priced to income group, 14% priced below, and 55% priced above. Income group $45,000 to $74,999 has 45% priced to income group, 29% priced below, and 26% priced above. Income group $75,000+ has 53% priced to income group, 47% priced below, and none priced above.

Many households are occupying units that are priced for lower income groups, squeezing lower-income households out of contention for housing that they can afford.

It goes without saying that the data shows that people are struggling. So, what can be done to make it better? Even if you decreased rent across the board, data shows that the biggest impact would actually be felt by higher income groups, with a large majority of lower income households still paying more than 30% of their income on rent (“unaffordable” by definition). “These are not trivial reductions,” Schwartz admitted, “but it’s very much skewed towards the higher end.”

To really make a difference for the people who are hurting the most, Schwartz suggests a combination of the solutions below.

  • Increase the supply of affordable homes. This is more necessary in some places than others, though on its own, it’s not enough.
  • Increase “deep-subsidy” programs for renters, including housing choice vouchers, project-based rental assistance, and public housing.
  • Provide “circuit-breaker” programs for low-income homeowners, including mortgage refinancing and vouchers to provide property tax relief.
  • Provide assistance to prospective home buyers, such as asset-building assistance, down payment assistance, low-interest mortgages, and shared-ownership and limited-equity programs.

A post-lecture Q&A covered a multitude of topics, including: how most new construction designated as “affordable” is not actually created for the lowest income brackets; the reality of where people in the under $15,000/year income bracket are living; the low reliability of national data on housing maintenance; the erosion of public assistance through vouchers; deep subsidies vs. shallow subsidies; and how institutional arrangements can assist people with homeownership.