“Cities pursue densification programs almost exclusively through building more studio-, 1-, and 2-bedroom apartments that will never serve as suitable homes for growing families, who overwhelmingly prefer single-family homes with at least three bedrooms…However, families in the IFS survey were not hostile towards higher densities in attached single-family homes like townhouses, and had only modest preferences for large yards.” – Cox and Stone, “Homes for Young Families: A Pro-Family Housing Agenda.” Institute for Family Studies, March 2025
In other words, American families are generally receptive to living in single-family homes on small lots, as long as they have at least three bedrooms. Unfortunately, densifying cities typically limit the construction of single-family homes and often bar new housing developments on previously undeveloped land (“greenfield”), creating a housing shortage for local families. Without an adequate supply of suitable housing, many of these families will end up moving away when they’re ready to buy a home.
Consider an alternative scenario: densifying cities that permit some greenfield developments of single-family homes, attached or detached, on modest lots (max 5,000 sq ft), with EV charging stations, solar panels, and electrical heating systems required for each new home. This would result in less density and more habitat encroachment for those particular cities than had they simply barred all greenfield development, but it would also keep many families from moving away and contributing to greater sprawl elsewhere.
That’s because families who can’t find the home they prefer in one housing market will move to places where such markets exist. Chances are the housing will be in developments where densification is not a thing, so that lot sizes are closer to the US average of 14,000 sq ft, give or take. If built on undeveloped land, these developments would be much larger than my ideal developments (14,000 to a maximum of 5,000 sq feet lot sizes), holding constant the number of lots. Per household emissions/pollution is also likely to be higher in these developments than in my alternative scenario, assuming fewer climate-friendly restrictions and incentives.
What we have here is a situation of robbing Peter to pay Paul, which my new friend AI Overview describes well:
"Robbing Peter to pay Paul" means taking resources from one area or person (Peter) to use for another (Paul), often with the implication that it's not a long-term solution and can create new problems. It's essentially a temporary fix that shifts resources rather than addressing the underlying issue.
—
Reference:
Cox, W. and Stone, L. “Homes for Young Families: A Pro-Family Housing Agenda.” Institute for Family Studies, March 2025. https://ifstudies.org/report-brief/homes-for-young-families-a-pro-family-housing-agenda