Classic housing types like 3-flats, triple-decker and painted ladies could help solve the US housing crisis
In Chicago, they're called 3-flats. In Boston, they're called triple deckers. New York City folks refer to them as brownstones. And in San Francisco, they're known as painted ladies.
Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
Home prices in America could fly through the roof in 2025 — here's the big reason why and how to take full advantage (with as little as $10)
We're talking about triplexes, or homes with three separate housing units stacked on top of one another under one roof. And according to Stewart Hicks, an associate professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, 'these buildings might be the key to solving the mounting housing challenges that we're facing in cities today."
Yet cities are facing big challenges in having these buildings constructed. And it's only making the affordable housing crisis even worse.
Triplexes are commonly found in densely populated cities. But building more of them may not be in the cards anytime soon. And that's a shame.
As Hicks explains in a video posted to his channel, "In many cases, these structures offer on-ramps for homeownership and building equity and wealth. They can encourage and develop strong neighborhoods, and maybe even familial bonds if generations remain living together."
"Buying a two-flat didn't just mean more breathing room and more pleasant living conditions. They were always intended as wealth-building investments. Rental income could cover the mortgage and provide a degree of economic security," says the Chicago Architecture Center.
Yet dated zoning codes commonly get in the way of increasing the number of these homes in cities by disallowing anything more than single-family homes on a single lot in a residential area.
There's also what Hicks calls the "economics of construction" that's become a barrier.
The National Association of Home Builders recently said that broad inflation in the global economy since 2022 — particularly in building material prices — has driven up the cost to construct a home. Other factors increasing building material prices are disruptions in supply chains and growing demand for sustainable and green options. Construction costs accounted for 64.4% of the average price of a new home in 2024 compared to 60.8% in 2022, according to NAHB's most recent Cost of Construction Survey.
Hicks says that a three-unit home could easily cost over $1 million to build in big cities. And in today's mortgage rate environment, those who buy those homes as investments will need to charge top market rates to cover their costs. That's not going to address the issue of affordable housing, though.
Read more: I make $60,000/year, the only earner, and I worry about my family if I pass away — here's how 5 minutes can get you 7-figure coverage starting at just $2/day
In a recent Pew Research Center survey, 69% of Americans said they were "very concerned" about the cost of housing. And a 2024 Center American Progress survey found that 76% of people feel similarly. That data also found that 72% of urban residents feel housing affordability is getting worse.
In a 2024 report, the Brookings Institution estimated that the U.S. housing market was short 4.9 million housing units in 2023 relative to the mid-2000s. And as of 2023, roughly half of renter households were housing cost-burdened, per the 2023 American Community Survey — meaning, they were spending more than 30% of their income on housing. That amounts to nearly 21 million households in total.
Triple-unit houses can help solve the problem by allowing for more individual units within the same lot — provided they can be built more affordably.
To that end, though, the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing program could help. It's a program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that provides funding and incentives to state and local governments for facilitating affordable housing.
Specifically, the program targets communities that are actively taking steps to remove affordable housing barriers such as outdated zoning laws and inefficient procedures.
Not only can triplexes help address the U.S. housing crisis, but they could also promote multigenerational living, which is a beneficial thing itself.
Among adults in multigenerational households, 40% point to financial relief as a perk, according to Pew Research Center. And for 33%, this arrangement helps address the need for caregiving.
Critics of triplexes might argue that they're not only eyesores, but that they exacerbate density issues in already packed cities and have the potential to de-value nearby properties. In the wrong context, these buildings could cause more harm than good. They can be easily converted into luxurious single-family homes or they may be bought for cheap and demolished since land values are high.
"In these cases then instead of just gently encouraging more density like we want, it just serves to increase land values until longtime residents are forced out and it ends up solving nothing in the end," says Hicks.
But all told, there's much to be gained by removing barriers to triplex construction. As Hicks says, 'Folks are coming to recognize just how important these buildings are to their cities and the people who live in them.'
Is your savings account struggling to keep up with soaring grocery prices? Here's how 2 minutes can earn you 9X the US national average — with no monthly fees
One dozen eggs in America now costs $4.15 — and $14.35 for a pound of sirloin steak. Both record highs. 3 simple ways to protect your wealth in 2025
Jamie Dimon issues a warning about the US stock market — says prices are 'kind of inflated.' Crashproof your portfolio with these 3 rock-solid strategies
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Meet the Gen Z HENRYs: They're making $565K on average but still renting
Earning six figures but living paycheck to paycheck — that's what it means to be a HENRY. As Gen Zers approach 30, a very small subset of the generation is aging into this acronym, which stands for high earners, not rich yet, and was coined by Fortune's Shawn Tully. With inflation biting extra hard during their young adult years, younger Americans increasingly think they need to earn more to achieve stability. In a 2024 Bankrate survey, Gen Zers said they'd need to make $200,000 a year to feel financially secure. At the same time, Gen Zers deal with " money dysmorphia," or an unrealistic perception of their own financial soundness and feeling stressed over money, largely due to social comparison and outdated ideas of what's affordable. Indeed, middle-income Americans have been living more like their lower-income counterparts, indicating that for Americans to feel middle-class, they actually need to be high-earning. To figure out who in Gen Z is actually earning above that threshold — and may exemplify the HENRY title — we delved into Census Bureau microdata from the Current Population Survey's 2024 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. We only looked at adult Gen Zers with a total income of $250,000 or more. Though Gen Z birth years span from 1997 to 2012, we only looked at those ages 18 to 27 in 2024. On average, these Gen Z HENRYs made just above $565,000 a year, compared to around $28,700 for all Gen Zers reflected in the microdata. They also skewed slightly more male than the wider Gen Z cohort. On average, Gen Z HENRYs were around 24 years old in 2024. They were also more likely to be married than their wider Gen Z cohort, and those marriages seem to be sticking so far — essentially 0% of Gen Z HENRYs were separated or divorced. Demographically, Gen Z HENRYs were also less likely to be white than their cohort peers, and more likely to be Asian or Pacific Islander. Gen Z HENRYs were also more likely to have a bachelor's degree or a master's degree and beyond, both of which can contribute to a wage premium. And HENRYs might have the entrepreneurial bug: They're more likely than the rest of Gen Z to be self-employed, although the vast majority held wage or salary roles in the private sector. Gen Z HENRYs were less likely to be homeowners than the wider Gen Z cohort, with 40% of HENRYs owning homes compared to around 53% of all Gen Zers. Conversely, HENRYs were more likely to be renters. However, homeowning HENRYs were more likely to live in more valuable properties — their estimated current property values were around $455,000 compared to around $441,000 for all of Gen Z. That tracks with a larger trend: Some high-earning Americans, especially younger ones, are opting for rent — it's increasingly become a better deal than maintaining and buying a home for many, and many higher-earners like the flexibility and amenities that come with a rental.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees. ___
4 hours ago
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON -- House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.
