Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

For many, America is unlivable. Across the country, homeownership seems like a mirage from another era. In many blue cities and states, even renting is tough. In California, the median price for a home has broken past $800,000. The rate of homelessness nationwide has risen four years in a row. A quarter of 2020’s unhoused individuals lived in either New York City or Los Angeles. All of this clearly—as we are told time and time again—constitutes a “housing crisis.”

But what exactly does the phrase mean? There’s a you-know-it-when-you-see-it quality to the term that makes its vagueness easy to ignore. Someone reading Joseph Pulitzer’s newspaper, Evening World, in the 1920s would have associated “housing crisis” with overcrowding and sordid living conditions in Brooklyn’s tenements. A subscriber to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle in the late ’40s would have understood it to mean a shortage stemming from low rates of housing production during the war effort and the return of veterans from Europe. And, after 2008, the prevailing catastrophe was the collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting subprime mortgage crisis that set off the Great Recession. 

“Housing crisis” has been used as a metonym on so many occasions over its near-constant circulation since the early 20th century that it can be hard to locate a defining characteristic. As Gertrude Stein might have said, a housing crisis is a housing crisis is a housing crisis.

Jacob Anbinder, a historian of housing and infrastructure at Harvard, points out that even the current use of the term tends to conflate two related but distinct problems. The first is the insane cost to buy and rent in wealthy coastal cities; the second is the affordable housing crisis, a persistent lack of access to permanent shelter among low-­income Americans everywhere. One could argue, Anbinder says, that the second is more a “crisis of impoverishment” than an acute crisis of housing.

This conflation of the affordable housing crisis with the other housing problems has led Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, an activist and scholar, to argue that we should move away from using the term altogether. By deeming something a “crisis,” Taylor argues, we imply that it’s an extraordinary occurrence that can be alleviated through private-sector reforms, like the ramping up of housing production, without wrestling with the fact that, “as long as there is a price on shelter,” as she told the Nation, housing will be unstable for many.

On closer inspection, few seem completely happy with the term (except headline writers). To some socialists, “housing crisis” can imply that a series of modest policy adjustments can do the trick, rather than a major rethink in the way society is structured. To technocrats, the term is too malleable to capture the nuance of a hyper-particularized issue, from a local zoning law to the power of a NIMBY-ish neighborhood association. Indeed, in just the last two years, the Atlantic has applied the term both to the housing shortage and to the potential rise in evictions caused by Covid. These issues are intertwined but unique. A temporary eviction moratorium won’t help alleviate the general affordability problem in San Francisco. And a statute reforming minimum lot sizes would be small comfort to a family about to be kicked out of their apartment during a pandemic.

The political will to fix housing at times seems stalled in the same place as the term “housing crisis” itself: either mired in heady debates that avoid the specifics of how to fix a concrete, conditional issue (what to do with a surfeit of empty lots) or so specific as to miss the comprehensive social problem behind it all (poverty). The term can obscure both the problems we can wonk our way out of and broader critiques of the way our society is structured.

The word “crisis” was originally used to refer to a “decisive turning point” in a disease—the stage that determined whether a patient lived or died. But with housing, there’s never been any such turning point. Indeed, one striking feature of the housing debate is just how often the same arguments recur. And while we repeat ourselves, the unlivable prices, the casual dismissal of the poor as undeserving of shelter, and the infuriating lack of political will continue.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate