When housing development numbers show progress, it’s tempting to celebrate the headline and move on. But in housing, a shrinking gap is not the same as a closed gap.
That distinction matters — especially in northern Michigan.
Across Michigan and the country, there are signs that increasing housing supply is helping. Permits are up, new developments are coming online, and conversations around zoning reform, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and smaller housing types are gaining traction.
But an important question remains: for whom?
We’ve largely moved past the debate over whether building more housing helps. It does. A 2025 analysis from the Pew Research Center put it clearly: building more housing reduces overall rent growth and takes pressure off older, more affordable units by easing competition. Economist Evan Mast found that for every 100 new market-rate units built, roughly 70 units become available in lower-priced segments within five years.
The takeaway is straightforward: when supply increases, pressure decreases.
That matters in Northern Michigan, where housing costs have outpaced local incomes. In Grand Traverse County, median home prices remain in the upper $300,000s to $400,000 range, putting homeownership out of reach for many earning $60,000 to $75,000 — including nurses, tradespeople, and young professionals.
But while supply works, it doesn’t work equally — or immediately — for everyone.
New housing, especially at higher price points, reduces pressure over time. But “over time” often means several years, and “below the median” does not mean affordable for the lowest-income households. That gap is where housing policy succeeds or fails.
According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there is a national shortage of 7.1 million rental homes for households earning 30% of area median income or less. For every 100 of these households, only about 35 affordable units are available. Locally, many households are spending more than half their income on housing, leaving little margin for unexpected expenses.
But this is where we must understand that housing works as a system, not a series of silos.
When higher-income households can’t find the homes they want, they move down the market, competing for older, more affordable units. That competition drives up prices and reduces options for those with fewer resources. Without enough supply at every level, the entire system backs up.
This is why supply matters — and why it’s not enough on its own.
Different households require different solutions:
— Workforce households need smaller, attainable options — homes, duplexes, townhomes — that zoning has often restricted.
— Moderate-income renters benefit from increased supply and targeted incentives.
— Lower-income households need deeper subsidies to access stable housing.
No single tool reaches them all.
In Northwest Michigan, communities consistently say they want more housing — but not large-scale developments. That comes with a trade-off. If we want to avoid large projects, we must allow smaller, incremental options like duplexes, ADUs, cottage courts, and smaller homes. These types of housing add supply gradually and fit within existing neighborhoods.
At the same time, tools like the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, Brownfield TIF, and PILOT agreements remain essential for producing income-restricted housing — though they often serve households in the middle, not those with the greatest need.
The biggest mistake is treating housing as an either/or issue.
It is not to build more market rate or subsidize more.
It is not market solutions or public investment.
It is both.
We need more housing at all price points to restore balance. And we need targeted subsidies to ensure the most vulnerable households are not left behind.
We’ll need more housing supply across the region — across all price points — to restore balance to the market and create movement. And we need targeted subsidies to ensure that those with the greatest needs also have housing supply available.
Northern Michigan is making progress. But that progress is not evenly distributed. Some households are beginning to feel relief. Others are not.
If the region wants to continue to move the needle on this challenge, we’ll need to get better at making it easier to build supply and matching the right tools to the right households — and using all of those tools at scale.
Because supply works. But on its own, it’s not enough.