Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
Chris Coleman argues that “big problems require big solutions” (“Communities need to think big on affordable housing,” Strib Voices, Dec. 10). It’s a compelling line — but it’s also false. In complex systems like housing markets, small, strategic changes often produce outsized effects. In fact, some of the most powerful levers in housing affordability aren’t mega-projects or once-in-a-generation reinventions of golf courses — they’re modest, widely documented policy adjustments that expand supply or unblock development bottlenecks across thousands of parcels.
We see this all the time. When Minneapolis ended single-family-only zoning in 2018, researchers found no dramatic upheaval — but they did find that the policy quietly enabled a steady trickle of additional units that accumulate year after year. St. Paul’s recent zoning reform — allowing duplexes, triplexes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) citywide — reflects the same principle: small changes that unlock long-term, distributed growth. Studies show that simply allowing a bit more density on ordinary lots can create far more housing over time than any single master-planned development. These aren’t “big solutions.” They’re small adjustments that allow the private market to function.
The commentary cites a 60% drop in modest-budget homebuyers as evidence of a system failure. And he’s right that the system is screwed up — but the specific phenomenon he highlights is also exactly what basic economics predicts when prices and mortgage rates spike: Fewer people buy homes. That’s not evidence that families are failing; it’s evidence that they’re being rational. After the 2000s, we should all want cautious buyers, not households pushed into mortgages they cannot sustain.
Coleman highlights the Heights — a development I genuinely applaud — as a model for what we should be doing more of. But the Heights requires exactly what he admits: “total commitment” from governments, philanthropy, corporations, donors and volunteers. In other words: enormous, ongoing public subsidy and coordination. It is good work, and needed work. But it is not a replicable model for producing the scale of housing Minnesota requires.
Most homes in the Twin Cities weren’t built this way. They were built by private developers operating under rules that made building feasible. Those rules — slow permitting, regulatory constraints, local veto points and, yes, rent control — now block development at exactly the places where we need it most. The commentary doesn’t mention that rent control is limiting new housing at the Ford site, or that many regulatory choices have made new construction slower, more risky and more expensive. Economic research is clear that reducing permitting times or easing restrictive zoning often results in far more new homes than marquee “big solution” projects. Small changes matter.
The real challenge for the Twin Cities isn’t the lack of bold dreamers — it’s the lack of pragmatic, incremental, evidence-based thinking about how to increase housing production across the whole region. A few percentage points of additional housing spread across thousands of lots would create the equivalent of multiple Heights developments, without requiring total public-funded commitment every time.
