Today’s piece is a guest piece from Jesse Porch, a housing advocate in the Boston area. I know him from social media and met him at the Strong Towns/Congress for the New Urbanism conferences in Cincinnati last month. We discussed this particular way of thinking about the question of permitting all sorts of different housing options, and how a lot of people basically respond to that with something like, “Well, I don’t want to live like that…”

Jesse’s frame of “housing pluralism” tries to get past that reflex to treat one’s own preference as a revelation about what is true and what should broadly be allowed for everybody.

The USA is fortunately a nation that generally considers “pluralism” a worthwhile endeavor. Historically, the idea that society can survive—even thrive—when our most deeply held values are allowed to embrace diversity over conformity is the exception rather than the rule. And while there’s certainly much to criticize in how we practice it, as an aspirational principle it remains a core aspect of the American ideal. One that urbanists ought to apply liberally to our own advocacy.

Bear with me a moment; I can explain! Pluralism as a political value is ultimately about the coexistence of diverse value systems, and provides important frames for talking about urbanist issues. First: reinforcing the value of housing diversity as a good in and of itself. Not just diverse housing options in the abstract, but a concrete vision of the world where such diversity exists and bumps together on a daily basis. A world where people aren’t building this or that or some other thing, but actually building and living in all of the above together. Now, most urbanists I know are good at this part in theory, but I do think that there’s often a tendency to lose the neighborhood for the houses, so to speak.

Don’t get me wrong, we need plenty of Urban Nerds who are obsessed with mass timber baugruppen, Single Stair Single Issue Twitter, and lovely Cottage Court Instagram to help cast visions of specific goals we’re fighting to achieve. But we also need to remember that in pretty much any plausible world, that’s only ever going to be a sliver of the Housing Diversity that actually gets built. For better and for worse, America is likely always going to be mostly a land of single-family detached homes. And that’s perfectly fine! Because what matters is that we have a system that allows these kinds of valid preferences to flourish together instead of ending up in a negative sum free-for-all where every victory impoverishes the whole.

Which brings me to the second crucial framing: pluralism is hard. It’s entirely natural to seek to use power to make living out your personal values easier. It’s understandably a tough sell to convince people that it’s better to allow those who disagree or value different things to live peacefully alongside us. The tradeoffs are often tough, and watching others use the systems you’ve helped build to live in ways that you disagree with—maybe even think actively harmful to themselves and others—is a bitter pill even when you’re committed to liberal society. Finding the right way to square the circle of competing values doesn’t always have a clean solution, certainly not one that leaves everyone happy. 

Specifically, it’s questions over what’s “harmful to others” that make it tough. “I want to live in a house with a yard” is certainly far less crucial a value than the ability to worship according to one’s faith. But even in these tough cases, I think it’s important to preserve the goal of healthy pluralism as an end in itself. Finding ways to articulate the distinction between letting someone live out their preferences individually versus imposing those values on their neighbors requires carefully parsing many fundamental questions, something which can only be done in an environment that cultivates mutual respect and assumes some measure of good faith.

And lest you think I’m ignoring the other side of the equation: yes, this absolutely does cut both ways. Like any question of practical pluralism, there’s a special burden upon the dominant cultural movements to enable others who don’t have the same privileges to live out their competing values. And yes, it’s especially thorny to promote pluralism when the Powers That Be aren’t being good stewards of the culture, but that’s just when a positive vision of what a pluralist housing future can be is most important.

I take it as axiomatic that the “typical” American home will remain the detached single-family, and we all agree we’re only opposed to the imposition of that sort of housing monoculture at the expense of everyone else. But making this distinction to the average person takes hard work. Convincing people satisfied with the status quo to support principled pluralism, even in housing, is a task worth pursuing, but it still requires the effort.

One of the most encouraging things about the YIMBY/Housing Abundance/urbanist movement is how “Big Tent” it is. Being involved in housing advocacy puts me alongside people from all walks and political leanings, all working together for a shared vision. What’s most powerful is that this diversity is not a barrier to overcome, but a resource to achieve a goal of diverse and affordable housing for people with a variety of preferences and needs.

Embrace the vision, but also intentionally cultivate the pluralist aspect of the final product. That’s how we keep the urbanist movement alive and healthy, and that’s how we have a chance to achieve true housing abundance.

Related Reading:

Station Wagons and Affluence

Rural New Mexico Blues

The Housing Famine

Thank you for reading! Please consider upgrading to a paid subscription to help support this newsletter. You’ll get a weekly subscribers-only piece, plus full access to the archive: over 1,000 pieces and growing. And you’ll help ensure more like this!

Share