New construction regulations are often seen as a panacea for addressing various societal issues, from housing affordability to environmental sustainability. However, the reality is more complex. In many urban areas, new buildings represent only a tiny fraction of the total housing stock, making such regulations a slow tool for achieving significant change. This article explores why focusing solely on new developments may not be the most effective approach and suggests alternative strategies.

The impact of regulating new constructions is limited by the sheer volume of existing structures. Nationally, new homes account for just about 1% of all residential units annually. In metropolitan regions like Washington D.C., this figure remains similarly low. For instance, in 2022, despite issuing approximately 24,000 new housing permits each year, only around 1% of the total housing units were newly constructed. This statistic underscores the challenge faced when attempting to address immediate social needs through regulations that primarily affect future developments.

Regulations can work swiftly when applied to items with short lifespans, such as plastic straws, which quickly disappeared from restaurants following recent policy changes. However, durable goods like houses and commercial buildings last decades, meaning regulations targeting them take much longer to show results. Consider fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, which took several decades to significantly reduce gasoline consumption. Similarly, housing policies aimed at new constructions will require generations before they noticeably alter the broader housing market. Land use policies must therefore anticipate changes far ahead of time.

Inclusionary zoning, a policy requiring some new units to be offered at lower prices, has garnered considerable attention but has had minimal impact on overall housing affordability. Increasing the inclusionary requirement from 10% to 20% of new units results in merely a 0.1% increase in affordable housing stock. Given that 37% of households in D.C. face housing cost burdens, this small percentage falls short of addressing the affordability crisis. Policymakers need to recognize the limitations of such policies and explore more impactful solutions.

To effectively improve public health and safety, policies must address both existing and new buildings. For example, D.C.’s decarbonization efforts extend stringent energy efficiency standards to a substantial portion of existing structures. Additionally, stormwater management requirements have been imposed on both new and existing buildings, leading to significant improvements. These broader approaches have the potential to make a greater difference compared to policies focused solely on new constructions.

Ultimately, increasing the volume of new housing could accelerate the pace of change. Historically, over three percent of American houses were newly built, and there is still strong demand for new constructions. By boosting the rate of housing development, even modest inclusionary zoning requirements could have a more substantial impact. Therefore, policymakers should consider widening their focus to include existing buildings and aim to increase the overall supply of new housing to meet current and future needs.