Skip to content

In Central Ohio, the housing crisis is exacerbated by stringent architectural standards that, while aiming to maintain aesthetic quality, inadvertently hinder affordable housing development. This fourth installment in our Housing Blueprint series – that is focused on solutions to the housing crisis in Central Ohio – examines how reforming these standards can facilitate the construction of more affordable homes.

Understanding Architectural Standards

Architectural standards encompass regulations that dictate various aspects of building design, including:

  • Design Requirements: Specifications for building styles, materials, and finishes.
  • Ceiling Heights: Mandated minimum heights for interior spaces.
  • Exterior Aesthetics: Guidelines for facades, roofing, siding, fences, and other visible elements.

While these standards aim to ensure quality and uniformity, they often limit flexibility in design and construction.

Negative Impacts on Housing Affordability

Strict architectural standards can have several unintended consequences:

  • Increased Construction Costs: Adhering to specific design mandates can require expensive materials and construction techniques, increasing overall costs.
  • Reduced Housing Supply: Complex requirements can delay project approvals and deter developers, leading to fewer housing units being built.
  • Exclusion of Low-Income Residents: Elevated costs are often passed on to buyers or renters, making housing less accessible to low-income individuals and families.

Our Ohio Housing Policy also highlights that such regulations contribute to the region’s housing affordability challenges.

Benefits of Relaxing Architectural Standards

Reforming these standards can yield significant advantages:

  • Cost Reduction: Allowing more flexibility in design can enable the use of cost-effective materials and methods, lowering construction expenses.
  • Increased Housing Production: Simplified regulations can expedite the approval process, encouraging developers to undertake more projects.
  • Enhanced Affordability: Lower construction costs can translate to more affordable pricing for buyers and renters, broadening access to housing.

Focusing on efficiency and essential living standards, rather than strict aesthetic requirements, can lead to the development of functional and affordable housing solutions.

Case Studies

This 2020 report by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), titled Residential Design Standards: How Stringent Regulations Restrict Affordability and Choice, provides detailed insights into how rigid design standards affect housing affordability and availability. The report examines the consequences of imposing stricter municipal architectural and design standards and illustrates the fallout with real-world examples.

One case study from Tuttle, Oklahoma, highlights the unintended consequences of restricting affordable building materials. The city banned vinyl siding for new construction, which significantly drove up housing costs for prospective buyers. This restriction eventually led to statewide action: the Oklahoma governor signed a law prohibiting municipalities from imposing such restrictions, acknowledging the financial burden these regulations create for builders and homebuyers.

Similarly, the report discusses other jurisdictions where excessive aesthetic requirements—such as mandates for specific exterior materials, window placements, or minimum roof slopes—created barriers to affordability. These restrictions often prioritize aesthetics over functionality, pricing out low- and middle-income residents and reducing the diversity of housing options available.

The case studies underscore the importance of balancing design standards with affordability. While local governments may have good intentions to maintain visual harmony within neighborhoods, overly stringent standards can stifle housing development, exacerbate the affordability crisis, and limit consumer choice.

By easing these restrictions, cities can focus on more efficient, cost-effective building practices, prioritizing housing accessibility over aesthetic uniformity. This shift would enable developers to meet the needs of a wider range of residents, ensuring that housing is both affordable and practical for central Ohio’s growing population.

Conclusion

Reevaluating and reforming architectural standards in Central Ohio is crucial to mitigating the housing crisis. By prioritizing efficiency and affordability over rigid design mandates, the region can foster the development of housing that meets the needs of all its residents.

Scroll To Top