Classic housing types like 3-flats, triple-decker and painted ladies could help solve the US housing crisis
Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
Home prices in America could fly through the roof in 2025 — here's the big reason why and how to take full advantage (with as little as $10)
We're talking about triplexes, or homes with three separate housing units stacked on top of one another under one roof. And according to Stewart Hicks, an associate professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, 'these buildings might be the key to solving the mounting housing challenges that we're facing in cities today."
Yet cities are facing big challenges in having these buildings constructed. And it's only making the affordable housing crisis even worse.
Triplexes are commonly found in densely populated cities. But building more of them may not be in the cards anytime soon. And that's a shame.
As Hicks explains in a video posted to his channel, "In many cases, these structures offer on-ramps for homeownership and building equity and wealth. They can encourage and develop strong neighborhoods, and maybe even familial bonds if generations remain living together."
"Buying a two-flat didn't just mean more breathing room and more pleasant living conditions. They were always intended as wealth-building investments. Rental income could cover the mortgage and provide a degree of economic security," says the Chicago Architecture Center.
Yet dated zoning codes commonly get in the way of increasing the number of these homes in cities by disallowing anything more than single-family homes on a single lot in a residential area.
There's also what Hicks calls the "economics of construction" that's become a barrier.
The National Association of Home Builders recently said that broad inflation in the global economy since 2022 — particularly in building material prices — has driven up the cost to construct a home. Other factors increasing building material prices are disruptions in supply chains and growing demand for sustainable and green options. Construction costs accounted for 64.4% of the average price of a new home in 2024 compared to 60.8% in 2022, according to NAHB's most recent Cost of Construction Survey.
Hicks says that a three-unit home could easily cost over $1 million to build in big cities. And in today's mortgage rate environment, those who buy those homes as investments will need to charge top market rates to cover their costs. That's not going to address the issue of affordable housing, though.
Read more: I make $60,000/year, the only earner, and I worry about my family if I pass away — here's how 5 minutes can get you 7-figure coverage starting at just $2/day
In a recent Pew Research Center survey, 69% of Americans said they were "very concerned" about the cost of housing. And a 2024 Center American Progress survey found that 76% of people feel similarly. That data also found that 72% of urban residents feel housing affordability is getting worse.
In a 2024 report, the Brookings Institution estimated that the U.S. housing market was short 4.9 million housing units in 2023 relative to the mid-2000s. And as of 2023, roughly half of renter households were housing cost-burdened, per the 2023 American Community Survey — meaning, they were spending more than 30% of their income on housing. That amounts to nearly 21 million households in total.
Triple-unit houses can help solve the problem by allowing for more individual units within the same lot — provided they can be built more affordably.
To that end, though, the Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing program could help. It's a program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that provides funding and incentives to state and local governments for facilitating affordable housing.
Specifically, the program targets communities that are actively taking steps to remove affordable housing barriers such as outdated zoning laws and inefficient procedures.
Not only can triplexes help address the U.S. housing crisis, but they could also promote multigenerational living, which is a beneficial thing itself.
Among adults in multigenerational households, 40% point to financial relief as a perk, according to Pew Research Center. And for 33%, this arrangement helps address the need for caregiving.
Critics of triplexes might argue that they're not only eyesores, but that they exacerbate density issues in already packed cities and have the potential to de-value nearby properties. In the wrong context, these buildings could cause more harm than good. They can be easily converted into luxurious single-family homes or they may be bought for cheap and demolished since land values are high.
"In these cases then instead of just gently encouraging more density like we want, it just serves to increase land values until longtime residents are forced out and it ends up solving nothing in the end," says Hicks.
But all told, there's much to be gained by removing barriers to triplex construction. As Hicks says, 'Folks are coming to recognize just how important these buildings are to their cities and the people who live in them.'
Is your savings account struggling to keep up with soaring grocery prices? Here's how 2 minutes can earn you 9X the US national average — with no monthly fees
One dozen eggs in America now costs $4.15 — and $14.35 for a pound of sirloin steak. Both record highs. 3 simple ways to protect your wealth in 2025
Jamie Dimon issues a warning about the US stock market — says prices are 'kind of inflated.' Crashproof your portfolio with these 3 rock-solid strategies
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
More Indy seniors seek rental flexibility
Roughly 13.5% of Indianapolis area renters were 65 or older in 2023, up from 8.9% a decade earlier, according to a report by rental listing site Point2Homes. The big picture: More older Americans trading home ownership for flexibility coincides with a larger embrace of micro-living, a trend taking off in Central Indiana as people seek a "less is more" lifestyle. State of play: Many older adults are on fixed incomes and stay in their homes because they're mortgage-free or have a low interest rate. But others are renting for less upkeep, to be closer to family or for walkable neighborhoods. More Indy seniors are also postponing retirement and want the flexibility to move for a job. Between the lines:" Active adult" rental communities (think: resort pools and yoga gardens) are expanding quickly as a lower-cost option for those who want to downsize but don't need traditional independent living services, according to the National Investment Center for Seniors Housing & Care. Zoom in: Hamilton County, in particular, is leaning into such developments to attract the state's rapidly aging population to active adult communities in Noblesville, Westfield and Fishers. During this week's Carmel City Council meeting, details were unveiled for an $88 million development on Old Meridian Street that would add 200 apartments for seniors and a new park dedicated to veterans. By the numbers: Nationwide, the share of renters 65 or older rose to 13.4% in 2023, up from 10.4% in 2013. That age group saw the biggest jump of any, researchers found. Just two of 75 major U.S. metro areas posted a decline in the share of renters over 65. Reality check: People ages 25-34 are still the most likely to lease, representing around 27% of U.S. renters, per the report, which looked at Census Bureau data.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Georgia electricity costs rise amid data center boom
Electricity costs are rising in Georgia and across the country — and could get even higher for some amid the explosion in data centers powering AI and more. Why it matters: Surging power bills could further stress many Americans' budgets as pretty much everything else gets more expensive, too. By the numbers: Georgia's average retail residential price for 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity rose from 14.93 cents to 15 cents between May 2024 and May 2025, per the latest available data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a gain of about 0.5%. That statistic includes all utilities, not just Georgia Power, which provides electricity to 2.8 million ratepayers, mostly in metro Atlanta. Context: Georgia Power residential customers using more than 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity are paying roughly $43 more monthly to turn on their lights compared with 2023, Georgia Recorder reports. That increase has helped pay for Plant Vogtle's two new over-budget nuclear reactors and fuel costs. Add a July with record-high temperatures and it becomes clearer why some customers saw their electricity bills double or triple. Caveat: In July, the Georgia Public Service Commission approved a plan to keep Georgia Power rates stable through 2028. However, the utility next year will ask the regulators to pass clean-up costs related to Hurricane Helene and other storms on to customers. Zoom in: Georgia Power wants to add 9,000 megawatts of capacity by 2031 to handle a (potentially overestimated) data center boom, according to Georgia Recorder. 80% of that new electricity would be consumed by data centers and generated mostly using fossil fuels. The intrigue: In January, the PSC approved a rule change that the utility regulator says would protect residential ratepayers from surges in demand from data centers. A bill to codify that policy, which consumer advocates say could provide ratepayers with greater protections, passed out of committee during the most recent Georgia General Assembly but did not receive a full vote. The bottom line: Many of us are paying for the AI boom, whether we use the tech or not.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Say farewell to the AI bubble, and get ready for the crash
Most people not deeply involved in the artificial intelligence frenzy may not have noticed, but perceptions of AI's relentless march toward becoming more intelligent than humans, even becoming a threat to humanity, came to a screeching halt Aug. 7. That was the day when the most widely followed AI company, OpenAI, released GPT-5, an advanced product that the firm had long promised would put competitors to shame and launch a new revolution in this purportedly revolutionary technology. As it happened, GPT-5 was a bust. It turned out to be less user-friendly and in many ways less capable than its predecessors in OpenAI's arsenal. It made the same sort of risible errors in answering users' prompts, was no better in math (or even worse), and not at all the advance that OpenAI and its chief executive, Sam Altman, had been talking up. 'The thought was that this growth would be exponential,' says Alex Hanna, a technology critic and co-author (with Emily M. Bender of the University of Washington) of the indispensable new book 'The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want.' 'Instead, Hanna says, 'We're hitting a wall.' The consequences go beyond how so many business leaders and ordinary Americans have been led to expect, even fear, the penetration of AI into our lives. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested by venture capitalists and major corporations such as Google, Amazon and Microsoft in OpenAI and its multitude of fellow AI labs, even though none of the AI labs has turned a profit. Public companies have scurried to announce AI investments or claim AI capabilities for their products in the hope of turbocharging their share prices, much as an earlier generation of businesses promoted themselves as 'dot-coms' in the 1990s to look more glittery in investors' eyes. Nvidia, the maker of a high-powered chip powering AI research, plays almost the same role as a stock market leader that Intel Corp., another chip-maker, played in the 1990s — helping to prop up the bull market in equities. If the promise of AI turns out to be as much of a mirage as dot-coms did, stock investors may face a painful reckoning. The cheerless rollout of GPT-5 could bring the day of reckoning closer. 'AI companies are really buoying the American economy right now, and it's looking very bubble-shaped,' Hanna told me. The rollout was so disappointing that it shined a spotlight on the degree that the whole AI industry has been dependent on hype. Here's Altman, speaking just before the unveiling of GPT-5, comparing it with its immediate predecessor, GPT-4o: 'GPT-4o maybe it was like talking to a college student,' he said. 'With GPT-5 now it's like talking to an expert — a legitimate PhD-level expert in anything any area you need on demand ... whatever your goals are.' Well, not so much. When one user asked it to produce a map of the U.S. with all the states labeled, GPT-5 extruded a fantasyland, including states such as Tonnessee, Mississipo and West Wigina. Another prompted the model for a list of the first 12 presidents, with names and pictures. It only came up with nine, including presidents Gearge Washington, John Quincy Adama and Thomason Jefferson. Experienced users of the new version's predecessor models were appalled, not least by OpenAI's decision to shut down access to its older versions and force users to rely on the new one. 'GPT5 is horrible,' wrote a user on Reddit. 'Short replies that are insufficient, more obnoxious ai stylized talking, less 'personality' … and we don't have the option to just use other models.' (OpenAI quickly relented, reopening access to the older versions.) The tech media was also unimpressed. 'A bit of a dud,' judged the website Futurism and Ars Technica termed the rollout 'a big mess.' I asked OpenAI to comment on the dismal public reaction to GPT-5, but didn't hear back. None of this means that the hype machine underpinning most public expectations of AI has taken a breather. Rather, it remains in overdrive. A projection of AI's development over the coming years published by something called the AI Futures Project under the title 'AI 2027' states: 'We predict that the impact of superhuman AI over the next decade will be enormous, exceeding that of the Industrial Revolution.' The rest of the document, mapping a course to late 2027 when an AI agent 'finally understands its own cognition,' is so loopily over the top that I wondered whether it wasn't meant as a parody of excessive AI hype. I asked its creators if that was so, but haven't received a reply. One problem underscored by GPT-5's underwhelming rollout is that it exploded one of the most cherished principles of the AI world, which is that 'scaling up' — endowing the technology with more computing power and more data — would bring the grail of artificial general intelligence, or AGI, ever closer to reality. That's the principle undergirding the AI industry's vast expenditures on data centers and high-performance chips. The demand for more data and more data-crunching capabilities will require about $3 trillion in capital just by 2028, in the estimation of Morgan Stanley. That would outstrip the capacity of the global credit and derivative securities markets. But if AI won't scale up, most if not all that money will be wasted. As Bender and Hanna point out in their book, AI promoters have kept investors and followers enthralled by relying on a vague public understanding of the term 'intelligence.' AI bots seem intelligent, because they've achieved the ability to seem coherent in their use of language. But that's different from cognition. 'So we're imagining a mind behind the words,' Hanna says, 'and that becomes associated with consciousness or intelligence. But the notion of general intelligence is not really well-defined.' Indeed, as long ago as the 1960s, that phenomenon was noticed by Joseph Weizenbaum, the designer of the pioneering chatbot ELIZA, which replicated the responses of a psychotherapist so convincingly that even test subjects who knew they were conversing with a machine thought it displayed emotions and empathy. 'What I had not realized,' Weizenbaum wrote in 1976, 'is that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people.' Weizenbaum warned that the 'reckless anthropomorphization of the computer' — that is, treating it as some sort of thinking companion — produced a 'simpleminded view of intelligence.' That tendency has been exploited by today's AI promoters. They label the frequent mistakes and fabrications produced by AI bots as 'hallucinations,' which suggests that the bots have perceptions that may have gone slightly awry. But the bots 'don't have perceptions,' Bender and Hanna write, 'and suggesting that they do is yet more unhelpful anthropomorphization.' The general public may finally be cottoning on to the failed promise of AI more generally. Predictions that AI will lead to large-scale job losses in creative and STEM fields (science, technology, engineering and math) might inspire feelings that the whole enterprise was a tech-industry scam from the outset. Predictions that AI would yield a burst of increased worker productivity haven't been fulfilled; in many fields, productivity declines, in part because workers have to be deployed to double-check AI outputs, lest their mistakes or fabrications find their way into mission-critical applications — legal briefs incorporating nonexistent precedents, medical prescriptions with life-threatening ramifications and so on. Some economists are dashing cold water on predictions of economic gains more generally. MIT economist Daron Acemoglu, for example, forecast last year that AI would produce an increase of only about 0.5% in U.S. productivity and an increase of about 1% in gross domestic product over the next 10 years, mere fractions of the AI camp's projections. The value of Bender's and Hanna's book, and the lesson of GPT-5, is that they remind us that 'artificial intelligence' isn't a scientific term or an engineering term. It's a marketing term. And that's true of all the chatter about AI eventually taking over the world. 'Claims around consciousness and sentience are a tactic to sell you on AI,' Bender and Hanna write. So, too, is the talk about the billions, or trillions, to be made in AI. As with any technology, the profits will go to a small cadre, while the rest of us pay the price ... unless we gain a much clearer perception of what AI is, and more importantly, what it isn't.
