Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Spring is when Indiana’s housing market traditionally wakes up.
“For Sale” signs begin popping up across neighborhoods, buyers start flooding open houses, and families hoping to move before the next school year begin their search in earnest.
But this year, as in recent years, many Hoosiers are running into the same hard reality: There simply are not enough places to live.
Inventory remains tight, home prices continue to strain affordability, and rents in many communities are still rising faster than wages. Indiana’s housing shortage is no longer a matter of debate. The question now is what we are prepared to do about it.
One answer might already be sitting in plain sight.
Drive through Indianapolis or almost any midsize Indiana city, and the landscape tells the story. Aging strip centers with half-empty storefronts. Former big-box retailers sitting vacant. Expansive parking lots built for shopping patterns that no longer exist.
At the same time, employers are struggling to attract workers, young families are finding starter homes increasingly out of reach, and communities are searching for ways to grow without sprawling endlessly outward.
That is not simply a housing problem. It is an economic development problem.
If workers cannot find attainable housing near jobs, businesses have a harder time recruiting and retaining talent. When businesses cannot grow, local economies suffer. Housing policy and economic policy are now inseparable.
Other states have begun rethinking how underused commercial property can be repurposed for residential use. The broader lesson is one Indiana should seriously consider: Vacant retail corridors and obsolete commercial sites might offer one of the most practical paths to increasing housing supply.
Take Washington Square on Indianapolis’ east side.
At roughly 1.1 million square feet, the site represents a significant redevelopment opportunity. Depending on design, infrastructure capacity and local planning decisions, it could support hundreds of housing units, potentially even more as part of a mixed-use project that includes retail, services and community space.
Across the state, there are dormant commercial properties that already have roads, sewer access, utility connections and transportation infrastructure. Much of the groundwork has already been laid, making redevelopment potentially faster and more cost-effective than building entirely new subdivisions on undeveloped land.
This is not an argument against single-family neighborhoods. Many Hoosiers still want that traditional model, and many communities will continue to need it.
But not every buyer wants a large lot and a backyard, and increasingly many cannot afford one.
The issue is not replacing one housing model with another. It is expanding options—town houses, apartments, mixed-use developments and workforce housing that meets today’s market realities.
Local control should remain central to that conversation. What makes sense in Indianapolis might not fit Kokomo, Terre Haute or smaller rural communities.
Still, state and local policymakers should take a hard look at zoning restrictions and regulatory barriers that make these conversions more difficult than they need to be.
Indiana has spent years discussing where housing should not go.
As the spring market ramps up once again, perhaps it is time to focus on where it can.
Some of the best opportunities might already be hiding in plain sight—in empty storefronts, aging malls and parking lots waiting for a second life.•
__________
Shabazz is an attorney, radio talk show host and political commentator, college professor and stand-up comedian. Send comments to [email protected].
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Abdul has stated the obvious and most feasible and positive solutions to many of our urban development challenges. Unfortunately his simple ideas require change in our ordinances, their implementation, and change in our understanding of urban planning. Change would also be difficult to attempt, and difficult to convince the planning staff and their elected and appointed hierarchy of leadership. They are all afraid of change, it would shake up their job security and their status quo thinking of only considering the current zoning and land use ordinances, which is easier and more secure for them all. If we don’t change, we slowly die, as will our cities. It’s time to quit being afraid for positive change and make the change in our land use and zoning ordinances.