Housing Expert Questions Political Viability of $400,000 Studio Condo Subsidies, Advocates for Bedroom-Based Controls

A prominent real estate developer and "Bill James of floorplans," Bobby Fijan, has ignited discussion on housing policy, asserting that government subsidies should prioritize the number of bedrooms over just the price of a unit. Fijan specifically questioned the political viability of public funds supporting high-cost, compact dwellings, stating, "There would HAVE to be a control for the number of bedrooms, not just price. A subsidy for $400,000 Studio condos is not politically viable.

Fijan, known for his work with Form Developers and his advocacy for family-friendly housing, has consistently highlighted the disparity between market-driven construction of smaller units and the growing need for multi-bedroom apartments. His perspective underscores a broader debate within urban planning and housing affordability, where short-term financial incentives often lead developers to build studios and one-bedroom units, despite a societal need for larger family accommodations. He argues that current underwriting logic rewards smaller apartments, which generate higher rent per square foot.

The political landscape surrounding housing subsidies is complex, with ongoing discussions about the most effective and equitable allocation of public resources. While project-based subsidies aim to influence new construction, critics often point to inefficiencies and potential for misallocation. The viability of subsidizing expensive, small units like $400,000 studio condos is frequently challenged, particularly when such investments may not address the core needs of families or broader housing shortages.

Experts suggest that a shift in focus from mere unit price to the functional capacity of a home, such as its bedroom count, could lead to more impactful housing policies. This approach aligns with Fijan's call for "control for the number of bedrooms," aiming to ensure that subsidies contribute to the creation of housing suitable for diverse household structures, rather than inadvertently inflating prices for less family-oriented units. The debate continues on how to best balance market incentives with public housing goals to foster sustainable urban communities.