UCLA Housing Voice

North American buildings are built different — literally. Councilmember Jesse Zwick explains how the organization behind our unusual standards is built to fail, and he makes the case for a new approach. This is part 3 of our series on misaligned incentives in housing policy. Show notes:Zwick, J. (2025). Out of Code: The Hidden Costs of US Building Standards.Episode 78 of UCLA Housing Voice, on the relationship between building height and construction costs (in the US).Wikipedia article on the Grenfell Tower fire in London.Stephen Smith’s Slate article about elevator building codes.Episode 98 of UCLA Housing Voice, on elevator building code in the US and Canada.Strong Towns article featuring the quote by Lawrence Veiller.

Elevators in the U.S. and Canada cost 3–5 times as much as elevators in other high-income countries. Stephen Smith explains why and how our well-intentioned elevator standards make cities less safe and accessible. This is part two of our series on misaligned incentives in housing policy.Show notes:Smith, S. (2024). Elevators. Center for Building in North America.Part 1 of the Incentives Series, Single-Stair Buildings and Eco-Districts with Michael Eliason.Abstract:Americans make over 20 billion trips per year by elevator – twice the number of trips made by what people think of as mass transit. Despite the association between elevators and high-rises, the average elevator in the United States only has four landings, with elevators being as much a tool for convenience and accessibility as for able-bodied necessity.But despite being the birthplace of the modern passenger elevator, the United States has fallen far behind its peers. Elevators in the United States have remained a fairly niche item in residential settings – expected in a high-rise or a big new mid-rise apartment building, but otherwise largely absent from the middle-class home. In absolute terms, the United States has fewer elevators than Spain – a country with one-seventh the population, and fewer than half the number of apartments. And behind its lack of elevators, North America faces a crippling cost problem. The price to install an elevator in a new mid-rise building in the United States or Canada is now at least three times the cost in Western Europe or East Asia. Ongoing expenses like service contracts, periodic inspections, repairs, and modernizations are just as overpriced. High-income countries with strong labor movements and high safety standards from South Korea to Switzerland have found ways to install wheelchair-accessible elevators in mid-rise apartment buildings for around $50,000 each, even after adjusting for America’s typically higher general price levels. In the United States and Canada, on the other hand, these installations start at around $150,000 in even low-cost areas.

This is the first episode of our series on misaligned incentives in housing policy. Michael Eliason shares insights from his book, Building for People, on building code reforms and eco-district redevelopment projects throughout Europe.Show notes:Eliason, M. (2024). Building for People: Designing Livable, Affordable, Low-Carbon Communities. Island Press.Youtube video of Vauban, an eco-district in Freiburg, Germany.City of Paris website on the Clichy-Batignolles eco-district, with photos.Episode 59 of UCLA Housing Voice, on the Costs of Discretion with Paavo Monkkonen and Mike Manville.Google Maps view of the Confluence eco-district in Lyon, France and the neighborhood directly to the north.Episode 14 of UCLA Housing Voice, on Family-Friendly Urbanism with Louis Thomas. Check out Stephen Smith’s single-stair and elevator reform tracker at the Center for Building in North America website.

Housing vouchers provide critical assistance to low-income renters, but roughly 40% of vouchers go unused, in part due to difficulty finding landlords to accept them. Vincent Reina shares findings from a pilot program that instead gives cash assistance directly to tenants.Abstract: This article examines a new rental assistance program in Philadelphia, called PHLHousing+, that disburses unconditional cash payments directly to tenants to eliminate their housing cost burden. The program is designed as a 2.5-year randomized controlled trial that aims to test the impact of direct- to-tenant cash assistance on household outcomes compared with traditional housing vouchers. The motivations for the program range from the need for more flexible tools that respond to the diverse needs of low-income renters to the desire for a robust evidence base on effective policies to improve household outcomes. The article also discusses the evolution of the idea behind PHLHousing+ before the COVID-19 pandemic through to its development, using knowledge obtained from upscaling local pandemic emergency rental assistance programs. Finally, the article describes the program’s implementation, including participant enrollment, strategies to minimize benefits loss, and cash disbursement mechanisms. It reflects on the lessons learned throughout this process, such as the importance of flexible funding and a strong research-practice partnership. The goal is to provide guidance to those planning similar programs and inform local and national policy, especially on direct-to-tenant, cash-based housing assistance.Show notes:Reina, V., Fowle, M., Jaffee, S., Mulbry, R., & Fortenberry, M. (2024). The Future of Rental Assistance. Cityscape, 26(2), 293-308.Reina, V., Jaffee, S., Fowle, M., Tanski, M., Mulberry, R., & Fortenberry, M. (2025). PHLHousing+: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Cash-Based Alternative to the Housing Choice Voucher Program in Philadelphia, PA: Housing Outcomes in Year Two. Housing Initiative at Penn, Risk and Resilience Lab, and Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation.And a link to the working paper here.Episode 17 of UCLA Housing Voice, on using fair market rents to improve housing vouchers with Rob Collinson.Episode 87 of UCLA Housing Voice, on housing voucher lease-up rates with Sarah Strochak.Episode 88 of UCLA Housing Voice, on improving voucher outcomes with Dionissi Aliprantis.Episode 65 of UCLA Housing Voice, on reducing homelessness with unconditional lump sum cash payments with Jiaying Zhao.Reina, V. J., O’Regan, K., Jang-Trettien, C., & Kurban, H. (2025). Expanding Access to Rental Assistance: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go From Here? Housing Policy Debate, 35(3), 552-568.

Our next interview will be out soon. In the meantime, we're asking for listener questions for a special recording celebrating our 100th episode)(!!), and ideas for a UCLA Housing Voice book club. Send 'em to shanephillips@ucla.edu.

Tobias Peter, a senior fellow and co-director of AEI's Housing Center, dives into Seattle's successful low-rise multifamily zoning that has produced over 20,000 townhomes in three decades. He discusses the benefits of detailed case studies, the evolution of project designs, and why fee-simple townhouses are popular. Tobias explains the impact of inclusionary rules on housing production and debunks misconceptions about upzoning affecting property values. His insights offer valuable lessons for cities looking to enhance housing affordability.

Rob Collinson, an Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Notre Dame, dives into the complexities of the Housing Choice Voucher program. He discusses the gap between eligible households and those receiving assistance, advocating for reforms to maximize its impact. The conversation explores how housing voucher design influences rent and neighborhood quality, with insights into the challenges landlords face and the critical need for effective tenant counseling. Collinson also sheds light on the implications of recent policy shifts on opportunity for low-income families.

For people with disabilities, ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft can be a lifeline or a pain — or both. Abigail Cochran shares what she learned from individuals with disabilities about what’s working and what’s not.Show Notes:Cochran, A. L. (2022). How and why do people with disabilities use app-based ridehailing? Case Studies on Transport Policy, 10(4), 2556-2562.99% Invisible podcast episode on the “curb cut effect.”Venkataram, P. S., Flynn, J. A., Bhuiya, M. M. R., Barajas, J. M., & Handy, S. (2023). Framing availability and usability of transportation for people with disabilities. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 22, 100961.Cochran, A. L., & Chatman, D. G. (2021). Use of app-based ridehailing services and conventional taxicabs by adults with disabilities. Travel Behaviour and Society, 24, 124-131.

Shared micromobility programs offering scooters and bikes have exploded across the US in recent years, but the benefits haven't been shared evenly. Anne Brown joins to discuss the equity goals and mandates cities are requiring of operators, and which seem to be most effective.Show Notes:Brown, A., & Howell, A. (2024). Mobility for the people: Equity requirements in US shared micromobility programs. Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research, Volume 2, 2024, 100020,ISSN 2950-1059, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmr.2024.100020. Brown, A., & Howell, A. (2025.) From Paper to Practice: Shared Micromobility Requirements and Outcomes (preprint; forthcoming Transportation Research Interdisplinary Perspectives).Brown, A., & Howell, A. (2024.) Small fares for small modes: Discount Ride Programs and Equity in US Shared Micromobility Programs (preprint). Operationalizing Equity: US Micromobility Equity Requirements Database.MacArthur, J., Fang, K., & Thigpen, C. (2024). Taxing Shared Micromobility: Assessing the Global Landscape of Fees and Taxes and Their Implications for Cities, Riders, and Operators. Portland State University Transportation Research and Education Center.LADOT Year 1 Snapshot: A review of the 2019-2020 dockless vehicle program.

Do people drive less because they live in buildings that don’t provide parking, or do they live in buildings that don’t provide parking because they drive less? That question has huge implications for how we build and rebuild our cities, yet researchers have struggled for decades to answer it conclusively. UCLA professor Adam Millard-Ball joins us to discuss new research that finally — we hope — puts the question to bed. Taking advantage of San Francisco’s affordable housing lottery, Millard-Ball and colleagues find that (as-good-as-)randomly assigning tenants to different buildings and neighborhoods has substantial impacts on their transportation choices, with lower parking ratios resulting in less driving and more transit use. We talk about what this means for housing and parking policy, and what it says about the behavioral shifts needed to make cities more affordable, accessible, and sustainable.Show notes:Millard-Ball, A., West, J., Rezaei, N., & Desai, G. (2022). What do residential lotteries show us about transportation choices?. Urban Studies, 59(2), 434-452.Free summary of article at Transfers Magazine.Chatman, D. G. (2013). Does TOD need the T? On the importance of factors other than rail access. Journal of the American Planning Association, 79(1), 17-31.On parking cash-out programs: Shoup, Don. (2017). Opinion: Here’s an easy way to fight L.A.'s traffic and boost transit ridership — reward commuters who don’t drive. Los Angeles Times.Blumenberg, E., & Pierce, G. (2017). The drive to work: The relationship between transportation access, housing assistance, and employment among participants in the welfare to work voucher program. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(1), 66-82.King, D. A., Smart, M. J., & Manville, M. (2019). The poverty of the carless: Toward universal auto access. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0739456X18823252.