“The lack of two- and three-bedroom apartments is not just a housing issue. It is a child success issue, a public health issue, and a community stability issue.”

(Photo via Shutterstock.com)

We often think about housing affordability at a superficial level, simply seeking greater supply to bring down prices. But this ignores a crisis just beneath the surface: the shortage of affordable, family-sized homes in desirable neighborhoods.

When families seek out apartments, they are searching for more than a place to lay their heads. They are searching for safety and community in neighborhoods with decent schools. When we fail to deliver affordable options that meet these needs, parents are forced to raise their children in overcrowded apartments, to shuttle between unstable living arrangements, or even to turn to temporary shelters. Children lose out: their education and relationships are fragmented and their safety is compromised.

The lack of two- and three-bedroom apartments is not just a housing issue. It is a child success issue, a public health issue, and a community stability issue. That is why the City Council’s passage of Int. 1433 to expand the availability of these units is so critical, and why it must move full speed ahead to override former Mayor Eric Adams’s veto—marking the beginning of a whole-of-government campaign to build a more family-friendly city.

At The Children’s Village and Harlem Dowling, two long-standing New York institutions founded on the belief that every child deserves unconditional love and belonging, we see the consequences of housing instability play out every day. 

Families who might otherwise thrive are squeezed by housing options that are too small, too scarce, or too costly. Children do their homework on the edge of a bed because there is no kitchen table. Teenagers sleep on couches because their families cannot secure a second or third bedroom. Sometimes, families that want to stay together are instead forced apart, interrupting a child’s education and leading to the loss of peers and community. 

We know what it takes to deliver for them, because we have built high-quality family housing in desirable neighborhoods. Thirteen years ago, we developed our first two-bedroom units at A Home for Harlem Dowling. We went further last year with The Eliza in Inwood, creating comfortable three-bedroom, two-bathroom homes that allow families of all sizes to put down roots. 

We knew the challenges: both projects pushed our organization to take on significant financial risk, and that’s why places like these are the exception, not the rule. Larger apartments cost more to build: they require more square footage, more walls, more plumbing, and, importantly, more bathrooms so families can live with dignity. In the affordable market, where rents are capped and funding formulas are rigid, these additional costs are too steep for developers—especially mission-driven nonprofits—to absorb without help.

Meanwhile, policies that once encouraged family-sized units across the city have been gutted. The city has steadily reduced requirements for two- and three-bedroom apartments. The market’s preference for studios and one-bedrooms that are cheaper to produce means the supply of family-sized homes shrinks further each year. 

What’s worse, driven by the housing crisis, some well-intentioned leaders are embracing this race to the bottom, exemplified by the recent push to permit construction of single-room apartments (SROs) as small as 100 square feet each. SROs, especially those designed for workers, have been a successful model outside New York—but here, these tiny one-room units with shared bathrooms have a long history of poor management, crime, overcrowding, and segregation. 

Simply put, there is a fundamental misalignment between what families need and what the system rewards, and recent policy shifts are widening that gap rather than closing it.

Thankfully, we also know what works. When larger units are built, turnover drops dramatically. Two and three-bedroom units have the lowest turnover rate of any housing type. That means greater neighborhood stability, stronger multigenerational support networks, better educational continuity for children, and reduced strain on city systems. In other words, they directly contribute to the very outcomes New York City claims to prioritize.

If we want a city where families remain part of the social fabric and not a city hollowed out for single 20-somethings, then we must be bold and change the economic calculus. That starts with incentives, not just mandates.

The city should modernize its subsidy structures to reflect the real cost of building family-sized homes in desirable neighborhoods. Financing tools should reward developers who prioritize these units. Risk-mitigation mechanisms should be strengthened, particularly for nonprofit organizations that reinvest rather than profit. And our regulatory environment should be reshaped so that family housing is treated as essential infrastructure, not a luxury.

We must be clear-eyed: these policy changes will not happen overnight. But we must also be honest: if we do not reverse course, we will continue building a city that works better for tourists and transients than the families who want to call it home. New Yorkers deserve better than that. Our children deserve better than that.

At The Children’s Village, we remain committed to building affordable homes that allow families not only to live in New York City but to flourish here. But we cannot do it alone. The public and nonprofit sectors must work together with urgency, clarity, and creativity to build the housing our families need today and for generations to come.

New York has always been a city for families. We must take decisive action to ensure it stays that way.

Jeremy Kohomban is the president and CEO of The Children’s Village.

The post Opinon: When it Comes to Housing, Let’s Put Families First appeared first on City Limits.