Jeff Lubell recently joined ULI’s Terwilliger Center for Housing as a senior fellow. In this capacity, on a part-time basis, he will provide strategic direction, engage in research, and offer technical support to further the Center’s commitment to ensuring that everyone has a home which meets their needs at a price they can afford. He’ll spend the balance of his time working with the Housing Innovations Group, which provides policy consulting services to state and local governments, foundations, nonprofits, and other clients.
The Terwilliger Center for Housing is part of ULI’s Impact Lab—the “do-tank” arm of the Institute—which delivers practical, action-oriented solutions to real estate market challenges.
The Center will benefit from his nearly 30 years of experience in housing and policy research. His previous roles include serving as the director of state and local initiatives at Abt Global, an international research and consulting firm focused on social and economic policy, health, and international development. He was also the executive director of the Center for Housing Policy in Washington, D.C., and the director of the Policy Development Division at the Office of Policy Development and Research within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Urban Land sat down with Lubell to explore his vision and plans as the new senior fellow for the Terwilliger Center.
Urban Land: Given your extensive experience, how has your journey in housing policy and research shaped your current role and vision at the ULI Terwilliger Center for Housing?
Jeff Lubell: I’ve done a lot of work over the years identifying promising local housing policies. For example, while at Abt Associates [now Abt Global], I helped to co-create LocalHousingSolutions.org—a resource to help local governments develop more effective housing strategies—with colleagues at Abt and the NYU Furman Center. The challenge on that and other similar efforts has been identifying detailed local examples from places outside of the largest and best-documented cities. This is one reason I’m excited to be working at the ULI Terwilliger Center—ULI members and District Councils work throughout the U.S. and overseas and can help us better understand what is working in a wide range of communities.
UL: How will you apply these ideas to your work with the Terwilliger Center?
Lubell: I hope to find ways to tap the expertise of a broad range of ULI members to advance the goal of ensuring there is an adequate supply of housing that meets the needs of people of all incomes, ages, and abilities. I am interested both in getting feedback on particular issues that we identify, such as expanding the supply of missing-middle housing, and in hearing and amplifying ULI members’ own ideas.
UL: What are the primary challenges you aim to tackle in your current housing initiatives, and how do they reflect broader trends in the field?
Lubell: First, how do we produce housing at scale that rents or sells at below-market levels without subsidies? To this end, I’m particularly interested in scaling up the deployment of lower-cost homes produced through offsite construction. Second, how do we facilitate a large expansion in the overall housing supply? Here, I’m focused not only on reducing regulatory barriers to new development but also on expanding water and wastewater infrastructure and addressing workforce needs. Third, I’m part of a team evaluating the Community Choice Demonstration, which seeks to help families with Housing Choice Vouchers access neighborhoods that support educational progress and economic mobility for their children. Fourth, I’ve long been interested in expanding and strengthening a HUD program—the Family Self-Sufficiency program—that helps low-income renters build assets and make progress toward economic security.
UL: You mentioned offsite construction, which has gained traction in recent years. What specific projects or policies exemplify successful implementation of this approach, and what lessons can be learned from them?
Lubell: The key to producing lower-cost homes through offsite construction is to shift away from custom building toward large volume production of standardized homes or home components using industrialized methods. In New York, the state is helping localities purchase CrossMod Homes, an attractive entry-level ranch home produced through a combination of manufactured housing and site work. All in, not counting land, it costs about $250,000, which is well below the costs that would be incurred through conventional stick-built infill construction. In addition to replicating this approach in other places, I am interested in seeing states aggregate the demand to support bulk purchases of lower-cost homes produced through modular and panelized construction.
UL: Beyond offsite construction, what integrated strategies are you advocating for to enhance housing supply? Can you share notable case studies that highlight successful outcomes?
Lubell: I am particularly excited to see the progress that has been made at the state level. This includes both red states like Montana, Texas, and Florida, and blue states like Massachusetts and California. For example, in Montana, ADUs and duplexes are both available as of right in many municipalities. In Florida, the Live Local Act streamlines the development of mixed-income housing, and in Texas, a shot clock expedites residential permit applications. California recently exempted infill development from the California Environmental Quality Act, and in Massachusetts, localities must zone for multifamily housing as of right near transit stations.
UL: Tell me about the website you co-created, LocalHousingSolutions.org, and how you hope it will facilitate the development of more comprehensive local housing strategies. What success stories can you share?
Lubell: Local housing policy is really complex. There are over 100 local housing policies and numerous local agencies that affect the supply, price, or quality of housing. The goal of LocalHousingSolutions.org is to make it easier for elected officials and staff to understand their options and consider how to stitch them together to form a comprehensive local housing strategy. I believe every local community should have one. I’m particularly pleased when I see a small city like Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, draw on guidance from the Local Housing Solutions team to develop a comprehensive local housing strategy.
UL: The Community Choice Demonstration sounds pivotal for families who use Housing Choice Vouchers. What insights have emerged from this initiative, and why do they matter in the context of housing access?
Lubell: The main takeaway from our earlier Rapid Cycle Report is that a program to provide voucher families with housing search assistance and financial supports can successfully expand their housing choices and increase the share who move to an area with low poverty rates and high-performing schools. This matters because the zip code in which a child grows up affects their educational and economic opportunities as a young adult. The next report will consider how the program works in different housing market contexts.
UL: The Family Self-Sufficiency program plays a crucial role in asset-building for low-income families. What insights have you gained from your work on this program, and how does it address broader economic challenges?
Lubell: We have a limited supply of deep rental subsidies like Housing Choice Vouchers. That means we should try very hard to use each subsidy to not only put a roof over a family’s head but also bend the trajectory of their life in a positive way. When the Family Self-Sufficiency Program is administered with excellence, it has real potential to bolster participants’ earnings and credit scores.
