If the U.S. electorate mirrors its increasingly urban population, city-dwelling voters will account for a higher share of ballots cast in the 2024 Presidential Election than in any contest in U.S. history.

These voters deserve a more serious national discourse about cities, which is presently dominated by political theater and media hysteria portraying urban cores as hopelessly overrun with crime. These narratives obscure an important truth: cities are the engines that drive the U.S. economy. Roughly 90% of U.S. GDP comes from metropolitan economic output, and the vast majority of high-growth firms reside in cities. Cities are also the government’s coin purse; their residents contribute disproportionately high sums of money to the federal tax base. And cities are incubators of innovation. From 1980 to 2012, 63% of U.S. patents emerged from inventors in just 20 metro areas. Simply put, benefits from achievements of thriving cities are shared by the entire population.

And yet, U.S. residents’ continued migration toward population centers coincides with growing concerns about the future of cities. Chief among these concerns is the catastrophic lack of affordable housing in major metropolises. Developing policies that address this housing crisis – and do so both equitably and sustainably – is essential not just to securing the future welfare of urban populations, but to the success of the United States at large.

Any credible presidential candidate will act, and campaign, accordingly.

As candidates make their pitch to voters in the coming months, housing in the U.S. has never been less affordable. The housing crisis is largely the result of a lack of supply – experts estimate that the U.S. is 1.5 million to 6 million homes short of meeting demand – that drives prices upward, locks Americans out of home ownership, and deepens economic and racial inequality. As of 2021, a record high of roughly 40 million households in the U.S. were cost-burdened by housing, meaning they pay more than 30% of their income for their place of residence.

The crisis manifests itself most plainly in cities, where high demand causes prices to skyrocket and restrictive zoning laws impede efforts to build more housing. Policy experts have long advocated for zoning reform in cities, and state governments are beginning to take action, seeking to boost housing supply by amending zoning laws to allow for higher-density housing, taller residential buildings, smaller lot sizes, and fewer restrictions on street parking.  

But pro-housing policy innovations at the state and local level are not sufficient to remedy this crisis. Any aspiring president should articulate a role for the federal government in fixing the housing market – and providing financial support to the citizens it has systematically excluded. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides tax credits and subsidies explicitly designed to address these problems, but these programs are woefully underfunded. A radical expansion of funding for HUD programs would help cities raise the capital needed to build affordable housing and throw cost-burdened renters and homeowners a much-needed lifeline.

Federal investment in urban housing is not just a means of addressing the housing shortage. Presidential candidates may also promote it as a pillar of a comprehensive climate strategy. Climate scientists have consistently identified “upzoning” – or policies that increase the density of cities – as one of the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions. People who live in high-density urban areas walk more, drive less, and live in smaller homes that use less energy. However, these carbon efficiencies are completely offset by suburban households, which emit nearly four times the greenhouse gas of their urban counterparts. With this disparity in mind, aggressive upzoning is nothing short of a climate policy imperative. 

Finally, affordable housing in high-density areas can be the engine of economic equity. By situating new housing in high-income urban neighborhoods that have historically restricted the construction of new homes, cities can give lower-income residents affordable options with greater access to opportunity. Too many U.S. cities are defined by entrenched, institutionalized forms of segregation that perpetuate poverty and continue the legacy of racist 20th century urban policy. Directing “upzoning” efforts toward higher income neighborhoods can help break this cycle.

One study estimates that the U.S. will need to build 20 million new homes in the next ten years to keep up with demand. Where and how these homes are built will go a long way in shaping the future of the U.S. economy and its capacity to combat climate change. With the right reforms and commitment of federal resources, cities can be the epicenter of an affordable housing expansion that lifts marginalized communities and puts a massive dent in the U.S. carbon footprint.