Densification reforms left out regular folks and completely ignored those barely getting by.

Housing reform promised affordability and equity, but by chasing density at all costs, it dismantled neighborhoods and displaced the very people who formed the foundation of our civic community.

Promises and Realities

Focus matters for any serious work effort and should begin where the need is greatest. Since 2010, Nashville has focused aggressively on housing production, setting national records for both zoning reforms enabling that production and the number of units built. But output (production) alone is not the same as progress — especially when the results leave the majority behind and the most vulnerable even further behind. A thriving city requires more than volume — it requires vision, values, and fairness.

​

Today, consultants and think tanks are calling to "turn up the volume" to subdivide and densify: do more of the same, but only faster. But scaling a bad song only amplifies the failure. You can't turn a flop into a classic just by turning up the volume—or zoning.

​

• Promised: More homes = more affordability

• Reality: Prices rose, not fell. Land costs surged. Builders chased the high-end, not working families.

• Promised: Smaller, denser homes would help working families.

• Reality: "Skinny" homes on small lots pushed out middle- and low-income buyers—replacing them with investor-owned rentals.

• Promised: Families of modest means could build wealth through homeownership.

• Reality: That promise unfulfilled. See the "Get all the facts" articles: More homes, higher prices, no affordability gain, Where have all the houses gone, and the Impact article on Cultural Displacement. And yet, here we are again. [link]

• Promised: An increased housing supply would bring lower housing costs, greater equity, fairness, and increased access.

• Reality: The new supply overwhelmingly serves wealthier buyers and corporate ownership while pushing middle- and low-income households further away from options, especially communities of color.

In Nashville:

• There are only 88 affordable and available homes per 100 households earning ≤80% of Area Median Income (AMI)

• Only 47 homes per 100 households earning ≤50% of AMI

(Source: National Low Income Housing Coalition)

• Promised: Middle-density solutions will be more walkable and create opportunities for Hispanic and Black families.

• Reality: Historic fabric was lost, and affordable homes were replaced with units priced above 50–80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) — a local example being The Nations. 

• Today's "cool vibe" came at the expense of the community: neighbors and neighborhoods were displaced, cultural roots severed, and opportunities to live near the city center were erased. The architecture was replaced with repeatable, tall skinnies that could belong to any city, anywhere.

• Promised: Reform would reduce displacement.

• Reality: Demolitions accelerated. Longtime residents were priced out. Nashville experienced more turnover and displacement rather than stability.

• Promised: Density will help the environment by reducing sprawl.

• Reality: Demolitions for tall skinnies and large-footprint homes have destroyed tree canopies across the city, especially in West Nashville, where homes once coexisted with the fragile ecology of the Western Highland Rim. In the rush to "check the box" for density, we're sacrificing the very things that made Nashville worth living in.

Sources:

Urban Institute and HUD filtering studies

• Key finding: “Filtering” happens slowly, inconsistently, and often not at all in hot-market cities

• “Filtered” units often don’t reach <60% AMI levels before being removed from the stock

Brookings, NYU Furman Center, and Grounded Solutions Network

• These institutions have published critical assessments of the filtering theory, especially where supply is driven by high-end infill and investor interest

Data from Nashville’s permit and demolition trends (Codes Department / Planning)

• Shows more units being demolished than added in some lower-income zones

• Confirms “replacement” housing is often more expensive than what was lost