The United States faces a critical housing shortfall, with more than four million units needed to keep up with rising demand. The gap has fueled record rent burdens and pushed homelessness to historic levels, with more than 770,000 homeless accounted for officially last year. Even President Donald Trump has floated the idea of declaring a national emergency to address the crisis.
According to LendingTree, there are nearly 15 million vacant homes across the country. More than five million of those are in just the 50 largest metro areas. On the surface, the numbers suggest a potential solution: why not fill these empty units to close the gap?
The problem is that not all vacancies are created equal. The Census Bureau defines a home as vacant if no one is living in it at the time of survey. This category encompasses move-in-ready apartments, seasonal vacation homes, and properties temporarily off the market. Many cannot easily be converted into affordable housing, because the issue is not only about quantity of structures but also about location, quality, and cost.
Reviving Abandoned Homes in Struggling Cities
For cities like Baltimore and Detroit, tackling abandonment is crucial. Detroit once had nearly 100,000 vacant houses after the Great Recession. Its land bank authority has since demolished over 27,000 unsafe structures and sold 20,000 properties to new owners, helping stabilize neighborhoods and prevent further decline.
Baltimore is attempting a similar model. Having nearly 13,000 vacant homes, the city faces particular challenges because many are rowhouses that share walls. When one deteriorates, it damages those next door. Governor Wes Moore has committed to eliminating 5,000 vacant properties within five years, though local developers stress that available funding falls far short of what is needed.
Why Do Homes Sit Empty?
A large share of vacant properties reflect the normal churn of the rental market. Roughly one-third are in transition between tenants, and another fifth are seasonal homes or vacation properties. That helps explain why markets with very low vacancy rates, such as Portland or Washington, DC, also see extremely high rents: too few openings create more competition and higher costs.
Speculation adds another wrinkle. In high-cost cities, some investors buy units not to live in or rent out, but to hold as financial assets. In New York, higher vacancy rates are often found in luxury buildings rather than in lower-income neighborhoods. Cities like Vancouver and Oakland have responded with vacancy taxes to push investors to put properties back into use, though enforcement challenges remain.
Beyond Housing Stock
The lesson is clear: vacant homes alone cannot resolve the housing shortage. Local reuse strategies, anti-speculation policies, and creative conversions all matter, but the heart of the solution still lies in building more homes where people need them most.
The post Why Empty Homes Alone Can’t Fix America’s Housing Crisis first appeared on The MortgagePoint.
