Chicago is the third largest city in the United States. How many housing units should be built in the city each year?

In Chicago, fewer than 5,000 new units were completed over the past year — about 0.8% of existing inventory — nowhere near enough to meet demand. To close the gap, production will have to accelerate dramatically in the years ahead. In other words, the city of big shoulders needs to get to work. Chicago doesn’t just need more housing — it needs far more housing, an increase of a scale we haven’t seen in years. That won’t happen if lawmakers don’t get more obstacles out of the way.
The Chicago area ranks among the three worst metros in the nation for housing underproduction, behind New York and Los Angeles, according to a 2022 report from nonpartisan group Up for Growth, and the gap has not improved meaningfully since then.
The argument in this editorial is that this figure is far too low. The city needs more units built, if only to help counter rising prices for purchasing and renting.
But what exactly is the number of units a “healthy” city would add each year? 2% of inventory? 5% of inventory? How do these numbers intersect with growth or decline in population with Chicago experiencing a little of each in recent decades. How should these residential units be spread across price points so a city is not just adding really expensive units? The kind of housing residents need might not line up with what developers and builders want to construct.
There is a lot to be figured out here. Having a clear number might help prompt action. It may not. I have seen plenty of numbers over the years from groups suggesting that many units are needed to address affordable housing and little seems to be done in the biggest cities (LA and NYC are also noted above for low construction rates).









