Why It Matters
Massachusetts is failing to match its housing supply to the way residents actually live, according to a new report from the Pioneer Institute. With households growing smaller and land costs soaring, the gap between the homes being built and the homes people need is widening — squeezing young families and older residents alike.
What Happened
The Boston-based Pioneer Institute released a report Wednesday arguing that Massachusetts has dramatically underbuilt small, affordable starter homes at a time when most households consist of just one or two people. The report was authored by Andrew Mikula, a housing researcher who also leads a related ballot initiative.
Mikula found that the state’s housing stock has grown larger even as its households have grown smaller. “It’s like we forgot how to build smaller homes that can be more affordable for folks,” he said.
The report highlights a structural mismatch driven in part by local zoning rules that require large lot sizes and extensive road frontage, making compact, lower-cost homes financially difficult or legally impossible to build in many communities.
By the Numbers
The demographic shift underlying the report is substantial. Average household size in Massachusetts fell from 3.23 people in 1970 to 2.52 people in 2024. By last year, 63 percent of all Massachusetts households contained just one or two people — yet only 44 percent of occupied housing units had two or fewer bedrooms.
The supply problem has grown worse over time: Massachusetts has roughly 8,000 fewer single-family homes with two or fewer bedrooms than it did in 2010. Meanwhile, the average value of a single-family residential land parcel in the state surpassed $1 million per acre in 2022, a figure that makes small-lot construction financially challenging without regulatory changes.
The senior housing mismatch is also striking. In 1980, about one-third of households headed by an adult 65 or older were in homes with three or more bedrooms. By 2025, that share had climbed to more than half — meaning many older residents are occupying larger homes than they need while younger families struggle to find appropriately sized ones.
Demand signals are there: approximately one in five respondents in a recent realtor survey cited a desire for a smaller home as a reason for their purchase.
The Ballot Measure Connection
Mikula also leads the “Legalize Starter Homes” campaign, a ballot measure set to appear before Massachusetts voters in November. The measure would bar communities from requiring lot sizes greater than 5,000 square feet or more than 50 feet of road frontage for single-family homes that have access to public water and sewer. Pioneer Institute is not formally involved in the ballot campaign.
Proponents argue that current local zoning standards effectively prohibit the construction of modestly sized homes even when builders and buyers want them. A home on a 4,000-square-foot lot with roughly 1,200 square feet of living space, for example, can be financially viable at a lower price point — but many Massachusetts municipalities currently forbid such configurations.
The state has taken some steps to address housing density. A housing bond bill passed two years ago legalized accessory dwelling units across all single-family zoning districts in Massachusetts, giving homeowners another avenue to add housing on existing lots. Supporters of the starter homes ballot measure argue that ADU reform, while useful, does not address the fundamental shortage of entry-level single-family homes.
Zoom Out
Massachusetts is not alone in confronting this issue. Across the country, states from Montana to Florida have moved in recent years to loosen local zoning restrictions that limit smaller homes, denser construction, or reduced lot minimums. The national conversation around “missing middle” housing — modest starter homes, duplexes, and small multifamily buildings — has gained momentum as home prices remain elevated in most major metro areas.
What’s Next
The “Legalize Starter Homes” ballot measure will go before Massachusetts voters in the November 2026 election. If approved, it would limit municipalities’ authority to impose large lot-size and frontage requirements on single-family construction connected to public utilities. Opponents of the measure are expected to argue that local communities should retain control over land-use decisions. The Pioneer Institute report is likely to shape that debate ahead of the vote.