One thing that has always fascinated me about the housing conversation is how often we talk about housing as if it can only be solved by massive organizations. Whenever a city discusses affordability, inventory shortages, or future growth, the conversation usually ends up revolving around large apartment complexes, national homebuilders, institutional investors, and billion-dollar development companies. Those certainly play a role, and there is no denying that large developers can produce housing at a scale that small builders simply cannot. However, I sometimes wonder if we’ve become so focused on large-scale solutions that we’ve overlooked one of the most effective housing production tools available to us: the small developer.
When I say “small developer,” I’m talking about the local builder putting together a duplex, a contractor developing a few townhomes, a husband-and-wife team building a fourplex, or someone who has spent years in the trades and decides to take on a small apartment project. These aren’t companies building thousands of homes across multiple states. These are people whose names are often attached directly to the project. They’re usually local. They often know the neighborhoods they’re building in. More importantly, they’re frequently present throughout the process.
Having spent years around construction sites, demolition projects, permitting, inspections, and development work, I’ve noticed something that I don’t think gets discussed enough. The quality of a project often has less to do with the size of the company and more to do with how connected the decision-makers are to the actual work being performed. That doesn’t mean every small developer builds quality projects, nor does it mean every large developer builds poor ones. Construction is construction, and mistakes can happen at any scale. What I’ve observed, however, is that smaller developers are often in a better position to catch those mistakes before they become permanent.
A national builder might have a regional office, project managers, superintendents, consultants, subcontractors, and multiple layers of management spread across dozens of projects at once. Nobody in that chain is necessarily doing anything wrong. In fact, many are highly competent professionals. The challenge is that information has to travel through several layers before decisions are made. The person approving a budget may never set foot on the jobsite. The person creating schedules may never meet the homeowner. The person making purchasing decisions may be hundreds or even thousands of miles away.
Construction, meanwhile, has a funny way of refusing to cooperate with spreadsheets. Plans look perfect in the office. The real world often has different ideas. Soil conditions change. Utility conflicts appear. Framing details don’t line up exactly as expected. A subcontractor interprets something differently than the designer intended. Small issues happen constantly, and a project’s success often comes down to how quickly those issues are identified and addressed.
This is where smaller developers often shine. Many of them are walking their projects daily. They know the subcontractors by name. They attend inspections themselves. They hear concerns directly from neighbors. When something doesn’t look right, they’re often seeing it firsthand instead of hearing about it through three layers of communication. They’re not simply managing a project; they’re immersed in it.
I also think there is a level of accountability that naturally comes with being local. If you’re a small developer building a project in your own community, there’s a good chance you’ll continue living there long after the project is finished. You may run into buyers at the grocery store. You may see your project every time you drive through town. Your reputation isn’t hidden behind a corporate logo or a regional office. It’s tied directly to your name. That doesn’t guarantee quality, but it certainly creates a different set of incentives.
One thing I find particularly interesting is that much of America’s historic housing stock wasn’t built by giant corporations. Many of the neighborhoods people admire today were developed incrementally over time. A local builder would construct a few homes. Someone else would add a duplex. A small investor would build an apartment building. Over decades, entire neighborhoods emerged through the combined efforts of countless small projects rather than a handful of massive developments. Housing wasn’t necessarily produced in giant bursts. It was produced steadily and continuously by a large number of participants.
Today, it feels as though we’ve unintentionally created a system that makes participation increasingly difficult for those smaller players. Development regulations have become more complex. Permit timelines have become longer. Impact fees have increased. Financing requirements have become more demanding. Consultants, engineers, attorneys, and specialists are often required before a shovel ever touches the ground. While many of these requirements exist for good reasons, they also create barriers that smaller builders often struggle to overcome.
The result is somewhat ironic. We often complain that large corporations dominate housing production while simultaneously maintaining systems that are easiest for large corporations to navigate. A company building hundreds of units can spread regulatory costs across an entire project. A small developer building four units cannot. Over time, this naturally concentrates housing production into fewer hands.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if we deliberately lowered some of those barriers for responsible small-scale development. What if it were easier to build a duplex, a triplex, a fourplex, or a small apartment building? What if experienced contractors could transition into development without needing an army of consultants just to get started? What if communities encouraged dozens of small housing projects happening simultaneously instead of relying on a handful of mega-projects to meet demand?
No single duplex will solve the housing crisis. Neither will a single fourplex. But thousands of them might. Housing production has always been a game of accumulation. Communities grow because many people contribute small pieces over time. When enough people participate, the results become significant.
Ultimately, I don’t view this as an argument against large developers. We need them too. The housing shortage in many parts of the country is simply too severe to be solved by any one group alone. Instead, I see this as an argument for expanding the field. If we genuinely want more housing, we should be asking ourselves how to create an environment where more people can participate in building it.
In my experience, the best construction projects tend to happen when the people making decisions remain closely connected to the work itself. The same principle may apply to housing production. The more opportunities we create for local builders, local investors, and small developers to contribute, the more housing we can produce while maintaining a level of accountability that naturally comes from having a personal stake in the outcome.
Perhaps the solution isn’t choosing between large developers and small developers. Perhaps it’s recognizing that we need more builders of all sizes and making sure the door remains open for the people willing to invest their own time, reputation, and energy into creating the communities they call home.