This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Pittsburgh is widely regarded as a relatively affordable place to live. Overall, housing and living costs remain below national averages for midsize cities in the United States.
Along with low home prices, Pittsburgh offers stable employment rates and close proximity to leading universities and high-quality hospitals.
However, data from a March 2026 survey shows that a single adult needs to earn about $95,000 to live comfortably in Pittsburgh. This is well above the city’s median household income of $67,000. A family of four needs nearly $239,000.
My peer‑reviewed work examines how housing affordability affects a community’s health. It also documents how well policy holds up over time in terms of affordable housing efforts.
Inclusionary zoning explained
Inclusionary zoning requires developers to reserve a portion of new housing units for lower-income residents at below-market rents. A city might require, for example, that a new residential complex reserve or set aside 10% of units for households that earn 80% or less of the area median income.
Also referred to as a “mandatory set-aside,” inclusionary zoning is often done in exchange for developer incentives, such as density bonuses, which allow them to build additional units. Other incentives could be expedited permitting or relaxed parking minimums, allowing developers to build fewer parking spaces than normally required.
Pittsburgh’s mandatory inclusionary zoning overlay has been in place since 2019, when the city piloted it in Lawrenceville. This required developers of new or renovated buildings with 20 or more units to set aside 10% of units as affordable. The pilot became permanent in 2021, and the city expanded the overlay to Bloomfield, Polish Hill and parts of Oakland by 2023. An overlay district is an extra layer of rules that apply to a specific area on top of the city or municipality’s regular zoning rules – like a special zone within a zone.
In 2025, Pittsburgh City Council proposed the Affordable Housing Bonus Program, a largely voluntary, incentive-based policy. According to a proposed amendment introducing the Affordable Housing Bonus Program, it doesn’t replace the inclusionary zoning overlay – they are two completely separate programs that apply in different parts of the city.
For example, if developers are working in an inclusionary zoning overlay area, they have to follow inclusionary zoning overlay mandatory requirements, and the Affordable Housing Bonus Program doesn’t apply to them. The Affordable Housing Bonus Program applies everywhere outside of the inclusionary zoning overlay neighborhoods on a voluntary, opt-in basis. The Affordable Housing Bonus Program (AHBP) gives developers the ability to build bigger and taller buildings than inclusionary zoning overlay would allow. The additional revenue from those extra units is designed to offset the cost of participating in the affordable housing program. The idea is to make it a financially attractive deal rather than a burden.
The two programs also have different affordability standards and different term lengths. The AHBP sets specific income targets and a 20-year affordability period, compared to the inclusionary zoning overlay’s 35-year term that automatically renews when a building is sold.
The goal is to encourage developers to include a percentage of affordable units across the city. The Affordable Housing Bonus Program emerged after legal challenges and public opposition derailed expanding inclusionary zoning citywide, shifting the policy conversation toward incentive-based approaches that operate alongside the existing overlay framework.
This policy system is now being tested by a University of Pittsburgh student housing project called The Caroline at University Commons. University Commons is situated within Pittsburgh’s Oakland neighborhood, an inclusionary zoning overlay district. However, the developer, Walnut Capital, is seeking to exempt the project from the inclusionary zoning overlay requirements. The developer argues that the affordable unit requirement, which would allow students and non-students to live in the same building, makes the project unviable.
If the project becomes exempt, this would reduce the number of affordable units set aside from 16 to 0. Because the Affordable Housing Bonus Program proposal has been debated in a form that retains the inclusionary zoning overlay, developer conflicts like The Caroline illustrate the kinds of disputes that are likely to continue.
Short on homes, split on solutions
The fragility of housing policy solutions matters not only for the neighborhoods that it affects but for what it reveals about Pittsburgh’s housing affordability.
Pittsburgh faces a persistent shortage of affordable housing. This is especially true for extremely low-income residents, or those who earn less than 30% of an area’s median income.
Local estimates from The Pittsburgh Foundation show a deficit of more than 11,000 affordable units for residents at the lowest income levels. This shortage leaves many of these renters cost-burdened and vulnerable to eviction.
The debate about inclusionary zoning in Pittsburgh is heated. Among advocates, community organizations and some policymakers, it’s seen as an effective policy lever. They say it keeps neighborhoods affordable and diverse while giving residents a voice in how their neighborhoods change.
Conversely, developers and some policymakers argue that inclusionary zoning can reduce new construction and lead to higher rents overall. They also warn it can undermine equity goals by slowing housing production or concentrating affordable units in just a few areas.
Why Pittsburgh struggles to provide affordable housing
Pittsburgh’s housing challenges stem from a combination of rising construction and administrative costs; dependency on fragmented financing structures; housing market shifts and demographic change; a constrained tax base and a complex zoning and permitting system.
These supply-side challenges are compounded by demand-side barriers. In 2025, Pittsburgh added “housing status” as a protected class to prevent discrimination against the unhoused population, those with disabilities and families fleeing domestic violence. But widespread landlord refusal of Section 8 vouchers shows how affordability policies can fall apart without real enforcement. The Affordable Housing Bonus Program could similarly face compliance problems.
Pittsburgh’s housing crisis is a health crisis
Pittsburgh’s uncertain housing affordability policies have far-reaching implications for public health, equity and neighborhood stability.
Research shows 2 in 5 Pittsburgh renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing, and 1 in 4 spend over half. This increases eviction risk and housing instability, with cascading health effects, such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, anxiety and depression.
Housing burdens can also force people to make trade-offs between housing and healthcare, medications, nutritious food or transportation.
Displacement and aging, poorly maintained housing stock compound these problems, making Pittsburgh’s affordable housing crisis a public health crisis as much as a housing one.
Pittsburgh’s path forward
No single policy can resolve Pittsburgh’s housing challenges. But the city has taken meaningful steps.
Since the city budget was approved in March 2026, Pittsburgh has streamlined its permitting processes and increased local funding commitments.
Treating housing affordability as a serious policy priority will require more innovation, not only in regulation and financing, but in how policies are evaluated, adapted and sustained over time.
This article has been updated to clarify the differences between Pittsburgh’s proposed Affordable Housing Bonus Program requirements and the city’s existing inclusionary zoning overlay.
Selena E. Ortiz, Associate professor of Health Policy and Administration and Demography, Penn State.
