Affordable Housing in Shorewood: Balancing Equity, Growth, and Village Character

On March 14, 2024, the Community Development Alliance (CDA) presented to a joint meeting of the Shorewood Village and School Boards. Supported by major Milwaukee philanthropies, the CDA has been examining housing challenges across our region. Their 70-minute presentation was eye-opening and, frankly, a little uncomfortable. It shed light on both the racial disparities in Shorewood housing and the tough policy trade-offs that come with affordability.

Where Shorewood Stands Today

The data is sobering. Shorewood consistently ranks at the bottom compared to 18 neighboring communities when it comes to racial diversity in both homeownership and renting:

• Homeownership: Only 4% of Shorewood homeowners are non-white. By comparison: Whitefish Bay; 6%, Glendale; 15%, Milwaukee; 20%.
• Renting: Only 10% of Shorewood renters are non-white, compared to 5% in Whitefish Bay, 16% in Glendale, and 42% in Milwaukee.

Housing costs also show disparity. The median home in Shorewood is valued at $534,000, higher than Glendale ($351,000) or Wauwatosa ($415,000), though lower than Whitefish Bay ($625,000). Meanwhile, average incomes in Milwaukee County reveal a major racial gap: white residents average $69,070, while non-white residents average $46,880. That income disparity makes it much harder for non-white families to access housing in higher-priced real estate communities like ours.
And there’s another trend: family sizes are shrinking. Without new housing options, Shorewood faces both declining population and smaller school enrollments.

What the CDA Presentation Emphasize

Several points from the CDA struck me as significant—and in some cases, controversial:

1. Affordable housing always requires subsidy. There’s no “free ride.”
2. Empty nesters are blocking turnover. With fewer homes available, new families struggle to move in.
3. Condos are no longer attractive to developers. Townhomes are a better way forward.
4. Prioritizing homeownership over additional rentals builds stability and equity.
5. Village codes raise costs. Our high standards for exteriors and strict inspections help maintain property values but also increase construction and landlord costs.
6. Parking requirements drive up prices. Requiring one parking space per unit adds significant cost. Building upward is efficient, but it challenges the small-scale character many of us value.
7. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), such as garage apartments or duplex/triplex conversions, could expand housing options if our codes allowed them.

The Dilemma for Shorewood

Before this presentation, I would have said “of course I support affordable housing.” But now I see the trade-offs more clearly. My own home is a significant investment, and I value rising property values because they contribute to my future nest egg. I also appreciate Shorewood’s charm, our smaller buildings, and walkable scale.

At the same time, we can’t ignore the inequities. If Shorewood continues to shut out new families, particularly non-white families, we’re reinforcing racial and economic divides. Ideas like tiny homes—which I once floated during the Wilson Drive reconstruction—were dismissed at the time, but now they seem like creative ways to balance affordability with character.

Moving Forward

What this comes down to is a balancing act: How do we remain an attractive, village-like community while making housing more affordable and equitable?

There is no easy answer, but one thing is clear: the current proposal is an investment with problems and poor payback. More than a hundred residents have engaged in this Facebook discussion already, and we should keep it going. If Shorewood wants to remain vibrant, diverse, and welcoming to future generations, we need to confront these challenges head-on.