Picture this: A young Utah family, excited to buy a first home, finds a dream house slipping further out of reach with each passing month. Sound familiar? It should.

In the Beehive State, the affordability crisis isn’t just making headlines — it’s reshaping lives. Redfin data shows that, since May 2019, median home prices have increased by a startling $206,700 — a 61.53% increase that’s left many Utahns reeling.

And what about renters? From 2013 to 2020, rent in the Salt Lake City area increased by 6% annually, spiked by 19% in 2021, rose moderately in 2022, and remained elevated in 2023, resulting in a substantial overall increase over the decade. But what if we’re only seeing part of the picture?

Andrew Gruber, Executive Director of the Wasatch Front Regional Council, thinks we’re overlooking a crucial piece of the affordability puzzle. In a candid conversation with The Salt Lake Tribune’s Innovation Lab, Gruber challenges us to rethink our approach to this pressing issue.

“We need to stop looking at housing costs in isolation,” Gruber asserts. “For most Utahns, the real story of affordability is written in the combined ink of housing and transportation expenses.”

Intrigued? So were we. Let’s dive into Gruber’s fresh perspective on Utah’s affordability challenges.

Michael Parker (MP): Andrew, you’ve suggested we should look at both housing and transportation costs together when considering affordability. Can you explain why this combined approach is so important, especially for middle-class families?

Andrew Gruber (AG): Housing and transportation expenses are fundamentally linked in a household’s budget and lifestyle choices. By looking at them in tandem, we get a much clearer picture of the true cost of living in a particular area. This holistic view isn’t just about numbers on a spreadsheet — it’s about developing strategies that can genuinely improve affordability and quality of life for our communities.

MP: It’s true that most families instinctively juggle these expenses in their household budgets. But you’re suggesting a broader perspective. How could elevating this approach to a community-wide strategy create meaningful change for Utah families?

AG: Where we live can reduce how much we spend on transportation. Take a typical family earning $70,000 a year. Traditional guidelines suggest they shouldn’t spend more than $21,000 annually on housing (30%). Say that family finds a home in a suburb where their mortgage plus utilities are $18,000 per year. But what about transportation?

If their home is far from work, shopping or schools, with limited public transportation, they might need multiple cars, increasing costs significantly.

Now, consider if they choose a home in a mixed-use community, close to jobs, schools, shopping and public transit. That family might drive less, have shorter trips and maybe need just one car. They could save thousands annually on car payments, insurance and gas. They’d also save time by avoiding traffic.

This makes a huge difference in overall household costs. The two locations might not even be far apart — the mixed-use area could be the center of the same suburb.

MP: Can you give us an example of a successful local model?

AG: Definitely. Look at Daybreak as a mixed-use community within the city of South Jordan. This community is designed to be walkable with schools, parks, places to work and shops all within a short distance. Residents can bike or walk to most places and the UTA’s Trax line has two stations in Daybreak. Another will be opening soon. Another example would be Station Park [in Farmington] focusing on jobs and transit. This all significantly reduces the need for driving. This model not only cuts down on transportation costs — with both money and time savings — but also enhances quality of life by promoting a healthier, more active lifestyle.

MP: Would this approach to how we design our communities impact local taxes and city budgets?

AG: Yes, usually positively. In mixed-use communities like Daybreak, with diverse housing and transportation options, infrastructure costs are often lower per home. Smaller lots, townhomes and increased use of public transit or walking also reduce the land and resources needed. This can lead to more investment in parks and amenities, improving quality of life while keeping tax rates reasonable.

MP: Would this approach help a family get around for things like soccer practices?

AG: Yes. The basic concept is to give people easier access to the things that are most important to them. Imagine living in a neighborhood where job opportunities, schools, parks and grocery stores are within a short drive, or even within walking or biking distance. This means less time spent driving to soccer practices or running errands, saving both time and money.

MP: Are you suggesting every community should follow the same design?

AG: Definitely not. By offering both single-family housing neighborhoods and mixed-used communities a city offers more options to residents based on their wants and needs. So each community has to consider what works best for its residents. Some smaller suburban or rural communities can have a nice main street or town center that connects to residential areas with safe roads and sidewalks for biking and walking. Other areas can have a mixed-use city center where some of its residents can live, work and shop. And our larger cities can have “downtown” areas with lots of activity and development, like Ogden, Provo and our capital city of Salt Lake.

MP: How would you sum up what you’ve described?

AG: If we want Utah residents and families to be able to afford to live here, and to thrive, we should be thinking not just about housing costs, but overall household affordability. By considering the costs of housing and transportation together and considering that relationship as we develop our communities, we can give Utahns a better shot at making it. And not only can this help with household costs, it can enhance quality of life at the same time.

MP: Thank you for offering this fresh perspective on affordable living, one that extends beyond just rent or mortgages. It’s a broader, more holistic approach to thinking about our cities and finances. With innovative ideas like these, the future of Utah could become more affordable and enjoyable than we ever imagined. For instance, including transit passes with rent for apartments near TRAX stations or with home purchases within half a mile of fixed transit lines would be a transformative change for many families.

Andrew Gruber is the executive director of the Wasatch Front Regional Council, which along with its partners develops the Wasatch Choice Vision to create strategies for better transportation, diverse housing options, and walkable city centers. Learn more at www.wasatchchoice.org.

Michael Parker is the director of community solutions for The Salt Lake Tribune’s Innovation Lab and principal and founder of Do Good.

The Innovation Lab invites Utahns to share ideas on supporting the middle class. Email voices@sltrib.com to contribute.