Guest column published in the Springfield Business Journal Sept. 21, 2026
For decades, Springfield’s affordability has been a key part of our economic appeal. For an employer, it makes capital investment more manageable and provides a competitive edge in attracting and retaining talent. For a family, it can mean the difference between making ends meet and having room to get ahead. Those are two ways of looking at the same advantage, and it’s an advantage we need to last.
That sentiment was at the heart of my Aug. 24 update to Springfield City Council. Five days earlier, at our annual Economic Outlook event, we recently hosted Federal Reserve Bank economist Charles Gascon. He reported that our regional economy grew 3.3% year over year, significantly ahead of state and national averages. We also outpaced many Midwest communities in jobs and population growth.
Growth brings tremendous opportunity. It is foundational to building a prosperous community where people can thrive. But growth also creates demand for more places to live. A stronger economy with better opportunities does not automatically bring with it an affordable life. Affordability takes intentional and deliberate effort.
To be clear, Springfield remains affordable compared to much of the country. But a family considering a move here is often comparing us with other Midwestern communities, not an expensive coastal city. The Chamber’s recent internal analysis of C2ER Cost of Living Index data found that Springfield’s housing costs now compare considerably less favorably than in the past, when compared to almost all metros within a six-hour drive. We do not yet know whether this is temporary or the start of a trend. Either way, simply being below the national average does not attract or retain top talent.
Other growing regions have faced similar tension. The Brookings Institution’s 2025 Metro Monitor examined the nation’s 195 largest metropolitan areas from 2013 to 2023. Among 82 high-growth metros, 78% saw housing costs rise relative to the nation. Only 10 metros combined strong growth and prosperity — measured through jobs, economic output, and wages — with relatively stable living costs.
Ten. In the whole country.
At first glance, those metros do not have much in common. Geographically, economically, and politically, they are all over the board. But they did share two consistent attributes: all 10 increased their housing supply, and all 10 built housing faster than their population
grew. Brookings did not report that rents never increased. These communities were adding homes while growing their economies and maintaining their relative cost of living.
That gives us something concrete to examine. The lesson isn’t that Springfield should copy another community’s policies, but that housing production deserves serious attention if we want to preserve affordability as we grow.
Interest rates, construction costs, infrastructure, and zoning referenda all affect what housing costs and what gets built. They also impact what varieties of housing are available: an apartment for someone starting a career, a townhome or detached home for a growing household, or a smaller home for someone ready to downsize. Housing supply is not simply the number of units, it’s also about choices at different prices and stages of life. Springfield has its own moving parts, and our solutions should be our own.
And for any of those choices to become a home, a project must make financial sense. Developers and lenders weigh construction costs, financing, and time. Uncertainty about requirements or timelines becomes part of that calculation long before anyone moves in. A housing shortage does not, by itself, make every individual project feasible.
But project economics are not the whole equation either. Traffic, utilities, design, and neighborhood conditions matter. Residents have legitimate questions about what change will mean for them; investors have questions about requirements and timing. All need to understand what happens next with some measure of predictability.
Predictability is not a promise of approval. It means knowing what standards apply, how concerns will be considered, when decisions will be made, and that, once made, those decisions are reliable. A rigorous process can provide needed clarity while still requiring changes or rejecting proposals that do not meet clearly understood community standards.
Bringing those perspectives together is part of the Chamber’s role, and our next step takes that work beyond Springfield. Indianapolis is one of the 10 metros Brookings identified, which is part of why we chose it for our upcoming Community Leadership Visit. For over 30 years, we have taken business, community and civic leaders to other peer communities to learn best practices we can utilize to improve our region. This year, our trip will study the Indy region’s experience in several areas, notably housing investment and its relationship to healthy workforce development.
I do not expect to uncover a secret recipe we can just copy here at home. But I am looking forward to learning what helped housing production there keep pace, how local partners approached the work, and which lessons might fit our region. We are going there to learn — and ultimately to help discover the answers that fit our region best.
A growing business needs employees who can afford to move here and stay here. A household needs rising income to go further than the next rent increase. The Chamber, working closely with public and private sector partners, will continue to prioritize economic development that creates jobs and drives wage growth.
The present question is fundamental: Will the people who build a career here also be able to afford a future here?
Matt Morrow
President & CEO