ABSTRACTRecent actions by the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development have reinvigorated the debate between place-based community development advocates and pro-integration fair housing advocates. This article examines the philosophical underpinnings of each side of this debate. I argue that different positions in the debate reflect different conceptions of the social meaning of housing, and these differences give rise to disparate views of how housing should be distributed. I examine several different conceptions of housing’s social meaning and argue that the community development–integrationist divide is best understood not as a duality but as reflecting 4 distinct perspectives. Despite the differences among positions, there is room for a middle-ground view of fair and affordable housing policy that acknowledges the socially constituted nature of the self and the importance of individual autonomy and choice.