The debate on the hypothesis that massive housing construction is the starting point of economic development has been ongoing since the end of World War II. Proponents of this hypothesis believe that housing serves as an impetus for economic development, and there is enormous practical evidence to support this view.  Opponents, however, state that housing is not a cause but a consequence of development.  This latter group, in line with mainstream economics, categorizes housing to be a private consumer good, such as automobiles, clothing, food and furniture.  The purpose of this study is to clarify the debate and show that massive housing construction per se is not a panacea for economic development. However, the private and public goods, complementary to housing, which eliminate social costs and produce a conducive environment for capital accumulation and productivity, are the stimuli for sustainable economic development and growth.  Thus, the debate should be about the definition of a house––is a house an economics consumer good or a political good?