Drawing on ongoing fieldwork in New York City, the authors distinguish two "genealogies," or developmental traditions, of supported housing. "Housing as housing" originated in the mental health field to champion normalized, less-structured alternatives to clinically managed residential programs. "Integrated housing development" traces its origins to the movement to combat homelessness by preserving and creating affordable housing. The authors detail the distinctive premises, guiding concerns, and developmental logic of each lineage, contrasting the consumer advocate focus of the first genealogy with the emphasis on housing supply of the second. As housing and service investment strategies, the two approaches run different risks, speak to distinctive constituencies, and play to specific strengths. The authors argue that any attempt to take the measure of their success or to assess their comparative value as social investments must go beyond client outcome and come to terms with discrepant notions of the social good that they represent.