Investigating the Connection Between Transit-Oriented Development and Displacement: Four Hypotheses

Transit-oriented development (TOD) has become a predominant planning model in many cities. However, although access to public transit is often seen as benefiting low-income groups, in some cities community groups have challenged TOD plans on the grounds that they could cause gentrification and displacement. Yet, empirical studies have found little evidence that gentrification actually causes displacement. This article examines the connection between TOD and displacement in urban areas and seeks to make sense of the apparent discrepancy between community opposition to TOD and the empirical findings on displacement. Four explanations are considered: methodological shortcomings in existing studies, insufficient attention to social and psychological forms of displacement, potential transportation cost savings, and use of TOD plans as a policy target. The fourth explanation is illustrated using an example from the San Francisco Bay Area of California. This article aims to synthesize literature on these previously separate topics and to illuminate paths for future research.     

How Affordable Is HUD Affordable Housing?

This article assesses the affordability of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rental assistance properties from the perspective of transportation costs. HUD housing is, by definition, affordable from the standpoint of housing costs due to limits on the amounts renters are required to pay. However, there are no such limitations on transportation costs, and common sense suggests that renters in remote locations may be forced to pay more than 15% of income, a nominal affordability standard, for transportation costs. Using household travel models estimated with data from 15 diverse regions around the United States, we estimated and summed automobile capital costs, automobile operating costs, and transit fare costs for households at 8,857 HUD rental assistance properties. The mean percentage of income expended on transportation is 15% for households at the high end of the eligible income scale. However, in highly sprawling metropolitan areas, and in suburban areas of more compact metropolitan areas, much higher percentages of households exceed the 15% ceiling. This suggests that locational characteristics of properties should be considered for renewal when HUD contracts expire for these properties, based on location and hence on transportation affordability.     

Evaluating the Concept of Location Affordability: Recent Data on the Relationship Between Transportation,Housing, and Urban Form

The concept of location affordability holds that housing affordability should be augmented to include transportation cost as a related and substantial household cost burden. The recent United States foreclosure crisis of 2006–2008 offers an opportunity to evaluate location affordability as a concept for policy and practice by investigating the relationship between transportation cost burdens and negative housing outcomes. This article contributes to the growing literature on location affordability and the recent crisis with an analysis of default and foreclosure data for 70 metropolitan areas. The analysis includes transportation and housing cost burdens and demographic data, as well as multidimensional measures of urban form. High rates of automobility are associated with increased foreclosure. The urban form variables yield mixed results, suggesting the relationship between urban sprawl and affordability is complex. However, across a range of specifications, high levels of development intensity are associated with increased foreclosure rates. The results have implications for both the housing and transportation sectors and lend support for the notion of location affordability.     

Retracting suburbia: Smart growth and the future of housing

Abstract

Metropolitan areas throughout the United States increasingly experience sprawl development. States such as Oregon and Maryland have enacted land use legislation that curbs sprawl by promoting denser urban growth. Smart growth, a new method of metropolitan development leading to more compact regions, offers an alternative to sprawl. Given that housing comprises a major share of the built environment, policies that promote denser residential development form a key component of smart growth.

This article provides an analytic review of the ways housing can be used to support successful smart growth policies. It focuses on three areas: the market for higher density housing, land use issues associated with denser housing development, and methods for financing higher density and mixed‐use housing. The literature on the link between smart growth and housing remains underdeveloped. We offer this synthesis as a way to advance the state of knowledge on smart growth's housing dimension.     

Untangling Housing Cost and Transportation Interactions: The Location Affordability Index Model—Version 2 (LAIM2)

Abstract

It is now accepted that to have an understanding of housing affordability one must consider not only housing costs, but also the transportation costs associated with that household location. To make this information readily accessible to the public, the United States government created an Internet resource, the Location Affordability Portal – Version 2 (www.locationaffordability.info), to provide housing and transportation costs for every neighborhood in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Although the statistical model at the heart of this resource was designed for predictive accuracy, its design and parameter estimates can provide additional insights into the interaction of housing cost and transportation choices (and thus its cost). This study describes the development and explores the policy implications (and limitations) of this structural equations model, the Location Affordability Index Model – Version 2 (LAIM2).     

Economic Prosperity and Housing Affordability in the United States: Lessons from the Booming 1990s

The United States is facing an acute shortage of reasonably priced housing with over 35% of households paying more than 30% of their income for housing costs in 2015. As the U.S. economy recovers from the Great Recession, will housing become less unaffordable as incomes rise and households could potentially pay a lower share of their income for housing costs? To see if this is likely, I examined the change in housing affordability in the 100 largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the United States between 1990 and 2000, a period of exceptional economic prosperity. I used the percentage of housing cost-burdened households (those that pay more than 30% of their gross income on ownership or rental costs) as a measure of the availability of reasonably priced housing. I used discriminant analysis techniques to detect statistically significant differences in the percentage of cost-burdened households in the 100 MSAs based on a variety of factors. I found that despite the phenomenal economic prosperity of the 1990s, about 30% of households were cost-burdened both in 1990 and 2000. High MSA median income was correlated with a greater shortage of reasonably priced housing. Neither economic growth rate nor poverty rate nor population growth rate distinguished high-shortage MSAs from low-shortage ones. Large MSAs and MSAs in the West had greater shortages than other MSAs. Economic prosperity did not alleviate the problem of lack of reasonably priced housing in the past, and is not likely to do so in the near future. Planners and policy-makers need to enact new policies at local, regional, state, and federal levels to effectively address America’s chronic affordable housing shortage.     

Federalism and suitable housing for the frail elderly: A comparison of policies in Canada and the United States

Abstract

The frail elderly have special multidimensional housing needs beyond affordability, including shelter that is more adaptive to reduced function and offers supportive services. Suitable housing for this population comprises three policy areas—housing, health care, and social services. In a federal system, development and implementation of policies in these areas involves participation of several levels of government and the nongovernmental sector. This paper uses federalism as a conceptual framework to examine and compare these policy areas in Canada and the United States.

In both countries, general national housing policies—relying heavily on the nongovernmental sector and characterized by joint federal‐provincial programs in Canada and by important local government roles and age‐specific programs in the United States‐have benefited the elderly. The effects of such policies on the frail elderly, however, have been less positive because of the general lack of essential human services and, to a lesser degree, health care that enables them to live outside institutions. This is especially true in the United States, where health care policy is fragmented and is dominated by a private insurance system, partial federal financing of health insurance for the elderly, and tense federal‐state relations in financing health care for the poor. Although Canadian policies and programs operate autonomously and more uniformly within a national health plan, neither country has a universal, comprehensive long‐term care system. Geographically diverse patterns of social services, funded by grants to states and provinces and the nonprofit sector, are common to both countries. However, the United States has inadequately funded age‐specific programs and has relied on a growing commercial service provision. Housing outcomes for frail elders are moving in the right direction in both countries; however, Canada seems to be better positioned, largely because of its health care system. As increased decentralization continues to characterize the three policy areas that affect suitable housing for frail elders, the United States can learn from Canada's negotiated federalism approach to more uniform solutions to merging housing and long‐term care.     

Why Low-Income Households Become Unstably Housed: Evidence From the Panel Study of Income Dynamics

ABSTRACT

Because of a severe shortage of affordable housing in the United States, an increasing number of low-income households suffer from housing instability. However, little evidence exists as to why they experienced housing instability, although they were stably housed at other times. By applying hybrid models to the Panel Study of Income Dynamics data, this study estimates the effects of potential household-level predictors on the likelihood of experiencing housing instability. The results show that changes in family employment structure, job insecurity, automobile ownership, and the number of adult family members within a household correlate with housing instability after controlling for changes in household income and housing costs. Moreover, I find that households with children are particularly vulnerable to housing instability. These results contribute to identifying valid household-level predictors of housing instability and developing preventive policy interventions that help unsubsidized low-income households achieve housing stability.     

Moving to Location Affordability? Housing Choice Vouchers and Residential Relocation in the Portland,Oregon, Region

Abstract

Location affordability measures a household’s combined cost of housing and transportation. Low-income households have the most to gain from housing with lower transportation costs. This research analyzes whether Housing Choice Voucher Program households—participants in a program designed to provide low-income households with a greater degree of housing choice—are able to choose housing that lowers their transportation costs in a metropolitan region with a compact, vital urban core. A mixed-methods approach is used to investigate the differences in location affordability and efficiency among 2,026 voucher recipients who moved within the Portland, Oregon, region during 2012–2013. Location mattered to movers, but in some unexpected ways. Urban movers relocated to less location efficient areas, whereas suburban movers’ location efficiency remained stable. In tight housing markets, voucher holders may be edged out of location-efficient neighborhoods and thus incur increased transportation costs.     

Does a more centralized urban form raise housing prices?

This paper examines the relationship between various quantitative measures of urban centralization and urban housing prices through the use of a 2000 data set from the 452 Census designated urbanized areas in the United States. An empirical study of this type is necessary because: (1) the theoretical influence of creating more centralized urban areas—or what many would consider less “sprawl”—on what people pay for housing is indeterminate, (2) now popular “Smart Growth” policies advocate more centralized urban areas, and (3) some have argued that a cost of this centralization is an increase in the price of homes. After controlling for differences across United States urbanized areas in residents' economic status and demographics, number and type of households, climate, household growth, nonresidential land uses, and the structural characteristics of houses, we find that a more centralized area exhibits a lower median home value and percentage of homes in an upper‐end price category. Therefore, we offer no evidence to support the contention that a successful effort to further centralize an urban area raises the price of homes in that urban area. © 2006 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management     

HOPE VI relocation: Moving to new neighborhoods and building new ties

Abstract

Severely distressed public housing developments are being torn down and redeveloped through the HOPE (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) VI initiative in cities across the United States. This article examines how families from one HOPE VI site decided where to move and how they fared in building social ties with their new neighbors. Semistructured interviews from a random sample of 41 families with children were analyzed.

Families that chose to move into public housing expressed concern about the unreliability of the Section 8 program and their own ability to pay the extra utility costs involved. Those who used Section 8 vouchers to relocate had more education on average and made this choice to improve the neighborhood for their families. Over the past two years, regardless of what kind of neighborhood they moved into, families have not rebuilt the close ties most of them had in their former neighborhood.     

The Use of Rental Housing Assistance by Immigrants in the United States and New York City

Abstract

The large influx of immigrants to the United States and New York City from poorer countries has sparked considerable debate as to whether immigrants are becoming a “public charge” to American society. Most arguments have centered around immigrants’ use of cash assistance programs. This article compares immigrants’ receipt of rental housing assistance with that of native‐born Americans.

Bivariate analyses reveal that immigrants, as a group, are no more likely than native‐born households to use any form of rental housing assistance. Indeed, in most instances immigrants are less likely than native‐born households to receive assistance, with two exceptions: immigrants who have been in the United States since 1970 and immigrants from the former Soviet Union in New York City. Multivariate analyses reveal similar results, except that immigrants who have been in the United States since 1970 are no more likely than other immigrants to receive housing assistance when we control for other factors.     

Affordable Rental Housing Development in the U.S. For-Profit Sector: Implications of a Case Study of McCormack Baron Salazar

The question of how to build decent housing that is affordable to lower income households has challenged policymakers in the United States for decades. In response, the federal government has developed a variety of partnership approaches that involve private for-profit developers. Although these entities are currently the major producers of affordable housing in the United States, they have received relatively little attention from the academic and policy communities. This inquiry is aimed at filing a small portion of this gap by presenting a qualitative case study of one of the country’s leading for-profit developers that has a longstanding commitment to affordable housing, McCormack Baron Salazar. Using a modified version of the quadruple bottom line framework as the starting point, this exploration discusses the complexity and challenges facing the affordable housing sector and offers programmatic and policy recommendations that are applicable to both for-profit and nonprofit developers. In view of the results of the 2016 presidential election, and the likely continued retreat by the federal government from supporting affordable housing, the need to better understand, and form productive working alliances and collaborations with, private for-profit affordable housing developers is more compelling than ever.     

House poor in Los Angeles: examining patterns of housing-induced poverty by race,nativity, and legal status

Housing affordability in the United States is generally operationalized using the ratio approach, with those allocating more than thirty percent of income to shelter costs considered to have housing affordability challenges. Alternative standards have been developed that focus on residual income, whether income remaining after housing expenditures is sufficient to meet non-housing needs. This study employs Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey data to consider racial/ethnic, nativity and legal status differences in one residual income standard. Logistic regression analyses of housing-induced poverty focus on whether there are differences among five distinct groups: US born Latinos, Non-Hispanic Whites, and African Americans, authorized Latino immigrants, and unauthorized Latino immigrants. Results suggest that: (1) Latino natives are significantly more likely to be in housing-induced poverty than African Americans and Latino immigrants, and (2) unauthorized Latino immigrants are not more likely to experience the outcome than other groups. The present work extends previous research. First, the results provide additional evidence of the value of operationalizing housing affordability using a residual income standard. Alternatives to the ratio approach deserve more empirical attention from a wider range of scholars and policymakers interested in housing affordability. Second, housing scholarship to date generally differentiates among Latinos by ethnicity, nativity, and citizenship. The present study contributes to emerging research investigating heterogeneity among Latinos by nativity and legal status.     

Transit-Induced Gentrification: Who Will Stay,and Who Will Go?

Abstract

Transit-oriented development (TOD) has been promoted by planners and policy advocates as a solution to a variety of urban problems, including automobile traffic congestion, air pollution, and urban poverty. Since the enhanced accessibility offered by transit proximity is often capitalized into land and housing prices, many express concern that new transit investments will result in the displacement of the low-income populations likely to benefit most from transit access, a phenomenon which we term transit-induced gentrification. Whereas policy advocates have proposed a variety of interventions designed to ensure that affordable housing for low-income households is produced and preserved in areas proximate to transit stations, little is known about the effectiveness of these policy proposals. This article relies on an integrated land use/transportation model to analyze how TOD-based affordable housing policies influence the intraurban location of low-income households. We find that affordability restrictions targeted to new dwellings constructed in TODs are effective tools for promoting housing affordability and improving low-income households’ access to transit while simultaneously reducing the extent of transit-induced gentrification.     

Where Does Location Affordability Drive Residential Mobility? An Analysis of Origin and Destination Communities

Abstract

Despite an overall decrease in residential mobility after the 2007 housing crisis, many households, particularly those that are low income, continue to move in pursuit of a better life. Traditional theories of residential mobility suggest that mobility will occur when housing and transportation costs are cumulatively greater than the cost of moving to a new location. At the same time, the influence of these factors is not likely to be uniform across geographic contexts or for moves up or down the metropolitan hierarchy. Our analysis examines how well affordability measures explain patterns of county-level residential mobility. Specifically, we contrast conventional measures of affordability focused on the ratio of income to housing expense with measures of location affordability that factor in both housing and transportation costs. We find that whereas households tend to move from lower to higher cost locations, transit affordability at the destination plays an important role in mobility decisions.     

How Location Efficient Is LIHTC? Measuring and Explaining State-Level Achievement

A growing recognition that the cost of transportation should be included in calculations of housing affordability has led to efforts to promote location efficiency (LE) in affordable housing policy. Because the program is responsible for most new affordable housing in the United States, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program has the potential to be a link between housing affordability and LE. This research analyzes the extent to which LIHTC units built between 2007 and 2011 were in location-efficient places. Ordinary least squares regression analysis was used to test the role of market, policy, developer, and urban form factors in determining state-level LIHTC LE. We find that for the nation as a whole, from a quarter to half of LIHTC units added during this period were in location-efficient places, depending on the LE criteria applied. State-by-state comparisons showed wide variation in both our absolute measures of LIHTC LE and our relative measures of LIHTC LE compared with overall housing in each state. State policy and nonprofit developers were associated with higher LIHTC LE and had a positive effect on a state’s ability to outperform its underlying urban form.     

Shelter Poverty in Ohio: An Alternative Analysis of Rental Housing Affordability

ABSTRACT

In the United States, housing is most commonly considered unaffordable when a household spends more than 30% of income on housing and utilities. Although easy to calculate, it fails to account for how other categories of essential expenses affect income available to spend on housing. This article compares the ratio-based approach with shelter poverty, a measure that accounts for these elements, evaluating differences in results between the two methods among renters in Ohio. Shelter poverty identifies a higher rate of households in economic distress due to housing market conditions. Further, the average “affordability gap” is four times higher using the shelter poverty than with the 30% threshold. Relative to shelter poverty, the ratio method underestimates the unaffordability of rental housing in economically distressed areas, as measured by median household income, and modestly overestimates it in high-income areas.     

Fiscal Austerity and Rental Housing Policy in the United States and United Kingdom, 2010–2016

After the 2008 global financial crisis, both the United States and the United Kingdom introduced austerity policies targeted at particular elements of their national budgets. The purpose of this article is to compare the nature of this retrenchment; the similarities and differences in how it was implemented; and its initial impacts on one of the expenditure areas particularly affected: affordable rental housing programs and housing support for low-income households. Using a wide range of data sources, we find evidence of political and fiscal policy analogies in the timing and forms of the initial policy choices and how these were modified in the face of economic and political pressures. There are considerable similarities both in the instruments used to reduce housing expenditures and in the early impacts on support mechanisms and recipients. However, we find different histories and trajectories of support between the two countries that suggest that the longer term differences in outcomes may be more important.