A Typology of Mansionization in the Inner-Ring Suburbs of Chicago,Illinois, 2000–2015

ABSTRACT

Mansionization—the process in which original single-family houses are demolished and replaced with larger houses—in the older inner-ring suburbs of U.S. cities is a contentious and important driver of physical, social, and economic neighborhood change, yet little is known about how the mansionization process varies across the diverse inner-ring suburban landscape. With a focus on the inner-ring suburbs of Chicago located in Cook County, Illinois, this study presents a typology of mansionization based upon the housing, population, and household characteristics; economic status; and race and ethnicity of the neighborhoods in which mansionization occurs. Principal components analysis followed by cluster analysis are used to identify five distinct types of mansionization in the inner-ring suburbs of Chicago: highly affluent, upper middle class, postwar ethnoburb, white middle class, and diverse working class. Although mansionization is often perceived as a single process, findings reveal that it occurs in a variety of places and manifests in a variety of ways. The regulatory approaches of municipalities with differing types of suburban mansionization are discussed.     

American murder mystery revisited: do housing voucher households cause crime?

This paper reviews the current state of the housing market, particularly in the shadow of the foreclosure crisis, the collapse of the financial system, and persistent unemployment. The authors outline the policy priorities necessary to facilitate the recovery of the housing market in general and to encourage comprehensive revitalization of the hardest hit communities.     

Preserving Community Assets: Do Foreclosure Sales Need to Negatively Impact the Neighborhood?

Research has linked concentrated foreclosures with negative neighborhood outcomes; for instance, increased crime and decreased property values. These outcomes drain community asset holdings and impact the longer term trajectory of the neighborhood. However, data reported in this article from a Boston study challenge the assumption that negative neighborhood outcomes are a foregone conclusion in the face of foreclosures. Analysis of interviews with real estate agents and other foreclosure professionals, neighborhood ethnographic observation, and citywide sales and foreclosure sales documents demonstrate that the distinct nature of the foreclosure sales process creates market disruptions heightening the risk for documented negative neighborhood outcomes. Attempts by the seller to reduce financial risks in the sale increase the likelihood of vacancy and create a market oriented toward investor–buyers. Understanding the risk preferences of key decision makers in the foreclosure sale process reveals new intervention points—such as intervening at the short sale, or expanding and updating foreclosure laws to reflect current foreclosure sales markets—to reduce market disruptions and preserve community assets in the face of foreclosures.     

“Ragged urchins play on marquetry floors”: The discourse of filtering is reconstructed, 1920s–1950s

The idea of filtering has played a key role in our understanding of housing markets and in framing federal policy. The origins of the idea, however, and of the term itself, are poorly understood. Drawing loosely on the approach of discourse analysis, this article clarifies both issues, arguing that language shapes how we think about housing policy, and indeed policy itself. The concept of filtering emerged in Great Britain in the late nineteenth century where, by 1900, it informed arguments in favor of municipal (public) housing. It became influential in the United States in the 1920s but in 1938 was still referred to in different ways, notably as “hand-me-down housing.” Here, it was understood more narrowly, as an alternative to public housing. After 1939, the Federal Housing Administration, though not its leading consultant Homer Hoyt, popularized the term “filtering.” The neutral connotations of this metaphorical term suited the agency's goal of developing an apparently objective discourse of housing markets and market analysis. The term was normalized by the early 1960s.     

The What,Where, and When of Place-Based Housing Policy’s Neighborhood Effects

Ever-scarce affordable housing production resources, in addition to their primary function of providing housing for those in need, are increasingly enlisted for the dual goals of strengthening distressed communities and increasing access to higher opportunity neighborhoods. Information on spillovers can inform investment decisions over time and across communities. We leverage recent, high-quality research on neighborhood effects of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) production, synthesizing evidence according to neighborhood context. We also summarize the evidence on project features moderating impacts of publicly subsidized, place-based rental housing, in general. We conclude that context matters. Producing LIHTC housing in distressed neighborhoods positively impacts the surrounding neighborhood—in terms of modest property value gains and increased safety. By contrast, higher opportunity neighborhoods experience small property value reductions, and no impacts on crime. Big questions remain, however, about impact heterogeneity—via tenant mix, property design, and ongoing property management, as examples—with the scarcity of systematic data representing one of the field’s largest constraints.     

Gateway to Opportunity? Disparities in Neighborhood Conditions Among Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Residents

A key goal of housing assistance programs is to help lower income households reach neighborhoods of opportunity. Studies have described the degree to which Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developments are located in high-opportunity neighborhoods, but our focus is on how neighborhood outcomes vary across different subsets of LIHTC residents. We also examine whether LIHTC households are better able to reach certain types of neighborhood opportunities. Specifically, we use new data on LIHTC tenants in 12 states along with eight measures of neighborhood opportunity. We find that compared with other rental units, LIHTC units are located in neighborhoods with higher poverty rates, weaker labor markets, more polluted environments, and lower performing schools, but better transit access. We also find that compared with other LIHTC tenants, poor and minority tenants live in neighborhoods that are significantly more disadvantaged.     

Do Small Area Fair Market Rents Reduce Racial Disparities in the Voucher Program?

ABSTRACT

A lawsuit that argued that the method used to calculate rent limits in the Housing Choice Voucher Program promoted racial segregation in Dallas, Texas, resulted in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development developing zip code-based voucher rent limits in Dallas in 2011. This rent calculation approach was then expanded to five other demonstration sites in 2012. This article analyzes whether adjusting voucher rent limits reduces a minority household’s likelihood of living in a high-minority neighborhood, improves their likelihood of living in a higher opportunity neighborhood, and reduces the disparity in location outcomes between minority and White households in the voucher program. This article finds evidence of improvements in the location outcomes of Black and Hispanic voucher households because of the use of zip code-based rent limits, but that these results are only marginal with respect to the persistent disparities in outcomes based on race within the voucher program.