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.     

Comment on Elvin K. Wyly and Daniel J. Hammel's “Islands of Decay in Seas of Renewal: Housing Policy and the Resurgence of Gentrification”

Abstract

Gentrification ought to be examined, for policy purposes, as part of a general restructuring of the space of cities resulting from broader changes in the nature, location, control, and effects of economic processes. However, even if it is narrowly seen as simply residential change, as in the article by Wyly and Hammel, the displacement of poor households by an upper‐income gentry ought not be confused with the effort to mix moderate with low incomes in public housing through the best of HOPE VI.

Despite this confusion, Wyly and Hammel provide some interesting data showing the extent to which investment in inner‐city areas has accelerated in recent years, paralleling changes in financial arrangements and contradicting any notion that degentrification is a continuous, long‐term process. Their data, although short on demographic detail, also implicitly highlight the role of government in pushing the market to respond rationally to economic demand and the continuing danger that gentrification will displace African‐American families.     

The new demographics of housing

Abstract

During the 1990s, minorities played an increasing role in population growth throughout the United States. Fueled by international migration and by high natural increase, Asians and Hispanics have joined with blacks to greatly elevate minority contributions to population and household growth at almost every geographic level. In addition to racial and ethnic turnover, households have been changing compositionally because of the aging of the population and because of the increase in the number of unmarried adults.

This article surveys these and other demographic changes and examines their implications for household growth and housing consumption. A clearer understanding of both white and minority roles in owner and renter housing trends is developed through tracking changing consumption patterns. Distinct patterns of cohort turnover have taken place in different vintage housing stock. These trends, which have led to large net gains for minorities, are expected to continue over the next decade and beyond.     

Does mobility matter? The neighborhood conditions of housing voucher holders by race and ethnicity

Abstract

Mobility is one mechanism used to address the federal goals of deconcen‐trating poverty and minorities. The Housing Choice Voucher Program relies on participants to make residential location decisions consistent with these goals. Our research investigates the level and impact of mobility on the neighborhood quality of voucher holders, their neighborhood conditions by race and ethnicity, and perceived obstacles to mobility within the jurisdiction of a Southern California housing authority.

About one‐third of the sample moved during the study, and moving resulted in improved neighborhoods for only one subset of movers. Minorities live in more impoverished, overcrowded neighborhoods than nonminorities, even when controlling for mobility status, contract rent, and other factors. Further, most voucher holders see the lack of rental units as a major obstacle to mobility. These findings suggest that current policy is not uniformly achieving deconcentration and that real and perceived barriers to mobility exist, especially for minorities.     

A practical analysis of shared‐appreciation mortgages

Abstract

When the development of large‐scale public housing projects was discontinued in the 1970s in both Canada and the United States, the policy response was very different. This article reviews the nature of the dissimilar low‐income housing policy paths, documenting the role of federal housing policy in the evolution of a significant nonprofit “third sector” in Canada's housing system; the decision of the U.S. federal government to rely on the private sector for subsidized rental supply; and, with very little help from the federal government, the ‘bottom‐up” attempt to develop a nonprofit housing sector in communities throughout the United States. In Canada, a permanent stock of good‐quality, nonprofit social housing was created along with a growing and increasingly competent community‐based housing development sector.

The Canadian experience demonstrates that it takes time to build the capacity of the nonprofit sector. The U.S. experience demonstrates that there is a great deal of community‐based talent ready and willing to provide nonprofit housing if reliable and adequate funding is available. Canada has made outstanding progress relative to the United States in the area of affordable housing supply, creating yet another small but significant difference in the quality of life for lower income households. The general Canadian approach to consistent national support of nonprofit and cooperative housing can be applied in the United States. Canada's relative success is not based on unique structural or systemic differences—that is, it is a matter of political choice and political will. The United States should look to Canada's 20‐year experience to determine whether some of the mechanisms used to support Canada's nonprofit sector might be transferable to the United States.     

The residential preferences of blacks and whites: A four‐metropolis analysis

Abstract

Three hypotheses seek to explain the persistence of residential segregation between blacks and whites in the United States: economic differentials, discrimination in housing and lending markets, and neighborhood preferences. The preferences hypothesis posits that both races wish to live in racially homogeneous neighborhoods. This article examines the preferences hypothesis by using recent interview data from metropolitan Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, and Los Angeles.

Race continues to be significant in the residential decision‐making process. Whites’ willingness to move into a neighborhood is inversely related to the density of blacks living there. Blacks prefer integrated neighborhoods, but ones with a substantial representation of blacks. Preferences differ significantly from one metropolis to another, with Detroit representing the extreme. In the other three metropolises, the preferences of blacks and whites do overlap sufficiently to offer hope for a decline in segregation, provided that the influence of other forces, particularly discrimination, also declines.     

Inclusionary housing in California and New Jersey: A comparative analysis

Abstract

Many people have argued that inclusionary housing (IH) is a desirable land use strategy to address lower‐income housing needs and to further the geographic dispersal of the lower‐income population. In an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of IH, this article examines the experiences of New Jersey and California, two states where IH has been applied frequently over an extended period.

While the concept of regional “fair share” is central to both states’ experiences, the origins of the programs, their applications, and their evolutions are quite dissimilar. IH originated in New Jersey from the famous Mount Laurel cases and in California from housing affordability crises and a legislatively mandated housing element. The experiences of both states indicate that IH can and should be part of an overall affordable housing strategy but that it is unlikely to become the core of such a strategy.     

The impacts of welfare reform on recipients of housing assistance

Abstract

This article uses data from randomized evaluations in Indiana and Delaware to address three questions: (1) Are welfare recipients who receive federal housing assistance less employable than recipients who do not? (2) How does the impact of welfare reform compare for families with and without housing assistance? (3) Does welfare reform increase or decrease the use of such assistance?

Although public housing residents may be more disadvantaged than welfare recipients who do not get housing assistance, voucher users and Section 8 project‐based recipients were not. Welfare reform had similar impacts on the earnings and welfare benefits of families that received housing assistance and those that did not. Where impacts did differ, they were larger for families receiving assistance. Welfare reform also reduced the receipt of housing assistance. Families that receive assistance appear to have less financial strain than families that do not, suggesting that assistance may increase overall financial stability.     

The cost‐effectiveness of the low‐income housing tax credit relative to vouchers: Evidence from six metropolitan areas

Abstract

How expensive is the Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program relative to vouchers? Are there any market conditions under which the supply‐based LIHTC could be more cost‐effective than demand‐based vouchers? This article examines these questions in six metropolitan areas—Boston, New York, San Jose (CA), Atlanta, Cleveland, and Miami. Controlling for family income and unit size, I compare the development subsidies of new‐construction LIHTC projects with the alternative 20‐year voucher cost in each area.

In general, the LIHTC is found to be more expensive than vouchers. The premium, however, varies significantly by voucher payment standard and local housing market. Assuming a payment standard of 100 percent of fair market rent, the LIHTC is only 2 percent more expensive than vouchers in San Jose, but more than twice as expensive as vouchers in Atlanta. Many factors account for these regional variations. This study emphasizes two: local market conditions and program administration.