1970s-1980s apartment neighborhoods

Opportunities & threats for sustainable suburban transformation

Rolf PendallDirector, Metropolitan Housing &

Communities Policy CenterThe Urban Institute, Washington, DC

Overview of presentation

• Why 1970s-1980s apartments?

• Characteristics– How many?

– Where?

– Neighborhood conditions?

• Threats: Austin and Houston case studies– Austin: Gentrification

– Houston: Abandonment

• Lessons for Montgomery & Prince George’s

Why 1970s-1980s apartments?

• There are a lot of them.• Vulnerable people live there.• 2011 minus 1981 equals 30.

– All tax advantages have accrued to initial builders– Subsidies expiring to private owners– Major infrastructure needs reinvestment– Neighborhoods becoming more central

• Consequences:– In worst locations, neglect and concentration of

vulnerable populations– Susceptibility to private-sector urban renewal

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Tho

usa

nd

s o

f u

nit

s

Multifamily construction, 1968-2010

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, New Privately Owned Housing Units Completed, http://www.census.gov/const/compann.pdf , accessed 4-11-11.

Two big spikes

§̈§̈¦80

§̈§̈¦90

§̈§̈¦70

§̈§̈¦40

§̈§̈¦10

§̈§̈¦15

§̈§̈¦94

§̈§̈¦75

§̈§̈¦5

§̈§̈¦35

§̈§̈¦20

§̈§̈¦25

§̈§̈¦95

1970s-80s apartmentsas percent of 2000 housing stock

4 - 6

6 - 10

10 - 15

16 - 22

Sunbelt metros have the most

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, SF3

Signs of stress

0

5

10

15

20

25

Poverty rate Vacancy rate

Pct foreign born

Poverty rate Vacancy rate

Pct foreign born

2000 Change, 2000-2005/09

<20

>= 20

% of Y2K housing units that are

multi-family built in the 1970s-1980s

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, SF3; 2005-09 American Community Survey, tract-level data

Vulnerable people concentrate in neighborhoods with high concentrations of these apartments

Trends, 1: Redevelopment and gentrification (Austin example)

§̈¦35

§̈¦35

UV1

UV71

UV360

UV343

UV111

UV275

UV111

£¤290

£¤183

Barton Creek GreenbeltBarton Creek Greenbelt

BBaa

rr tt oonn CCrreeeekk

WWaa ll ll ee

rr CCrr ee

eekk

BBll uu

nnnn CC

rreeee

kk

WWiillll iiaamm

ssoonn CC rr ee eekk

SShhooaa

ll CCrr ee ee kk

CC aa rr ss oo nn CC rr ee eekk

TTaann

nneehhiillll BB

rraanncchh

CC oo uu nn tt rr yy CCll uu

bb CC rr ee ee kk

EEaasstt BB

oo uu llddiinn CCrr eeeekk

WW

ee ss tt BBoo uu ll dd

ii nn CC

rr eeeekk

LL ii tt tt ll ee BB ee ee CCrreeeekk

1970s-80s apartmentsas percent of 2000 housing stock

20 - 30

30 - 50

50 - 100 0 1 2 30.5 Miles

Plans: Mixed use TOD

Source: Elizabeth J. Mueller and Sarah Dooling, Sustainability and Vulnerability: Integrating equity into plans for central city redevelopment, forthcoming in Journal of Urbanism 2011.

£¤59

£¤90

£¤290

£¤69

£¤290

£¤90

£¤90

£¤290

£¤59

£¤59

£¤90

£¤59

£¤290

£¤90 £¤90

§̈¦10

§̈¦45

§̈¦610

§̈¦45

Big Thicket National PreserveBig Thicket National Preserve

1970s-80s apartmentsas percent of 2000 housing stock

4 - 6

6 - 10

10 - 15

16 - 22

20 - 30

30 - 50

50 - 100

Trends 2: Disinvestment + subsidized stabilization (Houston example)

Booms, busts, and oversupply in the Houston housing market

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

*

19

96

19

98

20

00

20

02

20

04

^

20

06

20

08

20

10

Bu

ildin

g p

erm

its

issu

ed (

00

0)

1-unit

2-unit

3-4 unit

5+ unit

Houston’s building-permit booms, 1980s and 2000s

Glut indicator 1: Long term high vacancy rates

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Re

nta

l vac

ancy

rat

e Houston

All metros

Source: US Census Bureau, Housing Vacancies & Homeownership survey, tables 6 and 6a, Rental Vacancy Rates for the 75 Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas

Glut indicator 2: Long-term low rents (current dollars)

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

HU

D F

air

Mar

ket

Re

nt,

2B

R a

par

tme

nt San Francisco

Oakland

Boston

Miami

Houston

Dallas

Detroit

Source: HUD Fair Market Rents, 2 bedroom; percentiles vary

Solutions for Houston?

• Code violations, abandonment– Especially acute, with vacancy, at locations just

beyond the I-610 loop

• Addressing with federal subsidies– 2006: “Apartments to Standard” program. HOME,

CDBG funds spent to rehab units in two or three targeted disinvestment areas

– 2008-11: HUD NSP and NSP3 funds targeted in part to same/similar areas

– Even the admin costs borne by federal taxpayers

What about the DC area?

• About 3 million housing units in 2000

– 300,000 of these are 1970s-1980s apartments

• Most are in Virginia and Maryland suburbs

– 82,000 in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties alone

– Around 13% of the Y2K stock in the two counties is apartments built in the 1970s and 1980s

DC suburbs: More neighborhood choices for low-income, immigrants

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Housing Population Poverty Foreign-born

Pe

rce

nt

of

met

ro-a

rea

tota

l (2

00

5-0

9)

in

trac

ts w

ith

>2

0%

19

70

s-8

0s

apar

tme

nts

Austin Houston DC's MD suburbs DC's VA suburbs DC

DC suburbs’ housing, people about as concentrated in these

neighborhoods as Austin’s

DC suburbs’ low-income people, immigrants much

less so than Austin’s

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, SF3; 2005-09 American Community Survey, tract-level data

Washington

Arlington

Bethesda

Columbia

Bowie

Aspen Hill

Gaithersburg

Germantown

Silver Spring

Wheaton-Glenmont

Potomac

McLean

Olney

Rockville Colesville

North Laurel

Redland

Beltsville

Glenn Dale

Greenbelt

Fairland

North Bethesda

Chillum

Vienna

White Oak

Wolf Trap

Calverton

North Potomac

Tysons Corner

Kettering

Laurel

College Park

Adelphi

South Laurel

Montgomery Village

Savage-Guilford

Lanham-Seabrook

Elkridge

Greater Landover

Hyattsville

Takoma Park

Idylwood

East Riverdale

New Carrollton

Oakton

Langley Park

Travilah

Woodmore

Great Falls

Burtonsville

Jessup

Cloverly

Lake Arbor

Mitchellville

Darnestown

Ashton-Sandy Spring

West Laurel

Fort Meade

Goddard

Kemp Mill

Chevy Chase

Maryland City

Brookmont

Cheverly

Hillandale

Pimmit Hills

South Kensington

Glenarden

Riverdale Park

Rossmoor

Woodlawn

Forest Glen

Dunn Loring

North Kensington

Bladensburg Springdale

Largo

Mount Rainier

Seat Pleasant

Berwyn Heights

Brentwood

Carmody Hills-Pepper Mill Village

Friendship Village

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NHPChesapeake and Ohio Canal NHP

Patuxent River State ParkPatuxent River State Park

1970s-80s apartmentsas percent of 2000 housing stock

20 - 30

30 - 50

50 - 100

Opportunities and challenges in Montgomery and Prince George’s

• Both: How to address exposure to CO, O3, VOCs?

• Montgomery– Acquisition for long-term affordability, especially in

“green zone”

– Protection from condo conversion (not an issue now)

– Eventual plans for renewal, densification (some areas)

• Prince George’s– Acquisition for deeper affordability and housing

quality in selected locations

– Code enforcement, rehab support everywhere

Conclusions

• This part of the housing portfolio has aged and may be in transition– Aging fastest in loose housing markets

• An especially important source of affordable housing and neighborhoods in the suburbs– Often pretty lousy conditions

• Prepare to respond with new housing/land use planning models– Beyond inclusionary zoning