1970S-1980S Apartment Neighborhoods: Opportunities And

Home , 1970s

1970s-1980s apartment neighborhoods Opportunities & threats for sustainable suburban transformation

Rolf Pendall Director, Metropolitan Housing & Communities Policy Center The 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 Two big spikes Multifamily construction, 1968-2010 900 800 700 600 500 400

300 Thousands of units of Thousands 200 100 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, New Privately Owned Housing Units Completed, http://www.census.gov/const/compann.pdf , accessed 4- 11-11. Sunbelt metros have the most

¨§¦90

¨§¦94

¨§¦25 ¨§¦80

¨§¦35 ¨§¦70 ¨§¦5

¨§¦15 ¨§¦40

¨§¦20

¨§¦10 1970s-80s apartments as percent of 2000 housing stock ¨§¦95 4 - 6 ¨§¦75 6 - 10 10 - 15 16 - 22 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, SF3 25 Vulnerable people concentrate in neighborhoods with high concentrationsSigns of stressof these apartments 20 % of Y2K housing units that are 15 multi-family built in the 1970s-1980s <20 10 >= 20

0 Poverty rate Vacancy Pct foreign Poverty rate Vacancy Pct foreign rate born rate born

2000 Change, 2000-2005/09 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, SF3; 2005-09 American Community Survey, tract-level data Trends, 1: Redevelopment and gentrification (Austin example)

L ittle ittle Beee Crreek

k eek rree l l CC aa oo hh

UV111  T 35 T a ¨¦§ n n e h iil lll B rr aa k k nn e e cc 1 e h UV re h r C rr C ee llll aa l WW 360 uuldi UV oo in BB C Barton Creek Greenbelt t t rre Barton Creek Greenbelt kk s eek ee s k ee aa rr E E CC inin ldld uu BBoo sstt B ee kk 111 a 343 UV a e r UV WW e

r e tto e on r n r Cr re CC ek k nn nn uu l l BB

eekk rree CC bb lluu CC 1970s-80s apartments trryy unnt CCoou as percent of 2000 290 ¤£ 35 housing stock ¨¦§

W 20 - 30 i illl l ia am ms so 30 - 50 n 275 Cr UV reeekk 183 CCrreeeekk £ 50 - 100 0 0.5 1 2 soonn 3 Miles¤ UV71 CCaarrs 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. Trends 2: Disinvestment + subsidized ¤£69

stabilization (Houston example)BigBig ThicketThicket NationalNational PreservePreserve

290 ¤£ ¤£290

290 ¤£ 45 ¨¦§ ¤£90

£59 ¤£290 ¤ ¨¦§10 ¤£59 ¤£90 ¤£90 ¤£90 ¨¦§610

¤£59 ¤£90 ¤£90

1970s-80s apartments as percent of 2000 housing stock ¨¦§45 4 - 6 20 - 30 6 - 10¤£59 30 - 50 10 - 15 50 - 100 16 - 22 Booms, busts, and oversupply in the Houston housing market 1-unit Houston’s building-permit booms, 1980s and 2000s 2-unit 60 3-4 unit 5+ unit 50

Building permits issued (000) issued permits Building 0

1988 1980 1982 1984 1986 1990 1992 1996 1998 2000 2002 2006 2008 2010

1994* 2004^ Glut indicator 1: Long term high

20 vacancy rates 18 16 14 Houston 12 10 8 All metros

Rental vacancy rate vacancy Rental 6 4 2 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 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

$2,000 (current dollars) $1,800 San Francisco Oakland $1,600 Boston $1,400 Miami $1,200 Houston $1,000 Dallas $800 Detroit $600 $400

HUD Fair Market Rent, 2BR 2BR apartment Rent, Market Fair HUD $200 $0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 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 Austin Houston DC's MD suburbs DC's VA suburbs DC 40%

DC suburbs’ housing, people DC suburbs’ low-income 09) in in 09) - 35% about as concentrated in these people, immigrants much neighborhoods as Austin’s less so than Austin’s

30% 80s apartments 80s - 25%

area total (2005 total area 20% -

15%

10%

tracts with >20% 1970s >20% with tracts Percent of metro of Percent 0% Housing Population Poverty Foreign-born Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, SF3; 2005-09 American Community Survey, tract-level data Elkridge PatuxentPatuxent RiverRiver StateState ParkPark Columbia Montgomery Village Germantown

Ashton-Sandy Spring Gaithersburg Olney Savage-Guilford North Laurel Jessup Redland

Burtonsville Darnestown Cloverly Fort Meade Rossmoor West Laurel North Potomac Laurel Fairland Maryland City Rockville Aspen Hill Colesville

South Laurel

Calverton Travilah Wheaton-Glenmont North Bethesda Kemp Mill White Oak North Kensington Beltsville

Hillandale Forest Glen Potomac South Kensington Silver Spring Adelphi Chevy Chase Greenbelt Goddard Great Falls Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NHP Langley Park Berwyn Heights Bethesda College Park Takoma Park Glenn Dale Bowie 1970s-80s apartments Chillum New Carrollton Lanham-Seabrook Friendship Village East Riverdale as percent of 2000 Hyattsville Brookmont Riverdale Park housing stock Brentwood Woodlawn Mount Rainier Bladensburg McLean Springdale Wolf Trap 20 - 30 Mitchellville Woodmore Washington Glenarden Tysons Corner Cheverly Greater Landover 30 - 50 Pimmit Hills 50 - 100 Lake Arbor Vienna Arlington Carmody Hills-Pepper Mill Village Idylwood Seat Pleasant Oakton Dunn Loring Largo Kettering 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