Homeownership and Housing Opportunities Through Innovative Partnerships and Initiatives That Build Healthy, Vibrant Communities Across the United States

THE URBAN INSTITUTE WASHINGTON, DC Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 F ANNIE MAE FOUNDATION Housing IN THE 4000 Wisconsin Avenue, NW North Tower, Suite One NATION’S CAPITAL Washington, DC 20016-2804 (202) 274-8000 www.fanniemaefoundation.org 2003 www.knowledgeplex.org

FMF R 236 The Fannie Mae Foundation creates affordable homeownership and housing opportunities through innovative partnerships and initiatives that build healthy, vibrant communities across the United States. The Foundation is specially committed to improving the quality of life for the people of its hometown, Washington D.C., and to enhancing the livability of the city’s neighborhoods. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the Foundation is a private, nonprofit organization whose sole source of support is Fannie Mae, and has regional offices in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Pasadena, and Philadelphia.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS

Franklin D. Raines Stewart Kwoh Stacey D. Stewart James H. Carr Chairman Director President and CEO Senior Vice President Financial Innovation, Stacey D. Stewart Robert J. Levin Glen S. Howard Planning, and Research President and CEO Treasurer and Director General Counsel and and Director Senior Vice President Kevin Smith William R. Maloni Senior Vice President Kenneth J. Bacon Director Beverly L. Barnes Finance and Administration Director Senior Vice President Daniel H. Mudd Communications Sheila F. Maith Floyd Flake Director Vice President Director Peter Beard Leadership and Practice John Sasso Senior Vice President Development Stephen Goldsmith Director Knowledge Access and Director Technology Strategy Rebecca R. Senhauser Jamie S. Gorelick Director Director H. Patrick Swygert Charles V. Greener Director Director Karen Hastie Williams Colleen Hernandez Director Director Barry Zigas Louis W. Hoyes Director Director Glen S. Howard Secretary

The Fannie Mae Foundation, through its publications and other programs, is committed to the full and fair exposition of issues related to affordable housing and community development.

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Fannie Mae Foundation or its officers or directors. ALISA WILSON PETER A.TATIAN CHRISTOPHER W. SNOW KATHRYN L.S.PETTIT G. THOMASKINGSLEY MARGERY AUSTINTURNER BY THEURBAN INSTITUTE F PREPARED FORTHE ANNIE MAEFOUNDATION Housing WASHINGTON, DC THE URBANINSTITUTE NATION’S CAPITAL T ABLE OFCONTENTS IN THE FOREWORD. . FOREWORD. APPENDIXES. . . APPENDIXES. . . REFERENCES. . ENDNOTES . AUTHORS Pa CHAPTER 7 .43 Resources and Needs Low-IncomeHousing CHAPTER 6 Re CHAPTER 5 .25 HomeownershipMarket CHAPTER 4 .17 Production and Stock Housing CHAPTER 3 . .8 Context Demographic and Economic CHAPTER 2 . . 5 Introduction CHAPTER 1 . SUMMARY EXECUTIVE tterns of Concentrated Neighborhood Poverty.ConcentratedofNeighborhood tterns .51 nt lHuigMre .35 Market Housing al 2003 59 58 56 56 iii 1

Table of Contents ii Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Featured NeighborhoodClusters 14 15 16 2 3 3 19 27 37 20 22 28 38 35 30 29 CHAPTER 4 .22 (28). Anacostia Historic .21 (38) Douglass .18 (19) Riggs Lamond CHAPTER 3 .15 (27). Southeast Near .14 (16) Village Colonial .12 CathedralHeights(14). CHAPTER 2 neighborhoods ineachclusterappears inAppendixA. cluster, followed by theclusternumber. Alistingof the tifies theclusterby thefirst neighborhoodlistedfor that made upof three to fiveneighborhoods. Thetext iden- areas definedby theDistrict’s Officeof Planningand The text highlights findingsfor neighborhood“clusters,” on laat().49 (2) PleasantMount . . 46 (22) Brookland .44 (37) Sheridan CHAPTER 6 .39 (29) Gardens Eastland F .36 (15) ClevelandPark CHAPTER 5 .29 Mayfair(30) .27 (20) Park Michigan North .26 Howard(3) University SPOTLIGHTS ifxVlae(5 .38 (35) Village airfax of increase inconcentra bers intherest of thenation declined.Thisdisturbing areas of extreme poverty more thantripled,thenum- nation. Whilethenumber of Districtresidents livingin This trend set theDistrictapartfrom therest of the District neighborhoodswithextremely ing findingsisthedramatic upsurge in the lowest incomerenters. Oneof thereport’s moststrik- a deficitof almost40,000housingunits affordable to metropolitan area hasalarge homelesspopulation and are benefitingequallyfrom theregion’s prosperity. The also offers compellingevidence that not allcommunities But the2003editionof looked inner-cityneighborhoods. r most robust housingmarket inyears, andthere’s particularly intheDistrict.Thecityisexperiencing its r This year’s them withconditionsinfiveother metropolitan areas. W y f the mostrecent decennialcensusandaspecialchapter builds onthefirst. Itincludesnewly available data from This secondeditionof community development professionals. using itto teachthenext generation of housingand affordable housingchallenges. Andlocaleducators are ment organizations are relying onthereport to monitor ning efforts. Localhousingandcommunitydevelop- tions. TheDistrictgovernment isusingitto inform plan- in theNation’sCapital We city andourregion. ongoing dialogueonthehousingchallengesfacing our f itan area. Andwe wanted to supplytheregion witha housing conditionsintheWashington, D.C.,metropol- and thepublicat large witharich,textured portrait of wa the Fannie MaeFoundation took aimat two goals. We With lastyear’s launchof spread, thepoorest of ourcitizens becamepoorer. ocusing onconcentrated poverty. Inaddition,this act-fueled enginethat couldigniteandpropel an enewed interest andnew investment inonceover- emarkable housingmarket strength intheregion and ear’s report placeshousingconditionsinthe

ashington, D.C.,region incontext by comparing n

ex succeeded. Demandfor thefirst editionof ted to provide policy makers, housingprofessionals, cep inlec tional Housing intheNation’sCapital onomic growth. Whileprosperity ted poverty coincidedwithadecade quickly exceeded ourexpecta- Housing intheNation’sCapital Housing intheNation’sCapital Housing intheNation’sCapital, high poverty rates. the numberof tells astory of Housing to private, andphilanthropic organizations work together lenge willrequire aconcertedeffort inwhichpublic, communities like Congress Heights. Meeting thischal- politan area isto build ontheprogress of distressed ing thequalityof lifeintheWashington, D.C.,metro- The challengenow facing thosecommittedto improv- trated poverty worsened duringthedecade. Congress Heights, asintheDistrictawhole, concen- and householdovercrowding amongthepoor. Andin neighborhood isacityleaderinhousingcodeviolations But Congress Heights alsofaces seriouschallenges. The neighborhood inthecity. has more plannedhousingunits thanallbutoneother housing constructionduringthe1990sandcurrently among thecity’s top neighborhoodsinnew rental of Heights neighborhood.Congress Heights stands asone more evident thaninWashington, D.C.’s Congress This juxtaposition of progress andchallengeisnowhere the Nation’sCapital, neighborhood residents andthedata from leading justsuchaninitiative. Guidedby thevoice of The Fannie MaeFoundation isintheearlystages of ing, substantive change. throughout ournation. f ument to neighborhoodrevitalization, andasamodel Congress Heights willstand asaninspiration, asamon- Capital. disturbing trends outlinedin erate themostpromising trends andreverse themost in partnership withCongress Heights residents to accel- community development activities. We intend to work T the Kimsey Foundation. the-River CommunityDevelopment Corporation, and ners: thegovernment of Washington, D.C.,theEast-of- Congress Heights initiatives withthoseof ourkey part- or other communitiesthroughout ourcityand ogether, we willdemonstrate thevalue of concerted

produce thewill—andwallet—necessary for last- the city’s housingproduction leaders. Italsoranked And we are confident that oneday soon, F President andCEO Stacey D.Stewart annie MaeFoundation the Foundation isaligningits FOREWORD Housing intheNation’s Housing in

iii Foreword iv Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 and accuracy of of and accuracy f Housing Demography at theFannie MaeFoundation, In particular, we thankPatrick Simmons, director of housing conditionsandtrends inourcityandregion. viding uswiththeongoingopportunityto examine The authors thanktheFannie MaeFoundation for pro- A by gestions pro Finally, we greatly a the D.C.Data War this report: the ble andverifymuchof theinformation presented in support theUrbanInstitute’s ongoingwork to assem- tion, we wishto acknowledge theother funders that w Institute, whoassistedindata assemblyandanalysisas Cigna, Sandra P Institute, its trustees, orits funders. authors andshouldnot be attributed to theUrban consideration. Theviews expressed are thoseof the r The nonpartisanUrbanInstitutepublishesstudies, and omissionsremain theresponsibility of theauthors. or his manyhis or contributions to thecontent, organization, eports, andbooks ontimelytopics worthy of public tion, through the ell asinthepreparation of mapsandgraphs. Inaddi-

CKNOWLEDGMENTS the F annie MaeFoundation. Ofcourse, allerrors vided by a group of advisors convened Annie E.Casey Foundation, through adilla, andBeata Bednarzof theUrban this report. We alsothankJessica Neighborhood ChangeDatabase. ehouse, andtheRockefeller Found- appreciate thecomments andsug- Housing IN THE EXECUTIVE NATION’S CAPITAL SUMMARY

AGAINST THE backdrop of a national recession and anemic recovery, the Washington region’s economy remains resilient, and its housing boom has reached new heights. Employment in the metropolitan area fell between 2001 and 2002, but the decline was modest. And new housing construction, after a minor slowdown in 2001, bounced back last year to reach its highest level since 1988. In 2002, the region’s average home price stood at $265,000, a 10 percent increase from 2001.

The recent performance of the District’s housing market is even more impressive than the region’s. Since slowing to a virtual halt in the mid-1990s, new homebuilding in the District of Columbia has climbed for six consecutive years; in 2002 it reached the highest level in more than two decades (ﬁgure 1). The District’s home sales market has also shown considerable vigor, with prices in the city now increasing at twice the regional pace.

THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE HOUSING BOOM The District’s housing construction boom, while not occurring in all neighborhoods, is nonetheless reaching into sections of the city that have experienced decades of disinvestment. During the past four years, eight neighborhood clusters—including four east of the Anacostia River—have had more than 200 new housing units authorized.*

Although several long-overlooked neighborhoods are sharing in the District’s housing construction resurgence, housing market conditions vary widely across the city. Some of the city’s rapidly changing neighborhoods near downtown are attracting substantial investments and experiencing steep house-price inflation. In the Logan

*Neighborhood “clusters” are areas defined by the District’s Office of Planning

that encompass three to five neighborhoods. See Appendix A for a list of the Executive Summary neighborhoods in each cluster and for information on how clusters are defined. 1 2 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Figure 2.New HousingConstructionby NeighborhoodClusterinthe Figure 1.New HousingConstructioninthe Districtof Columbia, Source: Districtof ColumbiaOfﬁceof Planning. Source: U.S. Bureau of theCensus.

Cumulative Private Units Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized by Permit, 1999-2002 Authorized by Permit 100 200 300 400 500 600 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 District, 1999to 2002 1980 to 2002 500 0 9018 9418 9819 9219 9619 002002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 Figure 1.NewHousingConstructionintheDistrictofColumbia,1980to2002 0 Figure 3 911 135

New Logan Circle

Housing r Logan Circle area, are showing encouraging signsof Other cityneighborhoods, thoughnot ashot asthe gentrification anddisplacement. housing market changesare heightening fears of provided asubstantial stock of low-cost housing,rapid hoods like LoganCircle, which traditionally have more thandoubledinjusteight years. Inneighbor- Furthermore, the typicalhomepriceinthearea has among thecity’s neighborhoodclusters (figure 2). f new housingunits have beenissuedinjustthepast Circle cluster, for example, permits for more than500 our years, ranking itfirst inhousingconstruction einvestment afteryears of decline. TheCongress 31 71 21 19 17 15 13

Construction 1999 to2002 Clusters

Ivy City Neighborhood 52 93 33 37 35 33 31 29 27 25

Cluster

the

Congress District, Heights

the citywiderate. 1994 and2002,thisincrease was lessthanone-half City’s housepricesrose by aboutathird between w Between 1999and2002,onlyonenew housingunit area largely leftbehindby thecity’s housingboom. languish. TheIvyCityclusterisoneexample of an housing markets insomeneighborhoodscontinue to like Congress Heights are showing sparks of renewal, become hotbeds of housinginvestment andothers While neighborhoodssuchasLoganCircle have ra ing codeviolations andsuffers from oneof thehighest these promising signs, thearea remains aleaderinhous- than allbutoneother neighborhoodcluster. Despite 1990s andcurrently hasmore plannedhousingunits leaders innew rental housingconstructionduringthe Heights cluster, for example, ranked amongthecity’s of like LoganCircle might contribute to theconcentration the superheated housingmarkets of neighborhoods suggests that displacement of poorhouseholds from poverty rates. Thisevidence isnot deﬁnitive, butit may have moved into neighborhoodswithrising borhoods, butitappears that someof thecity’s poor the flow of householdsinto andoutof thecity’s neigh- City area. Onlylimitedinformation isavailable to trace left behindby thecity’s housingrevival, like theIvy like theLoganCircle area, andthosethat have been tion between theDistrict’s gentrifying neighborhoods, are unclear. However, thetrend might reflect aconnec- The causesof risingconcentrated poverty intheDistrict an average of one-third inother large urbancenters. District almosttripledduringthe1990s, itdeclinedby ot disturbing whencompared withtrends inthenation’s rise inconcentrated poverty intheDistrictiseven more up from lessthanoneinten1990(ﬁgure 3).The census tract withapoverty rate exceeding 40percent, poor residents of theDistrictof Columbialivedina poverty deepened.Asof 2000,almostoneinfour District rose, theirpopulation increased, andtheir the numberof extremely poorcensustracts inthe 1990s spread prosperity across muchof theregion, like IvyCity. While thestrong economy of thelate Isolation from theeconomicmainstream hurts areas CONCENTRATED POVERTY as authorized intheIvyCitycluster. AlthoughIvy tes of householdovercrowding amongthepoor. her majorcities. Whileconcentrated poverty inthe

poverty inneighborhoods like IvyCity. of This shortfall isequivalent to one-halfthe shortfall of almost40,000affordable housingunits. incomes below $10,000,for example, theregion hasa housing isacontributing factor. For renters with multiple causes, butaninadequate supplyof affordable Housing affordability problems andhomelessnesshave re area’s neediestrenters. equate. Itmeets theneeds of lessthan 50percent of the r we 14,000 homelesspeoplecounted ina2002survey and moderate-income residents inrecent years, with increasingly activerole insubsidizinghousingfor low- The Districtof Columbiagovernment hasplayed an same effect. privately owned subsidized developments ishaving the The expiration of long-term government contracts with housing units earmarked for occupancyby thepoor. housing units itdemolishes—isreducing thenumberof program—which doesnot replace allof thepublic r Housing andUrbanDevelopment shrank slightly in of additional affordable housingunits, theregion’s stock Despite theWashington area’s documented needfor THE ROAD AHEAD of quarters of thesehouseholdsreside outside theDistrict have unaffordable housingcostburdens. Fullythree- r f to Although extreme-poverty neighborhoodsare conﬁned HOUSING DISTRESS ound throughout theregion. IntheWashington met- egion’s supplyof affordable housingiswoefully inad- ecent years. TheHOPEVIpublichousingrevitalization opolitan area, about265,000low-income households gional, not justaninner-city, challenge.

the Districtof Columbia,signsof housingdistress are re Columbia (ﬁgure 4).Furthermore, abouthalfof the re re

n nt f ters inthisincomecategory. Inother words, the ound inDistrictsuburbs. Housingdistress isa al units subsidized by theU.S.Department of total total number Figure 3.Concentrated Poverty intheDistrictof ColumbiaandOther Figure 4.Low-Income HouseholdswithHousingAffordability Problems, f Note: Housingaffordability isdeﬁnedasaproblem ifahousehold ispaying 30percent ormore of its income Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus. Source: U.S. Bureau of theCensus. or housing.

Washington Region Percentage of City Poor Living in (207,000 Households) Extreme Poverty Balance of 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 Figure 3.ConcentratedPovertyintheDistricto Large Cities, 1990and2000 2000 Figure 4.Low-IncomeHouseholdswithHousingAffordabilityProblems,2000 itito oubaCentralCitiesofthe District ofColumbia 1990 and2000 100 LargestMetropolitan Areas (average) f ColumbiaandOtherLargeCities, District ofColumbia (58,000 Households) 1990 2000

3 Executive Summary 4 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 problems demandregional responses. prise theWashington metropolitan area. Regional of nated, regionwide effort rooted inanunderstanding housing hardship demandsaconcentrated, coordi- diction. Signiﬁcant progress inreducing thelevel of ing needsgoesfar beyond thecapacity of any onejuris- housing challenge. Butthemagnitudeof unmet hous- is animportant stepinmeeting theregion’s affordable tion of housingfor low- andmoderate-income residents The Districtgovernment’s efforts to subsidize construc- District’s poorest households. subsidized units are pricedbeyond themeansof the of stock andtherefore doesnot increase theoverall supply the preservation andreplacement of existing housing However, themajorityof thisinvestment goestoward and rehabilitated housingunits in2002alone. city agenciesclosingﬁnancingonalmost3,200new

affordable housing.Furthermore, many of thesecity- the interdependence of thejurisdictionsthat com- Introduction THIS REPORT duces aset of fivecomparisonregions—metropolitan in theWashington-area housingmarket, this report intro- provide context for understanding conditionsandtrends fa (PMSA) andhave definedseveral subareas withinitto W the federal government’s 1999 definitionof the F tions/reports/hnc/2003/hnc2003.shtml). W ulations are available ontheFannie MaeFoundation’s and analysispresented inthisvolume, detailed data tab- in theDistrictof Columbia.Inadditionto theinformation e emerging issuesof particular concern.Thisyear’s chapter ing advantage of newly released data orresponding to final chapterwillfocus onadifferent topic eachyear, tak- updated annuallyasnew data becomeavailable. The r this year’s report, analyzes housingchallengesfacing the Housing NeedsandResources.” Thesixthchapter, new to Market,” 5)“Rental HousingMarket,” and6)“Low-Income 3) “HousingStock andProduction,” 4)“Homeownership duction,” 2)“EconomicandDemographic Context,” This year’s report consists of sixcore chapters: 1)“Intro- cates concernedabouthousingconditionsandtrends. r is to helpinform thepublic,policymakers, industryrep- re information from the2000Censusaswell asmore cur- area, buildingonthe2002report andpresenting new ing supplyanddemandintheWashington metropolitan assembles andanalyzes themostcurrent data onhous- the Districtof Columbiaandthesurrounding region. It is thesecondinaseriesof annual reports onhousingin egion’s neediestresidents. Eachof thesechapters willbe esentatives, community-basedorganizations, andadvo- or mostof theanalysispresented here, we have adopted xplores thechangingpatterns of concentrated poverty cilitate comparisons(seemap1.1and appendixA).To nt eb site(http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/publica- ashington, D.C.,PrimaryMetropolitan Statistical Area data onemerging trends. Thepurposeof thisseries CHAPTER 1

5 Chapter 1 6 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Map 1.1.Washington, D.C.,Metropolitan Area T etl 951 423810 690 839 645 273 147 289 127 14 7 15 20 17 12 9 42 5 7 20 18 19 6 4 26 9 15 3 -4 Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 1990,2000. Seattle Philadelphia Houston Boston A W able 1.1.SelectedPopulation andHousingIndicators: Washington Region andComparison Metropolitan Areas ERPLTNPPLTO RWH CMOIINO OUAIN ONONROCPE AVG. GROSS RENT OWNER-OCCUPIED BORN COMPOSITIONOFPOPULATION, POPULATION GROWTH, METROPOLITAN Source: Office of Management andBudget, 1999 lna63 91 013755 173 10 10 29 39 6 tlanta sigo 61 71 726863 226 17 17 27 17 -6 ashington W RA 9020 % 00() % OE $0)($) HOMES($000) (%) 2000(%) 1990–2000(%) AREA arren Berkeley Culpeper Clarke F Jefferson auquier ETA IYMTOAE LC OWIE 0020 2000 2000 2000 NONWHITE BLACK METRO AREA CENTRAL CITY Spotsylvania Loudoun Stafford Frederick 0 5101530miles William Prince F . airfax Montgomery George King Charles George's Prince Calvert AILADEHI FRINAVG. VALUE OF FOREIGN RACIAL AND ETHNIC Alexandria Arlington District of Columbia Far Far Outer Suburbs Inner Suburbs Inner Core District of Columbia Suburbs OR HISPANIC O THER population of foreign-born residents. A in racial andethnic terms, withlarge shares of both high, butourregion stands outasespeciallydiverse and Seattle, Washington’s housingcosts are relatively ued to losepopulation duringthe1990s. Like Boston among theseregions, althoughthecityitself contin- W • • • • • son metropolitan areas are: graphic characteristics (seetable 1.1).Thesecompari- that differwithrespect to key economicanddemo- areas that are approximately thesamesize asours, but frican AmericansandHispanicsagrowing costs andasmallAfrican- Boston—a slow-growing region withhighhousing fo tion, buthighpercentages of other minoritiesand housing costs andasmallAfrican-American popula- Seattle—a fairly rapidly growing region, withhigh industrial centers, like Detroit andBaltimore. A with low housingcosts andahighpercentage of Philadelphia—a veryslow-growth metropolitan area population. low rents andhousevalues andalarge Hispanic Houston—a fast-growth region, withrelatively ties andforeign-born residents. a comparatively large re A A ashington isclearlyintherapid-growth group frican Americans, similarto many oldernorthern frican-American population and more moderate tlanta—a rapidly growing region withalarge nt r eign-born residents. s andhousevalues thantheWashington area. population of other minori- American population, but by break thefindingsdown by race andethnicity and In additionto thesegeographic groupings, we these clusters. graphic andhousingcharacteristics for eachof neighborhoods. AppendixBprovides basicdemo- and appendixA),eachconsistingof three to five there are 39neighborhoodclusters (seemap1.2 or community city government on hood “clusters,” whichhave beendefinedby the Within theDistrict,we present data for neighbor- ed withoutadjustingfor inflation. changes inincomeandhousingcosts are calculat- from the1990Census. Unlessotherwise noted, date whenreferring to incomeandrelated data 2000 data. Similarly, we use1990asthereference ed measures like poverty andpublicassistance as f on theirannualincomefor 1999.Nevertheless, tions in2000,thecensusasked peopleto report While mostdecennialcensusdata reflect condi- with incomesabove $50,000. incomes below $50,000;and4) low, gories: 1) 2000 Censusdata, definesfour basicincomecate- but thisyear’s report, whichrelies primarilyon Department of HousingandUrbanDevelopment, income categories established by theU.S. households are faring. Lastyear’s report used underst or simplicity’s sake, we refer to incomeandrelat-

income level, to provide amore complete with incomesbelow $35,000;3) anding abouthow different typesof lowest, ganizations andresidents. Inall, with incomesbelow $10,000;2) the basisof consultations with middle tohigh, modest, with Map 1.2.NeighborhoodClusters intheDistrictof Columbia Note: SeeappendixA,table A.2,for namesanddescriptions of clusters. Source: Districtof ColumbiaOfﬁceof Planning,2002. Map 1.2.NeighborhoodClusters intheDistrictof Columbia, 2000 Massachusetts NORTHWEST A SOUTHWEST venue 13 11 14 10 15 4 12 5 1 6 16 16th St. AirForce Wa 2 18 Bolling 3 Soldiers’ 7 lter Reed Army Hospital 17 Home 8 Base 9 3 21 19 39 27 37 25 20 22 23 26 28 1 4 012 38 Arboretum 36 24 35 34 32 SOUTHEAST 30 NORTHEAST 29 New York Ave. 33 31 Capitol St. East miles

7 Chapter 1 8 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Economic THE DYNAMICS CONTEXT AND Demographic of past few years? Data available for thisperiodgiveno How well have thesenew strengths heldupover the diversiﬁed its baseof supportasitgrew. by it istruethat many of theservicejobswere supported growth of high-paying serviceemployment. Although sector hadstrengthened, particularlythrough the of we ment jobs, longthemainstay of localperformance, w fo Last year’s report told thestory of themarked trans- the nation, particularlyintheprivate sector. District remain strong andcontinue to outperform suggest that theeconomiesof theregion andthe the boomof thelate 1990s, butavailable data the national economicslowdown that followed The Washington region hasfelttheeffects of JOBS and inthequalityof thelocallaborforce. and publicassistance rates inthewelfare reform era, employment since9/11,inlaborforce attachment changes inpopulation diversity andmobility, in housing market conditionsandtrends, suchas changes of specialimportance that shapetheregion’s from Census2000andother sources to focus on hold composition.Thisyear, we draw uponnew data graphic trends, includingchangesinrace andhouse- chapter examined long-termeconomicanddemo- composition of thedemandfor housing.Lastyear this Columbia plays withinit—drivethemagnitudeand as evidence of trouble intheearly1990sasgovern- rmation of thisregion’s economy since1980.There

the region’s economy—and therole theDistrictof re the decade, we saw more clearlyhow theprivate government contracts, theprivate economy also cutback.Yet intherecovery throughout therest CHAPTER 2 slowly stillexpanded at rates from 1.3to 2.0times the ing. Otheroccupations that grew somewhat more library; construction;andfood preparation andserv- computer andmathematical; education, training, and comparable national rate. These categories included cent over thesethree years andwere at leasttwicethe enjoyed regional growth rates that exceeded 10per- 1999–2001 period.Several occupational categories tional categories, according to BLSestimates for the outpaced thenational averages inmostmajoroccupa- Employment growth intheWashington region also the localrate was slower thanthenational rate. ra tions were trade, where localandnational growth finance, insurance, andreal estate. Theonlyexcep- include construction,manufacturing, transportation, than thecomparable national average. Thesesectors employment alsoincreased faster orfellmore slowly the 1998–2002period,both regional andDistrict In mostother majorsectors of the economy during ex and city, thepaceof service-sector employment growth essentially leveled off sincethen.Inboth theregion 1.02 millionin1998to 1.14millionin2000buthas 2002. Regionwide serviceemployment grew from 1998 to 302,600in2000andagainto 307,600in service-sector employment grew from 273,100jobsin r sector, accounting for 52percent of thejobsin Local private employment isdominated by theservice cent of its growth from thenthrough 2002. tot sector, whichaccounted for 77percent of theregion’s ex in 1998to 2.19millionin2000andwere at almost Private-sector jobsregionwide grew from 1.99million nation’s 0.7percent lossinthat year. in theDistrict,amore modest downturn thanthe declined by 0.5percent intheregion and0.4percent o the District,butonlyby 1.5percent inthenation ra through 2001,total employment grew at anannual the U.S.economy asawhole. Specifically, from 1998 indicate that theregion hascontinued to outperform show employment leveling off after2000,butthey tion. Estimates by theBureau of LaborStatistics (BLS) r egion and71percent intheDistrict2002. eason to suspectany fundamental changeindirec- verall. Intheyear following 9/11,total employment tes were aboutthesame, andgovernment, where te of 2.9percent intheregion and2.2percent in actly thesamelevel inSeptember2002.Theprivate ceeded thenational average duringthisperiod. al employment in1998,was responsible for 87per- 1 gap in1999. 42 percent in2001,slightly more thanthe41percent District’s average wage exceeded that of thenation by r we up from 21percent in1999.TheU.S.average wage wa 2001, theaverage hourlywage intheregion, $19.70, perform better thantheU.S.average iswages. In Another measure by whichtheregion continues to ices, andhealthcare support. tecture andengineering,community andsocialserv- national rate, includingcategories suchaslegal,archi- These are smallnumbers; it’s not atrend.” as saying, “It’s fluctuating around zero growth…. subsequent year. ACensusBureau official was quoted July 2000to July2001anddown by 2,924over the gest modestchangessincethen:upby 1,763from population at 572,059.CensusBureau estimates sug- The 2000decennialcensusrecorded theDistrict’s lation estimates madefor theDistrictinthisperiod. There hasbeenconsiderable debate aboutthepopu- since thecensus). somewhat slower annualgrowth rate of 2.3percent while theMarylandsuburbstotaled 2.16million(a growth at 3.1percent peryear sinceApril2000), suburbs reached 2.43millioninJuly2002(implying that thepopulation of theVirginia/West Virginia a o 2000. Thisimpliesanannualincrease of 2.4percent 4.92 millionrecorded by thedecennialcensusinApril that now exceeds 5million:5.16million,upfrom the r The mostrecent CensusBureau estimate of the r of dynamism isexemplified by substantial growth suggesting acceleration since2000.Demographic estimates from theU.S.Bureau of theCensus The region’s population continues to grow, with POPULATION dynamism of theregion’s population andare, thereby, 2000 addtwo measures that alsoindicate the r the Washington region’s population, focusing onits Last year’s report discussedtheincreasing diversity of acial andethnic composition.New data from Census egion’s average rose by 9.3percent. At $22.73,the egion’s population isfor July2002.Itshows atotal esidential mobility. verage of the1990s. TheCensusBureau estimates ver thisperiod,even higherthanthe1.5percent

nt s 23percent above thenational average, $16.01, the foreign-born population andhighrates of

up by 7.3percent from 1999to 2001,whilethe 2 3

9 Chapter 2 10 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 a .. hr ftePplto That IsForeign Born,2000 Map 2.1.Share of thePopulation Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennial census, 2000. Fo Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 2000. r eign-Born Share No ClusterAssignment 20–100% 10–20% 5–10% 0–5% r Philadelphia’s 7percent are at thelow end.Withinthe born share ishigher—Atlanta’s 10percent and metropolitan areas, onlyHouston’s 20percent foreign- in theWashington region. Amongourcomparison y percent in1990to 17percent in2000.Bythelatter jumped substantially over thepastdecade, from 12 The foreign-born share of theregion’s population between 1995and2000). of population andresidential mobility(that is, theshare These measures are thegrowth of theforeign-born important to thefunctioningof thehousingmarket. egion, themostdramatic growth of thispopulation ear, atotal of 832,000foreign-born persons resided

population age5andover that moved at leastonce 1 4 012 miles r and over that livedinadifferent housein1995 much more varied. Theshare of thepopulation age5 Mobility patterns withintheDistrict,however, are at f cent range for theInnerandOuterSuburbs aswell as r there isnot agreat dealof variation elsewhere inthe mobility inmetropolitan Washington (62percent), but The InnerCore hasthehighestaverage residential in Boston (42percent) andPhiladelphia(38 percent). Houston, Seattle, andAtlanta), withmuchlower rates mobility rates (inthe52to 55percent range in growing comparisonmetropolitan areas alsohave high compared with46percent nationally. Theother rapidly age 5andover having moved from 1995to 2000, r The Washington region alsoexperiences relatively high one-third intheColumbiaHeights cluster(2). R the central andwestern portionsof theCity, closeto or more (seemap2.1).Mostof theseclusters are in the 39clusters having foreign-born shares of one-ﬁfth dents of theDistrictare fairly concentrated, with9of a the country since1995,compared withtheregional third of theDistrict’s foreign-born residents ﬁrst entered somewhat more likely to berecent immigrants. One- Fo Suburbs (8percent) andFar Suburbs(3percent). population stillhasmuchsmallershares intheOuter growing intherest of theregion, theforeign-born (22 percent) thantheDistrict(13percent). Although Even theInnerSuburbshadahigheraverage share the InnerCore (Arlington County andAlexandria). population accounted for 27percent of thetotal in occurred inthesuburbs. By2000,theforeign-born or theDistrict,withFar Suburbssomewhat lower egion. Themobilityaverages are inthe49to 51per- esidential mobility, withexactly halfof thepopulation anged from onlyone-quarter intheColonialVillage verage of 29percent. Spatially, foreign-born resi- ock Creek Park. Theshares range upto ahigh of r 46 percent. eign-born residents intheDistrict,however, were f national average. Inthat year, theunemployment rate District’s rate reached 9.6percent in1998,twice the continued to increase astheU.S.rate decreased; the 1994 through 1998,theDistrict’s unemployment rate ly ye path of change duringthe1990s. Asdiscussedinlast P Y the Sheridancluster(37). Deanwood cluster(31),theDouglass(38),and percent in theNearSoutheastcluster(27), the NorthCleveland Park cluster(12)butbelow 45 above 85percent intheDupont Circle cluster(6)and contrasts were againdramatic, with employment rates r f and theOuterSuburbs(78to 79percent), butexcept the highestemployment rates were intheInnerCore Ac cent inSeattle andinthemid-60sHouston. about thesameasregional rates: around 75per- r 10 percentage points lower thantheaverage for their all employment rates inthecentral cities were about these metropolitan areas (includingWashington), over- Houston hasthelowest rate, 67percent. For four of their populations ages16to 64employed in2000. els of workforce attachment, withthree-quarters of W Among ourcomparisonmetropolitan areas, sharp asthosefor thenation onaverage. not ashighandwelfare declineswere not as 1990s. IntheDistrict,employment rate was markedly inthewelfare reform era of thelate of high rate of laborforce attachment andits rate Compared withother regions, Washington hasa WELFARE RECIPIENCYRATES EMPLOYMENT AND north andwest. ra of borhoods are inthenorthandnortheastern sections End cluster(5).Themajorityof the more stable neigh- cluster (16)to anastounding 78percent intheWest or theWashington region asawhole hit3.3percent, or theDistrict,rates were allverycloseto the egions. Intheother two areas, rates inthecitieswere egion’s 75percent average. WithintheDistrict ear-by-year data onunemployment from theCurrent opulation Survey (CPS)giveabetter picture of the tes are withintwo to three milesof downtown to the ashington, Boston, andSeattle have thehighestlev-

ar’s report, thelocaleconomy recovered more slow-

r than thenational economy during the1990s. From the City, whileclusters withthehighestmobility oss thesubregions of metropolitan Washington, welfare recipiency islow, having declined counties andtheCityof Fredericksburg. the Far Suburbs:Culpeper, KingGeorge, andBerkeley cent range. Theonlyexceptions (3percent) were in ra Within theWashington region, welfare recipiency (5.5 percent), andhighestinPhiladelphia(8.7percent). (4.1 percent), higherstillinWashington andAtlanta and Houston (3.0percent), somewhat higherinBoston the regional averages. Therates were lowest inSeattle public assistance rates were consistently higherthan cent). Inallof thesemetropolitan areas, central-city (2.0 percent) andhighestinPhiladelphia(4.0per- 2.1). In2000,theshare was lowest inWashington t The share of householdsdependingonpublicassis- ra District’s rate was only10percent above thenational United States asawholesince2000.By2002,the But unemployment hasincreased more rapidly for the 2000 andthenincreased againto 3.6percent in2002. W stayed inthe6.2to 7.2percent range since1999.The unemployment rate dropped precipitously andhas nation. According to theCPSestimates, theDistrict’s then started to improve at afaster pacethanthe 30 percent below thenational rate. Thelocaleconomy Philadelphia ance varied across ourcomparisonregions (seeﬁgure Figure 2.1. Households withState orLocalPublicAssistance Income Washington te, andtheregion’s was 40percent below it. tes inthesuburbswere generally inthe1to 2per- ashington region’s rate went down to 2.4percent in Supplemental SecurityIncomeprogram. Note: Thisreport follows theCensus2000definitionof publicassistance income, which excludes theFederal Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 2000. Houston Atlanta Boston Seattle 123 01 by

Metropolitan Area, 2000 Percentage 456789 Central City Area Metropolitan 11 Chapter 2 12 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Figure 2.2. Change inWelfare CasesRelative to 1996Level, SPOTLIGHT Source: U.S. Department of HealthandHumanServices. Percentage of 1996 Cases 100 120 20 40 60 80 0 14 9619 9819 002001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 W ashington, D.C.,andtheNation Cathedral Heights(14) wa The District’s overall publicassistance rate in2000 America’s large central cities. declines inwelfare recipiency) was common for same period.Thisexperience (slower-than-average national caseloadsdeclinedby 52percent over the 1996 to 16,291inSeptember2001.However, dropped 36percent—from 25,350families inAugust As ﬁgure 2.2illustrates, theDistrict’s welfare caseload the onlyoneof thesewest of theAnacostiaRiver. Rates o e only oneof thesenot inNorthwest. At theother assistance in2000;theCapitol Hillcluster(26)was the 2.5 percent orfewer of allhouseholdsreceived public across its neighborhoods. In13of the39clusters, we and 2000. Three-quarters ofhouseholds were nonfamily households,andmore thanoneinfour residents among thecity’s mostmobile,withtwo-thirds ofthe population age5andoldermoving between 1995 District ofColumbiaclusters onboththeseindicators. Residentsofthisneighborhood clusterwere also employed worked inmanagerial or professional occupations, putting Cathedral Heights amongthetop10 2000, more thanthree-quarters ofadultresidents were collegegraduates andalmosthalfofthose T assistance. T 2000 andmore thanhalfof householdsreceiving incomefrom interest, dividends,ornetrental income. xtreme, publicassistance rates in10clusters were ver 10percent; theNearSoutheastcluster(27)was he Cathedral Heightscluster(14)reflects theregion’s dynamic andhighlyeducated population. As of he poverty rate in2000was only13percent, andalittleover 1 percent ofhouseholds received public s, re

course, anaverage of verydisparate conditions r eign born.Cathedral Heightsisanaffluent area, withaverage family incomeover $100,000in States United D.C. Washington, and theDouglasscluster(38)at 23percent. we by percent (Philadelphia).Therankings withintheregion pared withtherange from 32percent (Seattle) to 16 the central citiesby thismeasure: 29percent, com- Philadelphia). TheDistrictagaincameinsecondamong and thelowest rates of 22percent (Houston and compared withBoston’s 30percent (secondhighest) and managerialoccupations in2000:32percent, also hadthehighestshare of workers inprofessional Among ourcomparisonareas, theWashington region cent) thanintheDistrict. Outer Suburbs(31percent) andFar Suburbs(21per- adults withacollegedegree was notably lower inthe and theInnerSuburbs(47percent). Theproportion of graduates was highestintheInnerCore (58percent) Within theWashington region, theshare of college (47 percent) andPhiladelphialowest (18percent). second highest(39percent)—Seattle beinghighest Among central citiesof theseregions, theDistrictwas 39 percent andHouston was lowest at 27percent. among thecomparisonregions: Boston was secondat lege degree (seeﬁgure 2.3).Thisisthehighestrate population over 25years of agehadafour-year col- In theWashington region in2000,42percent of the Boston andSeattle. nation—topping that of other high-skillcities, like among thebesteducated andmost skilledinthe The laborforce of theWashington region is THE LABORFORCE QUALITY OF the InnerCore hadthehighestpercentage (42percent);

re this measure were similarto thosefor education:

highest intheSheridancluster(37)at 25percent w W metropolitan areas withamillion people ormore, “working class”or“servicepeople. Amongall o some becomingcenters of thecreative class, while large-scale re-sorting of peopleamongregions, with become thedominant classinsociety.” Heﬁndsa growth, intermsof influencethecreative classhas “because creativity isthedrivingforce of economic Anacostia cluster (28),andtheIvyCitycluster (23). ter (37),theDouglasscluster (38),theHistoric W P the FriendshipHeights cluster(11),and theCleveland Circle cluster(6),theNorthCleveland Park cluster(12), tions ranges from 55percent ormore intheDupont F generally better trained thanthoselivingelsewhere. dents. MinoritiesintheWashington region alsoare professional employment are not limitedto whiteresi- The Washington region’s highlevels of education and of veyors of creativity” andnow account for 30percent creative class. Members of thecreative classare “pur- Florida, whoexamines theimportance of theso-called These ﬁndingsare consistent withanalysisby Richard Suburbs (21percent). percent) to theOuterSuburbs(30percent) andtheFar the rate thendecreased from theInnerSuburbs(35 of the Historic Anacostiacluster(28).Similarly, theshare Sheridan cluster(37),theDouglass(38),and less intheWoodland/Fort Stanton cluster(36),the Friendship Heights cluster(11),down to 6percent or the NorthCleveland Park cluster(12),andthe Georgetown cluster(4),theSpringValley cluster (13), degrees ranges from more than80percent inthe map 2.2).Thetotal share of adults withcollege ures for different parts of the Districtof Columbia(see There are, however, majordifferences inthesemeas- Houston and19percent inBoston. are collegegraduates, compared with8percent in f A (comparable measures range from 22percent in than inany of thecomparisonmetropolitan areas Americans over theageof 25have collegedegrees or Hispanics:21percent inmetropolitan Washington or example, alarger share (24percent) of African ark cluster(15),down to lessthan 10percent inthe thers are composedof larger shares of what helabels tlanta to 13percent inPhiladelphia). Thesameistrue orkforce inthecreative class(38percent). oodland/Fort Stanton cluster (36),theSheridanclus- ashington andBoston tiedfor highestshare of the

all workers inmanagerialandprofessional occupa- the national workforce. 4 Florida argues that 5 Figure 2.3. Population Age25andOver withaCollege Degree by a .. Share of Workers inManagerialandProfessional Map 2.2. Source: U.S. Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 2000. Philadelphia Washington Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 2000. Professional Workers Managerial and Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus2000. Houston Atlanta Boston Seattle Occupations, 2000 No ClusterAssignment 40–100% 30–40% 20–30% 10–20% 0–10% Metropolitan Area, 2000 0510 Percentage ofPopulationAge25andOver with aCollegeDegree 52 53 54 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 1 4 012 mile s 13 Chapter 2 14 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 SPOTLIGHT 16 Colonial Village (16) Colonial Village w discussed later inthisreport. Another indicator of Homeownership, agoodindicator of wealth, willbe measures of wealth andnot justincome. that theconceptof economicwell-being mustinclude It isperhapsbetter understood today thaninthepast lowest average family income. ($51,000), andWarren County, VA ($58,000)hadthe and LoudounCounties. Berkeley County, WV with averages above $100,000includeMontgomery County andFalls Church city($112,000).Otherareas tions intheregion, averages were highestfor Fairfax the Far Suburbs($65,000).Amongallmajorjurisdic- lower intheOuterSuburbs($83,000),andlower stillin Inner Core andInnerSuburbs($97,000to $99,000), similar to thosefor collegeeducation: highestinthe the region, variations inaverage family incomeswere above Philadelphiaat thelow end($48,000).Within $78,000) ranked secondto Seattle ($84,000)butwell li $69,000. Amongthecentral citiesof thesemetropo- highest, at $89,000,whereas Houston was lowest, at comparison regions (seetable 2.1);Boston was second ington region ($91,000)was thehighestamong As of 2000,theaverage family incomeintheW significantly. e income inequalitiesremain severe, wefindno in many other regions. Moreover, although of is aseriousproblem, butamuchsmallershare and they dointheWashington region. Poverty AND POVERTY INCOMES fo A strong economy withahighlyskilled work- r has beengrowing rapidly (from only6percent in1990).In2000,three-quarters ofColonial Village cluster or over moving between 1995and2000. The foreign-born population was small (12percent in2000)but Colonial Village ranks highestamongallDistrictclusters instability, withonlyoneinfour people agefive had incomesbelow thepoverty level, andthewelfare recipiency rate was below 1percent in2000. graduates, andalmosthalfworked inmanagerialor professional occupations. Only5percent ofresidents or netrental income,reflecting substantialfinancialassets. Three-quarters ofresidents were college hoods. The average family earnedmore than$140,000in2000,including$18,000interest, dividends, T ses vidence sofar to suggestthey are deepening esidents wereesidents AfricanAmerican. ealth istheshare of allhouseholdsthat have income he Colonial Village cluster(16)isoneoftheDistrict’s moststableandaffluent majority-black neighbor- r the population issufferingfrom poverty than ce shouldproduce highincomesonaverage, , the District(withanaverage family incomeof ash- and not doingaswell sincethen. economy, improving inthelatter partof the1990s and intheregion followed thegeneral path of the Figure 2.4shows that thepoverty rates intheDistrict neighborhood clusters eastof theAnacostiaRiver. while fewer than10percent have suchincomein borhood clusters that are allwest of Rock Creek Park, holds have interest/dividend incomeinseveral neigh- within theDistrict.More than60 percent of house- indicator of economicwell-being varies dramatically percent intheFar Suburbs. Aswould beexpected, this Suburbs, 41percent intheOuterSuburbs, and35 percent) andthenfalls to 47percent intheInner District (31percent). ItishighestintheInnerCore (49 the Washington region, thisrate islowest inthe the low endof thisdistributionat 29percent. Within percent and43percent, respectively). Houston marks with Seattle andWashington justastepbehind(44 Boston ranks highestonthisindicator (45percent) assets). Amongourcomparisonregions (table 2.1), (reflecting that they have at leastsomefinancial from interest, dividends, andnet rental income T etl 084 12 12 12 44 10 8 45 29 39 9 14 11 80 Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 2000. 69 89 73 Seattle Philadelphia Houston Boston A W INTEREST/DIVIDEND POVERTY AVG. FAMILY METROPOLITAN able 2.1. Income andPoverty, 2000:Washington lna7 310 33 9 75 tlanta sigo 174 12 43 7 91 ashington RAICM AE()INCOME RATE (%) INCOME AREA R egion andComparisonMetropolitan Areas ($000) 6 F or theWashington OSHLS($000) HOUSEHOLDS FAVG. AMT % OF SPOTLIGHT of Po a social andeconomicindicators noted earlier, thevari- w percent) andOuterSuburbs(4percent). Again, as cent). Thelowest rates were for theInnerSuburbs(6 the Far SuburbsandtheInnerCore (both at 8per- by Within theregion, the2000poverty rate was highest (8 percent), andhighestinHouston (14percent). W 2.1), the2000poverty rate was lowest inthe 2000 measures for ourcomparisonregions (table or for smallergeographic areas. According to Census ize variations between placesat agiven point intime ent). those from thecensus(whichare often quitediffer- CPS andare generally heldto bemore reliable than cent in2001.Data for thesemeasures comefrom the 1999 and2000,followed by anupswingto 18per- cent in1996,andthelowest point was 15percent in ra percent thefollowing year andhasstayed closeto that dropped to 13percent in1998,thenwent upto 14 r e Chapter 7).Butitisimportant to point outthat the problems intheseareas are severe (seeanalysisin are predominantly African American,andto besure, The populations of thesehigh-poverty neighborhoods and Douglass(38),justacross theAnacostiaRiver. percent inWoodland/Fort Stanton (36),Sheridan(37), in theNearSoutheastcluster(27)andexceeded 40 egion, poverty peaked at 19percent in1995, tions withintheDistrictwere even more extreme. xistence of theseneighborhoods doesnot implythat ould beexpected giventhedifferences inother te ever since. For theDistrict,peakwas 24per- ashington region (7percent), next lowest inSeattle

verty rates were generally lessthan10percent west

R f ar intheDistrict(20percent) andnext highestin ock Creek Park butreached ahighof 50percent 7 Census data, however, canbeusedto character- 27 Near Southeast(27) tions. The average family incomein2000was $29,000,down 13percent inreal termsfrom 1990. ov Residents face seriouschallengesamidtheregion’s expanding opportunity;44percent oftheresidents With 17percent ofitshouseholdsonpublicassistancein2000,thisclusterranked fifthoutof39. we 50 percent ofresidents hadincomesbelow thepoverty line,andonly4ofevery 10working-age adults past five years. One-quarter ofthehouseholdsconsistsingleparents withchildren. As of2000,fully idents. Halfofthepopulation agedfive andover livingthere in2000hadmoved tothearea withinthe T he population oftheNearSoutheastcluster(27)fell by 8percent duringthe1990s,endingat 4,600res- er age25lack ahighschooldiploma,andonly11percent work inmanagerialorprofessional occupa- re

employed. The employment rate was down from 1990,whenmore thanhalf of adultshadjobs. the other comparisonmetropolitan areas. and Seattle, but below the22to 28percent range for the sameshare asfor blacks inmetropolitan Atlanta r only 19percent of adultAfrican Americans inthis (Philadelphia) for thecomparisonregions. Similarly, r a poverty rate of 13percent here compared witha cen Americans ranged from 16percent inAtlanta to 24per- in theother regions (where poverty amongAfrican t ra the comparisonmetropolitan areas. Theoverall poverty generally fare better intheWashington region thanin tressing everywhere inthisregion. Infact, minorities conditions for blacks andother minoritiesare asdis- on, for example, was lower in2000(13percent) than egion lacked ahighschooldegree in2000,essentially ange from 19percent (Seattle) to 36percent Figure 2.4. Poverty Rate Trends, Washington, D.C.,andtheRegion, te for African Americansinmetropolitan Washing- Note: Poverty rate ﬁgures refer to theyear that thedata represent, not theyear that thesurvey was conducted. Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, Current Population Survey, 1995to 2002.

Percentage of Population in Poverty t in Philadelphia).Thesamewas truefor Hispanics: 10 15 20 25 30 Figure 0 5 9419 9619 9819 002001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994

2 . 4 . 1994 to 2001 Poverty

Rate

Trends , Washington , D . C ., and

the

Region , 1994

2001 Region D.C. Washington, 15 Chapter 2 16 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 increases ininequalities, at leastnot through 2001. is not conclusive, butitdoesnot suggestdramatic r however, thegapwas widerto beginwithbutnar- the high-wage average. For workers intheDistrict, age changedfrom 65.7percent to 66.7 percent below dollars). Thegapwidenedslightly: thelow-wage aver- pations increased from $10.55to $11.15(innominal while theaverage wage for thefivelowest-wage occu- increased from $30.72in1999to $33.54in2001, hourly wage for thefivehighest-wage occupations Specifically, for theregion asawhole, theaverage pations haswidenedslightly inrecent years. gests that thegapbetween high-andlow-wage occu- high- andlow-wage categories. Thiscomparisonsug- we ye been wideninginrecent years? Althoughwe donot r sector) may have suffered more thanothers have. This portion of low-skill workers (particularlythehospitality that sectors of theeconomy that employ ahigherpro- 1990s, particularlyafter9/11,concernshave arisen In theeconomicallyuncertain period sincethelate percent below thehigh-wage average. w a increased from $32.69to $34.74,andthelow-wage ow aises thequestion:Have wage andincomedisparities verage increased from $10.10to $10.97.Thelow- age average hadchangedfrom 69.1percent to 68.4 t have thedata to answer thisquestiondefinitively,

ed slightly over thisperiod.Thehigh-wage average can compare recent trends inBLSwage data for 8 This evidence those indistress get ahead. funds andcannot provide theservicesneededto help economic decline, local governments are strapped for hardly any jobsto behad—regions where, becauseof nation’s decliningindustrialcenters, where there are poverty to have any basisfor hope in oneof our people. Itismuchmore difﬁcultfor someonein there are even more seriouschallengesfacing poor dents. But,inregions withlessrobust economies, lenges facing lower-skilled andlower-income resi- housing costs, exacerbating theaffordability chal- education andincomelevels, contributes to high r lives here andispoor?Asdiscussedelsewhere inthis What aboutthecosts andbeneﬁts for someonewho economic potential. class,” mustberated verycloseto thetop intermsof W most fundamental determinant of future growth, the the locallaborforce isincreasingly recognized asthe r t nation’s capital, now make theWashington metropoli- 1990s, coupledwithits long-standing assets asthe of Overall, itishard to seemany negatives. Thedynamism r graphic trends implyfor thewell-being of theregion’s What doesallthisevidence oneconomicanddemo- FUTURE FOR THE PROSPECTS an area theenvyof civicleaders inalmostallother egions inthecountry. Inanera whenthequality of eport, theregion’s rapid growth, alongwithits high esidents and,inparticular, for its housingmarket?

ashington region, withits burgeoning “creative the region’s private economy asitevolved over the Housing Stock THE WASHINGTON AND PRODUCTION W r w ing intheDistrictof Columbia. stock, includingtheproduction of city-subsidized hous- to mation from Census2000withlocaladministrative data continues to increase. Thischaptercombinesnew infor- the region overall, althoughproduction intheDistrict housing production levels appearto beleveling off in v in population oremployment, leadingto declining growth inhousingunits didnot keep pacewithgrowth size. Nevertheless, asdiscussedinlastyear’s report, the 1990s, outpacingmany other regions of comparable r 1990s. ber of units that were lostorreplaced duringthe W the net changeinhousingunits (seeFigure 3.1). (Atlanta), both intermsof thenewly builtunits andof f 1990s, theWashington region’s housingstock grew e r Last year’s report discussedtherapid growth inthe more dense. considerably tighter andthehousingstock became 1990 and2000,theoverall housingmarket became units regionwide produced since1970.Between the pastthree decades, withmore thanhalfof all The region’s housingstock hasgrown rapidly over HOUSING INVENTORY O aster thanthat of allbutoneof ourcomparison regions egion alsolostmore units thanWashington. Withinthe egion saw agreat dealof housingproduction inthe egion’s housingstock that occurred inresponse to acancy rates andrisinghousingcosts. More recently, xpanding employment andpopulation. Duringthe ell, replacing 124,892of its 1990units. TheHouston ashington region, thejurisdiction withthemostunits ashington was third outof thesixregions inthenum-

VERALL describe thechangingcharacteristics of thehousing 1 A tlanta ledthesixregions onthismeasure as CHAPTER 3 17 Chapter 3 18 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Figure 3.1. Housing Inventory Changesby Metropolitan Area, SPOTLIGHT Note: Total barequalsthenumberof units builtinthe1990s. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, decennialcensus, 1990,2000. Thousands of Housing Units -200 -100 100 200 300 400 0 19 Washington, F i gure 3.1.Hous D.C. 1990 to 2000 tat Boston Atlanta i ng InventoryC Lamond Riggs(19) 2000—was considerably higherthanthat of the the Districtof Columbia’s vacancy rate—9.6 percent in cent in1990to 4.9percent in2000.Andalthough re share of allunits isvacant. Asdetailed inlastyear’s with householdgrowth duringthe1990s, asmaller Because housingstock growth failed to keep pace half theirstock constructedsince1990. Loudoun andSpotsylvania counties have seenabout ing stock, withamedianyear builtof 1949,while r units were produced) varies dramatically withinthe However, themedianyear built(afterwhichhalfof all r Ac the largest numberof units lostorreplaced (17,000). built inthe1990s(Fairfax County, 69,000)alsohad tors for boarding upordemolition. cluster appearonthecity’s listofvacant and abandoned properties or have beencitedby housing inspec- But investment intheexisting housingstock remains strong. Very few properties inthe LamondRiggs 2000, andvacancy rates were low. Since1999,only onenew unithasbeen authorizedfor production. in theyears since. The numberofhouseholds andhousingunitsdeclinedonlyslightlybetween 1990and T egion. TheDistrictof Columbiahastheoldesthous- egion’s total housingstock was builtafter1970. Metropolitan Areas he LamondRiggscluster(19) enjoyed anexceptionally stable housingmarket throughout the1990sand port, theoverall vacancy rate dropped from 6.5per- cording to Census2000,more thanhalfthe h anges Houston b y Metropo hldlhaSeattle Philadelphia li tan Area,1990to2000 stock from housing removed Units in units Net change of net new apartment units slightly exceeds thenumber in LoudounCounty, whichtogether withnearly5,000 This represents more than10,000net new townhouses at Loudoun County, whichwent from 21percent or apartment units. Byfar thebiggestchangewas in with acorresponding increase insingle-family attached fa two-percentage point declineintheshare of single- ex ing units in2000.However, nearlyalljurisdictions homes continued to account for nearlyhalfof allhous- becoming denser. Regionwide, single-family detached tighter, thestock inmostparts of theregion was 27 percent to 35percent. 2000, whiletheInnerSuburbs’share climbedfrom declined from 52percent in1990to 43percent in The District’s share of theregion’s efﬁciencyunits growth of smallhousingunits intheInnerSuburbs. declined markedly since1990,largely dueto faster one-bedroom units. However, thisdominancehas cent of allstudioapartments and45percent of all the region’s smallerhousingunits, including60per- The DistrictandtheInnerCore supplythemajorityof the decade(14,500). At a whole. mar tions for both homeownership andrental housing tion ontheimplications of tightening market condi- Chapters 4and5of thisreport provide more informa- r egion asawhole, ittoo haddeclinedsince1990. mily detached residences duringthe1990s, together t

cept thoseintheFar Suburbswitnessedaone-or ached townhouses in1990to 28percent in2000. the sametimethat thehousingmarket was getting new single-family detached homesaddedduring kets in in kets the Districtof Columbiaandtheregion as nearly 1,300units. 20 years, withmore than400permits authorizing authorized for production in2002was thehighestin Within theDistrictof Columbia,thenumberof units e ing permits, withtheirshare increasing inalmost accounted for more thanhalftheregion’s total build- five years since1998,theOuterandFar Suburbshave ized in2002,thehighestlevels since1988.Andinthe 2002. Specifically, 40,725housingunits were author- survey indicate that buildingpermits were upagainin newly released data from theCensusBureau’s annual tial drop inmostof theOuterSuburbs. However, slightly from 2000to 2001,largely dueto asubstan- building permits intheWashington region was down The total numberof housingunits authorized by struction, planned,orproposed. than 30,000units recently completed, undercon- v However, theDistrictof Columbiaisexperiencing production, reaching 60percent in2002. steadily increasing share of theregion’s housing 2001. TheOuterandFar Suburbsaccount for a continued to climbin2002,afteraslowdown in Housing constructionintheWashington region PRODUCTION RECENT HOUSING more townhouses beingbuilt,isnot detectable here Loudoun County, where decennialcensusdata show to declining from 47percent of authorized units in1999 types authorized by permit,withsingle-family houses Columbia showed achangerecently inthestructure Among theregion’s jurisdictions, only theDistrictof account for about1,160authorized units. W Heights (39), Douglass(38),RiverTerrace (32),and including 4eastof theAnacostiaRiver—Congress had more than200new housingunits authorized, o building at 15thStreet andMassachusetts. However, since 1999,withabout560,270of whichwere inone Circle clusteralsoledthecityintotal units authorized under 200units eachauthorized in2002.TheLogan (3) andtheLoganCircle cluster(7)were next, withjust izing about400units. TheHoward University cluster the Downtown cluster(8),withjust3permits author- the largest numberof authorized units in2002was very year (seefigure 3.2). ery highlevels of housingproduction, withmore ver thepast4years, 8neighborhoodclusters have

oodland/Fort Stanton (36)—whichcollectively only 15percent in2001.Theshiftnoted earlierin 2 The neighborhoodclusterwith been proposed. 10,500 are currently planned,andabout5,300have completed, 8,300are underconstruction,more than more than7,000housingunits have recently been surge inhousingproduction (map3.1).Specifically, finding that theDistrictof Columbiaisexperiencing a bilitation rather than new construction,reinforce the issued aswell asprojects that involve substantial reha- ects for whichbuildingpermits have not yet been ning to completion. Thecounts, whichincludeproj- track allmajorhousingprojects inthecity, from plan- District of Columbia’s Officeof Planningattempts to In additionto monitoring buildingpermits, the single-family homes. does not distinguishbetween attached anddetached because theCensusBureau’s buildingpermits survey the new construction totals donot necessarily represent tion (orfor whichthestatus isnot recorded). Note that mately 1,100that combinerehab andnew construc- units, 2,900newly constructed units, andapproxi- completed units includemore than 3,000rehabilitated new andsubstantially rehabilitated units. Therecently than 30,000housingunits since2000,includingboth District, thetotal development would cometo more If allplannedandproposed units were builtinthe Figure 3.2. Share of HousingPermits intheWashington Region Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, BuildingPermits Survey. Share of Region’s Building Permits Figure 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 9018 9418 9819 9219 9619 002002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980

3 . by 2 3 . Share

Subarea, 1980to 2002

Housing

Permits

the

Washington

Region

Subarea , 1980 Far Suburbs Outer and Suburbs and Inner Inner Core, District,

2002 19 Chapter 3 20 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Map Map 3.1.Residential ConstructionProjects by Type, 2000to 2002 Source: District of ColumbiaOfﬁceof Planning,2000–2002. Project Types 1 4 012

New Construction R 3 ehabilitation . 2 . R esidential Area of Detail: SoutheastWashington D.C.

Construction miles east Federal Center. market rate) andmarket-rate housingin the South- public housingredevelopment (halfof which willbe made upequallyof theCapper/Carrollsburg HOPEVI largest numberof proposed units—more than3,000— Finally, theNearSoutheast cluster(27)hasby far the (3,450), followed by theCongress Heights cluster (39). Dupont Circle cluster(8)hasthemostplannedunits Pleasant cluster(2)andDouglass(38).The units underconstruction,followed by theMount (map 3.1). River, where mostclusters have at least oneproject new constructionunits located eastof theAnacostia re widespread geographically, with2,300of the3,000 occurring inallneighborhoods, isnonetheless quite The city’s recent housingproduction, whilenot and replace units are listedasnew construction. net new housingstock, becauseprojects that demolish habilitated units andnearly1,000of the2,900

Projects 4 The Downtown cluster(8)hasthemost Southeast Washington, D.C. Area of Detail:

T ype see detail , 2000

2002 fiscal year 2001 butstillmuchhigherthanfor 1999or 24 projects. of opment andHOMEblock grants from theDepartment A loans to 13projects from theD.C.Housing Finance million. Thisincluded$127millioninlow-interest ing units, withdevelopment budgets totaling $312 financing onalmost3,200new andrehabilitated hous- In fiscalyear 2002,theDistrict government closed increasing theoverall supply. improving thestock of affordable housingbutnot bilitated orreplacement units, preserving and annually. However, most of thishousingisreha- dents, helpingto produce thousandsof units ing housingfor low- andmoderate-income resi- ment hasbeenplaying anactive role insubsidiz- In recent years, theDistrictof Columbiagovern- COLUMBIA IN THE DISTRICTOF HOUSING PRODUCTION SUBSIDIZED gency and$25millioninfederal communitydevel-

Housing andCommunityDevelopment to support 5 The numberof units isdown slightly from 012 Project Types No ClusterAssignment Re New Constructionto New Construction Re Long-Term Vacants Re T ype Unknown place ExistingUnits habilitation habilitation of miles $42,000 and$51,360. be affordable for families withincomesbetween another 1,250units, approximately 40percent, will fa the units, orjustunderhalf,willbeaffordable for of allowable incomelevels vary according to the source the rest available for sale. Althoughthemaximum (almost 2,700)willberental accommodations, with More than84percent of thesubsidized housingunits than 36months. to About 260of therehabilitated units are effectivelynew new construction,withtherest beingrehabilitated. 2000. About400of theunits sponsored in2002are SPOTLIGHT milies withannualincomes below $42,000,and

and Rosedale (23). P hoods: ColumbiaHeights (2), Shaw/LeDroit Efforts willinitiallyfocus onfive neighbor- sold to 6developers inNovember 2002. tered throughout thecity, with45 properties acquired through tax foreclosures, are scat- lies. Thefirst 75properties intheprogram, av least 30percent of theredeveloped units developers, whowillberequired to make at of trol, itwillbundletheproperties into groups sary, eminent domain.Oncethecityhascon- negotiations, tax foreclosures, and,ifneces- tified asvacant andabandonedthrough stages, willgaincontrol of properties iden- Initiative. Thisprogram, stillinits early newest housingprogram istheHomeAgain W the subsidy, thecityestimates that almost1,500of the stock becausethey hadbeenvacant for more ark (3),NearNortheast(25),IvyCity(23), ashington, D.C.,Mayor Anthony Williams’s

ailable to low- andmoderate-income fami- 5 to 20andsellthemto prequalified 38 6 Douglass (38) support. ment isplaying aleadingrole inthisreinvestment, withevery new project receiving someform ofcity opment equalsnearly40percent ofthe1990housingstock intheDouglasscluster. The Districtgovern- r ized for constructionbetween 1999and2002.Nearly1,000unitshave beennewly builtorsubstantially have beencondemnedfor demolitionby cityhousinginspectors. Three hundred new units were author- Department ofConsumerandRegulatory Affairs (DCRA)isbelow thecityaverage, andnoproperties ment eastofthe Anacostia River. As of2002,thepercentage ofproperties boarded upby the Recent trends intheDouglasscluster(38)illustrate someoftheencouraging signsofhousingreinvest- ehabilitated since1999,andnearly900are currently underconstruction. All together, thisrecent devel- near theNavy Yard. East Capitol, andat Capper/Carrollsburg Dwellings ects, at EastCapitol Dwellings around 59thStreet and in two HOPEVIpublichousingredevelopment proj- Of these, more than2,100plannedunits are located 2003 orlater, withfinancingthat hasnot yet closed. 5,000 units are currently inthepipelinefor fiscalyear An additional20projects comprisingmore than by more Probably undertaken by developers orpublicagencies. r discussion thusfar hasfocused mainlyonlarge-scale bilitated orrenovated, inmany casessubstantially. The stock. Inrecent years, many units alsohave beenreha- not theonlyactivityreshaping theregion’s housing subsidized housingproduction, new constructionis As noted inthediscussionof theDistrictof Columbia’s income borrowers. a marked shiftto larger loanamounts andhigher- the characteristics of loansandborrowers showed declined inboth theregion andtheDistrict,but the numberof new loansfor homeimprovement r with new constructionintheevolution of the Housing renovation plays an important role along HOUSING RENOVATION loans are classified ashomeimprovement loans, wide discretion indetermining whichhomeequity loans for homeimprovements. However, lenders have include not onlyloansfor homepurchases butalso Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), which improvements isreports from lenders underthe to This isanarea for whichdata are scarce anddifficult or hiringcontractors. ehabilitation projects intheDistrictof Columbia, egion’s housingstock. Between 1995and2001,

individual homeowners doingthework themselves interpret. Onesource of information onhome widespread are improvements made 21 Chapter 3 22 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 SPOTLIGHT 28 Historic Anacostia (28) Historic Anacostia 120 percent of thearea medianincreased from 17 loans madeto borrowers withincomesgreater than Within theDistrict,share of homeimprovement 21 percent withintheDistrict,compared with1999. ment borrowers went up8percent intheregion and 2000, whenthemedianincomeof homeimprove- the region andtheDistrictoccurred inasingleyear, District (up$19,000).Muchof theincrease for both the Washington region and40percent withinthe loan borrowers rose 15percent (up$10,000)within 2001, themedianreal incomeof homeimprovement borrowers were changingaswell. Between 1995and While loanamounts were rising,thecharacteristics of $22,000 in2001,anincrease of 170percent. amount rose even more, from $8,000in1995to the District,medianinflation-adjusted loan from $10,000in1995to $21,000in2001.Within than doubledbetween 1995and2001,climbing improvement loanintheWashington region more The medianinflation-adjusted size of ahome larger average loansizes. amount declinedby only18percent, againindicating from 1995to 2001,whilethetotal constant dollar improvement loans reported declinedby 52 percent Within theDistrictof Columbia,the numberof home percent, reflecting ashiftto larger loanamounts. dollar amount (inconstant dollars) increased by 28 declined by 14percent from 1995to 2001,thetotal improvement loansintheWashington region Although thetotal numberof HMDA-reported home improvement loansto individual homeowners. on trends inthevolume andcharacteristics of home these limitations, HMDA data offer someperspective e considered assources of homeimprovement financing improvement isvoluntary, andrefinancings are not r and oneofthe highestpercentages ofproperties boarded upby thecityduringpastthree years. demned by DCRAinthepastthree years, thehighestpercentage ofvacant andabandonedproperties, Historic Anacostia istheDistrictneighborhood clusterwiththehighestpercentage ofbuildingscon- the highestincity. Onlyfour new housing unitshave beenauthorized for construction since1999. households livinginHistoric Anacostia dropped by almost13percent, and vacancy rates were among financial distress, withnosignsofsignificantreinvestment. Between 1990and2000,thenumber of T eporting onhomeequitylinesof credit usedfor home ven ifthey involve cashoutto theborrowers. Despite he housingstock intheHistoric Anacostia cluster(28)stillshows seriousevidence ofphysical and increase. percent in1995to 25percent in2001—a50percent change, again,was intheyear 2000. the region and20percent for theDistrict.Thelargest 80 percent of thearea mediandecreased 8percent for share of loansmadeto borrowers withincomesbelow the region and11percent withintheDistrict,and ment loansmadeto minoritiesdeclined25percent in we 2001, theowners of approximately 12,000properties and take theproperty ifthetaxes are not paid.In the highestbidder, whowillhave aright to foreclose not paidwithinaset timethetax lienwillbesoldto have not beenpaidare notified that ifthetaxes are properties for whichtheprioryear's property taxes tress isunpaidproperty taxes. Eachyear, owners of One key indicator that aproperty isinfinancialdis- indicators of neighborhooddecline. and abandonedproperties canprovide up-to-date administrative data ontax delinquenciesandvacant ments inthephysical conditionof neighborhoods, tion, andrenovation are usefulindicators of improve- Just asinvestments inhousingproduction, rehabilita- increased investment intheD.C.housingstock. distressed properties confirmother indicators of cial distress. However, themostrecent data on bers of residential properties in physical orfinan- District neighborhoodsstillhave significant num- Local administrative records indicate that some COLUMBIA IN THE DISTRICTOF AT o In 1998through 2000,onlyaboutone-third of such unchanged from 1998,1999,and2000. wners paidtheirpast-duetaxes before thetax lien re -RISK PROPERTIES

so notified. Thisnumberwas essentially 7 Meanwhile, theshare of homeimprove- (21), with85of 5,690properties cited. just 1,240 the Historic Anacostiacluster(28),with19citedoutof as compared withtheir highest proportion of buildingsslated for demolition, demolition orders were canceled. Theclusters withthe the HousingRegulation Administration. Theremaining we ished infiscalyears 2000 through 2002. Ofthese, 240 Inspectors alsoordered nearly600buildingsdemol- cured properties. percentage of properties cited,butfewer actualunse- (28) andtheIvyCitycluster(23)hadnearlyaslarge a cluster (39).Inaddition,theHistoric Anacostiacluster the Deanwood cluster(31)andtheCongress Heights portion of buildingscitedfor beingunsecured were ters withboth thelargest numberandthehighestpro- actions were canceled,perhapsonappeal.Theclus- Housing Regulation Administration. Theremaining or otherwise abated by theirowners and850by the fiscal years 2000to 2002.Ofthese, 410were secured lition. Inspectors ordered 1,300buildingssecured in and Raze—when abuildingiscondemnedfor demo- when thecityorders that abuildingbeboarded up— actions that canresult from aninspectionare Secure— The two mostserioushousingcodeenforcement w and debris, 4,800for routine maintenance, 2,500for z inspections. Ofthese, 27,800were inresponse to citi- fiscal year 2002,NSPconductedabout100,100 r buildings for unsafeorunsanitary conditions, including within theHousingRegulation Administration inspects The D.C.NeighborhoodStabilization Program (NSP) ta not aproperty butonlytheright to collectunpaid housing market, especiallysincewhat ispurchased is unsold, reflects thegrowing strength of theDistrict’s 2,000 and3,000lienstypicallyhave beenleft significant changefrom recent years, whenbetween while about900failed to sell(were bidback).This o before theofficial auction.Ofliensthat were actually 520 paidaftertheirlienswere advertisedfor salebut half (almost6,900)paidupwhennotified. Another could beadvertised.In2001,however, more than esponding to complaints by neighbors andtenants. In en complaints, including8,200complaints for trash ffered for salein2001,almost3,700were sold, eeds, and1,400for vacant properties. x re es orforeclose.

abated ortorn down by theirowners and290by tot al properties, andtheEdgewood cluster tot al numberof properties, were r and Regulatory Affairs in1999,discussedlastyear’s by A survey of vacant andabandonedproperty conducted more than50percent. percentage points by 2001to 2002,improvements of ond andthird in1999buthaddropped 4.8and5.4 we and abandonedhousingfrom 1999to 2001–2002 clusters that showed thegreatest reduction invacant v v erties, was first inboth years inthepercentage of not amongthetop 10inraw numbers of vacant prop- y vey, nearlyhalf(1,800)were stillvacant two to three 4,000 properties identified asvacant inthefirst sur- 500 fewer thanin1999.Nevertheless, of thenearly 2001–2002 survey cameto more than3,400,about The total numberof vacant properties recorded inthe eport, was updated in2001and2002(figure 3.3). Figure 3.3. Share of Vacant orAbandonedProperties inWashington, acant in1999and8.9percent in2001to 2002.The acant properties, with10percent of its properties ears later. TheHistoric Anacostiacluster(28),while Source: D.C.Department of ConsumerandRegulatory Affairs, 1999and2001–2002Vacancy Surveys.

re the Districtof ColumbiaDepartment of Consumer

Ivy City(23)andDouglass(38),whichwere sec- Neighborhood Cluster 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 024681012 Figure Vacant Properties asaPercentageofAllProperties D.C., 1999and2002

3 . 3 . Share

Washington 1999 and2002 , D . C . of

Vacant

Abandoned 8

Properties , 2002 1999 23 Chapter 3 24 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 FOR THE FUTURE FOR THE PROSPECTS ning stage move forward. luxury homesandapartment projects now intheplan- of both withintheregion asa wholeandintheDistrict amounts andhigher-income, nonminorityborrowers, mortgage lenders, have shown ashiftto larger loan Homeowner-ﬁnanced renovations, asreported by living amongmiddle-andupper-incomehouseholds. housing anddemonstrating increasing interest incity new construction,addingto thesupplyof high-end of Northwest D.C.,andinCapitol Hillconsists primarily ity. Thehousingproduced downtown, inmuchof Northwest D.C.seeingthegreatest constructionactiv- east of theAnacostiaRiver, downtown, andin has beenrelatively dispersed, withneighborhoods Within theDistrictof Columbia,recent construction District andtheInnerCore. Inner andOuterSuburbsapartments inthe larger proportion of new housingproduction inthe most of theregion, withtownhouses accounting for a gradually increasing thedensityof neighborhoodsin r the OuterSuburbs, butrebounded in2002and Housing production slowed in2001,particularly r k in theWashington region, butproduction didnot The 1990ssaw thousandsof new housingunits built missrn nteDsrc.Theunits beingbuiltare emains strong intheDistrict. esulting indecliningvacancy rates andrisingprices. eep upwithgrowth inemployment andpopulation,

Columbia. Thesetrends seemlikely to continue, as market-rate, unsubsidized units andislikely to be same expenditures. tion, meansfewer units canbeproduced withthe costs ortherelated highercosts of high-riseconstruc- r affordable units produced. Buildinghousingthat flict withthegoalof maximizingthenumberof and poverty deconcentration canthuscomeinto con- income neighborhoods. Thegoalsof desegregation incentives to concentrate affordable housinginlow- r Even where subsidyfinancingisnot geographically and asfederal Section8site-basedsubsidiesexpire. Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg) continue to bedeveloped likely to continue asexisting HOPEVI projects (suchas able housinginnew locations. Thesetrends are also money muchmore available thanmoney for afford- grants, inmakingrenovation andreconstruction icy, especiallyHOPEVIpublichousingrehabilitation r ing publicandsubsidized housingthat needsto be appears to bedriveninpartby thelocation of exist- increasing thesize of theaffordable stock. Thistrend r the renovation orreplacement of existing housing, o in Northwest ismuchmore likely thanhousingin River andintraditionally low-income neighborhoods Meanwhile, housingproduced eastof theAnacostia equires deepersubsidies, becauseof higherland estricted, variations inlandcosts create powerful enovated. Alsoimportant istheeffectof federal pol- esulting inbetter-quality homes but not necessarily ther neighborhoodsto besubsidized andto involve Homeownership MARKET IN 2000, income level. gage borrowers to examine loandenialrates by race and tion, thechapterextends lastyear’s descriptionof mort- with updated homesalesandmortgage data. Inaddi- about homeowner housing,incomes, and costs, along This year, we have new information from Census 2000 the late 1990safteryears of stagnation. demand, homeprices, particularlyintheDistrict,rose in and lower-income households. Alongwiththishigher W lighted thegrowth of homeownership inthe politan area owned theirhomes. Lastyear’s report high- two outof three householdsintheWashington metro- units From 1990to 2000,thetotal numberof homeowner re half thenew homeowner units were converted mostly dueto new construction,butintheDistrict, previous decade. Inthesuburbs, thisgrowth was 1990s, althoughat aslower pacethanduringthe r The stock of homeowner housingincreased inthe HOMEOWNERSHIP STOCK f single-family attached anddetached houses. Single- about 90percent inboth 1990and2000—consists of The vast majorityof theregion’s homeowner housing— 8.7 percent. homeowner housingdropped 1.5percentage points, to er rate, 5percent. TheDistrict’s share of theregion’s stock of homeowner units alsogrew, butat amuchslow- increase of 23percent. IntheDistrictof Columbia,the the District’s homeowner housing—about80 percent. amily homesaccount for asomewhat smallershare of egion andtheDistrictof Columbiaduringthe ashington region, particularlyfor African Americans nt al housing. 1 in theWashington region reached 1.2million,an CHAPTER 4 25 Chapter 4 26 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 SPOTLIGHT 3 Howard University (3) versions of rental housingunits to homeownership. struction, withtheremainder resulting from thecon- half thegrowth intheDistrictwas dueto new con- entirely dueto new building.Incontrast, onlyabout r Suburbs, and1percent were intheDistrict.The o the region. More than80percent of thenew home- f During the1990s, owner-occupied units accounted r built inthe1990swas down about5percent for the Compared withthe1980s, thenumberof owner units cent inthe1980sto 23percent inthe1990s. In1999 ed eastof theAnacostia Riverincreased from 14per- Specifically, theshare of new homeowner units locat- e new units. New homeowner housingdevelopment cluster accounting for more than10percent of the w (13). Butinthe1990s, new homeowner construction Dupont Circle cluster(6),and theSpringValley cluster borhood clusters—the Georgetown cluster(4),the percent of thenew units located inonlythree neigh- District was veryconcentrated geographically, with40 In the1980s, thenew homeowner constructioninthe half of thedecadethaninfirst half. new owner units was 30percent higherinthesecond 1990 and1995,intheDistrictproduction of we the decade. Regionwide, 20percent more owner units the late 1990sfrom low levels duringthefirst halfof o these figures masktheimprovement that occurred home buyers withlow incomesdropped 18percentage pointsbetween 1995and2001. between 1996and2002toreach amedianof$214,000.Notsurprisingly, therefore, theshare ofnew prices for homesintheHoward University clusterare risingeven faster; they more thandoubled 2000, andthemedianincomeamongnew homebuyers was up50percent between 1995and2001.Sale conversion ofrental units. Average homeowner income climbed37percent inreal terms,to$87,000in 1990. Between 1990and2000,thenumberofhomeowner unitsgrew 17 percent, primarilythrough the T or almostthree outof every four newly built units in egional growth inhomeowner units was almost egion andabout30percent for theDistrict.However, xtended beyond thewealthier areas of thecity. wner units were located intheInnerandOuter ver thecourse of the1990s. Buildingaccelerated in he market for homeowner housingintheHoward University cluster(3)hasexpanded dramatically since as muchmore evenly distributed,withnosingle re

built between 1995and2000thanbetween 2 fa by o ters saw strikingchangesduringthe1990s. Thehome- o continue to account for about8outof every 10home- Although single-family detached andattached homes east of theriver. alone, 40percent of thenew units builtwere located Seattle had lower vacancy rates in2000.Allof the areas, onlytheextremely tight mar 1990 and2000.Ofourcomparison metropolitan about halfapercentage point to 1.6percent between The homeowner vacancy rate for theregion dropped ra ularly amongAfrican Americans, andby high r f areas except theDistrict.Theexpanding demand demand, resulting inlower vacancy rates inall during the1990sgenerally fellshortof growth in growth intheregion’s homeowner housing stock As AND VACANCYRATES HOMEOWNERSHIP e the homeowner stock for 18of the27clusters that built units accounted for lessthanhalfof thegrowth in District of Columbia.Asillustrated inﬁgure 4.1,newly homeownership. Thisisawidespread trend inthe change was dueto theconversion of rental housingto Logan Circle clusterduringthe 1990s, mostof this Since only114new homeowner units were builtinthe eflected intherisinghomeownership rate, partic- or homeownership throughout theregion is xperienced growth duringthe1990s. wner stock intheLoganCircle cluster(7),whichgrew wner units intheDistrict,someneighborhood clus- m tes of mobilityamong homeowners.

40 percent inthe1990s, was 46percent single ily in2000,compared with57percent in1990. discussed indetail inlast year’s report, the kets of of kets Boston and SPOTLIGHT homeowners by thismeasure. r the region. Ofthecentral citiesinour comparison y have beenlivingintheirhomesfor more than10 parts. Fifty-sixpercent of theowners intheDistrict be long-timeresidents thantheirsuburbancounter- District of Columbiahomeowners are more likely to homeowners moving since1990. jurisdiction, withmore thanthree-quarters of its W moving since1990(65percent). Withinthe ity. Atlanta hasthehighestpercentage of homeowners metropolitan areas withrespect to homeowner mobil- area falls inthemiddleof thepackof our comparison the area astransient, theWashington metropolitan base inWashington often prompts peopleto describe their homessince1990.Althoughthegovernment households intheWashington region hadmoved into As of April2000,57percent of thehomeowner increase intheAfrican-American homeownership rate. area, andonlyAtlanta experienced acomparable homeownership thantheWashington metropolitan Philadelphia hadahigherrate of African-American in 2000.Amongourcomparisonregions, only 1990s, rising8percentage points to reach 49percent showed particularlydramatic progress duringthe r their homesin2000,upfrom 61percent in1990.The Sixty-four percent of theregion’s householdsowned 3. to v v Core experienced thelargest change;its homeowner v suburban subareas intheWashington region saw egion’s homeownership rates for African Americans egions, onlyPhiladelphiahas a more stable baseof acancy in2000.TheDistrict’s rate increased from 2.9 acancy rate fell1.7percentage points to 1.1percent acancy rates drop duringthe1990s. ButtheInner ears, ahigherpercentage thaninany other partof ashington area, LoudounCounty isthemostmobile 4 percent. 20 between $100,000 and$200,000. city’s second-highest share ofmidvalue homes, with 81percent ofthehomeowner unitsvalued home buyers was virtuallyunchangedbetween 1995and2001.Moreover, NorthMichiganPark hasthe homes inthisclusterwas $162,000, up30percent since1996.However, thereal medianincome ofnew y 2000—the vast majorityofwhomwere African American—had beeninthesamehousefor at least20 lowest intheDistrictofColumbia. More thanhalfthehomeowners livinginNorthMichiganPark asof gle-family homes. As of2000,thevacancy rate for homeowner unitswas below 1 percent, amongthe three-quarters ofthehousingstock isowner occupied,andvirtuallyallofthehomeowner unitsare sin- T North MichiganPark (20) ears. The average incomeamonghomeowners was about $67,000.In2002,themediansalespriceof he homeownership market intheNorthMichiganPark cluster(20)isexceptionally stable.More than re Like many indicators, homeowner mobilityrates age 65have livedintheirhomes sincebefore 1970. homeowners—58 percent of thehomeowners over r their homesfor 30years ormore. Part of thisstability city. Oneoutof fiveowner householdshave livedin o Moreover, asubstantial share of theDistrict’s home- eflects thecity’s relatively highpercentage of older Figure 4.1. Composition of Stock Changefor Washington, D.C.,Clusters wners have aneven more extensive history inthe veal acityof extremes (seemap4.1).Almost half Note: The chartdoesnot includeclusters that didnot experience anincrease inhomeownership units. Source: U.S. Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 1990and2000. Cluster Number 39 38 36 34 33 31 30 29 27 26 25 23 19 16 14 12 13 11 10 15 10010203040506070800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 7 4 2 8 6 3 1 Figure 4.1.CompositionofStockChangeforWashington,D.C.,Clusters Note: thechartdoesnotincludeclustersthatdidexperienceanincreaseinhomeownershipunits. Source: U.S.BureauoftheCensus,decennialcensus,1990and2000. with Growth inHomeowner Units, 1990to 2000 with GrowthinHomeownerUnits,1990to2000 Housing Units stock changes and other Conversions construction New 27 Chapter 4 28 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Map 4.1.Homeowner MobilityintheDistrictof Columbia,2000 Source: U.S. Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 2000. Households Share of Owner hr fOnr h oe noUi eoe17 Share of Owners WhoMoved into Unitbetween 1995and2000 Share of Owners WhoMoved into Unitbefore 1970 No ClusterAssignment >=35% 25–35% 15–25% 0–15% the Districtof Columbia. After accounting for infla- 2000 was $96,800 for the region andslightly more in The average incomefor homeowner households in than theregion does. share of homeowners earninglessthan $50,000 the similaraverages, theDistrict houses agreater slightly higherintheDistrictof Columbia.Despite o Av HOMEOWNER INCOMES half thehomeowners moving inthe pastfiveyears. highest rates of homeowner mobility, withmore than Ka hood clusters withmore than500homeowner units, moved inbetween 1999and2000. Amongneighbor- one-quarter of homeowners intheHoward cluster(3) District. At theoppositeendof thespectrum,fully moved inbefore 1970,thehighestshare inthe the homeowners intheLamondRiggscluster(19) wners are high—almost$97,000in2000, and lorama Heights (1)andLoganCircle (7)hadthe erage incomesamongWashington-area home- 1 4 012 Households Share of Owner miles No ClusterAssignment >=35% 25–35% 15–25% 0–15% fa than $50,000)increased considerably intheregion, homeowner householdswith modest incomes(less in 1990.Between 1990 and2000,thenumberof homeowners are now more economicallydiverse than r In additionto theincreasing racial diversity of the slightly faster thanintheregion. District’s homeowners rose 8percent inreal terms— increase inLoudoun.Theaverage incomeof the decline inPrinceGeorge’s County to a19percent in real homeowner incomesranged from a1percent 1990 to 2000.At thecounty level, however, changes tion, theregionwide average rose 6percent from al percentage points to reach 37percent in2000. o siderably across theregion, ranging from alow of The share of modest-income homeowners varies con- account for one-quarterof allowner households. Owners with2000incomesbelow $50,000now egion’s homeowners discussedin last year’s report, wnership rate for thisincomegroup alsorose sever- ster thantheoverall growth for owners. 1 4 012 3 The home- miles 4 o (15) hadthe lowest percentage of modest-income centage of alltheclusters. TheCleveland Park cluster ter (38)hadmodestincomesin 2000,thehighestper- three-quarters of allhomeowners inthe Douglassclus- o While every clusterhadsome modest-incomehome- incomes fell18percent from 1990. Cathedral Heights (14)clusters, where average declines were intheHistoric Anacostia(28)and incomes dropping 22percent. Thenext largest in theDouglass(38)cluster, withreal homeowner 37 percent rise. Thelargest percentage lossoccurred increase, andthe Howard University cluster(3),witha we greatest percentage increases inhomeowner incomes poorest andwealthiest clusters. Theclusters withthe uneven, resulting inawideninggapbetween the thirds of theclusters. However, thegrowth was with inflation-adjusted incomesincreasing intwo- (38). Trends duringthe1990swere generally positive, cluster (13)to only$38,000inthe Douglasscluster $205,000 amonghomeowners intheSpringValley Within thecity, average incomesrange from o out of fivehouseholdswithincomes below $50,000 District homeowners (38percent). IntheDistrict,one below $50,000account for amuchlarger share of r the Districtof Columbiaandtheregion have compa- the OuterandFar Suburbs. Althoughhomeowners in Inner Suburbs, althoughtrends were more mixed in SPOTLIGHT of cent inBerkeley County. Duringthe1990s, theshare only 15percent inFairfax County to ahighof 53per- able average incomes, householdswithincomes wners—less than5 percent. wners, theirshare of all owners varied widely. About wn theirhomes.

re modest-income owners increased throughout the

the Downtown cluster(8),witha104percent 30 Mayfair (30) number ofhomeowner unitsincreased by 15percent between 1990and2000. improvement. The 2002mediansalepricerepresents a19percent increase over the 1996 value, andthe Although thisclusterisarelatively weak market compared withothers inthecity, there are signsof f dropped 13percent inreal termsbetween 1990and2000. The homeowner vacancy rate inMayfair is 29 percent ofhouseholdsinMayfair own theirhomes,andtheaverage incomeamonghomeowners T airly highby citystandards—5.9 percent, andthemediansalespriceisrelatively low—$91,000 in2002. he Mayfair cluster(30)hasnotyet fullybeneﬁtedfrom gainsinthecity’s homeownership market. Only incomes below 80 percent of thearea medianwas In 2001,theregion’s share of loansto borrowers with substantially surpassedtheregional median. among borrowers intheDistrictof Columbiahave percent since1995.Thisistheﬁrst timethat incomes $82,000 in2001,up9percent for theyear and30 District rose at aneven faster paceandreached 1995. Themedianincomefor borrowers inthe percent inreal termsfrom 2000and12percent since borrowers intheregion in2001was $78,000,up3 The medianincomeamonghomepurchase mortgage of in theDistrict.Littlechangewas seenintheshare dipped slightly, accompaniedby alarger decline r the Districtof Columbia.From 2000to 2001, the ing intheWashington region, particularlywithin the medianincomeof mortgage borrowers isris- Consistent withtrends inhomeowner incomes, CHARACTERISTICS RECENT BORROWER of high- (greater than$100,000)incomecategories. Two cent shares inboth thelow- (lessthan$35,000)and of homeowner units, 7hadamixed-income population Of theneighborhoodclusters with more than500 higher incomelevels. borhoods are experiencing atransition from lower to had moved inrecently, suggestingthat theseneigh- (7), Cathedral Heights (14),andUnionStation (25) o munities. Incontrast, alarge proportion of thehome- and therefore appearto bestable mixed-income com- had relatively low rates of mobilityduringthe1990s, egion’s share of loansto low-income borrowers wners inMt.Pleasant (2),Howard (3),LoganCircle

homeowners in2000,withroughly 20to 30per- these clusters, Takoma (17)andBrightwood (18), loans to minoritiesover thesameyear. 29 Chapter 4 30 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Figure 4.3.HousePriceIndex, 1980to 2002 Figure 4.2. Single-Family, Owner-OccupiedHomeValues by Source: Ofﬁceof Federal HousingEnterprise Oversight, HousePriceIndex. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, decennialcensus, 2000. Price Index Value Percentage of Owner Homes in Value Range 100 100 150 200 250 300 350 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 50 S 0 ource: 9018 9418 9819 921996 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 Source: U.S.BureauoftheCensus,decennialcensus,2000. Region Total Figure Offi Subarea, 2000 ce o

4 f

. F 2 District of Columbia e . d era Single l

H Figure 4.3.HousePriceIndex,1980to2002 ous - i Family ng E nterpr Inner Core

Owner i se O vers - Occupied i g Suburbs h Inner t, H 9419 002002 2000 1998 1994 ouse

Home P r i ce Suburbs I Outer n

d Values ex.

Subarea Suburbs Far , 2000 States United D.C., Region Washington, Columbia District of $100,000 Less than $200,000 $100,000– $300,000 $200,000– $300,000 More than share of mortgage loansgoingto minorities. past two years have seensignificant declinesinthe (24)—were lessconsistent inthelate 1990s, butinthe (17), NorthMichiganPark (20),andWoodridge percentage points since1995.Three others—Takoma gage loansto minorities, dropping atotal of 12to 17 have seencontinuous declinesintheshare of mort- P ing significant changes. Three clusters—Brightwood but several Northeastclusters stand outasexperienc- fluctuates more from year to year at theclusterlevel, The share of mortgage loansto minorityhomebuyers households withincomesbelow 80percent of median. a secondyear of declinesintheshare of loansto more than50loansin2001,three-quarters have seen neighborhood clusters. Moreover, of theclusters with r The medianincomeamongmortgage loanborrowers slightly inthecity(from 43to 41percent). in theregion asawhole(37percent) anddropped to the region’s share. However, thepercentage of loans 2001—the first timethispercentage was lower than r of shortage of middle-range homesintheDistrictof The distributionof values in2000reveals arelative percent, withzero growth inreal terms. ra 43 percent, averyslight drop from 2000. As SALES PRICES HOUSING VALUESAND 1990 values. we is taken into account, housevalues intheyear 2000 r During the1990s, single-family housevalues inthe District of Columbia. have beenrisingdramatically, particularlyinthe Beginning inthelate 1990s, however, salesprices increase substantially duringthe 1990s. Columbia. Inreal terms, housevalues didnot politan area and$252,000for the District of homes was $226,000for theWashington metro- ose from 2000to 2001inallbutseven of theDistrict’s ange dropped 4percentage points, to 41percent, in egion asawholerose 17percent, butonceinflation ark (18),Edgewood (21), andUnionStation (25)— te of growth inhousevalues over thedecadewas 32

re minority buyers stayed constant over the pastyear loans goingto Districtborrowers inthisincome of

actually 11percent lower inreal termsthanthe

2000, theaverage value of single-family 6 In theDistrictof Columbia,thenominal 5 The share areas. Theaverage pricefor realtor sales more rapid pacethaninmostother metropolitan Prices continued to riseover thenext fiveyears, at a decade, salespricesrebounded beginningin1997. A still to come. did not yet reflect thesharpincreases insalesprices after 2000.Thus, housevalues reported inearly2000 consistently, with thepaceof changeaccelerating Not until thelate 1990sdidpricesbeginto increase Oversight, remained flat through muchof the1990s. published by theOfficeof Federal HousingEnterprise r consistent withlong-termtrends insalespricesthe the declineinreal housevalues discussedabove is public thinkingabouttheregion’s housingmarket, Although therecent tight conditionshave dominated and InnerCore thaninthesurrounding counties. $40,000 to $120,000have fewer optionsintheDistrict r limited stock of homesinthe$100,000to $300,000 pared withthemetropolitan area’s 18percent. The in theInnerCore are valued above $300,000,com- 24 percent of Districthomesand29percent of homes with 14percent for theregion. At theother extreme, District were valued at lessthan$100,000,compared More than20percent of thehomeowner units inthe clustered at thelow andhighendsof thespectrum. Figure 4.2shows that housevalues intheDistrictwere Columbia compared withtheregion asawhole. than inearlieryears. There were more than99,000 increase from 2001to 2002,thoughat aslower pace The volume of salesinthe region continued to pace of theregion. a age of $348,000in2002.Since1999,theDistrict’s tial increases, Districthomepricesclimbed to anaver- increase from 2001.Markingathird year of substan- r egion. Asshown infigure 4.3,theHousePriceIndex, eached $265,000in2002,abouta10percent ange meansthat households earning roughly verage salespricehasgrown 57percent, twicethe fter remaining flat oreven decliningfor mostof the 8 in theregion 7 to 2001. After Districtof Columbiasaleshadleveled off r map 4.2).In2002,theCleveland Park (15) cluster there were significant variations across clusters (see 1997, andthensharperincreases after2000.But sales pricesfrom 1994to 1996, aturnaround in The overall pattern here remains thesame:declining r vide information aboutallhomesales(not justthose A r sales increased by 8percent from 2001to 2002to ealtor salesin2002,anincrease of 6percent over eported by real estate agents) from 1994to 2002. each more than8,200. Map 4.2.ChangeinMedianSalesPricefor Single-Family Homes, dministrative data from theDistrictof Columbiapro-

Source: District of ColumbiaReal Property Assessment Files, 1996to 2002. around 7,700from 1999to 2001,thenumberof Median SalesPrice Nominal Changein No ClusterAssignment 110–151% 80–110% 45–80% 0–45% -30–0% 1996 to 2002 S i ng l e-Fam il y Homes, 1996to 2002. 1 4 012 mile s 31 Chapter 4 32 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 r Although housingpriceshave beenincreasing inthe ing—is muchlower amonghomeowners. problems—including physical deficiencies andcrowd- income for housing.Theincidenceof other housing holds report paying more than30percent of their any kindof housingproblem, 83percent of thehouse- r income. housing costs exceeding 30percent of household carrying unaffordable costburdens, definedhere as homeowners, withafifthof allowner households Af cost burdens increased from 1990. absolute numberof homeowners withexcessive per burdened by excessive housingcosts rose 23 although theabsolutenumberof homeowners in 2000.Thisisaboutthesameas1990rate, were carryingunaffordable housingcost burdens About one-fifthof theregion’s owner households AND AFFORDABILITY HOUSING COSTS only area where themedianpricedropped. this period.TheFairfax Villagecluster(35)was the borhood clusters, mediansalespricesdoubledduring cluster to arank of 13.In12of theDistrict’s neigh- University moved from beingthe28thhighestpriced median climbing151percent. Asaresult, Howard most dramatic increase inhomesalesprices, withthe Howard University cluster(3)hasexperienced the Sheridan cluster(37)at $78,000.Since1996,the median salespriceat $72,500,followed by the contrast, theFairfax Villagecluster(35)hadthelowest lowed by theGeorgetown cluster(4)at $551,000.In had thehighestmediansalespriceof $582,000,fol- eported housingissue:Oftheowner householdswith egion, owner incomesgenerally kept paceover the fo cen r dability isthemajorhousingchallengefacing t. 9 And unaffordability isthemostcommonly In theDistrict,both therate and lems—up 11points to 26percent in2000. enced asubstantial increase inaffordability prob- units, homeowners intheTakoma cluster(17)experi- f homeowners paying more than30percent of income of units. Thelatter two clusters now have thehighestrate neighborhoods allhave smallnumbers of homeowner ly—by about20percentage points, althoughthese and theDouglasscluster(38)allincreased dramatical- the Downtown cluster(8),theSheridan(37), The incidenceof homeowner affordability problems in fo housing heldsteadyat 22to 23percent. ers paying more than30percent of theirincomefor decade, sothat theshare of single-family homeown- ra In allneighborhoodclusters intheother three quad- cent in2000. ability problems—from 36percent in 1990to 22per- e able housingcosts. TheKalorama Heights cluster(1) encing risingpercentages of householdswithunafford- ters improving andtheremaining 10clusters experi- o Northwest quadrant of thecity, thetrends inhome- single-family homeshadsevere costburdens. Inthe 24 percent in2000.Asof 2000,1in10owners of housing increased slightly, from 20percent in1990to o In income for housingexpenses. severe costburdens—paying more than50percent of almost 7percent of theregion’s homeowners had 2000, up7percentage points from 1990.Asof 2000, cent of householdscarryingexcessive costburdens in George’s County istheonlyexception, with28per- or housing.Oftheclusters withmore than500owner xperienced thelargest drop inhomeowner afford- wner affordability problems are mixed, with7clus- wners paying more than30percent of incomefor nt r

dable housingcosts rose between 1990and2000. the Districtof Columbia,theproportion of home- affordability problems, with37percent of the s of thecity, theshare of homeowners paying unaf- 10 Prince of 2000, upfrom 42percent in1990.Almost58percent homeowners carryingunaffordable costburdens in earning lessthan$50,000madeup60percent of all households from financialdifficulties. Households homeowners. Butownership doesnot protect these income householdsintheWashington region became During the1990s, growing numbers of modest- shown infigure 4.4. is similarinthecityandregion asawhole, as cent of non-Hispanicwhites. Thepattern of disparity able housingcosts in2000,compared with18per- three Hispanicandblackhomeowners paidunafford- unaffordable housingcosts. Regionwide, aboutonein Minority homeowners alsoface ahighincidenceof 2000, aboutthesamechangeasfor allowners. city alsorose, up5percentage points to 24percent in percent in1990to 20percent in2000.Therate inthe homeowners isincreasing across theregion—from 16 The incidenceof affordability problems amongelderly ing costs, aboutthesameasin1990. 30 percent of thehouseholdswithunaffordable hous- share of olderowners, householders over 65make up now account for 15percent. WiththeDistrict’s larger homeowners withexcessive costburdens in1990and affecting theelderly, whomadeup11percent of the William County andManassasPark City at 66percent. housing costs rose 15points, now tieswithPrince modest-income homeowners paying unaffordable contrast, PrinceGeorge’s County, where theshare of William County, ManassasCity, and Clarke County. In F dens heldsteadyoreven declinedslightly. Theseare modest-income homeowners withexcessive costbur- r trend didnot prevail inallparts of the Washington about 9percentage points from 1990.However, this than 30percent of theirincomefor housingcosts, up Ac incomes for housingin2000. than $50,000paidmore than30 percent of their almost three outof five householdsearningless to and low-income households—are themostlikely V egion. Insixsuburbanjurisdictions, theshare of airfax CityandCounty, Falls Church City, Prince ulnerable homeowners—minorities, theelderly,

r the modest-income-owner householdspaidmore oss theregion, highhousingcosts are increasingly have excessive costburdens. Regionwide, percent of theirincomefor housingin2000. modest-income homeowners were paying over 30 city’s neighborhoodclusters, more than60percent of the decade, from 40percent in1990.In10of the modest-income Districthomeowners increased over percent. However, affordability problems among Columbia thanintheregion asa whole—around 51 ex The percentage of modest-incomeowners carrying gages orhomeequityloansinaddition to theirprimary District andtheregion asawholehave secondmort- Columbia. About20percent of theowners inboth the gages, compared with72percent intheDistrictof Eighty-four percent of theregion’s owners have mort- Hispanic whites. be deniedahomepurchase mortgage than non- income, minoritiesintheregion are more likely to buyers. However, even aftercontrolling for mortgage financingiscriticalfor first-time home- have mortgages ontheirhomes, andaccessto The vast majorityof homeowners intheregion HOUSING FINANCE A Figure 4.4.Unaffordable HousingCosts by Race andSubarea, 2000 cessive costburdens was lower intheDistrictof combination withany other race. housing costs. Data for whiteandblackhomeowners donot includehouseholdsthat reported theseraces in Notes: Housing costs are definedasunaffordable ifahouseholdispaying more than30percent of its income in Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, decennialcensus, 2000. CCESS TO Percentage of Owner Households with Unaffordable Housing Costs 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 Region Total Columbia District of Inner Core Suburbs Inner Suburbs Outer Suburbs Far Hispanic Black White Hispanic Non- 33 Chapter 4 34 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 with incomesabove 120percent of median, denial F the whiterate. cent of medianintheDistrictof Columbia is2.5times the denialrate for blacks withincomesbelow 80 per- age points higherthantheregional rate. Asaresult, denial rate for blacks at thisincomelevel is2percent- centage points lower thantheregional rate, butthe below 80percent of thearea medianisabout2per- In theDistrict,denialrate for whiteswithincomes 80 percent of theregional median. greater than therate for whiteswithincomesbelow 120 percent of thearea medianwas equalto or denial rate for blackhouseholdswithincomesabove the sameincomelevel. From 1995to 2001,the 2001, more thanthree timestherate for whites at area medianwere deniedhomepurchase loansin applicants withincomesabove 120percent of the groups are wider. For example, 11percent of black lower, butthedisparitiesbetween racial/ethnic incomes above 120percent of thearea medianare As onewould expect, denialrates for applicants with have beenmore volatile, withnocleartrend emerging. declining since1996,theHispanicandblackrates denial rates for whitesat thisincomelevel have been between therates for whitesandblacks. Andwhile The denialrate for Hispanics, at 10percent, fell non-Hispanic whiteswithcomparable incomelevels. denied mortgage loans, about1.7timestherate for incomes below 80percent of thearea medianwere of mortgage for homepurchase. the characteristics of householdsthat were denieda Home mortgage lendingdata provide information on less thantwo-fifths of homeowners withnomortgage. (32) andDeanwood (31)clusters are next, with just their homeoutright—45 percent. TheRiverTerrace ter (5)hasthehighestpercentage of owners whoown mortgages. WithintheDistrict,Foggy Bottom clus- or Districtof Columbia mortgage loanapplicants

black applicants intheWashington region with 11 In 2001,14percent e that future middle-incomehomeseekers will ﬁnd District inthelastseveral years continues, itispossible dens. Iftherapid priceescalation observedinthe of levels of hardship, illustrated by thegrowing number ship amonglow-income households hasledto greater combination of ahot market andrisinghomeowner- pipeline describedinChapter3are completed. The seen over thenext few years asunits intheproduction ters stilllagbehind,althoughimprovements may be lesser extent, intheNorthwest. SomeSoutheastclus- prices concentrated inthecenter of thecity, and,to a clusters, withthemostextreme increases inhouse These trends vary dramatically across neighborhood lenders. due to thepersistence of discrimination amongsome documented, butaportionof thedisparityislikely between whitesandminoritieshave certainly been the gap.Differences inwealth andcredit history ties inhomelending,many factors may contribute to r r ra FOR THE FUTURE FOR THE PROSPECTS r the region in2001,andtheshare of low-income bor- gage borrowers inthecitysurpassedmedianfor r shift infortunes, withpriceincreases at twicethe backsliding. TheDistricthasseenthemostdramatic 1990s appears to beslowing, butthere isnosignof r households showing particularlystrong gains. The r Homeownership isontheriseinWashington met- owe egional rate. Themedianincomeamonghomemort- egionwide boominsalespricesthat beganinthelate opolitan area, withminorityandmodest-income egion. Whiletheseﬁgures show clearracial dispari- esulting inthesamemagnitudeof disparityasinthe ven fewer purchasing opportunitiesinthecity. tes are slightly higherfor both whitesandblacks,

o wners carryingunaffordable housingcost bur- rs

continues to fall. 12 Rental Housing AS DISCUSSED MARKET household lostduringthedecade. r the Districtalsodeclinedby 5,400,or3.6percent. This trast to theregion, thenumberof renter householdsin 9,000 units, or5percent, from 1990to 2000.Incon- In theDistrict,numberof rental units decreased by fo This translated to about 1.5additionalrenter households r or 6percent. Thenumberof renter householdsinthe number of rental units intheregion grew by 39,800units, re show that theDistrictof Columbiaexperienced higher ter presents Census2000data onrent levels, which f created atighter rental market withrisingrents and not keep pacewithdemand.Thegrowth indemand grew over thepastdecade, althoughrental supplydid in lastyear’s report, theregion’s rental housingstock number of rental units. households intheregion grew at afaster rate thanthe As detailed inlastyear’s report, thenumberof renter demand outstripped supplyduringthedecade. ra Throughout theWashington region, rental vacancy as awhole, itdecreased inthe District inthe1990s. While rental housingsupplyincreased intheregion SUPPLY AND DEMAND RENTAL HOUSING high-end rental units thantheregion overall. age of low-end rental units andasmallerpercentage of But theDistrictstillcontinues to offer alarger percent- alling vacancy rates throughout theregion. Thischap- epresented anet lossof 1.7rental units for eachrenter egion increased by 59,800households, or10percent. r eachnet rental unitaddedduringthedecade. nt tes were muchtighter in2000,asgrowing

increases thantherest of themetropolitan area. 1 During thepastdecade, the CHAPTER 5 35 Chapter 5 36 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 SPOTLIGHT 15 Cleveland Park (15) had muchtighter rental housingmar such astheInnerCore (2.6percent rental vacancy) r cent butremained higherthantheoverall rate for the decreased inthe1990sfrom 8.0percent to 6.2per- Within theregion, theDistrict’s rental vacancy rate areas except Boston (2.9percent). v dropped below Seattle onthelist,withalower rental By 2000,however, theWashington region had lower thanthoseof alltheother comparisonregions. ra 2000. In1990,theWashington region’s rental vacancy dropped from 7.6percent in1990to 4.3percent in metropolitan areas. Regionwide rental vacancy rates when compared with1990and ourcomparison out theregion, resulting inlower overall vacancy rates The numberof vacant for-rent units declinedthrough- re W with ourcomparisonmetropolitan areas, the stock iscomposedof smallunits. Butcompared Most of theWashington region’s rental housing OF RENTAL HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS the District. as awhole, more rental units were inmedium-size centage points, to 41percent in2000.Inthe region buildings over thedecade, withanincrease of 5per- increase intheshare of rental units inmediumto large Suburbs was theonlysubarea to seeasignificant (20 ormore units) multifamily buildings. TheOuter re one infive rental units intheDistrictandoneten r ber andproportion of efficiencyapartments inthe re In 2000,asin1990,abouttwo-thirds of theregion’s av mobile (more thanone-third reported that they hadmoved intotheirunitswithinthepastyear) andtheir bedroom unitsaccountedfor three-quarters ofalltherental units.Cleveland Park renters were quite units intheneighborhoodclusterwere inapartmentbuildingswith20ormore units.Efficienciesandone- and theaverage rent rose almost40percent, from $739in1990to$1,0182000.Mostoftherental the 1990s,rental vacancy rate inCleveland Park dropped from 5.9percent tolessthan1.0percent, Tr egion increased duringthepastdecade. In2000, egion. Asdiscussedinlastyear’s report, subareas acancy rate thanallthecomparisonmetropolitan te was higherthanboth Boston andSeattle but nt nt nt ashington region hasthelargest percentage of ends intheCleveland Park cluster(15)reflect thecity’s increasingly tightrental housingmarket. During erage incomewas relatively high—more than$68,000in2000. al housingwas inmedium(5to 19units) to large al units withfour ormore bedrooms. Thenum- al units intheregion were efficiencies. kets in 2 in kets 000 than re cent of rental units intheregion, only3percent of all a large share of thesehomes. Compared with13per- although several neighborhoodswithintheDistricthad f A fo Pa In two Districtneighborhoodclusters, NorthCleveland re with 5to 19units, whilemore than40percent of Tw the Districtwere inbuildingswithfiveormore units. both 1990and2000,70percent of allrental units in we r units inmediumto large buildingsthandidthe The Districthadaslightly higherpercentage of rental or more units. 19 units, while30percent were inbuildingswith20 re detached ren the re buildings thanlarge buildings. About35percent of all District by nearly6,000 units inthe1990s. With almost 22,000units, andefficienciesincreased in the number of efficienciesintheregion increased by r increase inthenumberof efficiencyapartments inthe apartments. Therental market witnessedasignificant singles andchildlesscouplesneedsmaller, lesscostly f different typesof households. Families andextended quate numbers of units of various sizes to accommodate A healthy rental housingmarket needsto supplyade- hood intheDistrictby more than10percentage points. amilies require larger units withmore bedrooms, while amily detached rental homes thantheregion, egion andintheDistrictduring thepastdecade. The egion asawhole, butintheDistrictmore rental units ccordingly, theDistricthadasmallershare of single- nt nt nt nt r more than90percent of allrental units. rk (12)andWest End(5),large buildingsaccounted enty-seven percent of rental units were inbuildings re al units intheDistrictwere single-family homes. In al units, thehighestproportion of any neighbor- al units were inbuildings with20ormore units. al units intheregion were inbuildingswith5to

Colonial Villagecluster(16),single-family in large asopposedto medium-size buildings. In ter homesmadeup43percent of all Congress Heights (39)and Downtown (8)clusters each we all units builtinthe1990sDistrict,one-quarter containing more than10percent of new units. Among that in the1980s, withnocluster ineitherdecade r 1990s thaninthe1980s. Incontrast, thedispersion of occupied units were more widelydispersed inthe ing. AsdiscussedinChapter4,recently builtowner- housing differfrom thosefor owner-occupied hous- Within theDistrict,trends inthelocation of new rental 13 percent of therental stock intheregion. District was builtinthepast10years, compared with in theregion. Only3percent of therental stock inthe housing was built)was 1955 intheDistrictand1970 (that is, theyear before whichhalfof allexisting rental in theregion. Themedianyear builtfor rental units re Newly available censusdata alsoindicate that the from 10,300inthe1980sto 4,100inthe1990s. of 84,000 units between 1990and2000.IntheDistrict re Specifically, 109,000units were addedto theregion’s slower paceduringthe1990sthanin1980s. Construction of new rental housingproceeded at a Brightwood Park (18)clusters, with6percent each. ter (21),with7percent, andtheGeorgetown (4)and District’s large units, followed by the Edgewood clus- Mount Pleasant cluster(2)contained 10 percent of the portionate share of thecity’s large rental units. The Several neighborhoodsintheDistricthousedadispro- of slightly smallerthanintheregion, withonly4percent The percentage of large rental units intheDistrictwas r had four ormore bedrooms, placingtheWashington politan areas. Inthe region, 6.3percent of rental units the decadeandwas higherthanincomparable metro- r The percentage of large rental units (four ormore bed- District’s efficiencies, respectively. cluster (6)contained 13percent and11percent of the The Mount Pleasant cluster(2)andtheDupont Circle and two-bedroom units declinedduringthedecade. cent in1990to 21percent in2000astheshare of one- share of efficienciesintheDistrictgrew from 16per- more thantwicethat of theregion asawhole. The re ef egion first amongourcomparison metropolitan areas. ooms) intheregion remained relatively stable during ecently builtrental units inthe1990swas similarto nt nt nt

ﬁ Columbia,thenumberof new rental units dropped re re ciencies makingup10percent of theregion’s al stock, theshare of efﬁcienciesintheDistrictwas al housingstock intheDistrictismucholderthan al stock between 1980and1990,compared with nt

located inthree neighborhoodclusters. The al units having four ormore bedrooms. accounted for about25percent of allnew units. units. Similarly, inthe1980s, thetop three clusters Logan Circle cluster(7)accounted for 8percent of new accounted for 9percent of new rental units, whilethe past year and four in fivemoving inthepast five about two infiverenter households moving inthe in theWashington region were highlymobile, with frequently, andCensus 2000data confirmthat renters It isexpected that peoplewhorent willmove relatively unrelated people. ple andanother 11percent consistedof two ormore the District,halfof renter householdswere singlepeo- only 39percent of renter households intheDistrict.In the region were family households, compared with person households. Halfof allrenter households in re r While thelargest group of renter householdsinthe of hold headolderthan64,compared with20percent and 14percent of renters intheDistricthadahouse- than 64,compared with15percent of allhouseholds, households intheregion hadahouseholdheadolder r proportion of elderlyrenter households thanthe of the region andtheDistrictcompared withtheirshare than 64were underrepresented inrental housingin than younger households. Household headsolder elderly householdsare more likely to behomeowners As noted inlastyear's chapteronhomeownership, white, compared with34percent of allhouseholds. percent of allrenter householdsintheDistrictwere compared with61percent of allhouseholds. And29 percent of renter householdsintheregion were white, to underrepresented inrental housingintheregion and, As detailed inlastyear’s report, whitehouseholds are than thoseintheregion overall. re moved withinthepastfive years. However, in thepastyear, whilemore thantwo-thirds third of allrenter householdsintheregion moved tion. Renters tendto bemobile. More thana re and young householdswere overrepresented in Throughout theWashington region, minorities OF RENTERHOUSEHOLDS CHARACTERISTICS egion was family households, thelargest group of egion asawhole. In2000,11percent of renter n

n nt all households. a lesserextent, intheDistrict.In2000,about46 the total population, buttheDistricthadalarger ter householdsintheDistrictconsistedof single- ters intheDistrictwere slightly lessmobile al housingcompared withtheoverall popula- 37 Chapter 5 38 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Map 5.1.Share of Renters That Moved into Unitbetween January SPOTLIGHT Source: U.S. Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 2000. Share of Renters Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennial census2000. 35 No ClusterAssignment 36–48% 30–36% 28–30% 24–28% 0–24% 1999 andMarch 2000 M ap between January1999andMarch 2000 5 . 1 . Sh are o F trated by map5.1. living indifferent parts of thecity, however, asillus- r y of District thanintherest of theregion. Only31percent moved inthepastyear was slightly lower inthe Surprisingly, theshare of renter householdsthat Suburbs, at 43percent. re y we one-third of the rental unitsinFairfax Village were inbuildings with4orfewer units, andonly15percent unit withinthepastyear, avery low rate ofmobilityfor DistrictofColumbiarenters. As of 2000,about climbed 32percent, from $26,900to$35,500.Onlyaboutoneinﬁve renter households moved intotheir V cent in1990to6.3percent in2000.Despitethisrelatively highvacancy rate, theaverage rent inFairfax ing grew by lessthan2percent between 1990and2000,butrental vacancy rates rose—from 4.3per- did notexhibit theextreme tighteningevident in someotherpartsofthecity. The stock ofrental hous- Rental market conditionsintheFairfax Village cluster(35)strengthened somewhat duringthe1990sbut egion asawhole. Levels of mobilityvaried for renters ear, compared with 39percent of renters inthe ears. Thesubarea withthehighestpercentage of airfax(35) Village illage rose from $461 to$581,a26percent increase. Over thesame period,theaverage renter income n

re ters moving inthepastyear was theOuter re n f ter householdsintheDistrictmoved inthepast

in structures with20ormore units. R en t ers Th a t

M ove 1 4 012 d

i n t o U n it mile s in therest of theregion, at $40,400in2000. household incomeremained lower intheDistrictthan o District experienced a4percent increase inincome Charles County andManassasCity. Renters inthe cent inPrinceGeorge’s County and4percent in r decreased inonlyfivecounties intheWashington in real terms, to $49,450.Average renter incomes re From 1990to 2000,theaverage annualincomefor incomes below thepoverty level. whole, andoneinfour renters intheDistricthad have lower incomesthanintheregion asa areas. Renter householdsintheDistricttendedto $10,000, amongourcomparisonmetropolitan the lowest share of renters, withincomesbelow within theDistrict.TheWashington region had Wa borhoods withthelowest renter mobilityrates were in (14) clusters moved duringthepastyear. Theneigh- Georgetown (4),West End(5),andCathedral Heights quadrant. Almostone-halfof allrenters inthe District were inthewestern partof thenorthwest The highestpercentages of recent movers inthe re past decadeintheregion, althoughchangesin On average, renter incomes increased over the any of thesubareas inthemetropolitan area. moving inthepastyear. Thisrate was lower thanin the region, with11percent of renters olderthan64 District hadalower seniorrenter mobilityrate than moved inthepastyear was only16percent. The r y As might beexpected, fewer seniorrenters than clusters moved inthepastyear. the Sheridan(37),Douglass(38),andDeanwood (31) egion duringthedecade, includingdeclinesof 6per- egional percentage of renters olderthan64who ounger renters intheregion moved recently. The ver thedecadeinreal terms, butaverage renter n n rd ter householdsintheregion increased by 5percent ter incomevaried greatly by neighborhood s 7and8.Onlyabout20percent of renters in re As discussedfurtherinthenext chapter, lowest-income the largest declineamongallneighborhoodclusters. Eastland Gardens cluster(29)dropped by 41percent, trast, theaverage renter householdincomeinthe grew 34percent inreal termsover thedecade. Incon- re r ta W make upasmallershare of allrenter householdsinthe needs. Renters withannualincomesbelow $10,000 because theprivate housingmarket may not meet their re area hadnearlytwiceaslarge ashare (19percent) of its $10,000. Incomparison,thePhiladelphiametropolitan with about11percent of allrenters earninglessthan W Although seniors are underrepresented among W than one-third of renters intheDouglass(38)and cluster (27)earnedlessthan $10,000,whilemore e much higherpercentages thanthecityaverage, how- r income renters intheDistrictwas doublethat of the Columbia. At 22percent, thepercentage of lowest- in theWashington region liveintheDistrictof A disproportionate share of thelowest-income renters re Leading allDistrictneighborhoodclusters, theaverage fewer thanhalf(17 clusters) experienced decreases. in average renter incomesfrom 1990to 2000,while neighborhoods (22clusters) experienced real increases hood intheDistrict.More thanhalfof theDistrict’s Changes inrenter incomesvaried greatly by neighbor- SPOTLIGHT egions hadthesmallestshare of theselowest-income egion overall. Several clusters intheDistricthad ver. More thanhalf of renters in the NearSoutheast n areas. Specifically, theWashington andSeattle n n n n ashington region thaninourcomparisonmetropoli- ashington-area renters, they are substantially more oodridge (24)clusters fellinthisincomecategory. ters are of particular concernto policymakers ters of thecomparisonmetropolitan areas in2000, ters inthisincomecategory. ter householdincomeintheDowntown cluster(8) 29 Eastland Gardens (29) Fully oneinfour renter householdsinEastlandGardens hadincome below $10,000in2000. while theaverage incomeamongrenter householdsfell from $37,000to$29,600,a20percent decrease. apartments. Between 1990and2000,theaverage rent fell from $511to$423,a17percent decrease, among thehighestinDistrict.Mostofrental units (60percent) are in buildingswithfour orfewer moved intotheirunitswithinthepastyear. The rental vacancy rate inEastlandGardens was 11percent, tions. Onlyabout400renter householdslive inEastlandGardens, andas of 2000,aboutone-third had T he EastlandGardens cluster(29)hasbeenexperiencing weak anddeteriorating rental market condi- (27) andMayfair (30)clusters topped 60percent. poverty rate for seniorrenters intheNearSoutheast f hoods. Thenumberof seniorrenters was distributed especially seriousproblem insomeDistrictneighbor- level in2000.Poverty amongseniorrenters was an of Within theDistrictof Columbia,more than31percent percent), andrenters younger than25(25percent). (12 percent), followed by renters olderthan64(22 25- to 64-year-old renters hadthelowest poverty rate likely to bepoorthanyounger renters. Specifically, Philadelphia and Boston was similarto Washington, cent andAtlanta at 42percent. Therate of increase in increasing 50percent, followed by Houston at 43per- metropolitan areas inrent increases withaverage rents r From 1990to 2000,average rents intheWashington from alow of $645inHouston to $839in Boston. metropolitan areas, average rent levels in2000ranged re metros in 2000,itexperienced asmallerincrease in age gross rent level ($863)of any of thecomparison Although theWashington region hadthehighestaver- a wholein2000. high-end rental units compared withtheregion as er percentage of low-end rental units andfewer growth inrents intheDistrict,cityhadahigh- hoods intheNorthwestquadrant. Despitethe increases inaverage rents were seeninneighbor- Inner Suburbs. WithintheDistrict,largest than didany of theareas intheInnerCore or increase inaverage rent levels over thelastdecade The Districtof Columbiaexperienced alarger AND AFFORDABILITY RENTAL HOUSINGCOSTS airly evenly over thecity’s neighborhoods, butthe egion grew 26 percent. Seattle ledthecomparison nt

all seniorrenters hadincomesbelow thepoverty s over thelastdecade. 2 Among thecomparison 39 Chapter 5 40 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Map 5.2.ChangeinAverage Gross Rent, 1990to 2000 Note: Rents were not adjustedfor inflation. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, decennialcensus, 1990,2000. Gross Rent, 1990–2000 Change inAverage No ClusterAssignment 35–45% 25–35% 0–25% -17–0% increase of 35 percent over thedecade. $915 in2000, asitledtheOuterSuburbs withan a a 2000, experienced thelargest percentage increase in Montgomery County, witharent level of $992in lower than inArlington County ($1,004)in2000. County, therent level intheDistrict($695)was much District (29percent) was neartherate inArlington While thepercentage increase inaverage rents inthe re counties occurred inArlington County, where average Virginia. Thelargest percentage increase intheinner County, Virginia) to 40 percent inClarke County, County, Maryland;Manassas, Virginia; andFauquier from only16percent inthree counties (PrinceGeorge’s increase inaverage rent levels over the1990sranged increases at widelyvarying rates duringthe1990s. The the Far Suburbsto $961intheInnerCore, withrent A rise inaverage rents from 1990to 2000. with both of theseregions experiencing a28percent verage rent level inM verage rent of theInnerSuburbs, 26percent. The verage gross rent levels in2000ranged from $618in nt s rose 30percent from 1990to 2000. anassas Park, Vir 1 4 012 ginia, rose to mile s re Heights (11)in2000.Comparinggainsaverage in NearSoutheast(27)to $1,328 inFriendship o r Neighborhoods intheDistrictalsoexhibited awide parts of thehousingmarket. r nies, suggests that thetrend of risingrents inthe perceptions of developers andmanagement compa- into thecurrent decade. Anecdotal evidence, including housing costs over the1990smay not have continued It isimportant to note that upward trends inrental cent inNearSoutheast(27). 17 percent inEastlandGardens (29)andfalling 8per- ally decreased intwo neighborhoodclusters, falling and $1,312inGeorgetown. Average rent levels actu- $1,073 inNorthCleveland Park, $550inDowntown, disparate in2000.Theaverage gross rent level was a Downtown (8),andGeorgetown (4)clusters, although 40 percent ormore intheNorthCleveland Park (12), w percent increases were alllocated inthecity’s north- high-end units increased by at least20percentage Excluding theFar Suburbs, thepercentage of these from 38percent in1990to 56percent in2000. or more bedrooms renting for $1,000ormore jumped r e widened over thedecade, astherest of theregion whole. Thegapbetween theDistrictandregion centage of high-endrental units thantheregion as a A decadeago,theDistricthadaslightly smallerper- than halfthat of theDistrict (see figures 5.1and5.2). units renting for lessthan$1,000(24percent) was less the region. IntheInnerCore, thepercentage of large $1,000 intheDistrict,compared with44percent in of r f cent of efficiencyandone-bedroom apartments rented r significantly higherpercentage of low-end rental units occurred duringthe1990s, thecitystillhada In spiteof theincreases inaverage rent levels that than in2000,increasing from $726to $760. o Supplemental Survey data, however, average rents or lessthan$300,whileonly8percent of theseunits egion asawhole, thepercentage of units withthree egionwide rented for lessthan$300.Also,63percent elative to theregion in2000.IntheDistrict,13per- ange of average rent levels andchangesinrent levels egion may have slowed orreversed itself insome verage rent levels intheseneighborhoodsremained xperienced alarge increase intheseunits. Inthe ver the1990s. Average gross rent ranged from $273 verall intheDistrictwere 4.6percent higherin2001 est quadrant (seemap5.2).Average rents increased nt

three-or-more bedroom units rented for below

among neighborhoodsintheDistrict,highest 3 A ccording to Census 4 re 40 percent intheSeattle region, and39percent of with 42percent of renters inthePhiladelphiaregion, r percent of renters inboth theWashington andHouston among ourcomparisonmetropolitan areas. Only35 clusters withlower percentages—Downtown, Southwest scattered throughout theDistrict,whilemany of the percentages of renters withexcessive costburdens were Within thecity, theneighborhoods withthehighest ex 38 percent of allrenter householdsintheDistrict had with 35percent of allrenter householdsinthe region, dens thanrenters intheregion asawhole. Compared slightly more likely to experience excessive costbur- data indicate that renters intheDistrictwere only Survey (AHS)citedinlastyear’s report, Census2000 Similar to findingsfrom the1998AmericanHousing of Houston, theWashington region hadthelowest share utilities, andother housing-related costs. Alongwith household pays 30percent orlessof its incomeonrent, Development definesrental housingas“affordable” ifa The U.S.Department of HousingandUrban than intheregion asawhole. more likely to have unaffordable cost burdens incomes thansuburbanrenters, they were slightly to Re re the comparisonmetropolitan areas. Because of age rents of vacant units exceeded theaverage rents units rented for more thanoccupiedunits. Theaver- The InnerCore was theonlysubarea where vacant v pied rental units. Similarly, intheDistrict,rents of units were onaverage $100lessthanrents for occu- Core. Intheregion asawhole, rents of vacant for-rent units inallsubareas of theregion except theInner units were slightly lesscostlythanoccupiedrental re F District, to 37percent in2000. more increased by only5percentage points inthe three-or-more bedroom units renting for $1,000or points inallsubareas. Incontrast, thepercentage of egions hadexcessive costburdens in2000, compared or thefirst time, thedecennial censusreported the acant units averaged $120lessthanoccupiedunits. n

n cessive costburdens in2000.

occupied units intheInnerCore by around $180. n have unaffordable housingcosts thanrenters in ters intheAtlanta andBoston regions. all renter householdslivinginunaffordable units ters intheDistrictof Columbiahave lower s of vacant for-rent units in2000.Vacant for-rent ters intheWashington region were lesslikely 22 percent and27percent, respectively. had thelowest percentages of cost-burdened renters at percent. ColonialVillage(16)and Cleveland Park (15) centage of renters with excessive costburdens, at 55 5.3, theWest Endcluster(5)contained thehighestper- Southeast—were neartheCapitol. As illustrated by map Employment Area, UnionStation, Capitol Hill,Near Figure 5.1. Renter-Occupied Units by Gross Rent, Efﬁciencyand Figure 5.2. Renter-Occupied Units by Gross Rent, Three orMore Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 2000. Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 2000. Percentage of 3+ Bedroom Rental Units Percentage of Efficiency and One-Bedroom

100 Rental Units 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 0 Region Total Region Total One-Bedroom Units, 2000 Bedrooms, 2000 District of Columbia District of Three orMoreBedrooms,byGrossRent2000 Columbia Inner Core Inner Core Suburbs Inner Suburbs Inner Suburbs Outer Suburbs Outer Suburbs Suburbs Far Far Gross Rent Gross Rent Less than$300 $300–$499 $500–$749 $750–$999 $1,000 More than Less than$300 $300–$499 $500–$749 $750–$999 $1,000 More than 41 Chapter 5 42 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Map 5.3.Renters Paying More Than30Percent of Incomeon Source: U.S. Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 2000. Re Share of n ter-Occupied Units No ClusterAssignment 40–55% 35–40% 20–35% Housing, 2000 income renters hadexcessive costburdens. 92 percent and87percent, respectively, of thelowest- 78 percent. Incontrast, inHouston and Philadelphia, burdens. TheBoston region hadthesmallest share, at re our comparisonregions, aneven larger share of able rent burdens in2000.However, inallbutoneof re re lems are mostprevalent amongthelowest-income As discussedfurtherinChapter6,affordability prob- and Sheridan(37). River Terrace (32),Fairfax Village(35),Woodland (36), neighborhood clusters eastof theAnacostiaRiver: having excessive costburdens were seeninseveral percentage points ormore intheproportion of renters also flat over thedecade. Nevertheless, increases of 10 centage of renters withexcessive costburdens was in 1990to 32percent in2000.TheDistrictwideper- ex ex During the1990s, thepercentage of renters with n n n cept intheInnerCore, where itfellfrom 37percent cessive costburdens remained stable intheregion, ters at thisincomelevel carriedunaffordable cost ters withincomesbelow $10,000hadunafford- ters. IntheWashington region, 82percent of 1 4 012 mile s ﬁnding rental housing they canafford. low ormodestincomes may face increasing difﬁculty r a whole. If demandfor rental housingin the city carry unaffordable costburdens thanintheregion as than suburbanrenters, they are slightly more likely to District of Columbiahave lower incomesonaverage comparison metropolitan areas. Becauserenters in the paying unaffordable housingcosts thanrenters inour Re re centage of low-end rental units andfewer high-end Nevertheless, in2000thecitystillhadahigherper- the counties intheInnerCore orInnerSuburbs. a District of Columbiaexperienced alarger increase in tighter, asgrowing demandoutstripped supply. The re upon therental housingstock. During the1990s, the those whoexpect to move frequently, alldepend modest incomes, aswell asyounger householdsand r re less burdened by unaffordable housingcosts than The lowest-income renters intheDistrictwere slightly of re Suburbs, Hispanicshadaslightly lower percentage of District paying excessive housingcosts. IntheOuter 36 percent of Hispanicrenters intheregion andthe between Hispanicandwhiterenters was smaller, with r compared with32percent of white renters inthe 40 percent intheDistricthadexcessive costburdens, 2000, 38percent of blackrenters intheregion and ex black andHispanicrenters hadahigherincidenceof whites (33percent). re Although homeownership isagoalfor many people, FUTURE FOR THE PROSPECTS re had excessive costs, compared with82percent of such to in 2000,compared withone-third of renters aged15 senior renters intheregion hadexcessive costburdens R have excessive cost burdens thanother renters. and minorityrenter householdswere more likely to Re emains strong andrents continue to rise, peoplewith egion’s housingneeds. Inparticular, householdswith egion and33percent intheDistrict.Thedifference verage rent levels over thedecadethandidany of oughly unchangedfrom 1990,more thanhalfof nt nt n n nt n

cessive costburdens thanwhite renters did.In n n 64 years. Inmostof theregion andintheDistrict, re ters intheregion asawhole. In2000,79percent ters withexcessive costburdens (31percent) than ters intheregion. ters intheWashington region are lesslikely to be ter householdswithanelderlyheadof household al units thantheregion asawhole. al market intheWashington region becamemuch al housingplays acriticalrole inmeeting the n ters earninglessthan$10,000in theDistrict Low-Income Housing Needs

AND RESOURCES CHAPTER 6

LOW-INCOME families and individuals face signiﬁcant challenges in the Washington region’s booming housing market. Many pay unaffordable housing costs, live in overcrowded conditions, or even experience periods of homelessness. This chapter draws upon data about both homeowners and renters to provide an overview of housing problems among low-income households. In addition, this chapter discusses the federal resources available to meet low- income housing needs, including public housing, other federally assisted developments, and Section 8 vouchers.

LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS The District of Columbia is home to a disproportionate share of the region’s low-income households. Nevertheless, a majority of low-income households in the Washington region live in suburban communities.

Regionwide, almost 458,000 households have low incomes (below $35,000 in 2000), with about 102,000 subsisting on less than $10,000 annually (see ﬁgure 6.1). Although the majority of low-income households live in the suburbs, the District of Columbia accounts for a disproportionate share. Speciﬁcally, almost one in four (24 percent) of the region’s low-income households live in the District, compared with only 13 percent of all households. And more than one in three (37 percent) of the region’s lowest-income households (with incomes under $10,000) live in the city. In all, almost half of the District’s households (45 percent) have low incomes, and 15 percent have the lowest income levels.

As discussed in Chapter 2, low-income households are not evenly distributed across the city’s neighborhood clusters. In the Ivy City cluster (23), the Near Southeast cluster (27), the Woodland/Fort Stanton cluster (36), the Sheridan cluster (37), and the Douglass cluster (38), the share of Chapter 6 Chapter

43 44 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Figure 6.1. Households by IncomeLevel intheWashington, D.C., SPOTLIGHT Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, decennialcensus, 2000. Thousands of Households 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 37 0 Figure 6.1.HouseholdsbyIncomeLevelintheWashington,D.C.,Region,2000 Less than $10,000 R egion, 2000 $10,000– $10,000– $34,999 Household IncomeCategory Sheridan (37) of households are renters. Almost two-thirds (63percent) Not surprisingly, mostof theregion’s low-income low incomes. cluster (16),fewer than20percent of households have Cleveland Park cluster(15),andtheColonialVillage Heights cluster(11),theSpringValley cluster(13),the contrast, intheHawthorne cluster(10),theFriendship households withlow incomesexceeds 70percent. In with 32percent in1990. incomes below $50,000were homeowners, compared In 2000,38percent of householdswithannual their homesincreased dramatically duringthe1990s. r among low-income households, andthe share of the Chapter 4,however, homeownership hasbeengrowing those withthelowest incomelevels. Asdiscussedin higher thanintheregion asawhole. Speciﬁcally, 78 the share of low-income householdsthat rent iseven F Moreover, oneinthree poorhouseholds intheSheridancluster lived inovercrowded housing in 2000. 79 percent ofthosewithincomesbelow $10,000paidmore than30percent oftheirincomefor housing. Sheridan clusterfaced serioushousinghardship. Sixtypercent ofthosewithincomes below $35,000and av households received publicassistancein2000,the highestwelfare recipiency rate inthecity. Although $10,000 ayear. Almost halfofSheridan’s residents hadincomesbelow poverty level andoneinfour quarters ofthehouseholdslive onincomesbelow $35,000andalmostoneinthree live onlessthan Residents oftheSheridancluster(37)are amongthepoorest intheDistrictofColumbia.More thanthree- egion’s low- andmodest-income householdswhoown ederally subsidized housingaccountsfor almosthalfoftherental housingstock inSheridan.

erage rents andhousevalues fell far below thecityaverages, mostlow-income householdsinthe low-income householdsrent, asdo74percent of $35,000– $74,999 $75,000– $99,999 1 In theDistrictof Columbia, More than $99,999 Columbia District of Suburbs are 85percent of thosewiththelowest incomes. percent of householdswithlow incomesare renters, as of o Throughout theWashington region, asinmost HOUSING COSTS UNAFFORDABLE their incomefor housingeachmonth. incomes below $10,000pay more than 30percent of incomes below $35,000and84percent of thosewith two-thirds (69percent) of householdswithannual r Most low-income householdslivingintheWashington 30 percent of theirincomeonhousing. incomes are very likely to bespendingmore than lems. Both renters andowners withlow annual But inAtlanta andBoston, therates of unaffordable Houston, where economicconditionsare lessrobust. households issomewhat lower inPhiladelphiaand The rate of affordability problems amonglow-income economies andlarge numbers of affluent professionals. r are highestintheWashington, D.C.,andSeattle dens amonghouseholdswithincomesbelow $35,000 r households inallof ourcomparisonmetropolitan stitutes awidespread problem amonglow-income by The problem of unaffordable housingcostburdens is income for housingcosts. ow income renter householdsand81,500low-income low-income owners (65percent). higher for low-income renters (70percent) thanfor incidence of unaffordable costburdens isslightly $35,000 have unaffordable housingcostburdens. The 14 percent of allhouseholds withincomesabove egion carryunaffordable housingcostburdens. About egions. Nevertheless, unaffordable housingcostbur- egions—both metropolitan areas withstrong ther metropolitan areas nationwide, amajority

ner householdspay more than30percent of their low-income householdsface affordability prob- no meansuniqueto theWashington region. Itcon- 3 In all,183,700low- 2 In contrast, only compared the To number of rental units at affordable rents. W addressing low-income housing needsinthe income range rent rather thanown. Thus, a first stepin burdens, by far themajorityof households inthis equally likely to becarrying unaffordable housingcost Although low-income renters andowners are almost income households. ability gaptotals 13,800units for thelowest District of Columbia,therental housingafford- afford falls 38,200units shortof need.Inthe the lowest-income householdscanreasonably Ac AFFORDABILITY GAP RENTAL HOUSING (12), andtheSpringValley cluster(13). W ex income householdspaying unaffordable housingcosts neighborhood clusters. Specifically, theshare of low- particularly highinfour of thecity’s mostaffluent cluster (27). the Brookland cluster(22),andtheNearSoutheast three neighborhoodclusters—the Downtown cluster(8), housing costburdens falls below 50percent inonly share of low-income householdscarryingunaffordable more than30percent of theirincomefor housing.The costs are relatively low, amajorityof householdspay most householdshave low incomesbutwhere housing Even intheDistrict’s poorest neighborhoods, where households regardless of where they liveinthecity. Af (22,400) pay unaffordable housingcosts. and 8of 10of thoseat thelowest incomelevels D.C. householdswithincomesbelow $35,000(58,000) monthly incomefor housing.Specifically, 6of every 10 the majoritypaying more than30percent of their challenge for low-income householdsinthecity, with (see figure 6.2).Still,affordability posesadaunting burdens thantheircounterparts intheregion’s suburbs slightly lesslikely to carryunaffordable housingcost Low-income residents of theDistrictof Columbiaare r a percentage point ortwo below theWashington housing costs amonglow-income householdsfall only egion’s rate. ashington region would beto supplyasufficient est Endcluster(5),theNorthCleveland Park cluster fo ceeds 80percent intheGeorgetown cluster(4),the

r assess theregion’s progress toward thisgoal,we oss theregion, thestock of rental units that r dability isaseriousproblem for low-income The rate of unaffordable costburdens is tot al numberof low-income renters with income group. the ﬁgure 6.3).The affordable rental units thanhouseholdsregionwide (see At all lowest-income renter households. in theregion istoo smallto meet theneedsof halfof holds. Inother words, thesupplyof affordable housing percent of thenumberof lowest-income renter house- gap of 38,200units. Thisunitgapisequivalent to 51 $10,000, we found aregionwide affordable housing gap.” For renter householdswithannualincomesbelow numbers iswhat we refer to asthe“affordable housing gap at 24,600units, followed by theBoston region at metropolitan areas. TheSeattle region hadthesmallest group placeditinthemiddleof allthecomparison affordable housinggapof 38,200units for thisincome the lowest-income renters. TheWashington region’s in meeting theneedfor affordable rental housingfor W Compared withother metropolitan areas, the ber of households. this affordability range doesnot fall shortof thenum- housing; itsimplymeansthat thestock of housingin between $10,000and$35,000livesinaffordable guarantee that every renter householdwithanincome this incomerange by roughly 50percent. Thisdoesnot $35,000 exceeded thenumberof renter households in f or thosewithannualincomesfrom $10,000to Figure 6.2. Low-Income HouseholdswithUnaffordable HousingCosts, ashington region was neitherthebestnorworst

Note: Housingisdeﬁnedasunaffordable ifahouseholdpays more than30percent of its household incomein Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennial census, 2000. higher levels of income, however, we found more tot housing costs.

Percentage of Households al numberof rental units affordable to that 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 Region Total W 4 tot ashington, D.C.,Region, 2000 The difference between thesetwo al numberof rental units affordable Columbia District of Inner Core Suburbs Inner Suburbs Outer Suburbs Far $34,999 $10,000– Incomes $10,000 under Incomes 45 Chapter 6 46 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Figure 6.3. Rental HousingSupplyandDemandby Income, SPOTLIGHT Note: Rental housingunits are definedasaffordable iftherental costs donot exceed 30percent of Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennial census, 2000. Income Level and higher household income. $10,000– $35,000– Less than $10,000 $50,000 $35,000 $50,000 22 W 050 ashington, D.C.,Region, 2000 0 5 0 5 0 5 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 Brookland (22) le affordable rental units thanhouseholdsat allhigher percent. Justasintheregion, theDistricthadmore ing lessthan$10,000was 13,800units—a gapof 44 District’s affordability gapfor renter householdsearn- both inabsolutenumbers andinpercentage terms. The District was smallerthanthat for theregion asawhole, able housinggapfor thelowest-income renters inthe Similar to thefindingsinlastyear’s report, theafford- ren age gapinaffordable units for the lowest-income percent. TheHouston region hadthelargest percent- second smallest,behindtheBoston region’s gapof 39 W parison regions. Furthermore, inpercentage terms, had agapof 67,300units, thelargest amongthecom- the other endof thespectrum,Philadelphiaregion 33,800 units, andtheAtlanta region at 35,900units. At percent oftherental stock—receive federal housingsubsidies. incomes below poverty level lived inovercrowded housing. About 210Brookland housingunits—about14 of thosewithincomesbelow $10,000paidunaffordable housingcosts. And oneinfive householdswith significant housinghardship. Almost halfthosehouseholdswithincomesbelow $35,000andtwo-thirds $35,000, and14percent lived onlessthan$10,000annually. Many oftheselow-income householdsface households were homeowners. However, 47percent ofBrookland’s householdshadincomesbelow tions. As of2000,theaverage family incomewas $59,000,up9percent from 1990,and57percent of Many residents oftheBrookland cluster(22)enjoy comfortable incomelevels andgoodhousingcondi- ve ashington’s regionwide gapof 51percent was the ters at 72 percent. ls Thousands ofUnits of

income. (demand) households Renter units (supply) rental housing Affordable of prevalent intheregion’s InnerCore, butpoorresidents Within theWashington region, overcrowding ismost parable withtheWashington region’s rate. and Atlanta have rates of overcrowding roughly com- holds liveinovercrowded housing conditions. Seattle tively— among poorhouseholds—8and9percent respec- r son metropolitan areas. TheBoston andPhiladelphia r The Washington region’s overcrowding problem falls with only6percent of poorhomeowners. 18 percent of poorrenters are overcrowded, compared among poorrenters thanamongpoorhomeowners— r in astudioapartment, orafamily of fiveinaone-bed- sons perroom (for example, amother withtwo children o 8.4 percent of poorhouseholds(11,000)are severely one childmight liveinastudioapartment. Moreover, kitchen andaseparate livingroom, oramother with might liveinaone-bedroom apartment withaneat-in holds) are overcrowded. For example, afamily of four incomes below thepoverty line(19,000poorhouse- crowded housing, but15percent of householdswith households intheWashington, D.C.,region liveinover- r more thanoneperson perroom (not counting bath- in housingthat isovercrowded—officially definedas share of thosewithincomesbelow thepoverty linelive problem faced by low-income households, asignificant Although affordability isthemostwidespread housing high amongpoorhouseholds. households intheregion, its prevalence isquite Although overcrowding isnot aproblem for most O oom unit).Overcrowding occurs muchmore frequently ooms andhallways). Overall, only6percent of all egions both exhibit muchlower rates of overcrowding oughly inthemiddleof therange for our compari- vercrowded, livinginhousingwithmore than1.5per-

the Districtof Columbia alsoface highrates of over- VERCROWDED HOUSING while 26percent of Houston’s poorhouse- 5 r increase inthenumberof homelesspeopleinthe homeless persons. Thecount shows an8.8percent Committee conductedits secondannualcount of Homeless ServicesPlanningandCoordinating In January2002,theCouncilof Governments (COG) with children. in theDistrictof Columbia,andmany are families ev decreasing intheWashington region andmay The latest data show that homelessnessisnot INDIVIDUALS HOMELESS FAMILIES AND and theCleveland Park cluster(15). Hawthorne cluster(10),theSpringValley cluster(13), hood clusters—the Georgetown cluster(4),the percent infour of thecity’s more affluent neighbor- o Congress Heights cluster(39).Incontrast, therate of Sheridan cluster(37),theDouglass(38),and tions. Theseare theMount Pleasant cluster(2),the e ters. Infour neighborhoodclusters, more thanonein v The extent of overcrowding amongpoorhouseholds percent of poorhomeowners. living inovercrowded housing,compared withonly7 among homeowners, with18.8 percent of poorrenters o In theDistrictof Columbia,asinthe region asawhole, substantially lesslikely to liveinovercrowded housing. Core. Poor households intheOuterandFar Suburbsare Inner Suburbs, butslightly lower thanthoseof theInner per room. Theserates are comparable to thoseof the r holds liveinhousingwithmore than oneperson per figure 6.4).IntheDistrict,16.9percent of poorhouse- crowding compared withsuburbancommunities(see in theDistrict of Columbia,although, increasingly, The problem of homelessness falls disproportionately W problem of homelessnessisnot abating inthe people. Nevertheless, thedata clearlyindicate that the since 2001, which beds the first enumeration andto anincrease inshelter a notes, however, that someof thisincrease may be oom, and10.2percent have more than1.5persons egion—from 12,850to 13,982. aries considerably across thecity’s neighborhoodclus- very four poorhouseholdsliveinovercrowded condi- ttributable to improvements indata collectionsince vercrowding amongpoorhouseholdsfalls below 3 vercrowding ismore prevalent amongrenters than ashington region. en berising.Mostof theregion’s homelesslive makes iteasierto count more 6 The COGreport mental illness anddrugoralcoholaddiction. TheCOG f r bers of homelessfamilies (adults withchildren). Other and that 40percent of allhomelesspeoplewere mem- homeless peoplewhocouldbe counted (28percent) children accounted for more thanaquarter of the than halfare men.However, theCOGreport findsthat Most homelesspeopleare singleindividuals, andmore jurisdictions are not available. dations andservicesfor homelesspeopleinsuburban w single adultwas 43days (in 2000),whilefor families it The average lengthof stay inanemergency shelterfor a the Districtwere servedby Continuum of Care services. Community Partnership estimated that 13,480peoplein able inthecityonany givenday. During2001,the housing. Altogether, about8,400shelterbedsare avail- shelters, transitional housing,andpermanent supportive Continuum of Care services. the homelessthrough theDistrictof Columbia’s Homelessness hasdocumented theservicesprovided to The CommunityPartnership for thePrevention of County, which saw a22percent decline. dictions surveyed by COG,except for PrinceWilliam homelessness since2001were registered inalljuris- F or 53.4percent), withthesecond-largest share in COG 2002survey were intheDistrict(7,468persons, More thanhalfthehomelesspeoplecounted inthe suburban jurisdictionsare facing theproblem aswell. ound that many face multipleproblems, including esearch onthecharacteristics of homeless peoplehas Figure 6.4. Overcrowding amongPoor HouseholdsintheWashington, airfax County/Falls Church (15percent). Increases in as 186days (in2001).Comparable data onaccommo- Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, decennialcensus, 2000. Percentage of Poor Households 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 Region Total D.C., Region, 2000 District of Columbia 7 These includeemergency Inner Core Suburbs Inner Suburbs Outer Suburbs Far per room 1.5 persons More than per room 1 person More than 47 Chapter 6 48 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Figure 6.5. Federally Subsidized HousingUnits, Washington, D.C., Note: Federally subsidized units include HousingChoiceVouchers, privately owned federally subsidized develop- Sources: “A Picture of Subsidized Housing” ments, andpublichousing.

Development; special tabulations compiled by HUDfor theUrbanInstitute, 2000. Thousands of Units 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 R Region Total egion, 1998and2000 District of Columbia homeless adults were employed. according to thelatest COGsurvey, 31percent of all lence. Asubstantial share of homelesspeoplework; in theWashington region were victimsof domesticvio- study alsoreports that 10.4percent of homelesspeople among thepoorest households. the primaryresources for meeting housingneeds nationwide, federal rental housingprograms provide W f in lower-income households, who(asdiscussedabove) it doesnot directly address theneedsof peopleliving this range isclearlyneededintheDistrictof Columbia, an ($35,000to $55,000ayear). Althoughhousingin with incomesat 50to 80percent of theregion’s medi- ments produce housing withinreach for households and develop affordable housing.Mostof theseinvest- made significant investments inrecent years to preserve As discussedinChapter3,theDistrictof Columbiahas slightly over time. able falls far shortof needsandhasdeclined the District,buttotal numberof units avail- federally subsidized housingislocated within of the resources for addressing thehousingneeds Federal housingprograms provide thebulkof ASSISTANCE RESOURCES FEDERAL HOUSING ace thehighestrate of housingproblems. Here inthe ashington region, asinmostmetropolitan areas , 1998,data set from theDepartment of HousingandUrban low-income households. Mostof theregion’s Inner Core Suburbs Inner Suburbs Outer Suburbs Far 2000 1998 re As of 2000,thefederal government’s three primary them eligible for federal housingassistance. And area renters have incomesbelow $35,000,making ber of eligiblehouseholds. Inall,290,000 Washington- stock of federally assistedunits falls far shortof thenum- holds mostinneed,itisimportant to recognize that the housing asaresource for theWashington-area house- Despite theimportance of federally subsidized rental the Woodridge cluster (24)are federally subsidized. all inpublichousing.Andonethree rental units in Southeast cluster(27)are federally subsidized—almost addition, 60percent of allrental units intheNear based assistance, soallrental units are subsidized. In housing projects andhouseholds receiving tenant- Eastland Gardens cluster(29)consists entirely of public ters, subsidized housingdominates therental stock. The However, inafew of theDistrict’s neighborhoodclus- subsidized units make uponly12percent of thestock. inventory. EvenintheDistrictof Columbia,federally small share (6.5percent) of theregion’s rental housing F (a 12percent increase) between 1998and2000. Suburbs grew from about14,800to more than16,500 lar, thenumberof federally subsidized units intheInner in thenumberof HousingChoiceVouchers. Inparticu- federally subsidized units, primarilybecauseof increases from 4,500to 2,900units. Therest of theregion gained subsidized housingbetween 1998and2000,dropping The InnerCore lostaneven larger share of its federally from about20,500to below 19,000. erally subsidized housingduringthat period,dropping 2000. However, theDistrictlost7.6percent of its fed- dropping from about45,700in1998to 45,500in about 200subsidized units between 1998and2000, developments. Overall, theWashington region lost the expiration of subsidycontracts for privately owned demolition of distressed publichousingprojects and has beendecliningslightly inrecent years, owing to the The numberof federally subsidized units regionwide lic housing(25percent of subsidized units). dies (34percent of subsidized units), andfinallyby pub- developments builtandmaintained withfederal subsi- erally subsidized units, followed by privately owned market rental housing,accounts for 41percent of fed- low incomehouseholdscanafford to pay for private- Choice Voucher program, whichsupplements what very housing units regionwide (seefigure 6.5).TheHousing ederally subsidized rental housingaccounts for onlya nt al assistance programs subsidized about45,500 8 ing hasdropped from 17,300in1998to 15,700in The region’s stock of federally subsidized private hous- ular federal operating subsidies. f SPOTLIGHT re however. Overall, 43percent of thenew units (1,110 them. Not allof thesenew units willbesubsidized, tion, and3,360new units willbebuiltto replace will bedemolishedaspartof theHOPEVIrevitaliza- in theDistrictof Columbia.Approximately 2,900units income housing.FiveHOPEVIprojects are underway their replacement withlower-density andmixed- demolition of severely distressed developments and because of theHOPEVIprogram, whichfundsthe about 11,200in2000(a15percent drop), largely the region declinedfrom about13,300in1998to The total numberof occupiedpublichousingunits in cluster (33),with12percent. Area cluster(9),with12percent; andtheCapitol View city’s publichousingunits; theSouthwest Employment Near Southeastcluster(27),with13percent of the housing islocated inthree neighborhoodclusters: the And withinthecity, more thanone-third of allpublic lic housingstock islocated intheDistrictof Columbia. More thantwo-thirds (69percent) of theregion’s pub- than other typesof federally subsidized rental housing. Public housingiseven more geographically clustered Capitol View cluster(33)at 6.6percent. Congress Heights cluster (39)at 8.8 percent, andthe the Mount Pleasant cluster(2)at 10percent, the highest shares of thecity’s subsidized housingstock are slightly from 45percent in1998.Theclusters withthe r Columbia. Thecityaccounts for 42percent of the federally subsidized housingisintheDistrictof A disproportionate share of theWashington region’s ing more than30percent of theirincomefor rent. 184,000 of theseeligiblehouseholds are currently pay- or low-income families andwillbesupportedby reg- egion’s federally subsidized rental housing,down nt al units and340homeowner units) willbeset aside 2 Mount Pleasant(2) between 1998 and2000,primarilybecause oftheexpiration oflong-term subsidy contracts. housing unitsthan almostany otherneighborhood clusterintheDistrictofColumbia, butitlost161units incomes below poverty level lived inovercrowded housing. MountPleasanthasmore federally subsidized $10,000 carriedunaffordable housingcostburdens. And more thanone-fourth ofhouseholdswith 6 ofevery 10householdswithincomesbelow $35,000andthree-quarters ofthosewithincomesbelow $10,000. Among theselow-income households,theincidenceofhousinghardship was very high. Almost However, 57percent of households hadincomesbelow $35,000,and19percent hadincomesbelow of working-age adultswere employed, andonly7percent of householdsreceived publicassistance. F hoods, hasexperienced considerable growth andquitetighthousingmarket conditionsinrecent years. T amily incomeaveraged $49,000 intheyear 2000,a13 percent increase over 1990. Almost two-thirds he MountPleasantcluster(2),oneoftheDistrict’s mosteconomicallyandethnicallydiverse neighbor- than tripled.More than4,000units were placedin and 1995,thenumberof units placedinservicemore notable jumpoccurringmid-decade. Between 1994 increased throughout the1990s, withaparticularly nation today. LIHTC production intheWashington area the primarysource of new affordable housingin the guarantee affordability for low-income residents, itis gram doesnot provide long-termrent subsidiesthat Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Althoughthispro- housing developed underthefederal Low-Income In 1999,theregion alsohadabout22,000units of (32), with7percent. ter (2),with8percent; andtheRiverTerrace cluster 16 percent of thecity’s total; theMount Pleasant clus- holders liveintheCongress Heights cluster(39),with Within theDistrict,largest numberof voucher District—a drop from 32percent in1998. Only 25percent of voucher holders livedinthe Montgomery, PrinceGeorge’s, andFairfax counties. r almost half(46percent) of voucher holders inthe erally subsidized private developments. In2000, graphically concentrated thanpublichousingorfed- assistance. Vouchers are muchlesslikely to begeo- v percent rise),reflecting thegrowing importance of 15,200 householdsin1998to 18,600in2000(a22 ents intheWashington region hasincreased from The total numberof HousingChoicevoucher recipi- unassisted projects. of funded, thisincrease ismostlikely dueto theprovision 2000. Sincenonew subsidized projects are being increased slightly, from 6,100in1998to 6,400in Section 8project-based units intheDistrictactually discussed inlastyear’s report. However, thenumberof r 2000 (a9percent drop). Thissharpdeclineprimarily epresents projects with“expiring” subsidycontracts, as egion livedintheInnerSuburbs—primarily ouchers relative to other forms of federal housing

Loan Management Set-Aside fundingfor previously 49 Chapter 6 50 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 ness regionwide. order to eliminate excessive costburdens andhomeless- be addressed annuallyover thenext two decadesin 8,200 renters and6,100homeowners) would have to homeowners) and14,300suburbanhouseholds (about District households(about2,900renters and700 indicates that thehousingneedsof roughly 3,600 $50,000 that are paying unaffordable housingcosts, current levels of householdswithincomesbelow ainty. A“back-of-the-envelope” calculation, basedon Making aforecast of thiskindisfraught withuncert- ship intheWashington region over thenext 20years? What would ittake to significantly reduce housinghard- homelessness. costs. Analarmingnumberexperience episodesof and intheregion asawholepay unaffordable housing ing, amajorityof low-income householdsinthecity significantly increased theresources itdevotes to hous- meeting needs. AlthoughtheDistrictof Columbiahas F the challengesthat low-income householdsface. also putpressure onthehousingmarket, exacerbating But theregion’s growth andhighincomelevels have r The dynamismandprosperity of theWashington FUTURE FOR THE PROSPECTS about 2,700units. County, withabout2,900units; andtheDistrict,with George's County, withabout3,500units; Montgomery greatest numberof LIHTC units asof 1999were Prince f service inboth 1998and1999,themostrecent years housing fall woefully shortof meeting theneeds of low- light thefact that current investments inaffordable While theseestimates may seemunrealistic, they high- met by making existing housing affordable. newly constructedhousing;theneedsof many couldbe or whichdata are available. Thejurisdictionswiththe egion create economicopportunitiesfor its residents. ederal fundingfor housingsubsidiesfalls far shortof 9 Not every household would need lowest incomelevels to meet existing andfuture needs. w holds. However, jurisdictionsthroughout theregion (and subsidycost)islargest for thelowest-income house- uals canafford to pay. Obviously, theaffordability gap ing decent housingandtheamount families andindivid- financial gapbetween the costs of buildingandmaintain- able are expensive, becausethey attempt to closethe All thesemechanismsfor makinghousingmore afford- affordable housingfor householdswithspecialneeds. 6) Supportiveservicesdelivered inconjunctionwith ments; and afford to contribute toward rent or mortgage pay- ments to supplement what targeted householdscan 5) Housingvouchers oroperating subsidycommit- chase existing housing; fo 4) Down-payment assistance andlow-interest financing marked for saleto households withlow incomelevels; struction of new homeowner housingunits that are ear- 3) Grants andlow-interest loansto subsidize thecon- f struction of new rental housingunits that are earmarked 2) Grants andlow-interest loansto subsidize thecon- duce moderately pricedhomesandapartments; that encourage orrequire private developers to pro- 1) Inclusionaryzoning andother regulatory reforms makers couldconsiderinclude: the lowest incomehouseholds. Initiatives that policy essary to assistrenters andhomeowners, andto serve t efforts anddraw uponawiderange of programmatic r hardship, jurisdictionsthroughout theWashington significant progress inreducing thelevel of housing income residents regionwide. Inorder to make any or occupancyby low-income households; ools. Different combinations of subsidieswould benec- egion would needto scaleuptheiraffordable housing ould have to target at leastsomeassistance to the r homebuyers to helplow-income homebuyers pur- Patterns OF Concentrated Neighborhood

POVERTY CHAPTER 7

NEIGHBORHOODS with high poverty rates (more than 30 percent of persons below the poverty line) face daunting challenges. In these high-poverty neighborhoods, the problems of poor education, discrimination, joblessness, single par- enthood, and crime all reinforce one another, under- mining the well-being of families and children who live there. And few high-poverty neighborhoods can support the businesses and civic institutions necessary for a healthy community.1

At the start of the 1990s, concentrated poverty of this kind was a serious problem for the District of Columbia; 36 census tracts in the Washington metropolitan area had poverty rates greater than 30 percent, and all of them were located in the District. These high-poverty neighborhoods all showed serious signs of distress, including very high rates of unemployment, poor education, and single parenting. For most of the decade, the Washington metropolitan area grew and prospered. The District of Columbia stopped losing population and jobs, and investment in the city’s housing and neighborhoods expanded. This chapter takes advantage of newly available census data on poverty rates by tract to analyze whether and how patterns of neighborhood poverty changed during the 1990s.2

CONCENTRATED POVERTY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Despite the Washington region’s overall prosperity, the number of high-poverty tracts rose during the 1990s, their population increased, and their poverty deepened. In 2000 as in 1990, all of the region’s high-poverty neighborhoods were located in the District of Columbia. Chapter 7 Chapter

51 52 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Map 7.1High-Poverty CensusTracts in theDistrictof Columbia,2000 Figure 7.1. Concentrated Poverty intheDistrictof Columbia, Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 2000. Note: Total barequalspercentage withpoverty rates of 30percent andhigher. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, decennialcensus, 1990,2000. Percentage in High Poverty 2000 Poverty Rate 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 Note: Totalbarequalspercentagewithpovertyratesof30percentandhigher. Source: U.S.BureauoftheCensus,decennialcensus,1990,2000. 40% + 30–40% 1990 and2000 1990 Tracts 001990 2000 poverty rates greater than40percent) rose even more 2000. Thenumberof extreme-poverty tracts (with W The ashington region increased from 36in1990to 43 in Total Population tot al numberof high-poverty censustracts inthe 001990 2000 Poor Population 1 4 012 2000 poverty 30–40% poverty 40% More than mile s tracts are located intheDistrictof Columbia. dramatically—from 10to 23.Allof thesehigh-poverty in high-poverty neighborhoods. At theother extreme, Seattle, where only15percent of poorcityresidents live (see figure 7.2).Poverty istheleastconcentrated in five comparisonregions: Boston, Houston, andSeattle District of Columbiathanin thecentral citiesof three of The incidenceof concentrated poverty ishigherinthe COMPARISON REGIONS POVERTY IN THE CONCENTRATED Heights cluster(39). ter (37),theDouglasscluster(38),andCongress W the AnacostiaRiver, includingmuchof the er share of thecity’s extreme-poverty tracts are eastof and Howard University clusters (2and3).Aneven larg- Downtown cluster(8),andparts of theMount Pleasant City andUnionStation clusters (23and25),the Area cluster(9),theNearSoutheast(27),Ivy 7.1. Others are located intheSouthwest Employment located eastof theAnacostiaRiver, asillustrated inmap Many, butnot all,of thecity’s high-poverty tracts are with only9percent in1990. tracts withpoverty rates over 40percent, compared almost oneinfour poorresidents (24 percent) livedin poverty tracts, upfrom 38percent in1990.And the Districtof Columbia(42percent) livedinhigh- as well. Asof 2000,two of every fivepoorresidents in population livinginhigh-poverty neighborhoodsgrew 2000. Not surprisingly, theshare of thecity’s poor than tripled—from 20,600in1990to 66,000in And thepopulation of extreme-poverty tracts more from about106,000to more than126,000people. high-poverty neighborhoodsincreased 19percent— decade. Between 1990and2000,thepopulation of the city’s total population was falling for mostof the borhoods rose duringthe1990s, despitethefact that The numberof peoplelivinginhigh-poverty neigh- from only5.3percent in1990(seefigure 7.1). of more than30percent poor, andanalarming12percent of Concentrated poverty remains acentral-city problem. As in high-poverty neighborhoods. ban communities, they are not geographically clustered a majorityof theregion’s poorresidents liveinsubur-

oodland/Fort Stanton cluster(36), theSheridanclus- 2000, almostoneinfour D.C.tracts (23percent) were the city’s tracts were more than40percent poor, up 3 Although city’s high-poverty neighborhoodswere even lower in perity duringthe 1990s, therates of employment inthe cent, respectively. And despitetheregion’s overall pros- citywide employment rates of 60percent and53per- and 41percent among adultwomen, compared with Employment rates were 44 percent amongadultmen District’s high-poverty tracts hadjobsin2000. Less thanhalfof theworking-age adults livinginthe decade, from 1.3percent to 2.1percent. high-poverty neighborhoods rose slightly over the cent to 8.7percent. TheAsianshare of population in and thenon-Hispanicwhiteshare rose from 7.2per- Hispanic share rose from 3.7percent to 5.3 percent, decreased slightly, from 87percent in1990,whilethe population livinginhigh-poverty neighborhoods city’s total population (ﬁgure 7.3).Theblackshare of A high-poverty neighborhoods(84percent) were As of 2000,more than8outof every 10residents of joblessness, pooreducation, andsingleparenting. American. Theseneighborhoodsexhibit highrates of poverty neighborhoodsremain predominantly African becoming more racially andethnically diverse, high- than theDistrict. f the 1990s. Andfor themostpart,theseother cities enced increases intheconcentration of poverty during 29 citiesother thantheDistrictof Columbiaexperi- Wh NEIGHBORHOODS OF HIGH-POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS tracts dropped from 28percent to 19percent. 41 percent, andtheshare livinginextreme-poverty ing inhigh-poverty tracts declinedfrom 48percent to r the central citiesof all100of thenation’s largest met- bling whenwe compare theDistrictof Columbiawith The District’s worsening trend appears even more trou- trations of central-city poverty duringthe1990s. District of Columbia,experienced increasing concen- Seattle. Incontrast, PhiladelphiaandBoston, like the A less geographically concentrated inthecitiesof Between 1990and2000,poverty becamesubstantially Philadelphia’s liveinhigh-poverty neighborhoods. 55 percent of Atlanta’s poorresidents and53percent of aced verydifferent economicanddemographic trends opolitan areas. Onaverage, theshare of thepoorliv- frican American,compared with60percent of the tlanta andHouston, andstayed aboutthesamein ile

t he total total population of theDistrictof Columbiais 4 Only households consisted of families headedby asingle high-poverty neighborhoods, and alarge share of Wo the cityasawhole. in 2000—15.0percent compared with5.5percent in high-poverty neighborhoodsremained relatively high And state andlocalpublicassistance recipiency rates in 2000 thanthey were in1990,especiallyamongmen. Figure 7.2. Figure 7.3. Race andEthnicityinWashington, D.C.,High-Poverty Tracts, Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, decennialcensus, 1990,2000. Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 1990,2000. men substantially outnumbered meninthecity’s Percentage of Poor Population 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 Washington, Percentage of Population 1990 2000 100 DC 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Tr Share of Cities’Poor Population LivinginHigh-Poverty 1990 and2000 0 acts, 1990and2000 1990 2000 Boston 1990 Philadelphia 1990 2000 1990 2000 Houston 2000 1990 2000 Atlanta 1990 2000 Seattle Black White Non-Hispanic Asian Other American/ Native Hispanic poverty 30–40% poverty 40% More than 53 Chapter 7 54 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Map 7.2. ChangeinPovertyMap 7.2. Rates inDistrictof ColumbiaCensusTracts, Figure 7.4. Change inPoverty Status of Washington, D.C.,Tracts, Source: U.S.Bureau of theCensus, decennialcensus, 1990,2000. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, decennialcensus, 1990,2000. Census Tract Poverty Change inPoverty Rate

Category, 1990 Morethan Lessthan 30–40% poverty poverty poverty P <30%+(2000) 30%+ (1990), 30%+(2000) 30%+ (1990), 30%+ <30% (1990), (2000) opulation, <200 Figure 7.4.ChangeinPovertyStatusofWashington,D.C.,Tracts,1990to2000 30% 40% 1990 to 2000 020406080 1990 to 2000 city asawhole. And28percent of householdsinthe men, compared with9menfor every 10women inthe poverty neighborhoodsin2000there were only7.7 parent. Specifically, for every 10women livinginhigh- Number ofTracts 0 2 4 160 140 120 100 1 4 012 Category 2000 Poverty 40% poverty more than Tracts with 30–40% povert Tracts with 30% poverty less than Tracts with mile s y tially lower—only 3.7percent—in high-poverty tracts. between 1998and2000,therate of losswas substan- federally subsidized housingdeclinedby 7.6percent percent citywide. Andalthoughthecity’s total stock of federally subsidized asof 2000,compared withonly12 tracts, almostoneinthree rental units (31percent) were poverty intheDistrictof Columbia.Inhigh-poverty housing appears to contribute to theconcentration of The geographic concentration of federally subsidized of single-parent families accounted for only12percent headed by asingleparent. Inthecityasawhole, District’s high-poverty tracts were families withchildren the Sheridan,Douglass, and Congress Heights clusters than they were in1990.Thisisparticularlyevident in Anacostia Riverare muchmore solidly highpoverty mark. Asaconsequence, theneighborhoods eastof the poverty tracts simplyshiftedover the 30percent close to 30percent poorandadjacent to other high- map 7.2).Intheseneighborhoods, tracts that were 1990s were located eastof theAnacostiaRiver(see percent poverty into high-poverty status duringthe Eight of the fourteen tracts that shiftedfrom below 30 percent in1990becamehigh poverty by 2000. 2000, and2tracts that hadpoverty rates below 20 20 and30percent in1990becamehighpoverty by Specifically, 12tracts that hadpoverty rates between ed into thehigh-poverty category by 2000. ra 2000. At thesametime, 14tracts that hadpoverty up, withpoverty rates climbingto over 40percent in cent in1990,amuchlarger share—11 tracts—shifted tracts that hadpoverty rates between 30and40per- dropped to below 30percent in2000.Ofthe26 poverty rates over 30percent in1990,only6 As shown infigure 7.4,of the36tracts that had Columbia becamepoorer between 1990and2000. As arule, high-poverty tracts intheDistrictof status over thedecade. moving from lower poverty into high-poverty significant improvement, withalarger number few high-poverty neighborhoods experienced poorest neighborhoodsbecamepoorer. Very prospered duringthe1990s, mostof thecity’s While other parts of theDistrictof Columbia TRANSITIONS NEIGHBORHOOD tes below 30percent at thestart of thedecade shift-

all households. we Specifically, 57percent of thepopulation of thesetracts poverty status moved inbetween 1995and2000. idents inthetracts that madeatransition into high- the sametime, however, adisproportionate share of res- whole experienced duringthe1990s(5.7percent). At twice therate of population lossthat theDistrictasa between 1990and2000,a13percent decline. Thisis among tracts that became more than30percent poor age population pertract dropped from 3,438to 3,005 the 1990swere losingpopulation. Specifically, theaver- census tracts that moved into high-poverty status during nonpoor residents andgaining poorresidents. Allof the with risingpoverty rates were simultaneously losing neighborhoods, theevidence suggests that the tracts flow of householdsinto andoutof different typesof Although onlylimitedinformation isavailable onthe during the1990sandtwo shiftedout. (2 and3),two tracts shiftedinto high-poverty status in theMount Pleasant andHoward University clusters high-poverty status over thecourse of thedecade. And w the 1990s. IntheIvyCitycluster(23),whichgenerally shifted from above 30 percent po (37, 38,and39).Onlytwo tracts eastof theriver we All butoneof these tracts that moved into highpoverty dropped by more than500between 1990and2000. able for householdsearninglessthan$10,000 Pleasant cluster(2),thenumberof rental units afford- poverty concentration. For example, inthe Mount placement andcontributing to thecity’s worsening stock inother neighborhoodsmay beleadingto dis- gests that risinghouseprices andthelossof low-cost in thecitywithinpastfiveyears. Thisevidence sug- with risingpoverty rates hadmoved from somewhere all, more thanoneof every four residents of thetracts somewhere intheDistrictorfrom other central cities. In the cityasawhole. Mostof thesein-movers camefrom as not highpoverty in1990,two tracts shiftedinto re re

r majority black in 1990,withsubstantially more ecent movers, compared withonly50percent in verty to below during ra However, onedistinguishingfeature isarelatively high signiﬁcantly from tracts that remained highpoverty. percent. Ingeneral, thesetracts donot appear to differ of dropping from 89percent to 80percent. Andtheshare black, withtheaverage percentage of blackresidents to a poverty duringthe1990salsolostpopulation. Their The tracts that shiftedfrom high-poverty status to lower tration of poverty. assisted housingcontribute to thegeographic concen- fo that remained highpoverty throughout thedecade. compared with85menfor every 100women in tracts w of not leftto fall furtherandbehindby theDistrict also by theregion asawhole—to ensure that they are certed attention—not onlyby citypolicymakers, but hoods andthepeoplewholive inthemwarrant con- city’s high-poverty neighborhoods. These neighbor- ness, poverty, anddistress have intensiﬁed furtherinthe has occurred since2000,itseemslikely that jobless- District of Columbia.Giventheeconomicdownturn that most promising, even for thepoorest parts of the when onemight have expected circumstances to bethe ured conditionsat thepeakof theregion’s prosperity, most distressed neighborhoods. Census2000meas- r in theDistrictof Columbiabetween 1990and2000 The worsening concentration of neighborhoodpoverty FUTURE FOR THE PROSPECTS re employment. Inaddition,almostathird of occupied adult women thanmenandrelatively low rates of aises seriousconcernsaboutprospects for theregion’s verage population declined22.6percent, from 2,323 omen intracts that moved outof high-poverty status, tio of mento women in1990—92menfor every 100

nt r

cing theconclusionthat highconcentrations of Columbia’s overall revitalization. Hispanics grew substantially, from 4percent to 10 1,797. Thesetracts becamelesspredominantly al housingunits were federally subsidized, rein- 55 Chapter 7 AUTHORS

Margery Austin Turner is director of the Urban Christopher W. Snow is a research associate at the Urban Institute’s Center on Metropolitan Housing and Institute’s Center on Metropolitan Housing and Communities and codirector of its interdisciplinary Communities. DC Area Research Group. Peter A. Tatian is a senior research associate at the G. Thomas Kingsley is a principal research associate at Urban Institute’s Center on Metropolitan Housing and the Urban Institute’s Center on Metropolitan Housing and Communities and director of the center’s DC Data Communities and director of the National Neighborhood Warehouse Project. Indicators Partnership. Alisa Wilson is a research assistant at the Urban Institute’s Kathryn L. S. Pettit is a research associate at the Urban Center on Metropolitan Housing and Communities. Institute’s Center on Metropolitan Housing and Communities.

ENDNOTES

Chapter 2 the poverty test to differing populations, and (3) the effect 1. Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Local of the census undercount. Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) series, as of Septem- For more details, visit the U.S. Bureau of the Census Web ber of each year. See http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm. site at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/ 2. These estimates represent the weighted average (by techdoc/cencpsdf.html. employment) for the 19 major occupational categories 8. The high-wage occupations are legal, management, for which the BLS has published wage data for the architecture and engineering, computer and mathemati- region in both 1999 and 2001. See http://www.bls.gov/ cal, and health care practitioner and technical. The low- bls/blswage.htm. wage occupations are transportation and material mov- 3. Cited by Barker (2002). ing, health care support, personal care and service, building and grounds cleaning and maintenance, and 4. See Florida (2002). Florida defines the creative class to food preparation and serving-related. include the following occupation groups: computer and mathematical; architecture and engineering; life, physical, Chapter 3 and social sciences; education, training, and library; arts, 1. This number, not directly available from the census, is design, entertainment, sports, and media; management, calculated by subtracting the net change in the total num- business and financial operations, legal, health care prac- ber of units at each census (1990 and 2000) from the titioners, and technical; and high-end sales and sales number of units built in the 1990s. management. 2. Data for the District of Columbia were obtained from 5. Those with low shares in the creative class (less than 28 the city’s Office of Planning. percent) include metropolitan areas like Grand Rapids, Mich., Greensboro, N.C., and Memphis, Tenn., with high 3. Projects are classified as “planned” if developers have shares in the working class (above 30 percent as opposed actually submitted plans for review and have received to 18 percent in Washington), and metropolitan areas like approval or have received funding commitments. Projects Las Vegas, Nev., and West Palm Beach and Orlando, Fla., classified as “proposed” are large redevelopment efforts or that have very high shares in the service class (50 percent projects known to city planning staff. As a general rule, or more, compared with 44 percent in Washington). “planned” projects are expected to start construction within two years and “proposed” to start in five years. 6. For sources other than the decennial census, such as the CPS, we refer to the indicators by the year that the data 4. Totals include 14 projects and 1,926 units that could not represent, not the year in which the survey was conducted. be assigned a cluster, typically because the exact address could not be determined. The number of these units in 7 . The differences between the CPS and decennial census each status (under construction, planned, proposed) is poverty estimates are, to a large extent, due to (1) meth- not enough to change the leading clusters but could ods of data collection and processing, (2) application of affect which clusters are identified as second or third. Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Housing in the Nation’s

56 8. Salesfigures, both from therealtor andthecityadmin- the sameproperties. a w movement of single-family houseprices. TheHPIisa 7. TheHousePriceIndex (HPI)isabroad measure of the the section,reflect salesthat have actuallytaken place. f lot, mobilehomeandlot, orcondominiumunit)would sell r 6. Thedecennialcensusdefineshousingvalue asthe Housing andUrbanDevelopment—$85,600 in2001. annual medianincomepublishedby theDepartment of 5. For themortgage calculations, theanalysisuses households withlessthan$50,000incomeis43percent. multiunit buildings. The2000homeownership rate for all ness, houseson10ormore acres, andhousingunits in meaning they exclude mobilehomes, houseswithabusi- ship calculations are basedonspecifiedhousingunits, 4. To compare 1990and2000data, thesehomeowner- equivalent to “$0to $47,000”in1999dollars. we parison withthe2000“$0to $50,000”incomecategory, gories by tenure cannot bedirectly compared. For com- 3. Becauseof inflation, the1990and2000incomecate- re homeowner units, andhomeowner units convertingto stock, includingdemolitions, rental units convertingto r change inhomeowner units from 1990to 2000.The (units builtbetween 1990and2000)from thetotal 2. Thiswas calculated by subtracting new construction v 1. Homeowner units includeowner-occupied units plus 4 Chapter (including boarded up). property taxes andkeeping theproperties legallysealed doned, if,for example, theirowners are paying their not allproperties includedcanbesaidto beaban- properties to besure they are stillunoccupied.H utilities cutoff andvalidated by inspectors whovisitthe 8. Thesesurveys are basedonlists of properties with Housing andUrbanDevelopment—$85,600 in2001. annual medianincomepublishedby theDepartment of 7. For themortgage calculations, theanalysisuses 6. Ibid. November 15,2002. Deputy Mayor for PlanningandEconomicDevelopment. 5. Press release from theOfficeof theDistrictof Columbia or ifitwere for sale. Homesalesprices, discussedlater in espondent’s estimate of how muchaproperty (houseand emainder reflects allother changesinthehomeowner acant units for sale. verage pricechangesinrepeat salesorrefinancings on eighted repeat salesindex, meaningthat itmeasures nt

use the1990incomecategory “$0–$35,000,”whichis al orcommercial property. owever, households ineach of four incomecategories (below 4. More specifically, we compared thenumberof rental more than30percent of incomefor housing. f burdens for different incomecategories. Therefore, we data do not provide sufficient detail to report severe cost percent of theirincomefor housing).However, census District face severe cost burdens (paying more than50 W 3. Roughly 10percent of allhouseholdsinthe houses on10ormore acres are excluded. in multiunitbuildings. For renter households, single-family business, houseson10ormore acres, andhousingunits households, thisexcludes mobilehomes, houseswitha to 2. TheCensusBureau calculates theratio of housingcosts multiunit buildings. ness, houseson10ormore acres, andhousingunits in meaning they exclude mobilehomes, houseswithabusi- ship calculations are basedonspecifiedhousingunits, 1. To compare 1990and2000data, thesehomeowner- 6 Chapter all inflation. 4. Aportionof thisincrease incosts isattributable to over- 3. Irwin(2003). monthly costof utilitiesandfuels, ifpaidby therenter. 2. Gross rent equalscontract rent plusestimated average units for rent. 1. Rental units includerenter-occupied units plusvacant 5 Chapter 12. SeeTurner (1999). home of theborrower at thetimeof theapplication. the borrower wishesto purchase, not necessarilyto the 11. Thegeography refers to thelocation of thehome 10 ormore acres, andhousingunits inmultiunitbuildings. ex ra 10. TheCensusBureau calculates housingcosts to income t income, suggestthat many lenders nolongerview cost- pal, interest, taxes, andinsurance to exceed 30percent of able” mortgage products that permitpayments for princi- past decade, andparticularlytheintroduction of ”afford- hardship for allowners. Changesinhousingfinancethe representa affordability problems butmay not necessarily income isacommonstandar 9. Paying housingcosts that exceed 30percent of monthly fa istrative data sources, includecondominiumandsingle- ocus here onshare of low-income householdspaying o-income ratios of more than30percent asonerous. mily homes. tios onlyfor specifiedowner-occupied units. These ashington region and16percent of householdsinthe

clude mobilehomes, houseswithabusiness, houseson incomes onlyfor specified housingunits. For owner d for denoting housing 57 Authors | Endnotes 58 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 re these targets do not includeassistance that might be under $50,000andto eliminate homelessness. Note that able costburdens amongexisting residents withincomes each year between 2003and2023to eliminate unafford- and homeowners) whowould needaffordable housing 9. Thesetargets reflect thenumber of households(renters being usedby ahousehold. v only; project-based unitcounts are allunits, occupiedand 8. Publichousingunitcounts are basedonoccupiedunits Homelessness (2002). 7. TheCommunityPartnership for thePrevention of time count conductedonJanuary24,2002. and unsheltered peopleidentified inaregional point-in- 6. SeeGivens(2002).Thesecounts includeboth sheltered poverty limit—$17,000for afamily of four. crowding amonghouseholdswithincomesbelow the Therefore, thissectionfocuses ontheincidenceof over- hold incomecategories, butonlyby poverty status. 5. Censustabulations donot report crowding by house- corresponding incomeceiling. corresponds to themaximumaffordable rent for the the censusdata allows, eachof theserent ceilings $800 to $1,249;$1,250andhigher).To theextent each of four rent categories (below $250;$250to $799; $50,000 andhigher)to thenumberof rental units in $10,000; $10,000to $35,000;$35,000to $50,000; Sage Foundation. Barrios, andtheAmerican City. Jargowsky, Paul A.1997. Washington Post, Irwin, Neil.2003.“Apartment Market IsSoftest InYears.” W Washington Area. Givens, GaryJ.2002. Everyday Life. How It’sTransformingWork,Leisure,Communityand Florida, Richard. 2002. 2002. 2002Report to theCommunity. Washington, D.C. Community PartnershipforthePreventionofHomelessness. P Barker, Karlyn. 2002.“SmallDeclinein District’s REFERENCES acant; tenant-based assistance includesonlyvouchers opulation.” quired to increase therate of homeownership among ashington Councilof Governments. Washington Post, New York, N.Y.: BasicBooks. January 6.Onlineedition,E01. W ashington, D.C.:Metropolitan 2002 HomelessEnumerationforthe The RiseoftheCreativeClass:and Poverty andPlace:Ghettos, December 21. New York, N.Y.: Russell 4. SeeKingsley andPettit (2003). tract isexcluded from theanalysis. almost entirely of University of Marylandstudents, this County; h 3. Onehigh-poverty tract islocated inPrinceGeorge’s 1989 and1999. and 2000censusare basedonreported incomesfrom data. Andasdiscussedearlier, poverty rates inthe1990 centrated poverty andits effects typicallyusetract-level than neighborhoodclusters), becauseother studiesof con- 2. We usecensustracts astheunitof analysishere (rather Kingsley andPettit (2003);andTurner andHayes (1997). percent isverysmall.SeeJargowsky (1997;2003), cities, thenumberof tracts withpoverty rates above 40 thresholds clearlydefinehighlevels of distress. Inmost and onthosethat are more than40percent poor. Both both oncensustracts that are more than30percent poor 1. Research onhigh-poverty neighborhoodshasfocused 7 Chapter graphic distributionof low-income households. holds. Thetargets alsoassumenochangeinthegeo- r to low-income households, to make housingmore affordable Institute. Research Report. Metropolitan Region.” Washington, D.C.:TheUrban P T Department of HousingandUrbanDevelopment. Lending DiscriminationinAmerica. T Urban AmericaBrief2. D.C.: TheUrbanInstitute. NeighborhoodChangein Concentrated Poverty:AChangeinCourse. Kingsley, G.Thomas, andKathryn L.S.Pettit. 2003. the 1990s. Problems: TheDramaticDeclineofConcentratedPovertyin Jargowsky, Paul A.2003. espond to growth inthenumberof low-income house- urner, Margery Austin, andChrisHayes. 1997.“Poor urner, Margery. 1999. eople andPoor Neighborhoods intheWashington

households withincomesabove $50,000,orto owe W ashington, D.C.:Brookings Institution. ver, becauseits population iscomposed What WeKnowaboutMortgage Stunning Progress,Hidden W ashington, D.C.:U.S. W ashington, one Virginia city, andtwo counties inWest Virginia). Manassas Park); andtheFar Suburbs(sixcounties inVirginia, Stafford County, theCityof Manassas, andtheCityof Frederick County, LoudounCounty, PrinceWilliamCounty, F F Suburbs (Montgomery County, PrinceGeorge’s County, Core (Arlington County andtheCityof Alexandria); theInner A.1, thesesubareas are theDistrictof Columbia;theInner f Statistical Area. Inaddition,we defineseveral subareas to definition of theWashington, D.C.,PrimaryMetropolitan The analysisusesthefederal government’s 1999 METROPOLITAN AREA THE WASHINGTON,D.C., acilitate comparisonswithintheregion. Asshown intable airfax); theOuterSuburbs(CalvertCounty, CharlesCounty, airfax County, theCityof Falls Church, andtheCityof Appendix A. T able A.1. Washington, D.C.,Metropolitan F INNER SUBURBS OUTER SUBURBS INNER CORE DISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA AR SUBURBS GEOGRAPHIC DEFINITIONS Area, 1999 Jefferson County, WV Berkeley County, WV Fredericksburg city, VA W Spotsylvania County, VA King George County, VA F Culpeper County, VA Clarke County, VA Manassas Park city, VA Manassas city, VA Stafford County, VA Prince WilliamCounty, VA Loudoun County, VA Frederick County, MD Charles County, MD Calvert County, MD F F F Prince George’s County, MD Montgomery County, MD Alexandria city, VA Arlington County, VA auquier County, VA alls Church city, VA airfax city, VA airfax County, VA arren County, VA 59 Appendix A 60 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Appendix A. GEOGRAPHIC DEFINITIONS Boundaries for thesegroupings cover wholetracts inall 2002 asapproximations of neighborhoodclusters. defined by theDistrictof ColumbiaOfficeof Planningin boundaries, sothereport usesgroupings of censustracts Not allneighborhoodclusterboundariesfollow censustract number inparentheses. name listedfirst intable A.2,followed by thecluster The report refers to theseclusters by theneighborhood ters andthethree to fiveneighborhoodsthey encompass. and residents. Table A.2lists these39neighborhoodclus- of “ Within theDistrict,data are presented for neighborhood COLUMBIA IN THE DISTRICTOF NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTERS clusters,” areas defined by theDistrictof ColumbiaOffice T

beA2 NeighborhoodClusters intheDistrictof Columbia able A.2. Planning inconsultation withcommunityorganizations 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Pleasant Hill Lamond Riggs, QueensChapel, Fort Totten, Heights Brightwood Park, Crestwood, Petworth, 16thStreet Ta Estates Colonial Village, Shepherd Park, NorthPortal T A Cleveland Park, Woodley Park, Massachusetts Massachusetts Avenue Heights (part) Cathedral Heights, McLeanGardens, Glover Park, Crescents, Foxhall Village, Georgetown Reservoir Spring Valley, Palisades, Wesley Heights, Foxhall North Cleveland Park, Forest Hills, Van Ness T Friendship Heights, AmericanUniversity Park, Hawthorne, Barnaby Woods, Chevy Chase Wa Southwest Employment Area, Southwest/ V Downtown, Chinatown, Penn Quarter, Mount Logan Circle, Shaw Dupont Circle, ConnecticutAvenue/K Street University W Georgetown, Burleith/Hillandale Howard University, LeDroit Park, Cardozo/Shaw View Park Mt. Pleasant, ColumbiaHeights, Pleasant Plains, K errace enleytown ernon Square, NorthCapitol Street alorama Heights, Adams Morgan, LanierHeights venue Heights (part),Woodland-Normanstone est End,Foggy Bottom, George Washington k terfront, Fort McNair, Buzzard Point oma, Brightwood, ManorPark to ters, we weight thevalues of thetract-level data according 3 falls incluster5.To approximate data for thesetwo clusters. Blockgroups 1 and 2fall incluster 6andblockgroup ex Fo Home, National Arboretum, National Mall,andBollingAir generally nonresidential, noncontiguous areas (Soldiers’ Cluster 99isnot acity-deﬁnedcluster, butagroup of 69 percent to cluster6. 31 percent of thetract value to cluster5andtheremaining cent livesincluster6.Sofor any givenvariable, we assign cent of tract 55’s population livesincluster5and69per- 99 39 38 37 36 35 20 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21

cept onecase:Theblockgroups of tract 55spantwo clus- r the distributionof theblock-group population: 31per- ce Base). No clusterassignment Congress Heights, Bellevue, Washington Highlands Douglass, Shipley Sheridan, BarryFarms, Hillsdale, Fort Stanton Vista, Skyland W F Fo T Capitol View, Marshall Heights, BenningRidge River Terrace, Benning,Greenway, Fort Dupont Northeast Boundary Deanwood, Burrville, Grant Park, LincolnHeights, Mayfair, Central Northeast Eastland Gardens, Kenilworth Historic Anacostia,Anacostia Capper, Carrollsburg Near Southeast,Washington Navy Yard, Arthur Stadium Armory Capitol Hill,LincolnPark, HillEast,Barney Circle, R Linden, NearNortheast,NorthLincolnPark, Union Station, Stanton Park, KingmanPark, W Ivy City, Arboretum, Trinidad, Carver, Langston Brookland, Brentwood, Langdon Eckington, Stronghold Edgewood, Bloomingdale, Truxton Circle, Heights North MichiganPark, MichiganPark, University wining, Fairlawn, Randle Highlands, Penn Branch, airfax Village, Naylor Gardens, Hillcrest osedale oodland, GarfieldHeights, Knox Hill/Buena oodridge, Fort Lincoln,Gateway, SouthCentral rt Davis, Dupont Park Map A.1. Neighborhood Clusters intheDistrictof Columbia Note: SeeAppendixA,Table A.2,for namesanddescriptionsof clusters. Source: Districtof ColumbiaOfficeof Planning, 2002. Map 1.2.NeighborhoodClusters intheDistrictof Columbia,2000 Massachusetts NORTHWEST A SOUTHWEST venue 13 11 14 10 15 4 12 5 1 6 16 16th St. AirForce Wa 2 18 Bolling 3 Soldiers’ 7 lter Reed Army Hospital 17 Home 8 Base 9 3 21 19 39 27 37 25 20 22 23 26 28 01 38 Arboretum 36 24 35 34 32 SOUTHEAST 30 NORTHEAST 24 29 New York Ave. 33 31 Capitol St. East miles 61 Appendix A 62 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 T able B.1. NeighborhoodClusterPopulation Characteristics Appendix B. ocutr1,9 829 94 34 9 9 43 9 98 9 99 44 9 100 1 97 0 9 1 49 85 9 1 1 0 9 95 5 0 8,289 9 99 9 2 98 2 9 30,583 9,058 98 1 12 15,299 9 99 8,596 1 36,478 99 4 6,395 9 9,532 1 No cluster 96 1 0 8,025 8,235 Cluster 39 0 1 85 4 7,473 Cluster 38 1 15,536 0 0 6 8,756 9 Cluster 37 15,080 6 1 51 9 Cluster 36 17,404 12,493 1 8 3 70 94 Cluster 35 18,877 14,113 6,167 1 48 9 96 13 Cluster 34 14,126 2,374 5 89 29 8 2 Cluster 33 16,056 4,873 5 6,342 46 90 5 Cluster 32 4,633 8 8 1,341 27 1 77 84 Cluster 31 4 5,689 79 4 Cluster 30 18,489 3 80 5,040 11 7 88 10 8 Cluster 29 27,370 86 Cluster 28 19,849 11,348 7 15 6 72 5 14 Cluster 27 30,458 13,909 8,906 6 Cluster 26 11,876 16 21 Cluster 25 17,270 18,429 5 6 9,576 Cluster 24 10,065 1 7 8 25 Cluster 23 20,862 12,069 1 75 9,718 Cluster 22 39,233 10 6 7 8 82 Cluster 21 13,768 18,441 1 9 4,030 7 78 1 Cluster 20 40,551 50 60 77 8 87 Cluster 19 19,428 12,306 3 10 79 4,485 82 8 Cluster 18 11,142 1 65 25 17 86 Cluster 17 12,386 18,708 21 14 84 Cluster 16 11,432 14,953 15 67 25 34 12 Cluster 15 17,418 10,490 52 72 Cluster 14 14,978 12,724 17 78 7 22 11,779 Cluster 13 10,735 8,609 66 8 65 Cluster 12 11,510 26 19 82 11,592 20,865 Cluster 11 13 8,300 86 16,930 Cluster 10 60 13 19,867 11,723 Cluster 9 11 16,216 18,741 Cluster 8 56 11,104 10,128 Cluster 7 17,919 46,779 Cluster 6 10,925 18,167 Cluster 5 45,728 Cluster 4 17,812 Cluster 3 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Columbia District of 0,0 7,5 2 86 6 65 28 27 606,900 572,059 NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTERCHARACTERISTICS 9020 9020 9020 9020 9020 902000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 OUAINWIEBAKHSAI SA OTHER ASIAN HISPANIC BLACK WHITE POPULATION TO T LNNHSAI O-IPNCNNHSAI NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC NON-HISPANIC AL NON-HISPANIC 068873501 145564602 967774700 445554501 4575671311644644600 PERCENT OF POPULATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY 3573411 8010000 9010000 8010000 8110000 3211000 6010000 8010000 8110000 8110010 8010000 9000000 7110000 0121210 6231200 7221100 4120110 2020110 8231101 1241100 7121100 1231111 4132101 1353400 6342311 1238901 0582301 596901 60101 31110 06901 83601 21201 02401 63611 the NCDBare basedoncensus summary file3sampledata andtherefore might differ slightly from 100-percent counts for thesame Notes: Inorder to compare 1990to 2000,we usetheNeighborhood ChangeDatabase (NCDB) bridgingmethodology to assignthemult Source: NeighborhoodChange Database, 1990and2000. are measured incurrent dollars. SeeAppendix Afor more information aboutneighborhood clusters. T able B.1. NeighborhoodClusterPopulation Characteristics ocutr2 6587 23 66 21 15 34 11 46 27 46 35 47 52 34 15 49 35 16 61 41 11 33 62 41 10 25 55 47 23 56 29 56 68 19 37 29 57 59 38 28 28 28 78 51 27 23 24 38 73 57 22 10 29 50 61 82 44 24 33 59 68 45 13 55 24 42 72 59 17 59 44 52 46 44 40 15 63 10 42 50 44 14 42 37 31 75 57 41 31 8 11 52 40 21 55 36 31 2 23 79 52 33 23 52 38 9 69 30 1 5 16 34 43 37 62 83 28 1 1 10 17 32 30 74 43 4 50 48 1 1 32 29 70 36 8 59 25 2 1 15 26 36 62 100 43 12 57 25 2 1 34 34 69 64 45 22 5 67 10 67 1 3 41 40 65 66 8 40 32 59 48 2 1 43 5 40 38 13 75 50 35 2 48 1 1 37 44 59 64 64 59 37 29 2 1 8 22 7 47 4 48 70 48 32 No cluster 6 40 1 1 22 57 73 69 35 20 Cluster 39 38 1 76 1 32 4 48 76 7 60 45 22 Cluster 38 4 58 4 0 27 5 77 29 82 22 77 41 29 Cluster 37 46 6 65 2 29 38 6 43 25 Cluster 36 33 81 5 85 67 1 20 30 37 4 54 28 46 27 Cluster 35 25 85 3 5 39 38 141 11 36 45 51 29 Cluster 34 4 72 3 36 25 84 25 86 104 102 213 23 Cluster 33 28 67 4 3 11 34 36 79 39 32 Cluster 32 15 91 6 81 2 146 11 53 41 73 21 238 27 Cluster 31 26 6 36 80 25 3 18 70 168 16 12 Cluster 30 26 86 57 8 33 4 157 19 56 22 26 66 112 185 17 Cluster 29 10 71 5 25 53 50 88 24 20 165 18 Cluster 28 50 3 107 25 70 62 58 10 43 20 26 Cluster 27 64 49 56 101 24 60 12 11 51 23 Cluster 26 73 56 20 63 124 23 43 12 55 17 22 Cluster 25 57 27 6 14 83 34 36 69 198 51 16 Cluster 24 69 48 22 20 208 24 20 15 Cluster 23 84 128 39 53 19 48 20 55 19 Cluster 22 130 58 18 69 18 48 49 17 19 Cluster 21 19 11 78 35 6 57 123 13 18 Cluster 20 66 10 74 32 17 11 Cluster 19 70 69 13 13 12 6 9 Cluster 18 10 70 61 24 23 13 Cluster 17 55 10 19 9 19 54 63 Cluster 16 15 18 24 14 49 16 Cluster 15 15 60 17 19 Cluster 14 21 15 16 15 Cluster 13 16 4 33 18 Cluster 12 25 10 1 16 Cluster 11 26 6 6 23 Cluster 10 1 Cluster 9 14 6 Cluster 8 22 15 9 Cluster 7 22 Cluster 6 11 Cluster 5 Cluster 4 Cluster 3 Cluster 2 Cluster 1 Columbia District of C OUAINPT OEG PT OUAINOE AEAE C.PPLTO POVERTY PCT. POPULATION AVERAGE PCT. POPULATION OVER PCT. FOREIGN PCT POPULATION NE G 8BR G HTMVDI FML NOEAE1-4TA S RATE AGE 16-64THAT IS FAMILY INCOME AGE 5THAT MOVED IN BORN UNDER AGE 18 9020 9020 9020 9020 9020 902000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 92 01 75 37 16 720 17 65 71 78 53 50 47 13 10 20 19 H AT5YAS(00 MLYD(%) EMPLOYED ($000) THE LAST5YEARS (continued)

indicators obtained from censussummaryfile1.All dollaramounts iracial counts in2000to single-race categories. Estimates from 63 Appendix B 64 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 T able B.2. NeighborhoodClusterHousingCharacteristics ocutr240 ,3 251 ,6 71 3 300 1 42 372 2 221 2 26 4 14 42 8 6 24 4 263 6 24 - 13 2 3 7 2 17 12 13 0 17 6 21 14 10 8 4 1 14 4 11 4 7 84 0 10 0 8 88 27 4 12 7 0 7 1 0 5 8 4 7 13 3 40 11 24 2 51 10 14 5 15 2,061 46 1 12 12 2 15 26 1 6 20 5 2,531 17 1 44 12 9 6 12 3,867 4 14 1 1 13 13,928 5 49 4,620 6 15,873 3,084 1 0 1,937 46 1 12 6 6 37 3,378 2,783 7 48 11 2 2,410 31 11,567 2,773 4,216 11 3,149 32 2 11 45 9 43 6 6 46 4,312 8 7,466 13,413 2,764 31 9 8 1 3,340 6 29 7,496 2 68 10 7,236 No cluster 2 2,399 7 44 6 7 2,587 219 7,705 6,062 Cluster 39 6 4 3,834 28 3 13 2,494 6 859 26 6,641 2 6,279 Cluster 38 1 6,643 4 80 13 2 4,111 9 17 6,413 2,992 Cluster 37 5,924 832 24 6 16 1 0 6,955 4 52 189 3,025 2 4 Cluster 36 4 0 5,580 17 2 6,991 5 5 2,133 Cluster 35 0 5,315 51 6 2 16 5,999 8 62 2,325 1 760 2,133 Cluster 34 0 2,596 50 4 10 5,723 3 28 2,437 3 9,092 Cluster 33 0 5 112 64 1 1 443 2,475 7 48 57 8,692 Cluster 32 482 1 1,729 23 2 1 6 45 2 5,134 Cluster 31 3 1,940 53 3 3 14,227 1,955 5 79 5,063 1 14,123 7,267 Cluster 30 8,231 44 3 1 37 15 1,890 5 559 24 52 7,727 1 2 172 3,585 Cluster 29 19 79 3 1 7,607 4 12,604 4,108 1 8,388 Cluster 28 4,893 50 3 2 3 52 405 8,519 1 3,905 Cluster 27 12,267 5,566 4 56 4 6 4,766 6 90 3,886 1 11 5,201 Cluster 26 0 3,239 51 0 3 6,954 15 56 0 47 5,215 1 7 Cluster 25 7,027 90 117 1 56 3,659 35 1 8,295 Cluster 24 8 3,783 42 2 1 16,012 7,425 5 68 8,380 15,992 1,691 Cluster 23 4,861 2 33 3 2 1 3,792 37 3 1,667 6,584 3 Cluster 22 10 66 11 21 4,937 10 77 8 14,720 6,697 7,846 Cluster 21 7,839 36 5 1 6 72 8,081 7,235 7 Cluster 20 14,996 1,635 72 33 3,908 2 8,039 9 9 6,955 9,699 1 Cluster 19 6,329 69 5 1 12 1,600 37 9,614 4,506 3 Cluster 18 7,491 2 5 8 6,298 9 4,546 15 5,060 5 Cluster 17 6,897 8 23 7,536 7,449 6 5,042 6 Cluster 16 9,287 29 7,633 4,328 6,462 30 18 7 Cluster 15 4,413 52 3,576 9,165 30 1 Cluster 14 4,937 6 28 33 4 4,401 7,025 11,684 48 Cluster 13 10,912 5 6,485 4,870 3,842 8 31 Cluster 12 12,372 6,370 6,709 11,882 7,863 26 Cluster 11 10,547 3,028 7,703 4,717 34 3 Cluster 10 9,262 26 11,644 4,688 5,767 Cluster 9 31 3 10,353 7,463 Cluster 8 19,594 5,768 19,489 3,964 Cluster 7 11,440 7,052 11,229 41 Cluster 6 3,939 17,478 Cluster 5 39 10,971 17,418 Cluster 4 10,332 274,845 Cluster 3 278,489 Cluster 2 248,590 Cluster 1 249,034 Columbia District of 9020 9020 9020 9020 9020 001999–2000 2000 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 OSHLSHUIGUISRT AAC AAC SBIIE PERMITTED SUBSIDIZED VACANCY VACANCY RATE HOUSINGUNITS HOUSEHOLDS OEWESI OWNER RENTAL PCT. HOMEOWNERSHIP % AE()RT % OSN UNITS HOUSING RATE (%) RATE (%) (%) ULCAD NUMBEROF PUBLIC AND T lse 949 8 7,5 9,0 3 92 440 65 42 38 34 39 42 32 56 35 46 37 38 20 47 15 42 19 36 35 26 35 39 32 22 69 30 16 42 34 39 15 37 70 38 38 20 30 44 94 17 79 17 34 34 43 32 21 40 53 46 34 63 30 46 14 32 95,000 25 130,000 66 37 35 40 96,000 62 40 103,000 14 38 77,750 24 78,000 33 53 69,900 24 39 10 43 1,041 92,000 54 36 13 58,524 30 486 72,500 61 30 28 45 14 103,425 731 423 24 124,350 43 33 69 38 409 114,450 446 102,000 140 39 29 92,250 43 12 351 447 105,000 18 No cluster 87,794 21 52 135 378 90,000 581 25 40 78 95 Cluster 39 30 84,000 10 375 91,000 583 Cluster 38 70,000 35 12 461 86 466 32 130,000 41 159 Cluster 37 75,000 66 15 474 97 94,500 536 27 Cluster 36 97,500 33 13 376 447 27 128 178,200 116 158 Cluster 35 7 37 69,750 423 85 523 29 79 39 285,000 Cluster 34 75 92,500 369 423 25 205,000 105 9 Cluster 33 85 97 21 400 127,500 462 29 28 49 154,000 Cluster 32 97,000 34 511 99,500 86 66 273 32 13 Cluster 31 373 110,000 54 834 30 17 107 13 175,000 Cluster 30 75,000 295 748 23 25 169,297 6 53 Cluster 29 140 10 707 110,000 80 507 27 66 16 162,000 Cluster 28 22 81,000 622 75 485 37 15 24 148,000 Cluster 27 381 119,100 97 98 482 19 19 46 180,000 Cluster 26 29 389 110,000 557 47 18 200,000 Cluster 25 28 26 405 115,000 698 43 65 38 82 435,000 Cluster 24 20 467 128,500 627 22 Cluster 23 33 27 585 245,000 601 13 582,250 31 17 263,816 Cluster 22 31 54 535 657 38 305,000 19 Cluster 21 29 497 142,000 864 522,000 27 14 Cluster 20 35 32 517 350,000 1,018 38 315,000 Cluster 19 53 636 900 550,000 41 185,000 512,506 Cluster 18 739 16 152,000 28 1,310 288,250 Cluster 17 36 40 251,500 690 300,000 1,073 112,000 Cluster 16 38 45 186,500 954 81,000 1,328 Cluster 15 29 749 971 235,500 86,000 35 Cluster 14 637 39 960 177,500 124,000 Cluster 13 550 38 731 33 591 118,750 Cluster 12 617 551,000 32 214,000 388 Cluster 11 933 255,000 201,750 500 103,250 Cluster 10 926 305,000 32 671 103,900 Cluster 9 1,312 687 155,000 Cluster 8 639 938 Cluster 7 210,000 565 488 Cluster 6 824 120,000 448 Cluster 5 620 Cluster 4 695 Cluster 3 Cluster 2 538 Cluster 1 Columbia District of able B.2. NeighborhoodClusterHousingCharacteristics Disclosure Act files. Salespricesfrom theDistrictof Columbia Real Property Assessment Fileascompiledby theUrbanInstitut Sources: Publichousingfigures from special tabulations by theU.S.Department of HousingandUrban Development. Permitted unit current dollars. SeeAppendixA for more information aboutneighborhood clusters. based oncensus summaryfile3sample data andtherefore might differ slightly from 100 percent counts for the same indicators o Notes: Federally subsidized housing units includeHousingChoiceVouchers, privately owned federally subsidized developments, a 9020 9420 9020 0019 2001 1995 2000 2000 1990 2002 1994 2000 1990 A ET()FML OE $ NHUIGCSSO OSN OT INCOME($000) ONHOUSINGCOSTS ONHOUSINGCOSTS FAMILY HOMES($) RENT ($) EAE EINSLS C OSHLS C OSHLS MEDIAN PCTHOUSEHOLDS PCTHOUSEHOLDS MEDIANSALES VERAGE RS RC FSNL PYN 3%O NOE AIG>0 FICM BORROWER PAYING >50%OFINCOME PAYING >30%OFINCOME PRICEOFSINGLE GROSS (continued) e.

All other indicators from NeighborhoodChangeDatabase, 1990and2000. nd publichousing. Estimates from theNeighborhoodChange Database are btained from censussummary file1.Alldollaramounts are measured in s from D.C.Officeof Planning.Borrower incomefrom Home Mortgage 65 Appendix B 66 Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 Appendix C. PUBLIC DATA SOURCES Census Bureau Population Estimates. http://www.census.gov/const/www/permitsindex.html Web site: building permits. struction costfor monthly new privately owned residential number of buildings, thenumberof units, andthecon- and counties). Thedata files, released monthly, includethe ta ing allocations, asdenominators for vital rates andpercapi- census basecounts. Theseestimates are usedinfederal fund- international migration are used to update thedecennial subdivisions. Data series for births, deaths, anddomestic r tion numbers between censusesfor the nation, states, met- Bureau’s Population Estimates Program publishespopula- Current Employment Statistics (CES). Web site:http://eire.census.gov/popest/estimates.php demographic changes. from thissurvey are usedto profile thelabormarket andto states, andother larger geographic areas. Labor force data from theCPSare available for theUnitedStates, individual Bureau of theCensusfor theBureau of LaborStatistics. Data survey of about50,000households conductedby the Current Population Survey (CPS). http://www.bls.gov/sae/home.htm Web site:http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm, more than270metropolitan areas. f earnings of workers onnonfarm payrolls. Data are available provides detailed industrydata onemployment, hours, and survey covers more than300,000businessesnationwide and Department of Laborfor theBureau of LaborStatistics. The monthly survey of payroll records conductedby theU.S. by new privately owned residential housingunits authorized Building Permits. h W census tracts, housingauthorities, andhousingprojects. R Moderate Rehabilitation, Section8New andSubstantial Housing, Section8Certificates andVouchers, Section8 also covers thefollowing HUDprograms: Public&Indian information onhousingunits andhouseholdsasof 1998.It and UrbanDevelopment (HUD)andcontains summary data filewas produced by theU.S.Department of Housing A Picture of Subsidized Housing(APSH). or thenation, all50states, theDistrict of Columbia,and opolitan areas, counties, incorporated places, andcounty ttp://www.huduser.org/datasets/assthsg/statedata98/index.html ehabilitation, andSection236.Data are provided for states, eb site:

time series, assurvey controls, andinmonitoring recent building permits for permit-issuingjurisdictions(places The U.S.CensusBureau collects data on The CPSisamonthly The CESisa The Census The APSH many cities. Estimates for thestates (includingtheDistrictof data for regions, states, counties, metropolitan areas, and and annualemployment, unemployment, andlaborforce Bureau of LaborStatistics’ LAUS program produces monthly Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS). Web site:http://www.ofheo.gov/house/ same properties. a a weighted repeat salesindex, meaningthat itmeasures data provided by Fannie MaeandFreddie Mac.The HPI is the Officeof Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight using nation, regions, andstates. TheHPIispublishedquarterlyby capture changesinthevalue of single-family homesfor the House PriceIndex (HPI). Web site:http://www.ffiec.gov/hmda/default.htm teristics of theborrower andlender. property, loanamounts, reasons for denial,andthecharac- individual loanapplication records, including censustract of to meet specificcriteria.Data collectedunderHMDA are used ings andloans, credit unions, andmortgage companiesthat r data aboutloanapplications andapprovals. Institutions r Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). http://cfo.dc.gov/services/tax/property/database.shtm Web site: property assessment information for individualparcels. District of ColumbiaWeb siteprovides onlineaccessto real number of rooms, square footage, andyear built.The type. Italsoincludesproperty characteristics, suchasthe sales andtransfers, amount of sale, date of sale, anddeed the city, includingparcel identification information, property ta information aboutlandparcels for thepurposeof levying The Districtof Columbia’s Officeof Tax andRevenue collects District of ColumbiaReal Property Assessment File. Web site:http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/ads/shisconc.htm educational attainment, money income, andpoverty status. March Supplement provides data ongeographical mobility, o the annualPopulation Profile of theUnitedStates. Among called theAnnualDemographic Survey, isusedto generate make employment projections. TheMarch CPS Supplement, to lic officials target communitydevelopment investment, and the housingcredit needsof theircommunities, to helppub- equired to fileHMDA data includecommercial banks, sav- equires certain mortgage lendinginstitutionsto disclose verage pricechangesinrepeat salesorrefinancings onthe ther householdanddemographic characteristics, the xe

help regulators enforce fair lendingl help determine whether lendinginstitutionsare meeting s. Thefilecontains information aboutevery property in HPI isameasure designedto aws. The data data The aws. include HMDA The Columbia) are based on the Current Population Survey, while Institute. The race-bridging procedure takes all of the mul- indicators for substate areas are based on data from several tiracial categories for Census 2000 and reapportions them sources—including the Current Population Survey, the into single racial groups. For more details, see the NCDB Current Employment Statistics program, and the unemploy- Data Users’ Guide at http://www.geolytics.com. ment insurance program. Bridging methodology is not used for household or house- Web site: http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm hold characteristic counts. Tabulations of householders Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). The LIHTC selecting more than one race were classified as one “multi- program gives states the equivalent of nearly $5 billion in racial” category—not by which specific races they selected. annual budget authority to issue tax credits for the acquisi- Although the question change makes the 2000 single-race tion, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing categories not directly comparable to the 1990 race targeted to lower-income households. The database, created classifications, we treat the categories as equivalent for the by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- purposes of analyzing households in this report. ment, contains information on projects placed in service Census Web site: between 1987 and 2000. The LIHTC database includes http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/2khome.htm project address, number of units and low-income units, year Geolytics Web site: http://www.geolytics.com the credit was allocated, year the project was placed in Urban Institute Web site: service, whether the project was new construction or rehab, http://www.urban.org/nnip/ncua/ncdb.html and other sources of project financing. Occupational Employment Statistics (OES). The OES is a Web site http://www.huduser.org/datasets/lihtc.html yearly mail survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. Labor for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The survey collects (MRIS): MRIS is the nation’s largest online real estate net- data on wage and salary workers in nonfarm establishments work for licensed agents, brokers, and appraisers, represent- to produce employment and wage estimates for more than ing 25 county Associations of Realtors. “The Real Estate 700 occupations in over 400 industry classifications. Data Trend Indicator,” the standard statistical report of market from self-employed persons are not collected and are not activity, is available through the MRIS Web site for all of the included in the estimates. Estimates are available at the counties in the Washington metropolitan area. The monthly national, state, and metropolitan-area levels. and annual reports include information on the number of Web site: http://www.bls.gov/oes/home.htm sales by price range and number of bedrooms. They also report the average and median sales prices and home financing characteristics. Web site: http://www.mris.com/tools/stats/

Neighborhood Change Database (NCDB). NCDB is the main source of decennial census data used in this report. Funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the NCDB is a joint project with the Urban Institute and Geolytics, Inc. to develop a national set of comparable population and housing variables from the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses. A methodology has been developed to link the associated data to 2000 census tract boundaries so that consistent comparisons can be made across census years.

In Census 2000, respondents were for the ﬁrst time allowed to select more than one racial group. To produce comparable estimates of racial composition for 1990 and 2000, this report uses “bridged” population counts by race, using a methodology developed by Jeffrey Passel at the Urban Appendix C

67 THE URBAN INSTITUTE WASHINGTON, DC Housing in the Nation’s Capital 2003 F ANNIE MAE FOUNDATION Housing IN THE 4000 Wisconsin Avenue, NW North Tower, Suite One NATION’S CAPITAL Washington, DC 20016-2804 (202) 274-8000 www.fanniemaefoundation.org 2003 www.knowledgeplex.org

FMF R 236