Understanding The Small And Medium Multifamily Housing Stock
Understanding theSmall and MediumMultifamily Housing StockBy Brian An, Raphael W. Bostic, Andrew Jakabovics,Anthony W. Orlando and Seva RodnyanskyMarch 2017
UNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCKUnderstanding the Small andMedium Multifamily Housing StockBy Brian An, Raphael W. Bostic, Andrew Jakabovics, Anthony W. Orlando and Seva RodnyanskyABOUT THE AUTHORSBrian Y. An is a doctoral candidate at the USC Price School of Public Policy. His research examines urbanand metropolitan governance and policies with a special emphasis on local government finance and structures.Dr. Raphael W. Bostic is the Judith and John Bedrosian Chair in Governance and the Public Enterprise atthe Sol Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California.Andrew Jakabovics is Vice President, Policy Development at Enterprise Community Partners. Heresearches the supply and demand of affordable housing, among other public policy issues related tohousing affordability and community development.Anthony W. Orlando is a PhD candidate in the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University ofSouthern California. His research is primarily focused on risks, returns, and regulations in real estate.Seva Rodnyansky is a PhD Candidate in Urban Planning and Development at the University of SouthernCalifornia (USC) Price School of Public Policy. His research focuses on housing supply, transit-orienteddevelopment, mobility, and neighborhood change.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis research was funded in part by a generous grant from the JPMorgan Chase Foundation, and we gratefullyacknowledge their support, as well as the University of Southern California’s Bedrosian Center on Governanceand the Public Enterprise. All errors are ours alone.ABOUT ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PARTNERSEnterprise works with partners nationwide to build opportunity. We create and advocate for affordablehomes in thriving communities linked to good schools, jobs, transit and health care. We lend funds, financedevelopment and manage and build affordable housing, while shaping new strategies, solutions and policy.Over more than 30 years, Enterprise has created nearly 358,000 homes, invested 23.4 billion and touchedmillions of lives. Join us at www.EnterpriseCommunity.org.ABOUT THE USC BEDROSIAN CENTER ON GOVERNANCEThe USC Bedrosian Center on Governance, an applied research center at the USC Sol Price School of PublicPolicy, is dedicated to understanding and fostering effective democratic governance as an essential component inensuring the betterment of communities. Visit us at bedrosian.usc.edu.ABOUT THE USC SOL PRICE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICYThe USC Sol Price School of Public Policy has defined excellence and innovation in public affairs education since1929. Ranked fourth nationwide among 272 schools of public affairs, the Price School is dedicated to teachingand research that advances society through better democratic governance, more effective social policy, andsustainable urban development. Its graduates shape our world as leaders in government, nonprofit agencies, andthe private sector. Through a time-honored commitment to public service, a legacy of strong connections toprofessional leaders, and a world-renowned research portfolio, the mission of the Price School is to improve thequality of life for people and their communities, here and abroad. priceschool.usc.edu 2017 Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.Permission is granted to copy, distribute this document under the CC BY-ND license with EXCEPTIONS listed in the Terms ofUse, which you may find on our website at www. EnterpriseCommunity.org.Cover photo: Richard Anderson. Inside photos: p. ii by Gabor Ekecs; p 1 by Bill Wright; p. 10 courtesy of Homes forAmerica; p. 11 courtesy of Bonstra Haresign ArchitectsE N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . ii
UNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCKCONTENTSIntroduction11. SMMF’s Prevalence in the Housing Stock22. SMMF’s Affordablility43. Age of the SMMF Stock74. Owner-Occupied SMMF Units10Key Policy Takeaways11E N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . iii
UNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCKINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONResidential buildings containing two to 49 units are a much more common and importantsource of housing in the United States than has generally been recognized, especially amongthose who rent. For many people, the terms “rental housing” and “apartments” mean largescale, often high-rise, developments. The reality is that buildings with more than 50 units accountfor less than 10 percent of all rental units. Instead, the overlooked segment of the real estate market,which we term small and medium multifamily housing (SMMF), has served as a long-run providerof naturally occurring affordable housing.Moreover, SMMF serves as an equilibrating force in the larger market,allowing people to continue living with a sustainable housing cost relative toincome. Yet, for the past 25 years, construction of SMMF has declined,relative to historical trends, and old SMMF buildings are not being replacedwith similar building types. Buildings in this segment are aging out, leading toa decrease in physical quality.This paper, based on our in-depth analyses of public and proprietary datasets,provides an introduction to SMMF, highlighting four main features of theseproperties and three takeaways. We focus on SMMF’s prevalence in theoverall housing stock, its affordability, its age, and its place in the rental and ownership stock.Because of SMMF’s critical role in providing affordable shelter, we suggest that policymakerssupport the development of financial tools to preserve existing SMMF as it ages and reduce barriersto production of new SMMF. We also identify unanswered questions and call upon the housingpolicy community to join us in further exploration of this critical segment of the housing stock.E N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . 1
UNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCK1: SMMF’S PREVALENCE IN THE HOUSING STOCK1: SMMF’S PREVALENCE IN THE HOUSING STOCKSmall and medium multifamily properties are ubiquitous throughout the United States,accounting for 21 percent of the national housing stock and providing homes to 22 percentof the total population. They are most commonly found in the central cities and suburbs ofmajor metropolitan areas, where they contribute 34 and 22 percent, respectively, to the total stockof housing units. SMMF’s presence is most pronounced in the rental stock: SMMF makes up54 percent of this housing segment.Urban economic theory predicts higher density development, such as SMMF and “large”(50 -unit) multifamily buildings, in central cities than in suburbs or rural areas. Consistentwith this prediction, we find that SMMF provides a higher share of all homes in central cities(34 percent) than in suburbs or rural areas, but even in the suburbs, SMMF accounts for morethan 1 in 5 housing units. Overall, slightly less than half (48 percent) of all SMMF units arein central cities. Again, this speaks to the broad distribution of these homes across thelandscape – more than one-third of all SMMF units are in the suburbs – and hints at whySMMF plays a critical role in offering affordable housing choices throughout the country.Table 1. Percentage of Housing Stock by Building Size by GeographySource: 2013 American Housing SurveyE N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . 2
1: SMMF’S PREVALENCE IN THE HOUSING STOCKUNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCKFigure 1: Building Categories by Tenure TypeSource: 2013 American Housing SurveySMMF is a crucial source of housing for renters, as indicated in Figure 1, which shows thedistribution, as of 2013, of the national housing stock by building size and tenure. SMMFbuildings contain a higher share (54 percent) of the rental housing stock than do single familyhouses (34 percent) or large multifamily buildings with 50 or more units (9 percent). As the nextsection of this paper shows, while rental affordability has largely been treated as a multifamilyproblem, our findings suggest affordability is a more nuanced issue and properly understanding itrequires further segmenting of multifamily properties. Even within SMMF, distinctions may behelpful, as buildings with 2 – 19 units, which we consider to be smaller SMMF, account for 45percent of the total rental housing stock. While the overwhelming majority of owner-occupiedunits are single-family (88 percent), with a modest share comprised of mobile homes, RVs, boats,etc. (7 percent), there are still many more owner occupants in 2 – 49-unit buildings than in largecondominiums or cooperatives.E N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . 3
2: SMMF’S AFFORDABILITYUNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCK2: SMMF’S AFFORDABILITYOn average, SMMF provides homes to the lowest-income households. This is true for bothunits that are owned and rented, while single-family and large multifamily properties inboth categories have higher-income residents. In particular, buildings with 2 – 19 unitshouse the most low-income households. SMMF overall has an outsized concentration of subsidizedunits: Despite accounting for 21 percent of the national housing stock overall, it has more than55 percent of all subsidized units.Figure 2: Rent per Unit (weighted average out of total rental stock)Source: 2013 American Housing SurveySmaller SMMF forms the most affordable segment of the housing stock. Nationwide, theaverage rental unit’s monthly rent was 833, according to 2013 data. As shown by thedistribution of rents in Figure 2, 40 – 49 and 50 -unit buildings had the most expensiveaverage rents. Conversely, the most affordable rents are in buildings with 2 – 9 units. (On aper square foot basis, single-family homes are the least expensive of any building type, but thelow cost per square foot is more than offset by the much larger size of the homes.)E N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . 4
UNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCK2: SMMF’S AFFORDABILITYTable 2: Household Income by Tenure Group by Building TypesSource: 2013 American Housing SurveyTable 2 shows the average annual household income of those living in different building sizes.Income distribution by building size is basically U-shaped for both renters and owners, withthe wealthiest households living in the 1- and 50 -unit buildings and the poorest living inSMMF. Within the SMMF category, structures with fewer than 10 rental units have thelowest-income residents.Table 3: The Number and Percentage of Subsidized Housing by Building TypeSource: 2013 American Housing SurveyTable 3 shows the number of housing units receiving government assistance in threemutually exclusive forms. Of these subsidized units, 56 percent are located in SMMFbuildings, 26 percent in 1-unit buildings, and 18 percent in large 50 -unit buildings.E N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . 5
UNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCK2: SMMF’S AFFORDABILITYTable 4: Household Income Bands by Building SizeSource: 2013 American Housing SurveyThe median renter household income in 2013 was just shy of 33,0001. Table 4 shows thatSMMF is a crucial source of housing for renters in the bottom half of the income distribution.Among renters with the lowest incomes – those making less than 10,000 annually –60 percent live in SMMF. Similarly, the segment also houses the majority of renter householdsin the 10 – 25,000, 25 – 35,000 and 35 – 50,000 income bands. In contrast, SMMF unitshouse a much smaller share of rental households making above 100,000 in annual income.1 Table B25119, U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community SurveyE N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . 6
UNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCK3: AGE OF THE SMMF STOCK3: AGE OF THE SMMF STOCKBecause of the importance of SMMF for low- and moderate-income households, thelong-term viability of the stock matters. It is therefore worrisome that the construction ofSMMF has slowed in recent decades. While a boom in the construction of SMMFhappened in 1970s and 1980s, its share of new construction has subsequently declinedsignificantly, even as the retirement of older SMMF from the stock is accelerating. Consequently,SMMF is, on average, much older than large multifamily properties.Figure 3: Percent of Existing Units Built by Decade by Building CategorySource: 2013 American Housing SurveyFigure 3 shows, by decade of construction, the distribution of existing single-family, SMMF and50 -unit buildings. While the construction of existing SMMF and 50 -unit buildings rose overtime until 1970s, starting in 1990, the new construction of SMMF has lagged significantlycompared to that of single-unit and 50 -unit buildings. Of the existing units, SMMF accountedfor more than a quarter of all units built in the 1970s and 1980s, but since 1990, it has onlyrepresented about 15 percent of new construction.E N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . 7
UNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCK3: AGE OF THE SMMF STOCKFigure 4: Distribution of SMMF Properties Built in Cook County, Ill., Over TimeSource: DataQuickTurning from national survey data to a parcel-level dataset, we see that the national pattern holdstrue in Chicago. Figure 4 shows the number of existing SMMF properties in Cook County by yearbuilt. Similar to national trends, SMMF construction peaked in the mid-1920s and saw a modestresurgence in the 1960s and 1970s, but has substantially declined since 1980. As a result, many ofthe buildings from the height of the last SMMF construction boom are approaching 100 years old.Figure 5: Comparison of Rents by Decade Built and Building Type (Weighted Average)Source: 2013 American Housing SurveyE N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . 8
3: AGE OF THE SMMF STOCKUNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCKAs might be expected, we find that newer buildings command higher rents than older onesacross the country. SMMF has the lowest rents compared to single-family or large buildingscreated in the same decade, going back as far as buildings built in the 1950s. A slight rentpremium ( 30 – 100 per month) exists for older SMMF buildings and for 50 -unit buildings(built in the 1930s or prior) relative to rents for the average-aged SMMF building. In contrast,older 1-unit rentals command significantly lower rents.Table 5: Detailed Rents by Decadal Cohort (Weighted Average)Source: 2013 American Housing SurveyGenerally, newer and larger buildings command higher rents. Many SMMF size categoriesfollow a U-shaped rent pattern: older buildings (pre-1940) and newer buildings (1990s and later)have higher rents, while SMMF buildings 30 to 80 years of age are less expensive. This is broadlyconsistent with the filtering hypothesis, which posits that as buildings age, rents decrease,allowing them to transition to providing housing for lower-income households. It is likely thatrents are high in very old buildings (older than 80 years) because of their historical orarchitectural value and/or selective non-demolition. In other words, if very old buildings were inpoor quality and lacked historical or other significance, they were more likely to be demolishedand thus not show up in the data.E N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . 9
UNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCK4: OWNER-OCCUPIED SMMF UNITSTable 6: Comparison of Percentage of SeverelyInadequate Units by Building Size andDecade BuiltSource: 2013 American Housing SurveyHousing quality decreases with time for allthree building categories, but multifamilyhousing shows a higher absolute degree ofsevere inadequacy than 1-unit buildings, asshown in Table 6. Single-family units havehigher absolute quality on average thanSMMF units in every time period. Overtime, however, these single-family unitsdecline in average quality at a faster ratethan SMMF units. Viewed as a ratio ofnew vintages to old vintages, the proportionof severely inadequate new buildings(post-2000) to old buildings (pre-1919) is1:5 for SMMF, and greater than 1:8 for1-unit and 50 -unit buildings.4. OWNER-OCCUPIED SMMF UNITSMost of this analysis has focused on the important role that SMMF plays in the rentalmarket. While SMMF accounts for only a small share (4 percent) of the overallowner-occupied housing stock, we do find interesting geographic concentrations ofowner-occupied SMMF, with 2 – 4-unit buildings more common in the New England, Chicagoand South Florida metro areas. South Florida is also an outlier with respect to the concentrationof owner occupancy in 5 – 49-unit buildings.Compared to rental units in similarly sized buildings, however, owner-occupied units have morerooms (usually by a half-bath, on average) and greater overall square footage. While rents per squarefoot tend to rise as buildings get larger, per-square-foot valuations for owner-occupied units do notfollow the trend closely, with per-square-foot valuations for homes in 3 – 4-unit buildings roughly20 percent below 2- and 5 – 9-unit buildings. Just as SMMF buildings tend to have lower-incomerenters than single-family or 50 -unit buildings, homeowners in SMMF buildings also have lowermedian incomes than single-family owners or owners of units in large buildings.E N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . 10
UNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCKKEY POLICY TAKEAWAYSKEY POLICY TAKEAWAYSThe majority of America’s largest, most productive cities are experiencing rapidly rising rents,and the size of the population facing significant housing cost burdens is growing.Moreover, evidence indicates that the rise in cost-burdened households is not limited tocoastal metropolitan areas or other “hot” markets. This paper indicates the extent to whichSMMF matters for renters and homeowners. Because these buildings are the most affordablesegment of the housing stock, they are playing, and will continue to play, a crucial role inproviding reasonably priced housing. Policymakers must understand that role and begin toconsider the best approaches to both preservation and production of SMMF. We must preserveand expand the affordable stock to meet current needs even as we encourage the market toproduce more housing which, with time, will become affordable. Here, we present three policyimplications of the trends in SMMF to start the much-needed conversation.Takeaway #1: Production of SMMF Must Be Simplified and ExpandedCommunities should have the flexibility to produce more SMMF units whenneeded. The current low rate of production suggests that the construction ofaffordable units is not keeping up with the demand of low-income renters. Whilethere are many reasons why SMMF is not built in particular places, policymakersshould not stand in the way of building this type of housing when it can helpcommunities, and they should offer incentives for more production to overcomemarket failures that are clearly occurring in many areas. Streamlining regulations toexpand the supply of smaller buildings can improve longer-term affordability.SMMF properties have exhibited a greater likelihood of becoming more affordable as they agethan other building categories, so the relative lack of new construction over the past few decadesmay indicate future challenges to the supply of market-rate affordable units.Takeaway #2: New Tools Must Be Created to Encourage Preservation and Financing of SMMFAgain, given the production gap, preserving existing SMMF is critical to broader affordability inthe rental market. The loss of this crucial stock due to age and deterioration will increase pressure onrents and displace lower-income families. Communities should be given the necessary capital andfinancing tools to rehabilitate and preserve SMMF when they determine such units are the bestway to maintain affordable housing options. Due to the age of this segment of the housing stock,preservation requires investment, but existing financing tools don’t easily work for smaller propertiesseeking to retain more affordable rents. Developing and funding tools that encourage preservationof affordable SMMF is critical to protecting these underappreciated sources of affordable housing.E N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . 11
UNDERSTANDING THE SMALL AND MEDIUM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING STOCKKEY POLICY TAKEAWAYSTakeaway #3: Additional Research on SMMF Is NeededWe need more research on SMMF housing. Considering the importance of the segment of thehousing stock we documented above, we remain surprised that researchers and policymakers havefocused so little on the SMMF segment. Many questions remain. Where are these buildingslocated within metro areas? Why has their production declined in recent decades? What is thebest way for communities to leverage their affordability to foster efficient and equitable marketoutcomes? We will continue studying these issues, and we encourage the rest of the housingpolicy community to join us in this pursuit. As we begin to answer these questions, we hope to beable to identify opportunities to preserve and expand the supply of SMMF buildings that offergreater affordability than other building types, both after they are newly built, and also over time.REFERENCESThese takeaways are based on our working paper “Small and Medium Multifamily Housing Units:Affordability, Distribution, and Trends.” Please see this paper for more information on thedata sources and analysis methodology. It is available in the Enterprise Resource Center,http://bit.ly/2nIOLj7.E N T E R P R I S E C O M M U N I T Y PA R T N E R S , I N C . 12
.com70 Corporate Center11000 Broken Land Parkway, Suite 700Columbia, MD 21044 2017 Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. All rights reserved.
Smaller SMMF forms the most affordable segment of the housing stock. Nationwide, the average rental unit's monthly rent was 833, according to 2013 data. As shown by the distribution of rents in Figure 2, 40 - 49 and 50 -unit buildings had the most expensive average rents. Conversely, the most affordable rents are in buildings with 2 - 9 .
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Apr 20, 2016 · Marine & Freshwater Finfish Aquaculture Low Medium Medium Medium Dams Low Medium Medium Medium Logging & Wood Harvesting (Timber Production) High Medium Medium Oil Spills Medium Medium Medium Medium Marine shellfish aquaculture
MARCH 1973/FIFTY CENTS o 1 u ar CC,, tonics INCLUDING Electronics World UNDERSTANDING NEW FM TUNER SPECS CRYSTALS FOR CB BUILD: 1;: .Á Low Cóst Digital Clock ','Thé Light.Probé *Stage Lighting for thé Amateur s. Po ROCK\ MUSIC AND NOISE POLLUTION HOW WE HEAR THE WAY WE DO TEST REPORTS: - Dynacó FM -51 . ti Whárfedale W60E Speaker System' .
