Development
Urban hipster? Long-time resident? We all need an affordable place to live
How does a growing city ensure that affordable housing is available to its population? As DC gains population for the first time in decades, we must take advantage of creative new tools and cross class and cultural boundaries if the city wants to be affordable for all.
Photo by thisisbossi on Flickr.
Tuesday's Coalition for Smarter Growth forum, "Urban Hipsters and Long-time Residents Unite! Housing Strategies to Preserve Mixed Income Neighborhoods as DC Grows," featured David Bowers of Enterprise Community Partners and DC planning director Harriet Tregoning.
The speakers discussed the city's changing demographics, various affordable housing tools at the city's disposal and the role transportation plays in ensuring affordability. The bottom line is that, as Bowers said, "whether you've been here 40 years or if you just got off the Bolt Bus from New York... we all have the need for safe, decent affordable housing."
David Bowers is a minister, and his oration shows it. Standing before the audience, Bowers told stories: of an African American couple in their 70's that moved to the District five decades ago, when they were redlined out of certain neighborhoods; of growing up all too aware of the 8th & H gang; of his coworker, a 25-year-old Georgetown graduate who lives with friends and volunteers at her church. He punctuated the end of each anecdote with, "And that's DC!"
The point? As Bowers says, "DC is a diverse city that has changed over time and will continue to change." That change includes housing. "People have been priced out of neighborhoods, not by some nefarious plan, but by the market... It's not going to be static."
Bowers also serves as the vice president and impact market leader for Enterprise Community Partners, Inc., which through its Continuum of Housing Campaign, works to promote a diverse mix of housing that can accommodate low- and moderate-income earners.
During his presentation, he asserted three key points critical to that end: acknowledging that all people have inherent worth and deserve dignity and respect; all people have the need for safe, decent affordable housing; and that all housing is affordable, but the question is, "for whom?"
Tregoning's presentation, in contrast to Bowers', was filled with data points on the District's demographics. Since 1960, the District lost 200,000 people, with some neighborhoods in the city's core losing up to 50 percent of their population. Within the past decade, however, DC has been regaining population. The release of 2010 Census data later this month is expected to show the population again surpassing the 600,000 mark.
"I like to think of Washington as the city of the future," Tregoning said. With our smaller household sizes and concentrations of both recent college graduates and retirees, "we already have the demographics of the United States in 2050," she said. "Part of the challenge is to right-size our housing stock so we can have the type of housing that matches the needs of our residents." For example, Tregoning pointed out, the multi-unit building she inhabits in Columbia Heights used to be a single-family home.
Photo by smartergrowthdc on Flickr.
What does transportation have to do with affordable housing? First, the cost of parking is usually bundled with new housing, even if homeowners or tenants don't have cars. In DC, only 65 percent of households own a car, and in neighborhoods like Columbia Heights that plummets to only 20 percent. Developers often overestimate how much parking is actually needed, and in other cases parking minimums require developers to spend lots of money to build parking spaces. Structured parking, for example, costs between $35,000 and $50,000 per space. That's a high cost to include in the price of housing.
Second, reducing transportation expenses to households makes living in our region more affordable for everyone's bottom line. Washington-area households in neighborhoods well-served by transit spend an average of $9,000 per year on transportation, while the regional average is closer to $19,000. In some car-dependent areas of our region, households spend up to $25,000 per year on transportation.
Don't believe it? Ask AAA, which estimates the annual cost of car ownership at over $9,500. It's easy to see that car-free and car-lite households save money on transportation, and households in denser areas like the District have access to more transportation options.
Because housing and other land-use issues are inescapably linked to transportation, these related costs should be factored together when considering affordability. Especially in DC, where the median income is lower than the region at large, increased transportation costs have a dramatic impact.
Already, 90,000 households in the city pay more than a third of income to housing, while 47,000 households spend more than 50 percent of income on housing. Ensuring low transportation costs is especially important for these families.
Tregoning said that the city's transportation efforts Both speakers mentioned inclusionary zoning (IZ) as the primary tool that could be used to keep housing in the District affordable and diverse. The city's IZ policy was enacted in 2006, when data demonstrated that, as Tregoning said, "we were either re-segregating the city or reinforcing the segregation" through development patterns. Currently, all new construction of 10 or more units must set aside 8-12% of those units as affordable housing.
In the future, and when the economy rebounds, Tregoning suggested that as many as, if not more than, 170 units per year would be set aside for households earning between $32,000 and $80,000. And, per the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative's mandate, new construction in some East of the River communities must comprise of at least 30% affordable units.
Though inclusionary zoning has its detractors, it's not just a hot topic for the Office of Planning. Mayor-Elect Vince Gray has repeatedly referenced IZ as a way to mitigate potentially skyrocketing housing costs. IZ is here to stay for the foreseeable future. If wielded effectively, it should keep the District more affordable than it would be otherwise.
Beyond the statistics and the programs, the most important takeaway from the forum was Bowers' call for engagement. "Get informed and get involved," he told the audience. "These conversations about the urban hipster vs. the long-time resident, black vs. white, black vs. Latino Bowers encouraged forum attendees to substantively engage in places where not everyone looks or talks like them. He counseled the audience never to be apologetic in the face of hostility as they attempt to bridge the city. As complex as housing policy can be, it begins with simple discussions. "Start talking with people," Bowers preached, "instead of about people."
Stephen Miller lived in the District from 2008 to 2011 and is now a student at Pratt Institute's city and regional planning masters program. 
Alex Baca holds B.A. degrees in English and American Studies from the University of Maryland, College Park, and is currently pursuing a Master of Historic Preservation at the same institution. She works for Washington City Paper, but views here are her own. She lives near the U Street corridor and occasionally blogs at Good Hope.
Comments
- Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Some are pushing to limit sidewalk cycling
- Where is downtown Prince George's County?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
These numbers are either made up or such extreme examples that they aren't statistically representative, especially when included into a conversation about affordable housing.
Oh, and the District has plenty of affordable housing. As the article stated the population of the District has fallen 25% since its height. There is plenty of low cost housing stock in the District. Granted, it isn't in Dupont Circle or U Street but it is available. A quick look at Redfin has 360, 3 bedrooms (or more) SF homes for sale in the 200K to 400K range.
by freely on Dec 16, 2010 10:49 am • link • report
But inclusionary zoning stinks. New construction, the most expensive of our housing stock, is not the appropriate vehicle for affordable housing. Forcing developers to set aside units for affordable housing only passes the cost onto the market rate buyers. It also slows down residential construction projects as it takes better market conditions before the financials become attractive. By intervening in the new construction market the government is just ensuring that new construction has less chance to meet unmet demand by market rate buyers. Those buyers will then turn there attention towards existing housing stock and bid up those homes making the city even less affordable.
When I was in my 20's I lived with roommates, worked my way up the career ladder, paid off my student loans, then saved for a downpayment for a condo. That took 8 years but in America it should take hard work and sacrifice to own a home in a premium location. Today I see people asking for and in some cases getting shortcuts. Such as a newly minted Duke University grad getting a 2BR unit at City Vista for 150K through the affordable housing program. I hate that our tax dollars enabled that to happen.
by Jason on Dec 16, 2010 10:52 am • link • report
That's nice, and I would directly benefit from such a scheme.
However, mentioning that the District has 600,000 residents alongside the fact that we're setting aside 170 units of housing a year for what is probably one of the larger income demographics in the city is a meaningless gesture. If we assume that each unit holds 2.2 people, that's 374 people, or 0.06% of the city's population.
We need real solutions. Designating a handful of "moderate-income" units out of a much larger development is going to do nothing to help and protect the people of DC.
by andrew on Dec 16, 2010 10:53 am • link • report
by Richard Layman on Dec 16, 2010 11:14 am • link • report
The only way increase affordability (or at least mitigate housing price appreciation) is to increase the number of housing units to catch up faster with demand.
We should encourage new construction through up-zoning and by removing various other legal impediments to construction. We can also enhance areas of the city for new private development with investments in the transit lines that attract development, i.e. streetcars and Metro, not buses.
Even still, housing affordability is a tough challenge in a place where many people want to live.
by Eric Fidler on Dec 16, 2010 11:20 am • link • report
How do you get around that?
by EJ on Dec 16, 2010 11:34 am • link • report
That means we're going to have to support the growth of the middle-class in the District, and allow a significant, controlled redistribution of DC's poorest until MD and VA begin to carry their share of the regional poverty load.
Unfortunately, most advocates define "affordable housing" as a continuation of the policies of the last half-century: ensuring that DC is "where the poor people live." You see this attitude most starkly in the advocacy of many of DC's historic churches. Most of the parishioners abandoned the poor to the city long ago, heading out to to the suburbs, and defunding the city tax-base. But they do like to come back into the city and demand that DC residents provide a rich web of social services, the likes of which you never see implemented in their own home states.
I'm sure Mr Bowers' heart is in the right place, and I agree with the overall regional goal of housing for all, but I wonder if he's having as much traction in convincing Maryland (Which I assume is where he lives, given that he was a Mikulski staffer, and is on staff at a Lanham, MD church) to take on more the overall poverty load? If you look at the numbers, DC is already doing *far* more than its share.
If Mr Bowers wants to support regional programs to alleviate poverty, I'm with him 100%. The first thing we need to do is create a regional fund, with contributions from MD, DC, and VA--in proportion to their population--that will be used to support social services throughout the region. Until then, it's a bit rich for folks in MD and VA to sit on the sidelines, and say, "Hey, you oughta give that guy a house."
It's pretty clear that the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to take care of our most vulnerable citizens. So we have a responsibility to do what's right--as a region. But the idea that DC is going to continue to plug this hole unilaterally isn't sustainable, politically or financially.
by oboe on Dec 16, 2010 11:41 am • link • report
That means: more density. A lot more density. Density is good, density is about letting a city be a city. Density also better allows a city to function the ways Ms. Tregoning mentions - where you look at housing and transportation costs combined.
by Alex B. on Dec 16, 2010 11:51 am • link • report
by Gavin on Dec 16, 2010 12:00 pm • link • report
http://www.bls.gov/ro3/cexwash.htm
by Mike B on Dec 16, 2010 12:11 pm • link • report
"I think income diversity (and obviously racial diversity) is a goal that almost every single District resident supports."
I dunno...and this is related to EJ's comment. I think you could more more "wrong" than you are right.
Why do people west of the Park want income diversity? When your average AGI is 180K a year, what incentive or benefit do they realize by lumping in a bunch of people with an AGI of 25K a year. Don't believe me? Ever see a low income housing project planned for Cleveland Park or Spring Valley? If one was ever proposed, you would see the response be nothing less than full on scorched earth. The residents of Chevy Chase DC don't want a population of low income folks to move in, because with it comes everything associated with low income folks, additional crime being one of them.
On the other end of the spectrum, the base of the income scale, the folks making 20-35K AGI rant about "all the white people", which is simply code for "all the wealthier people taking over my city and changing things", and "Fenty giving too many jobs to white people". Wards 7 and 8 are filled with this viewpoint. Heck, during the last election, it was a campaign recruiting slogan used by Gray supporters.
As far as I can tell, the only people who say they want "income diversity" are the folks right in the middle who are in pretty short supply in the District.
by freely on Dec 16, 2010 12:13 pm • link • report
by Mike B on Dec 16, 2010 12:14 pm • link • report
Thanks, if you scroll down further you see the average yearly transportation costs are $778 per year.
I can buy the 9K a number year on driving, makes sense but to have stated that was what people spent on public transit was way off base. I don't know where their numbers came from.
by freely on Dec 16, 2010 12:18 pm • link • report
as for the BLS page, the $778 is for public transportation. Not total transportation. The column to the left says $9,500 for total transportation.
by Mike B on Dec 16, 2010 12:22 pm • link • report
Electoral Base vs. Doing the Right Thing. I think I know how this goes....
by John Doe on Dec 16, 2010 1:35 pm • link • report
Not me. No mo' white people!
by Courtland Milloy on Dec 16, 2010 1:58 pm • link • report
You may be right, but I don't think it's that obvious. The argument that "schoolteachers, firemen, and police have to live somewhere" is pretty compelling. I think the fact that "affordable housing" and "mixed-income housing" have for so long been a kind of trojan-horse meaning "100% subsidized housing projects for the desperately poor" has certainly left a lot of people wary, though.
by oboe on Dec 16, 2010 2:29 pm • link • report
As for racial diversity, it's a mixed bag. I think a lot of people want to see people of different melanin content walking around, but deep down they'd rather not have to deal with the different cultures that come with it. Maybe that's a really pessimistic way of looking at it, but using recent history as an indicator, so many people living in Cleveland Park, Georgetown and Chevy Chase are opposed to enhanced public transit options which theoretically bring with them people of varying cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds.
I don't have a master's in urban planning but I think the points Mr Bowers sets forth are really well-thought-out. I just think he may be neglecting a huge segment of the city, working families. I'm wondering where they fit into his philosophy.
by Scoot on Dec 16, 2010 4:07 pm • link • report
That's not really the whole story ... the west side of the city has been more expensive because the wealthiest citizens and the political elite were expanding their real estate holdings to the northwest of the city as early as the mid 18th century. These areas were associated with prestige by virtue of being on elevated ground near rock creek park, away from city limits (which was then Boundary Street a.k.a. Florida Ave) and of course because a really wealthy area generally begets more wealth. Even before the crime wave the wealthiest residents and the upper middle class were settling in the west.
by Scoot on Dec 16, 2010 4:26 pm • link • report
Wealth does not beget more wealth across generations. That's fatalistic poverty propaganda. DC's transient population swamps any accumulation of wealth from 'established families'. You could probably count on an index card the number of multigenerational families that exist in DC above the median income level. The few that exist are sitting on trust funds and savings, not earning massive 'incomes' that are highly taxable. There's no appreciable number of people making startling incomes off of real estate in NW. Your statements sound like a socialist children's fairy tale. The majority of wealth in NW is from 1st generation people moving to the district on a temporary basis to work in white collar 40 hour a week jobs. They're only 'rich people' when your contrast is people who refuse to work for multiple generations.
by John Doe on Dec 16, 2010 5:26 pm • link • report
In my day job at Enterprise Community Partners - we focus on capital and policy solutions that further preservation of existing affordable housing stock, production of new units and green building. We are actively working with the National Housing Trust to assemble $54M in private and public capital to preserve 1,000 existing unsubsidized multifamily buildings within 1/2 mile of existing metro stations. Our Faith-based Development Initiative has worked for four years to work with houses of worship that own land that may have an interest in developing new units of housing that serves low and moderate income residents in the region. The recent opening of over 170 affordable rental homes by Catholic Charities off of North Capitol Street was supported by grant and equity capital from Enterprise. Our goal is to get new units of housing built with natural partners by connecting them to the financial and intellectual capital they need to complete developments successfully.
It is true that if we are always in "defense" mode - just preservation, we won't solve the problem in D.C. or the region. We need to be creative and aggresive in approaches that help to produce new units. I invite you to go to www.enterprisecommunity.org. to read more about what we are doing.
Bottom line - we need to preserve existing affordable units and produce new ones utilizing a range of policies and capital strategies utilizing public and private capital. As I noted in my remarks - far too many people are living with a severe housing burden in the District (paying more than 50% of their gross income for housing costs).
Finally - I am a D.C. resident and have been since 1977...proud product of DCPS.
A blessed holiday season and new year to all.
David Bowers
by David Bowers on Dec 16, 2010 6:13 pm • link • report
Thanks for the update, and I think we all do appreciate the work done on behalf of our poorest citizens. I mean that in all earnestness.
I'm just hoping that the Maryland congregation(s) you work with are fighting every bit as hard to somehow get their home state of Maryland to provide anywhere near the level of social services that we do here in the District (relative to population). If we were all pulling together, we could probably do much to solve the regional problem of homelessness and housing for the poor in general.
by oboe on Dec 21, 2010 11:35 am • link • report
Add a Comment