Mixed Income Housing Near Transit--CTOD--09/2009

8/6/2019 Mixed Income Housing Near Transit--CTOD--09/2009

1/28

Mixed-incoMe Housing near TransiT

One in a series o best practices guidebooks romThe Center or Transit-Oriented Development

IncreasingAffordability With

Location Ef ciency

201


2/28

ON THE COVER: North Beach Place, HOPE VImixed-income housing, San FransiscoPhoto by Bob Can eild/Courtesy o Bridge Housing

NOTICE:This document is disseminatedunder the sponsorship o the Federal TransitAdministration in the interest o in ormationexchange. The United States Goverment assumesno liabilit or its contents or use thereo .


3/28

T bl Of Contents

Wh Its So Impo tant To Locate Mixed-Income Housin Nea T ansit: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Providing Housing Near Transit For A Range o Incomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Location Matters When It Comes To A ordability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Rethinking A ordability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Demand For Housing Near Transit Is Growing But The Supply Isnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Why Are So Many People Interested In Transit-Oriented Development? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ensuring Continued A ordability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Obstacles to Building Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Place-Based Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

How To P ese ve And Encou a e Mixed-Income, T ansit-O iented Housin :A Toolbox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1 Incentives For Proactive Station-Area Planning And Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2 Public-Private Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3 Target Existing Funding To Preserve And Create A ordable Housing Along Transportation Corridors. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4 Inclusionary Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Modi y Low Income Housing Tax Credits To O er Greater Incentives For Locating Near Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

6 In ll Development Or Redevelopment In Transit Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

7 Facilitate Use O Value Capture To Fund A ordable Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

8 Land Acquisition/Land Banking Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

9 Incentive-Based Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

10

Tax-Increment Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

11 Reduced Parking Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


4/28

T e Center or Transit-Oriented De e o ent (CTOD) is the onl national nonpro te ort dedicated to providing best practices, research and tools to support success ul transit-oriented development. CTOD is a partnership o Reconnecting America, StrategicEconomics, and the Center or Neighborhood Technolog . CTOD also partners withnational experts to conduct research, publish books and reports, and provide technical assistance to cities, transit agencies and regions.

Reconnectin A erica is a national nonpro t organization that is working to integratetransportation s stems and the communities the serve, with the goal o generatinglasting and equitable public and private returns, giving consumers more housing andmobilit choices, improving economic and environmental e cienc , and providingconcrete solutions to climate change and dependence on oreign oil.

T e Center or Nei or ood Tec no o is a creative think-and-do tank thatcombines rigorous research with e ective solutions. CNT works across disciplines andissues, including transportation and communit development, energ , natural resources,and climate change. The goal is urban sustainabilit the more e ective use o

resources and assets to improve the health o natural s stems and the wealth o people.

Strate ic Econo ics is a consulting and research rm specializing in urban andregional economics and planning. The rm helps local governments, communit groups,developers and nonpro t organizations understand the economic and developmentcontext in which the operate in order to take strategic steps towards creating high-qualit places or people to live and work.

This best practices guidebook is one in an ongoing series explaining the theor andbest practices o transit-oriented development. All the books in the series are availableas downloadable PDFs at www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/reports.Other titles include:TOD 101 Wh TOD And Wh Now?TOD 202 Station Area Planning: How To Make Great Transit-Oriented PlacesTOD 202 Transit & Emplo ment: Increasing Transits Share O The Commute Trip

DESIgN by JOhN CuRRy/SmARTpIllwww.smartpillmedia.com


5/28

M I X E D - I N C O M E H O U S I N G3

Why This BOOk?The Importance of Locating Mixed-Income Housing Near TransitThERE IS A gROwINg CONSENSuSthat communities that provide housing or a mix o in-comes produce better economic, social and environmental outcomes or all residents. Mixed-income housing whether provided within a single project or a neighborhood makes itpossible or people o all incomes to live in sa e neighborhoods near well- unded schoolsand good cit services, with greater access to a wider variet o jobs and opportuni-ties. Providing housing or a mix o incomes also allows amilies to continue living inthe same communit , even as children grow up and look or their own apartments orhomes, and parents grow older and want to down-size their living arrangements.

The socio-economic diversit that mixed-income housing provides or alsoenhances communit stabilit and sustainabilit , and ensures that low-incomehouseholds are not isolated in concentrations o povert . Just as important, we

are beginning to understand that the mixing and mingling o people rom diversebackgrounds and experiences promotes innovation b increasing the opportunities orpeople to share and combine ideas rom di erent perspectives and traditions. Mixed-income housing also helps stretch the limited resources available to address the a ordablehousing shortage. The inclusion o market-rate units can reduce the subsidies required to buildthe a ordable units, and help ensure there will be high-qualit design and construction.

These are just some o the reasons that housing polic in the U.S. has increasingl ocused on mixed-incomehousing. The U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Developments HOPE VI program devoted $4.5 billion over10 ears to demolish and redevelop distressed public housing projects as mixed-income developments, helping todemonstrate its viabilit and bene ts (www.hud.gov/o ces/pih/programs/ph/hope6). But while providing or amix o incomes in communities in general is good, providing or a mix o incomes in walkable neighborhoods neartransit is even better or all o the reasons shown in the illustration to the right: Most importantl , in additionto the savings realized because housing is a ordabl priced, amilies living near transit can also own ewer cars or no cars and drive them less, which means signi cant savings on transportation costs.

However, we must act now to ensure that the housing built in these locations provides or a mix o incomesor a once-in-a-li etime opportunit will be lost. Changing demographics and concern about tra c has boosteddemand or housing near transit and the suppl is not keeping up with the increased demand. Because o this,and because developing in these locations is more time-consuming, di cult and expensive, most new hous-ing is being built or the high end o the market, and man o the low-income residents who alread live inthese locations are being orced out. The rst hal o this book makes the case or the importance o locatingmixed-income housing near transit in order to increase a ordabilit , and explain wh the increased demand or

housing in walkable neighborhoods near transit is making this so di cult. The second hal discusses some o the strategies that are proving success ul in addressing this problem and ensuring that housing near transit isa ordable or all Americans.

BENEFITS OF TOD

BENEFITS OF

MIXED-INCOME

NEIGHBORHOODSADDITIONAL

BENEFITS OF

MIXED-INCOME TOD

Offers Truly AffordableHousing

Stabilizes Transit Ridership

Broadens Access ToOpportunity

Relieves GentrificationPressures

Provides NeededHousing

Helps DeconcentratePoverty

Integrates LowIncome Households

Into Society

Helps WorkforceStability

Provides Housing AndMobility Choices

Improves EnvironmentalPerformance

Results In InfrastructureCost Savings

Helps Support HealthyLifestyles

Strengthens TransitSystems

Creates Lasting Value Reduces Greenhouse

Gas Emissions

The Combined Bene ts o Mixed-IncomeNei hbo hoods And TODProviding or a mix o all incomes

is good but providing or a mix o incomes in walkable neighborhoods near

transit is even better because it lowerstransportation costs, has the potentialto reduce driving and greenhouse gasemissions, and to address the growing

gap between rich and poor. (Source: theCenter or TOD.)


6/28

P v H n T t F a r f i m i e p lly imp t t W th V l t l g P bOTh hOuSINg AND TRANSpORTATIONcosts are on the increase in the U.S., seriousl straining householdbudgets. One in three American households now spends more than 30 percent o income on housing, andone in seven spends more than 50 percent. Transportation costs, too, have risen to the point that the com-

bined cost o housing and transportation consumes an average o 57 percent o household income, up rom3 percent o household income in the 1920s. According to a 2005 report b the Center or Housing Policand the Center or Neighborhood Technolog , average transportation costs or working amilies (de ned asthose households with an income o between $20,000 and $50,000) were as high or higher than housingcosts in 17 o 28 metro areas in 2005 be ore the steep climb in gasoline prices in 2008. The onl wato protect amilies against rising gas prices is to make it possible or them to drive less or not at all bbuilding communities where its possible to get to jobs, schools and shopping on oot or b bike, bus ortrain. This argues or more investment in transit, or choosing transit alignments where there is ample develop-ment opportunit , or policies that ensure that some o the housing built near transit is a ordable or low-incomehouseholds, and that existing a ordable housing is preserved. It also argues or policies that promote mixed-usedevelopment and a good jobs-housing balance, and or investments that promote walking and biking.

Working amilies (those making between $20,000 to $50,000 a year) spent more ontransportation than on housing in 17 o 28 metro areas, according to the 2006 report AHeavy Load: The Combined Housing and Transportation Burdens o Working Families.

The Housing and Transportation Trade-Off:Working Families Who Move Far From Work To Find A ordable Housing End Up Spending Their Savings On Transportation

This report by the Center or Housing Policy (the research a liate o the National Housing Con erence) and the Center or Neighborhood Technology (a partner in the Center or TOD)is at www.nhc.org/index/heavyload.


7/28


L t M tt Wh it c m T aff b l ty H h l n T t sp 16 P t L whIlE fINDINg A mORE a ordable house in the suburbs used to be a strateg or makingends meet, recent studies show that the savings can be wiped out b increased cost o driv-ing to and rom jobs, schools and shopping in auto-oriented suburban communities, and the

increased cost o maintaining more cars per household. The Center or Housing Polic quanti-ed the trade-o , concluding that or ever dollar a amil saved on housing in 2005 it spent77 cents more on transportation. So now we know that a ordabilit isnt about housing costsalone, its also about transportation costs. When it comes to a ordabilit , location matters.

While the average amil spends about 19 percent o the household budget on trans-portation, and households in auto-dependent neighborhoods spend 25 percent, householdsin walkable neighborhoods with good transit access and a mix o housing, jobs, and shopsspend just 9 percent. This 16 percent savings can be critical or lower-income householdsthat need to make ever dollar count. Transportation costs as a percentage o total house-hold income var greatl , amounting to less than 9 percent o a high-income householdsbudget, but 55 percent or more o the budget in ver -low-income households. This is whit is so critical to ensure that we build more walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods wherepeople can reduce their transportation costs.

Costs in T ansit-O iented Vs. Auto-O iented Nei hbo hoodsLiving in a walkable neighborhood with a good mix o uses and good access to public transportation can

provide a 16 percent savings over living in an auto-oriented environment,according to a report by the Center or Transit-Oriented Development entitled Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit. Anexecutive summary is available at www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/reports.

Location Ef cientEnvironment

Average AmericanFamily

Auto DependantExurbs

Consider This . . . Acco din to the Ame ican Public T anspo tation

Association, households could haved saved an ave -a e o $9,499 in 2008 i the used t ansit instead o d ivin , mone that could instead be used to: Bu ood o a amil o a ea

Pa o a 30- ea $150,000 mo t a e 20 ea s ea l

Pa o 75 pe cent o a health ca e polic

Pa o communit colle e tuition o two kids

Pa o child ca e o one ea

Bu 3,168 mocha appuccinos at Sta bucksSource: American Public Transportation Association, Center For TOD


8/28


9/28

d m F H n T t i g w , B t s pply i t K p up, c P t e l t

Early developers built streetcar lines to openup land outside the city or development by

connecting it to jobs and services in the city.

The automobile reshaped development,making the connectivity o streets,

neighborhoods and development lessimportant. Driving became a necessity.


TRANSpORTATION hAS AlwAySbeen a actor in shaping development. Toda , volatile gas prices, tra ccongestion, and the changing demographics o the U.S. population are increasing the demand or housingnear transit. While married couples with children made up the vast majorit o households a ter WWII

boosting interest in single- amil housing in the suburbs single adults now comprise 43 percent o all U.S. residents aged 15 and over, according to U.S. Census, and the are interested in a more urban andmore convenient li est le. All the demographic groups that are increasing in size older, smaller house-holds, including singles, and nonwhite households have historicall pre erred urban living and usedtransit. As a result, the Center or Transit-Oriented Development estimates that overall demand or hous-

ing near transit will grow rom 6 million to 15 million house-holds b 2030 roughl 25 percent o all renters and bu ers.However, these demand estimates were prepared be ore therun-up in gas prices in 2008. Now that people are concernedabout the volatilit o gas prices and the cost o driving thedemand or TOD will likel be much higher. Moreover, thisdemand has remained relativel strong despite the recentdownturn in the real estate market downturn. Despite thedemand, onl a small percentage o new housing is beingbuilt in these locations, or reasons discussed on page 10.

The act that these neighborhoods are alread moreraciall and economicall diverse than other neighborhoodsmeans that amilies who alread live there ma all victim togentri cation and be pushed out b rising rents and housing

prices even though the are the households that need and use transit the most. More than 40 percento the demand or housing near transit is expected to come rom low-income households (with incomes

below 80 percent o area median income) and ver -low-income households (with incomes below 50percent o area median income). The CTOD also nds that: People want shorter commutes but the areas growing most quickly are 20 miles

rom central business districts. Single-family homes are 78 percent of new construction while the married couples with children who aremost likely to want to live in single- amily homes compose just 24 percent o the housing market and this

percentage is quickly shrinking. Theres an increasing need for rental units for immigrants, seniors, low-income households and EchoBoomers (the children o Baby Boomers) who are starting out on their own, but construction o rentalunits is alling ar short o demand.

These actors underscore the importance o targeting resources to walkable, mixed-use, transit-ori-ented neighborhoods, and or preserving existing a ordable housing in these locations.

The demand or housing near transit isexpected to grow to 15 million renters

and buyers in 2030.


10/28

Galen Terrace Apartments, home to many older adults in the Anacostia neighborhood o Washington DC, was poorly managed and in a downward spiral. The National Housing Trust/Enterprise Preservation Corporationhelped the tenant association purchase the

property and renovate it, turning a trouble spot into a neighborhood asset that is near public transit and many amenities.

Why a s M y P pl i t t i Tod? ThE mARkET fOR hOuSINg near transit is growing concurrentl with the surge o inter-est in public transportation. Transit ridership is up 25 percent since 1995, according tothe American Public Transportation Association, and there are more than 700 new sta-tions in development. This provides an unprecedented opportunit or cities and regionsto accommodate signi cant population growth near stations, which is more environ-mentall and economicall stable: Households near transit drive less, which means thecause less tra c and produce less transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions.TOD also ocuses development and the tax base in a wa that allows cities to capturethe value that has been created with the transit investment through the use o strate-gies such as tax-increment nancing or assessment districts, joint development or otherpublic-private partnerships.

Mixed-income TOD appeals to di erent stakeholders or di erent reasons: Developers know urban markets are hot, and sites near transit usually permit thehigher densities and lower parking ratios that improve the nancial easibility o projects.Emerging Trends in Real Estate, an annual report by the Urban Land Institute and PricewaterhouseCoopers, has ranked TOD as a best bet ve years in a row (at www.uli.org). Sophisticated transit agencies know TOD makes transit convenient and boosts ridership.

Studies show people who live in TOD are 5 times more likely to use transit and that people whowork in TOD are 3.5 times more likely to use it. Many cities have seen that TOD can spark economic development and increase the tax base,and leverage private investment in public bene ts including a ordability and high-quality

public space. Renters and buyers are looking or convenience, a ordability, and the amenities they can

nd within walking distance in 24/7 neighborhoods.The chart on the le t shows that most demand or housing near transit will occur in

the regions with the biggest transit networks. Bigger s stems draw more ridership becausethe provide access to more destinations. Bigger s stems also have more stations, providing

more opportunit or development. This underscores the need or more investment in transitto coincide with increased interest in transit-oriented development on the part o the publicand private sector, as well as amilies looking or a more a ordable wa o li e.

Projected Increase In Demand For Housing In Transit Zones: Top 30 Regions

(Source: Center or Transit-Oriented Development.)

P H O T O :

L L O Y D W O L F


11/28

The National Housing Trust acquired 124 units o a ordable housing in our buildings in the walkable, transit-rich and highly desirable Dupont Circle neighborhood o Washington DC, thereby avoiding aluxury condo conversion and retaining work orce housing adjacent to downtown.

e c t aff b l ty r q P t v H P v tONE wAy TO kEEp rents and home prices a ordable is to increase the overall housing suppl ;another is to ensure the preservation o existing a ordable units. According to a recent stud b

Reconnecting America and the National Housing Trust or AARP, there are 255,636 privatel ownedHUD-subsidized units within a hal mile o existing or proposed rail stations in 20 regions. Thisnumber increases dramaticall when housing near bus lines with requent service is included. Thestud ound that about 75 percent o the units 175,947 o them have government rental as-sistance contracts due to expire be ore the end o 2014. Almost a quarter o these units about59,467 units are designated or seniors; approximatel 40 percent o all ederall assisted house-holds are headed b seniors.

Preserving this a ordable housing means much more than simpl saving a building itmeans preserving opportunities or these amilies and seniors to nd housing and to be able toget to jobs and services. Preserving these opportunities means that planning or land use andtransit services must be done in a coordinated and collaborative ashion. Cities and metropolitanplanning organizations (MPOs) shouldintegrate their planning and invest-ments or housing and transportation,promoting investment in public tran-sit in neighborhoods where housing isa ordable, and discouraging highwainvestments in sprawling neighborhoodswhere transportation costs will be high.Regional blueprint planning exercisesand growth scenario modeling are good

exercises or developing long-term visionsthat integrate planning or housing andtransportation.


Privately Owned HUD-Subsidized HousingUnits Near Transit: Top 20 Regions

A study by Reconnecting America and the National Housing Trust or AARP shows that contracts on a majority o

privately owned HUD-subsidized housing units near transit stations are due to expire in 2014, endangering thea ordability o 175,947 units near transit, almost a quarter o which are designated or seniors.


12/28

Th a M y ob t l t B l M -i m H n T t TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEvElOpmENT is o ten di cult, time-consumingand there ore expensive, which is wh so much o the new housing go-

ing up near transit is being built or the high end o the market. Someo the obstacles to building mixed-income housing near transit includethe ollowing: Land prices around stations are high, or increase becauseo speculation when a new transit line is planned. A ordable housing developers dont have the capital toacquire land be ore the prices go up and hold it until its ready to be developed. Funding or a ordable housing is limited. Mixed-income and mixed-use projects require complex

nancing structures. Sites o ten require land assembly and rezoning, leading to lengthy acquisition and permitting processes that increase costs. Community opposition to density and a ordable housing can be chal-lenging. Community outreach and education up ront can be very help ul,but also time-consuming and costly. A ordable development at these sites requires collaboration among the

public, private and nonpro t sectors, which can be di cult to coordinate given the di erent needs, constraints and schedules o each partner.

Moreover, cities and transit agencies ma not understand the impor-tance o ensuring that some o the housing near transit is a ordable,and the ma lack the tools and experience to direct a ordable housingresources to these locations. Existing single-use zoning and suburbanst le parking minimums can reduce the development potential and makeconstruction o a ordable units nanciall in easible. O ten there arentman development sites to begin with because neighborhoods aroundstations are alread built up. Available parcels ma be small and rag-mented and require assemblage, as shown in the map to the right.

In strong housing markets a ordable housing developers have anespeciall hard time getting their projects nanced. Some jurisdictionshave inclusionar zoning ordinances requiring a percentage o a ordable

units in all development. But these ordinances o ten allow the a ord-able units to be built o site and not near transit.

Unde utilized Land Alon Bostons Fai mount-Indi o LineThere are limited opportunities

or redevelopment along theFairmount/Indigo commuter railline in Boston, where the majority o underutilized sites are smallin ll parcels, and the ew largeindustrial sites are probably contaminated. (Source: Center or Transit-Oriented Development and City o Boston.)


13/28


Pl -B st t T c t P v M -i m H ThE CENTER fORTransit-Oriented Development has released a report on thestrategies being used to create and preserve mixed-income housing neartransit in ve case stud regions Boston, Charlotte, Denver, Minneapolis-St.

Paul, and Portland. The report was called Realizing the Potential: ExpandingHousing Opportunities Near Transit. The strategies used can be grouped intove broad categories o action:

identi y and utilize TOD opportunities; provide incentives to catalyze the market or mixed-income TOD; remove regulatory barriers to higher-density, mixed-income

development at TOD sites; coordinate housing, transportation plans and investments; improve local capacity, partnerships and data collection.

The regions chosen as case studies var in size, the extent and maturito their transit s stems, and the strength o their housing markets. All o these actors a ect the degree to which TOD can serve as the organizing

ramework or growth, and whether a signi cant number o households canbene t rom the reduced transportation expenditures. Each region emplo eda set o tools tailored to its particular real estate markets, land use pat-terns, transit s stems, and available resources. Some o these tools will bedescribed on the ollowing pages.

Di erent challenges and opportunities exist or a region such asBoston, with its well-established densel populated urban neighborhoods andmature 288-station s stem, than or Denver, with its small, new,rapidl expanding s stem and its ast-growing auto-dependent suburbancommunities. In Portland, where there is care ul coordination o transporta-tion investments and land-use decisions at all levels o government, billionso private-sector dollars have been invested in mixed-income developmentalong its streetcar s stem. In Boston, the state has taken leadership with anincentive-based approach to increasing housing production, particularl inareas served b transit. Charlotte is a ast-growing region where local govern-

ment has cra ted a strateg or reinvigorating the cit and curb-ing sprawl b channeling growth and investment along a brandnew transportation s stem. Both Denver and the Twin Cities arerediscovering the power o rail to shape development.

This report was published in 2007. An update to the reportin 2008 ound that the downturn in the econom has pla edout ver di erentl in each region, largel dependent uponthe strength o the local real estate market and the incomes o people living in the corridors. But in all case stud regions thedecline in housing prices was not substantial enough to meetthe needs o working amilies, and the downturn in the markethas meant ewer developers can use pro ts rom market-rateunits to subsidize a ordable units. The Realizing the Potentialreport and its executive summar are downloadable at www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/reports?page=2.

In Portland, the care ul coordination o transit invest-ments and land use decisions leveraged $3.5 billion intwo new mixed-income neighborhoods along the streetcar route. As the result o public-private partnerships, a quar-ter o the housing in these neighborhoods is a ordable

and there is high-quality public space and parks.


14/28

P H O T O :

S t i c k

W a r e , w w w

. s t i c k w a r e . c o m

, c o u r t e s y o f F

l i c k r

.

The new bus rapid transit systemalong Clevelands Euclid Corridor is

proving attractive to developers o both market-rate and a ordablehousing, and land and property

values have been increasing evenas values elsewhere have declined.


15/28

11 sTraTegiesa T lb F e M -i m , T t-o t H

ThE fOllOwINg pAgES OffER planning, nance, polic and implementation tools that have been usedto promote a ordable housing around the U.S., organized according to the scales region, corridor,cit /local jurisdiction, neighborhood/site at which the are t picall implemented. Some tools relon capturing the momentum o a strong real estate market. In communities withoutmarket momentum, a comprehensive planning process can help de ne goals, tools, andpartnerships that will help create opportunities or mixed-income development nearstations and stimulate the market. This requires a consensus-building process involvingneighbors, developers, polic makers and communit organizations.

Di erent tools are appropriate at di erent scales: STATE AND/Or rEgION:State government, metropolitan planning organizations(MPOs), and regional land-use planning agencies can be clearinghouses or technicalassistance, and o er innovative programs to help communities plan or mixed-incomehousing, transit, and connectivity. While states and regions usually lack jurisdiction over local land use, they can partner with local jurisdictions to promote mixed-income TOD. COrrIDOr: Implementing policies at the corridor level requires integrated planning across jurisdictional boundaries and the coordination o multiple government entities.Moreover, each transit corridor serves a distinct unction in the regional transit network.Some bring commuters long distances into employment centers, while others serve as localcirculators. The corridor type will infuence the potential and market or mixed-income TOD. CITy/LOCAL JUrISDICTION:Cities and towns are de ned by geography, land-use

patterns and populations, and tools must be chosen care ully to help advance local goals.Most ederal and state housing programs are implemented by cities. Local jurisdictions aremost e ective when they consider the broader context o major transportation corridorsand the region at large when deciding where to direct development. This can help limit competition and enhance synergies among station areas. NEIgHBOrHOOD/SITE:Neighborhoods and station areas are the building blocks upon which cities,corridors and regions are built, so care ul planning at this level is essential to ensure success at all scales.

Input rom all the stakeholders in a community can help determine housing and transportation needs. At the site scale there are tools to provide creative nancing options or both nonpro t and or-pro t developers looking to leverage the value created by transit.


P H O T O : A

R T C U E T O

, L O S A N G E L E S

A ordable housing atop the subway stop at Hollywood Boulevard and Western Avenue, one o Los Angeles busiest bus corridors, ensures that

amilies o all incomes can continue to live in rapidly gentri ying Hollywood,where most new development around our subway stations is market-rate.


16/28

Philadelphia has the third largest rail system in theU.S. (behind New York and Chicago) but stationsare dominated by auto-oriented uses, as here at the Temple University station. The states Transit Revitalization Investment District (TRID) provides upto $75,000 or community planning around stations,and allows the creation o value capture areas where tax revenues can help pay or improvements.

In Massachusetts, state law (Chapte 40 r) ewa dsmunicipalities that adopt t ansit villa e ove la zonin .Cities eceive ants based on whethe the :

Submit comprehensive plans outlining housing development;

Zone for a minimum density of 8 units/acre for single-family

homes, 12 units/ac e o duplexes and t iplexes, and 20 units/ ac e o multi amil buildin s all as o i ht, which means

development does not require discretionary action; Require that at least 20 percent of residential units be a o dable in p ojects with mo e than 12 units.

In etu n, cities eceive: From $10,000 for projects with 20 units or less to $600,000

for 501 or more units;

Bonus payments of $3,000 for each unit of new housing that

actually gets permitted;

Eligibility for favorable treatment when state discretionary

undin is disbu sed o wate and sewe imp ovements, t a c

cont ol and envi onmental cleanup.

i t v F P t v st t a Pl a Z a st t y F Th st t o r

STATE AND REgIONAl AgENCIESare in the best position to o er incentives or proactive planningand zoning in station areas. A visioning process can help set standards and expectations be ore proj-ects are proposed, smoothing the wa or the approval o appropriate development. Once the plansand appropriate zoning are in place, development proposals or individual sites can be more easilevaluated and expeditiousl approved. Projects approved without the guidance or input o residentscan encounter communit opposition, resulting in preventable dela s and increased developmentcosts. With high-priorit sites it is especiall important to conduct detailed station area planning

e orts. In the San Francisco Ba Area, the MetropolitanTransportation Commission engages low-income neigh-borhoods in a communit -based planning process thatprovides a ramework or thinking about their mobilitand a ordabilit goals, and how their needs t into thelarger regional context. Finalized plans are orwarded tothe metropolitan planning organization and local policboards (http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/cbtp/.)

1

CASE STuDy

The surrounding community provided signi -cant input on the design o 27-acre HighlandsGarden Village, a mixed-income, mixed-use

project near downtown Denver on the site o an abandoned amusement park. The mix o

uses and design o sidewalks and roadwaysencourage walking and biking, theres a car- sharing program, and on-site bus stops providereal-time in ormation about service.

P H O T O :

P E R R Y R O S E

, L L C

P H O T O :

S E T H B U R D I C K


17/28

Schermerhorn House is the product o an unusual public-private part-nership that involves two nonpro -its, the Actors Fund o America,and two or-pro t developers. It will add balance to the economic

geography o walkable, transit-richBrooklyn, which has seen a wave o market-rate development. Hal the217 units will be reserved or the

ormerly homeless and individualswith special needs, while hal willbe or low-income working tenants,including actors and artists.


Cha lotte, NC, established an A o dable Housin T ust Fund to p ovide public

undin to p ivate develope s in exchan e o a o dable units usin acompetitive bid p ocess. The Cit Council set aside $10 million o the und in2001, and vote s then app oved anothe $35 million. The cit has the fexibilit to make the unds available as eithe a loan o ant o land acquisition o

const uction. B 2007 the und had enabled the const uction o ehabilitation o mo e than 2,800 units, mo e than hal o which we e o households

ea nin below 30 pe cent o a ea median income. This numbe included 223 unitso new a o dable owne ship housin , mo e than 900 new multi amil ental

units, nea l 600 ehabilitated multi amil ental units, and mo e than 1,100units o households with special needs. The ave a e subsid pe unit was less

than $14,000 (and sometimes included othe a o dable housin unds).

P bl -P v t P t h p a st t y F Th s t

publIC-pRIvATE pARTNERShIpS can leverage private investment in mixed-income housing. Local governmentscan help b acquiring and assembling land, rezoning, and unding environmental remediation through EPA

grants, and b providing in-kind matches, in-lieu ees, or other government unding. Tax-increment nancing(TIF), business assessment districts and development agreements can be implemented. Public in rastructureimprovements can improve transit access and make development easible. Local governments can also engagethe public in a transparent development review process that reduces the time and cost o development.

Local government can also help mitigate our ke risks encountered during the development process entitlement, construction, nancing and marketabilit . Construction risk can be reduced through programs that prioritizeinspection services and vet contractors or mixed-income development. Governments can encourage local banks to pro-vide lower-cost mezzanine loans or multi amil construction. Gov-ernment can also help b investing in parks, sidewalks, streetscapeimprovements, and transit stop enhancements which enhancesthe curb appeal and marketabilit o larger developments.

Predevelopment costs are especiall hard to nance, especialli land has to be held or several ears until it is developable be-

cause o zoning or design issues. Local governments can provide patient capital rom redevelopment unds orother sources. Government can also become an equit partner in the development b unding a public park-ing structure. Value-capture strategies and zoning incentives such as densit bonuses allowing developers tobuild more units i some are a ordable can also help provide or a ordable housing and in rastructure.

2

Higher-income residents subsidize low-er-income residents at the Townhomeson Capitol Hill HOPE VI project in ahistoric walkable Washington DC neigh-borhood near transit. Nineteen unitswere sold at market rate, while 134 are

part o a housing co-op where residents pay a xed monthly housing payment equal to 30 percent o income.

CASE STuDy

Coggins Square provides work orce housing or commuters using the nearby BART


18/28

Housing (atop o ce space atop groundfoor retail) along the Third Street Promenade and Transit Mallin Santa Monica is all market-rate,but housing on adjacent streets isa ordable, providing or a mix o incomes at the beach.

In an e o t to p event the displacement o elde l , low- and mode ate-income ental households,Washin ton DC enacted the Tenant Oppo tunit To Pu chase Act in 1980. The act ives tenants o all

ental housin in the Dist ict o Columbia the i ht to pu chase thei units o to assi n that i ht toa thi d pa t when the ental p ope t is put on the ma ket. Tenants a e iven 120 da s to ne oti-

ate the pu chase and secu e nancin . Seve al la e apa tment complexes have been t ans e ed to sha ed-equit owne ship th ou h this p ocess. Fo example, when the Capitol Mano Coope ative was put up o sale in 2001, tenants o med a tenants association and a limited-equit coope ative with

the assistance o two develope s. The bou ht the p ope t , a oup o seve al apa tment buildin snea t ansit that we e built in 1908 and totaled 102 units. This has made it possible o esidents to

continue to live in the buildin s as well as secu e undin o needed epai s and imp ovements.

T t e t F T P vaff bl H al T p t tc a st t y F Th c

ExISTINg fuNDINg fOR a ordable housing should be targeted along transporta-tion corridors since these corridors provide increased a ordabilit because o lower

transportation costs without increased unding. Resources should be used to preserveexisting a ordable housing, to purchase rental properties or permanent use as a ord-able housing, and/or to build new a ordable housing in these locations.

3

CASE STuDy

P H O T O S :

D A V I D B A K E R +

P A R T N E R S A R C H I T E C T S

Coggins Square provides work orce housing or commuters using the nearby BART station. It was a public/nonpro t/ or-pro t partnerhip, and a ordable housing (below) shares the site (and pool, play area and landscaped open space) withmarket-rate lo ts (right). Pedestrian improvements were unded by a programintended to provide incentives or walkable development near stations.

Syracuse Village is an island o a ordability in Stapleton


19/28


Mont ome Count , MD, adopted the st inclusiona zonin o dinance inthe U.S. in 1976. The Mode atel P iced Dwellin Unit O dinance equi es

develope s o all mixed-use p ojects with 20 o mo e esidential units to make12.5 pe cent to 15 pe cent a o dable o lowe -income households in exchan e

o a 22 pe cent densit bonus. This o dinance has esulted in the const uctiono mo e than 11,800 a o dable units since it was enacted. Fo example, a

a den apa tment communit ac oss the st eet om the glenmont Met o station in Silve Sp in has been edeveloped with a mix o 1,550 apa tments,condominiums, live-wo k units and townhomes 12.5 pe cent o which a e

mode atel p iced wo k o ce housin . The development includes a etailcente with estau ants, a m and se vices, and a landscaped cent al pa k con-

nectin to a linea pa k alon a nea b st eam, which p ovides appealin public space o active and passive ec eation. The development, station, su oundin

nei hbo hoods and nea b communit att actions includin a e ional pa k a e all linked with walkwa s. The p ovision o on-st eet and st uctu ed pa k-in and a pedest ian-scaled st eetscape helps c eate a sense o place, inc ease

pedest ian activit and t ansit ide ship, and educe vehicle t ips.

4

Syracuse Village is an island o a ordability in Stapleton,Denvers huge urban in ll community. Master developer Forest City agreed to make 10 percent o or-sale units and 20 percent o rental units a ordable shortly be ore Denver

nalized a less-stringent inclusionary ordinance requiring 10 percent a ordability or an in-lieu ee. Ten minutes

rom a bus trans er station, Stapleton is slated or a rail line.

i l y H a st t y F Th r

INCluSIONARy hOuSINg or zoning requiring that a share o new construction bea orable is the most widel used planning tool or mixed-income development becauseit harnesses the momentum o the local real estate market to provide a ordable unitswithout public unding, land acquisition or land assembl . Most inclusionar policies areenacted via a zoning ordinance or other regulation, and require that 10 percent to 25percent o units in a development be a ordable. Speci c income quali cations aret picall determined b a nancial easibilit anal sis, and ma be di erent or rental vs. ownership housing. It is common in high-cost markets to require that ownershiphousing be a ordable or low to moderate-income households and that rental housing bea ordable or ver -low to low-income households. Inclusionar zoning works best whenimplemented over a large area rather than on a project-b -project basis. It is o tenapplied onl to projects o a certain t pe or size. Some inclusionar policies allow ees tobe paid in lieu o providing a ordable housing on-site. But the advantages and disadvan-tages should be weighed care ull : It ma mean that a ordable units are not built neartransit since sites urther awa ma be less expensive. On the other hand, i the land is

less expensive, the developer ma be able to build more a ordable units. In-lieu undsare o ten used or the management o a ordable housing and other tenant services.

CASE STuDy


20/28

Cali o nias LIHTC p o am p ovides additional points

o p ojects that take on additional expenses while u the in public polic objectives. The p o am ants

t ansit-accessible p ojects up to 7 out o 15 total points in its amenities cate o . Sco in is as ollows

(at www.t easu e .ca. ov/ctcac): 7 points: The project is part of a transit-oriented

development st ate whe e the e is a t ansit station,

ail station, commute ail station, o bus station, o bus stop within a qua te mile o the site, with se vice

at least eve 30 minutes du in the hou s o 7-9 a.m.and 4-6 p.m. The p ojects densit must exceed 25

units pe ac e.

6 points: The site is within a quarter mile of a transit station, ail station, commute ail station o bus sta-

tion, o bus stop with se vice at least eve 30 minutesdu in the hou s o 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.

5 points: The site is within a third of a mile of a bus

stop with se vice at least eve 30 minutes du in the

hou s o 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. 4 points: The site is within 500 feet of a regular bus

stop, o apid t ansit s stem stop.

3 points: The site is within 1,500 feet of a regular

bus stop o apid t ansit s stem stop.

Light rail has come to Los Angeles historic Boyle Heightsneighborhood, where developers planned to demolish the hotelwhere musicians stay while working in the adjacent Mariachi Plaza. The nonpro t East L.A. Community Corporation won a

erce competition with a or-pro t developer to purchase thehotel. Low-income housing tax credits will be used to renovateand restore the hotel or its low-income tenants.

M fy L w i m H T c t T off i t v F L t n T t a st t y F Th st t o r

ThE lOw INCOmE Housing Tax Credit program (LIHTC) is the greatest single source o unding or a -ordable housing at both the state and regional levels. Twent -eight states alread give pre erence to or

require proximit to transit as one criteria. This criteria is established b the state, so an changes mustbe negotiated with state housing nance agencies. I there were ederal rule changes the LIHTC programcould pla an ever bigger role in promoting mixed-income TOD housing. The state or region can promoteTOD b : o ering points or transit proximit to help TOD projects score more competitivel ; o ering abasis boost or TOD to increase available unding; increasing the project allotment cap to make largerprojects at TOD sites eligible; prioritizing the preserva-tion o existing a ordable housing; consolidating theunderwriting processes to allow developers to appl ortax credits and other resources simultaneousl ; requiringthat projects be in mixed-use neighborhoods with goodtransit access; providing unding or communit centersand da care to encourage a mix o uses.

5

CASE STuDy

P H O T O :

M I G U E L G A N D E R T - C O U R T E S Y O F T H E A R T I S T


21/28

The combination o a strong housing market,new stations and better service on BostonsFairmount commuter rail line has prompted developers to build market-rate housing inwhat had been high-poverty transit-dependent neighborhoods. Four community development

corporations are working together to ensureresidents arent displaced by building mixed-usetransit-oriented projects like Dudley Village,which will provide 50 mixed-income units inthree 4-story buildings with groundfoor retail.


i ll d v l pm t o r v l pm t i T t Z a st t y F Th c , n hb h a s t

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEvElOpmENT (TOD) can help alleviate blight, stopneighborhood decline, stimulate economic development, and leverage private

investment in public bene t. TOD is t picall de ned as higher-densit mixed-use development adjacent to a station, but the de nition should be broadenedto include the district or neighborhood within eas walking distance o a transitstation t picall understood to be the hal -mile radius. TOD boosts a ordabilit

because residents can own andoperate one less car or no cars.Transit-oriented projects and districtscan be built around heav rail, lightrail, streetcars or bus, in either urbanor suburban locations. Brown elds,underutilized commercial andindustrial sites are opportunities ormixed-income TOD.

A edevelopment plan was used to c eate the 303-ac eMission Ba p oject alon San F anciscos wate ont adjacent to the giants baseball stadium, in a walkablenei hbo hood se ved b commute ail, li ht ail, st eetca and elect ic bus. At build-out Mission Ba will include 6,000

housin units, 5 million squa e eet o co po ate o ces and bio-tech space, a new campus o the Unive sit o Cali o nia-

San F ancisco, a hotel and con e ence cente , 750,000 squa e eet o etail and 49 ac es o pa ks and open space. As pa t o the development a eement with the cit s

edevelopment a enc , the p ope t owne a eed todedicate 14 pa cels o land o a o dable housin . Thea enc competitivel selected develope s and p ovided land and tax inc ement nancin to help build the a o dable

p ojects 28 pe cent o the housin will be a o dable to

ve -low-, low-, and mode ate-income households. Ma ket-ate p ojects will be allowed to maximize the buildin

envelope and p o tabilit while the a o dable sites a e zoned o a hei ht o 50 eet, which allows the use o lessexpensive wood- ame const uction. Pa kin minimums we e

elaxed and the es a pa kin maximum o 1 space pe unit. Setbacks we e educed and desi n uidelines encou a e

ound-foo etail. A maste envi onmental impact epo t expedites the app oval p ocess o individual p ojects,allowin them to move o wa d quickl and inexpensivel .

6 CASE STuDy

M B y


22/28

In 1968 protesters in Bostons SouthEnd pitched tents in a parking lot to

protest urban renewal and the displacement o residents. The result wasthis project, Tent City, which becamea national model o mixed-incomehousing -- a quarter o all units arereserved or low-income tenants and hal are or moderate-income ten-ants. The rest are market-rate, and attract tenants because o locationand transit proximity which havecontributed signi cantly to Tent Cityscontinued nancial easibility.

A communit plan, u ban enewal plan, assessment dist ict, tax-inc ement nancin and zonin incentives we e all used to c eatethe Pea l, a popula new hi h-densit mixed-income nei hbo hood in downtown Po tland whe e mo e than a qua te o all housin isa o dable. A develope a eement between the Po tland Develop-ment Commission and the la est p ope t owne in this o me l indust ial nei hbo hood speci ed that the cit would emove anon- amp that made the p ope t unbuildable, and then const uct a

st eetca line to the p ope t . The develope , in tu n, a eed to meet minimum esidential densit th esholds, to help und the st eetca ,and to p ovide land o pa ks and open space, i hts o wa and a o dable housin . An assessment dist ict was also used to help

und const uction. The Pea l illust ates how public imp ovements canc eate value and leve a e p ivate investment in a o dable housin ,

pa ks and open space, while helpin local ove nments achieve a -

o dable housin and economic development oals.

F l t t u f V l c pt T F aff bl H a st t y F Th c , n hb h a s t

buIlDINg IN NEIghbORhOODS around transit can result in high in rastructurecosts, land assembl , brown eld clean-up, and length permitting processes.

This results in a cumbersome and expensive development process. The additiono income-restricted housing makes it even more expensive. Tools such as taxincrement nancing, business improvement districts, assessment districts, anddeveloper agreements can generate unds to help pa or housing and in ra-structure improvements that bene t the greater communit . In most states anadministering agenc can issue bonds against projected revenue streams to

nance public improvements up ront such as new sewers, streets, sidewalks,site clearance, removal o hazardous conditions, site assembl , shared parkingand parks. B upgrading local in rastructure and preparing sites or develop-ment, an urban renewal authorit or other similar local entit can lower thecost o private development, making a ordable housing easier to nance.

7

CASE STuDy

P H O T O

: S T E V E R O S E N T H A L


23/28

The City o Charlotte purchased property at Scaleybark station to ensurethat development remains a ordable. The station is surrounded by largeindustrial and commercial sites, making it well-suited or a catalytic project that is pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use, and mixed-income.

The Cit o Cha lotte has established an acquisition und to pu chase land nea the stations planned alon its South Co ido li ht ail line to ensu ethe development o mixed-income, mixed-use TOD. The Cit Council capital-ized the und with an initial ant o $5 million. It is jointl mana ed b Coldwell Banke Comme cial, the Cha lotte A ea T ansit S stem, and seve alcit depa tments (Economic Development, Plannin , Nei hbo hood Devel-opment and En inee in ). The st site, the Scale ba k station a ea, was

pu chased with the help o the cit s Housin T ust Fund, and development is equi ed to meet a minimum a o dable housin th eshold.

L a q t |L B k F a st t y F Th c ,c ty a n hb h

A lAND ACquISITION or land-banking und can enable the earl purchase o land around transit acilities or along transit corridors targeted or a ordable and

mixed-income housing while this land is still a ordable. This helps to ensurethat a ordable housing can be included in projects built on these sites, and thatthese projects will be nanciall easible. These unds can also be used to acquireexisting housing in order to preserve a ordabilit in neighborhoods where gentri-

cation is a threat. Development ees, fexible state t ransportation and housingunds, and grants rom philanthropic organizations are o ten used to create land

acquisition unds. In the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, or example, the Metropoli-tan Council partnered with Minnesota Housing and the Famil Housing Fund toestablish the Land Acquisition or A ordable New Development und to help meetthe states a ordable housing and strategic growth goals. The Met Council has alsoauthorized $3.6 million or a revolving loan und allowing metro-area communitiesto bu land or the 51,000 new a ordable units needed b 2020.

8


CASE STuDy


24/28

The popular Bookmark Apartments inPortland -- the city with the greatest

percentage o library cardholders

-- combines a public library, co ee shop and 47 apartments, 19 o which are a ordable to householdsearning 60 percent o area medianincome. The complex was approved

ollowing zoning changes that allow greater density through increases inbuilding height and size or mixed-use projects near transit. Its thecitys most popular branch library,and is near light rail and bus.

The Met opolitan T anspo tation Commission (MTC) in the San F ancisco Ba

A ea is pa tne in with local ove nments and t ansit ope ato s to p oducemo e housin nea stations at densities that suppo t t ansit. MTCs Housin

Incentive P o am p ovides capital undin o t anspo tation imp ovementsi the net densit is at least 30 units/ac e. g ant amounts inc ease based on

densit and a o dabilit : The p o am p ovides $1,000 pe bed oom at 25units/ac e and up to $2,000 pe bed oom o 60 units/ac e, with an addition-

al $500 pe bed oom i the units a e a o dable. Quali in p ojects must bewithin a thi d o a mile o bus stops, o within a hal -mile o ail stations, and

se vice must be elativel equent, with headwa s o 15 minutes du in peak.

The unds a e o livabilit in ast uctu e includin bike and pedest ian paths, pedest ian amenities, st eetscapin , t a c calmin and t ansit stops.

i t v -B Z a st t y F Th r

INCENTIvE-bASED zONINgrewards developers with densit bonusesor foor-area bonuses i the meet a ordable housing objectives. Manlocalities and some states o er these incentives as part o their jointdevelopment or TOD programs. Incentive-based zoning can work well over a broad area such as a bus or light-rail corridor. An zoning changesthat allow higher densities should be accompanied b good planning andmarket anal sis, however. Well-designed TOD will not result simpl b al-lowing greater densities. And the bonus must be attractive to the market.For example, a 2005 evaluation o HUDs HOPE VI projects or the Brook-ings Institutions Metropolitan Polic Program concluded that the success-

ul mixed-income projects demonstrated that strong design and masterplanning matters. The evaluation ound the most success ul projects werethose where local governments planned or amenities, sa e or de ensible

public space, and a pleasant, positive and use ul environment, andwhere projects were rml grounded in assessments o market trends,were the most success ul.

9CASE STuDy

P H O T O

: F R E D W I L S O N


25/28

Archer Court was a dilapidated and dangerous 147-unit pub-lic housing project in ChicagosChinatown when it was bought or $650,000 in 1997 by two lawyerswho renewed the projects Section8 contract and then launched a$6.5 million renovation. Forty-threetownhomes were built during PhaseTwo; 34 were sold at market rateand ve were made a ordable

with a TIF subsidy. There is a rail station three blocks away.


Texas autho izes municipalities to o m TIF dist icts to nance public imp ovements and stimulate p ivate investment indeclinin a eas o on aw land on the subu ban in es. This

powe is divo ced om t aditional edevelopment powe s suchas eminent domain; TIF boards can choose to partner with

edevelopment autho ities, but this isnt equi ed. A law called the Homestead P ese vation Act autho izes the cit o Austinto create Homestead Preservation Reinvestment Zones whereall tax inc ement is dedicated to the p ese vation o a o dable

housin . A t aditional TIF dist ict and a homestead p ese va-tion einvestment zone can be used in tandem. A TIF dist ict a ound a station can ene ate evenue o in ast uctu eimp ovements while the homestead p ese vation dist ict

p events displacement in the su oundin nei hbo hood. TheHomestead P ese vation Act autho izes a Homestead Land T ust to acqui e and hold land o a o dable housin in the

einvestment zone dist ict. The act also autho izes a Home- stead Land Bank to expedite the p ocess o clea in title tovacant and abandoned lots with delinquent taxes in o de to

make these sites available o a o dable housin .

T -i m t F a st t y f th c a n hb h

TAx-INCREmENT fINANCINg(TIF) is an important tool or creating andpreserving a ordable housing, though not all states allow it. TIF unds are

generated b the increase in propert and/or sales tax revenues that occurwithin a designated TIF district once new development and other improvementshave occurred. TIF unds are calculated o a baseline ear and are generatedb new development as well as the enhanced assessed value o existingdevelopment. In man states, the power to adopt a TIF zone is granted i localities meet a test or addressing a public goal such as eliminating blight orspurring economic development. In some cases, the authorit to create a TIF district is coupled with an obligation to create and/or preserve a ordablehousing. In Cali ornia, or ex-ample, redevelopment agenciesare required to spend at least 20percent o the tax increment oncreating or preserving housingthat is a ordable to low andmoderate-income households,and at least 15 percent o housing in the overall areamust be a ordable.

10

CASE STuDy

P H O T O

: P A Y T O N C H U N G / F L I C K R


26/28

Research shows that households living near transit own ewer cars than households in the region at large. Lower parking requirements or housing near stations increase the nancial easibility o a ordable housing, since parking isa signi cant expense or developers. ( Source: Center For TOD)

Parking is Expensive Parking is a signi cant cost or developers and parking ratios may determine whether an a ordable project is even easible. For example, i a 1-acre parcel zoned or up to 100 units o residential development requires 2 spaces/unit, parking will need to be provided in multilevel garage at acost o $20,000 to $40,000 per space. I the same parcel is zoned at 1 space/ unit, parking can be located in a groundfoor podium, saving the development asmuch as $2 million. I the same parcel is zoned at 0.75 spaces/unit, there will beenough groundfoor space to include child care and 10,000 square eet o retail.

r P k r q m t a st t y F Th n hb h a s t

REDuCINg pARkINg requirements increases the easibilit o mixed-incomeand mixed-use TOD because parking is expensive. From a design perspective,

parking ratios largel determine whether there will be space or retail, childcare or other non-residential uses, and whether there will be mone or qualitdesign and building materials. From a cost perspective, parking drives thedevelopment budget and is a ke actor in determining housing prices. Concernsabout reducing parking requirements can be addressed with transportationdemand management strategies. For example, zoning can require less parkingin projects with car-sharing acilities ( or example, Zip Car). Transit agenciesand local governments can also help reduce the need or parking b providingspace or car-sharing acilities in public parking structures.

11Percent Of Housing Units With One Or No

Vehicles: Transit Zones Vs. Region

Folsom + Do e in San F ancisco se ves tenants with special needs includin ch onic homelessness in No the n Cali o nias st multi amil buildin to

ea n LEED (Leade ship in Ene and Evi onmental Desi n) Silve ce ti cation.Pa kin was eatl educed to 0.31 spaces pe unit, makin oom o a h b id ca -sha e vehicle and 28 p otected bic cle pa kin spaces. The e a e 98 studiosand 1- and 2-bed oom apa tments on a hal ac e.

P H O T O :

D A V I D B A K E R +

P A R T N E R S A R C H I T E C T S


27/28


28/28

436 14 th ST., SUITE 1005, OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510.268.8602)1707 L ST. NW, SUITE 210, WASHINGTON, DC 20036 (202.429.6990)

375 CANyON VISTA DR., LOS ANGELES, CA 90065 (323.222.5508)

www.reconnectingamerica.org

FEDERAL TRANSITADMINISTRATION

Mixed Income Housing Near Transit--CTOD--09/2009

Documents

Transcript of Mixed Income Housing Near Transit--CTOD--09/2009