In the months before the pandemic struck, the typical home in Lakewood, Ohio—a small city next to Cleveland on the shores of Lake Erie—still sold for under $200,000. But last May, the median home price crested $300,000 for the first time, marking a 50 percent jump in just over two years. Now city leaders are grappling with questions around housing affordability as the “City of Beautiful Homes” tries to ensure it remains an affordable, welcoming place for all.

Recently, Lakewood staff have had the chance to explore these issues by piloting a scenario planning toolkit commissioned by the Lincoln Institute. The toolkit is designed specifically for small to midsized legacy cities like Lakewood that have experienced substantial economic decline in the past half century.

Former Lincoln Institute Visiting Fellow Arnab Chakraborty organized the workshop with Alison Goebel, executive director of the Greater Ohio Policy Center (GOPC), and Shawn Leininger, Lakewood’s planning director. Chakraborty, who was recently named dean of the University of Utah College of Architecture and Planning, co-wrote the scenario planning toolkit for legacy cities with University of Illinois graduate student Emma Walters, offering step-by-step guidance and tools for communities with limited growth and resources.

Scenario planning—which helps communities identify potential futures so they can better prepare for the unknown—is often used in major cities or in a large-scale, regional context, Chakraborty says, and is typically based on an assumption of growth. But this type of planning isn’t fundamentally about growth, Chakraborty says, it’s about change: “Scenario planning has its origins in business and military planning, where it’s used for all sorts of reasons—including thinking about possible loss and how to manage it.” That makes it surprisingly well-suited to legacy cities, once the principles are calibrated to their needs.

Rather than scripting the contours of their expansion, legacy cities face a very different set of challenges, Chakraborty says, from halting population loss to managing vacancies to paying for infrastructure without overburdening seniors and low-income residents. In Lakewood, where population loss has leveled off in recent years (having fallen from a peak of 70,000 to around 50,000 today) and out-of-state investors are snapping up homes, one of the biggest concerns is ensuring that the community retains its status “as a place where people can find a home they can afford, whether they are owning or renting,” writes Mayor Meghan George. “Lakewood’s pilot use of this toolkit is helping to develop a national model for legacy cities . . . that are working to address issues impacting their communities, such as market pressures pushing prices higher and raising concerns for affordability.”

A Toolkit Test Drive

After the Lincoln Institute selected Lakewood as a pilot community, GOPC and Chakraborty worked with city staff members to identify a focal question to anchor the daylong workshop.

“They considered questions around housing vacancy, housing affordability, zoning, infrastructure,” Chakraborty says. “But the question that seemed to tie all of these together and hit at a central concern for the community was the question of housing affordability.”

“One of the things Lakewood has always prided itself on is we are a community for everybody,” said Leininger, the planning director. But huge increases in home prices—and rents, in a city where roughly half the residents don’t own a home—are making it harder for some longtime residents to stay, and for new ones to move or settle down here.

After settling on that focal point, Lakewood’s team identified local organizations that play a big role in the housing space—lenders, developers, housing advocates, shelters—and invited their leaders to attend the workshop. Involving a range of perspectives and lived experiences is key to the process, says Ryan Handy, a policy analyst at the Lincoln Institute who helps run the organization’s Consortium for Scenario Planning. “Exploratory scenario planning is not forecasting, it’s not based on data or research,” she says. “It’s intended to be informed by people’s community understanding and knowledge.”

Then, they imagined different ways that a couple of big “driving forces”—trends a city can’t really control, such as population or economic growth—might interact, to create a set of possible futures for the group to consider together. In this case, four scenarios emerged, based on different combinations of economic growth and housing affordability: one in which booming economic growth brought an influx of new residents but drove up rents and home prices; one where strong economic growth was accompanied by rapid, abundant development and housing accessibility programs, keeping homes affordable; another where home prices stayed elevated despite a recession due to limited availability; and finally, a 2008-style bottoming out, with an economic downturn yielding an oversupply of cheap, vacant housing.

In more standard planning processes, Chakraborty says, communities “pick one scenario as the vision of the future they desire, and put all the eggs in that basket. Exploratory scenario planning principles suggest sort of stepping away from that idea, and looking at multiple possibilities and thinking about what might work in all of these scenarios.”

Into the Unknown

It took some time to get workshop participants comfortable with the concept of exploratory scenario planning, says Goebel of GOPC. Some had trouble at first thinking beyond the confines of current realities. But the workshop sparked some important realizations among Lakewood staff and other participants, she says.

For starters, it helped the participants identify priority areas for taking action. “That workshop made it very concrete, really kind of clarified where different partners could plug in, and so they felt like the conversation moved into a very productive next phase” that will lead to policy change, Goebel says. Given the city’s large population of renters and the increase in out-of-town landlords, enhanced code enforcement emerged as an important strategy to protect the existing stock of affordably priced housing under any scenario.

The workshop also catalyzed specific action on a zoning change that city officials had been considering for some time. Currently, 46 percent of Lakewood is zoned to allow two-family homes, but a 1996 regulation made it illegal to expand an existing single-family to a two-family, even on such lots. “After the workshop, it became clear that was a very urgent thing that they needed to do,” Goebel says. The planning department proposed a repeal of the 1996 rule to the city council in March, along with an ordinance expanding the maximum lot area coverage from 25 to 35 percent, to allow for more two-family conversions and accessory dwelling units.  

“We’re basically unlocking the right that is already provided by the zoning district by taking away that restriction, and then at the same time opening up a little bit more lot coverage,” Leininger explained to the council—which voted to refer the changes to the Planning Commission and the Department of Planning and Development.

As Lakewood works on an affordable housing action plan coming out of the scenario planning process, Chakraborty will write up a use case demonstrating how exploratory scenario planning can apply to a smaller city, as opposed to a major metropolis. These updates to the toolkit will provide other legacy cities with an even more robust resource, he says: “I think this project is filling a real gap in existing practice.”

Handy says the Consortium for Scenario Planning will continue to develop exploratory scenario planning resources—informed by the Lakewood workshop and other pilot programs taking place this spring—that small, less-resourced communities will ideally be able to use without the benefit of a big staff, outside help, or paid consultants. Another partner on the project, the Lincoln Institute’s Legacy Cities Initiative—a national network of community and government leaders working to revive older industrial centers—also hopes to bring scenario planning to other legacy communities.

“Ideally, exploratory scenario planning is a perfect fit for these places, because it doesn’t require outside experts, or data, or high staff capacity … but this approach really hasn’t been fully tested in those cities yet,” Handy says. “The Lakewood toolkit test made really important strides in that direction.”

The Lakewood workshop was one of several global scenario planning exercises the Lincoln Institute is running this year in conjunction with recently commissioned research, in locations including the Colorado River Basin, Wisconsin, Hudson Valley, Peru, South Africa, and Palestine. To learn more about scenario planning or request scenario planning assistance, visit the Consortium for Scenario Planning site or contact scenarioplanning@lincolninst.edu.

Jon Gorey is a staff writer for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lead image: View of Cleveland from Lakewood Park, Lakewood, Ohio. Credit: Erik Drost via Flickr CC BY 2.0.

In Cincinnati lately, good fortune extends well beyond the Bengals, the city’s football team, which has consistently been making the playoffs. The population is growing after years of decline, companies are increasingly interested thanks to its strategic location, and there’s even talk of southwestern Ohio becoming a climate haven.

But any resurgence in a postindustrial legacy city comes with downsides, as newly elected Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval has been discovering: the potential displacement of established residents, and affordability that can vanish all too quickly.

One of Pureval’s first moves was to collaborate with the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority to buy nearly 200 rental properties in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, outbidding more than a dozen institutional investors that have been snapping up homes to rent them out for high profits. That sent an important signal, Pureval said in an interview for the Land Matters podcast: transitioning neighborhoods will be protected from the worst outcomes of market forces in play in Cincinnati.

“These out-of-town institutional investors … have no interest, frankly, in the wellbeing of Cincinnati or their tenants, buying up cheap single-family homes, not doing anything to invest in them, but overnight doubling or tripling the rents,” he said, noting a parallel effort to enforce code violations at many properties. “If you’re going to exercise predatory behavior in our community, well, we’re not going to stand for it, and we’re coming after you.”

Pureval, the half-Indian, half-Tibetan son of first-generation Americans, said affordability and displacement were his biggest concerns as Cincinnati—along with Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and other cities hard hit by steep declines in manufacturing and population—gets a fresh look as a desirable location. Cincinnati scored in the top 10 of cities least impacted by heat, drought, and sea-level rise in a recent Moody’s report.

“Right now, we are living through, in real-time, a paradigm shift,” spurred on by the pandemic and concerns about climate change, he said. “The way we live, work, and play is just completely changing. Remote work is … altering our economy and lifestyle throughout the entire country but particularly here in the Midwest. What I am convinced of due to this paradigm shift is because of climate change, because of the rising cost of living on the coast, there will be an inward migration.”

But, he said, “We have to preserve the families and the legacy communities that have been here, in the first place. No city in the country has figured out a way to grow without displacing. The market factors, the economic factors are so profound and so hard to influence, and the city’s resources are so limited. It’s really, really difficult.”

Joining a chorus of others all around the U.S., Pureval also said he supports reforming zoning and addressing other regulatory barriers that hinder multi-family housing and mixed-use and transit-oriented development.

An edited version of this interview will appear in print and online as part of the Mayor’s Desk series, our interviews with innovative chief executives of cities from around the world.

You can listen to the show and subscribe to Land Matters on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

The show in its entirety can also be viewed as a video at the Lincoln Institute’s YouTube channel.

Further Reading

A Bid for Affordability: Notes from an Ambitious Housing Experiment in Cincinnati (Land Lines)

Activist House Flippers Take On Wall Street to Keep Homes From Investors (Wall Street Journal)

Meet Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval (SpectrumNews1)

They Told Him to Change His Name. Now Crowds Are Shouting It. (Politico)

Which U.S. cities will fare best in a warming world—and which will be hit hardest? (Washington Post)
 

Anthony Flint is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, host of the Land Matters podcast, and a contributing editor of Land Lines.

Lead image: Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval. Credit: © Amanda Rossmann – USA TODAY NETWORK.

In 2021, the Los Angeles Times reported that some of the city’s newest million-dollar neighborhoods were in South LA. Many residents of the historically Black community were shocked.

Not Kristin Johnson. The South LA native and her husband have been trying to buy a home in the area for a while now, but haven’t been able to afford one. They both work, and have spent several years improving their credit and growing their savings. But housing prices keep moving out of reach.

Back in 1965, Johnson’s grandparents bought a house in the Crenshaw area of South LA, largely on one salary. The house cost $16,500. Today, it’s worth almost a million dollars.

Johnson’s mother spent her teenage years in that house. She watched the last remaining white families flee and the neighborhood’s Black residents lose retail stores, manufacturing jobs, and essential services. Now white people are coming back, and investment is too; a Metro rail line going through the neighborhood opened this fall, and the new SoFi Stadium, home to the LA Rams, is 10 minutes away. Those changes will likely drive housing prices even higher.

“A lot of folks who aren’t Black or brown are moving in and scooping up houses,” says Johnson. “But even with first-time homebuyer programs, I’m still not able to afford a home in the area where I was born and raised.”

Cities around the country are facing severe housing challenges, and communities of color are especially hard hit. Many have been struggling for years, but the pandemic exacerbated the situation, leading to surging home prices and rising rents, particularly in big cities. Those increases have slowed somewhat since mid-2022, but they haven’t stopped, and residents are fighting simply to maintain their footholds, let alone buy homes and grow their wealth.

There’s a giant gap in U.S. homeownership rates—almost 75 percent of white households own their homes, compared to 45 percent of Black households and 48 percent of Latino households—and it’s a big source of the nation’s racial wealth disparity. But affordable single-family homes that could begin to address that problem aren’t being produced at anything close to the scale needed. 

Efforts to preserve and expand affordable housing while building community wealth have faced challenges ranging from restrictive local development policies to construction slowdowns caused by staffing and supply chain issues. The Center for Community Investment’s Connecting Capital and Community initiative (3C), established in partnership with JPMorgan Chase, seeks to address these challenges using a fundamentally different approach.

Launched in 2021, the project currently includes teams in five major U.S. cities: Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Seattle, and Washington, DC. Each team is creating localized, customized strategies to increase its city’s stock of affordable rental or for-sale housing, while also building wealth for Black and Latino communities. The teams, which include residents as full partners, are bringing together stakeholders across nonprofit, public, and private sectors; designing innovative projects that can influence capital flows, policies, and practices; and testing new ways to tackle the housing supply and homeownership crisis that can inform efforts in other cities.

A National Problem with Local Solutions

The 3C initiative emerged as a way to examine barriers within the housing system that have limited both access to housing and the supply of housing, and to identify tools and strategies for overcoming those barriers that can help support and advance Black and Latino communities.   

“We know that communities need a variety of housing types,” says Omar Carrillo Tinajero, director of partnerships and initiatives at the Center for Community Investment (CCI). “If we’re supporting thriving communities, and if in particular we care about communities that have been underinvested and disinvested, we need to ensure that we’re using a variety of tools.”

3C is part of a $400 million, five-year philanthropic commitment by JPMorgan Chase to support Black, Latino, and Hispanic households. CCI and JPMorgan Chase crafted the program based on insights from their place-based development work, and it is designed to support a holistic examination of investments, not one-time projects. “We want to advance systems change, which is critical for inclusive growth in communities,” says Mercedeh Mortazavi, vice president for global philanthropy at JPMorgan Chase. “Our investments will help test new innovations, bring people together to think collaboratively, and aim to be successfully scaled across the country.”

In each city, a lead organization spent significant time in 2021 gathering stakeholders from the nonprofit, municipal, philanthropic, and corporate sectors, as well as from community groups representing local residents, to form a core team.

Together, team members settled on shared priorities and began scrutinizing their local environments to identify gaps and potential solutions. They looked for land use patterns that might support small-scale development—high numbers of vacant lots, for example, or historical housing styles that support both homeowners and renters—as well as for potentially useful tools and resources, then crafted plans around those findings. Some teams are aiming to increase the housing stock available to low-income families for purchase; others are trying to fight gentrification-related displacement by building affordable rental homes.

Despite addressing different issues, the groups have found common ground. This is true both in practice, as they prioritize partnering with developers of color and collaborating with local residents, and on a strategic level, as they research innovative lending, land use, and ownership models that could help transform housing and wealth-building opportunities in their communities.

A Framework for Action

Although 3C is new, the process the teams are using to focus their efforts is time tested. Fundamental concepts like aligning priorities and partnering with a project’s end users—in this case, community members—are part of the capital absorption framework, a tool developed by Robin Hacke, CCI’s executive director, and Marian Urquilla, the organization’s cofounder.

Using the capital absorption framework, many communities have addressed local economic and social challenges like affordable housing by developing shared goals, encouraging a stream of developments rather than focusing on single projects, and improving the enabling environment of pertinent policies and processes that can smooth and speed up that preservation and development pipeline.

“Ultimately, it’s about trying to reorganize, redesign, and reshape how a community imagines its future and lays down track to get there,” says Urquilla. “It’s very hard work—but it will pay dividends down the line.”

Dana Jackson has seen this approach bear real fruit. Jackson, a consultant from Louisville, Kentucky, who has over 25 years of experience in grassroots organizing and policymaking, is 3C’s lead faculty. She coaches the Miami and Chicago teams and leads workshops where all five teams work through exercises focused on their specific environments and the needs of all stakeholders.

In those sessions, says Jackson, each group might be asked to outline its city’s housing system and all the steps involved in developing a home and getting homebuyers or tenants in place. That leads to questions like, “Where does it get bunged up or hung up, and how might we, with a set of partners, make some shifts in that system?” relates Jackson. “I’ve seen teams get really clear on what the system pinches are, and then craft a strategy to address that.”

She agrees with Urquilla that it’s not an easy process. But it’s important groundwork for accomplishing the 3C initiative’s objective: to develop city-specific housing approaches that demonstrate a way to build or preserve affordable housing more easily and equitably—and that can inform efforts elsewhere.

The five cities and their team members all began in different places. Some cities are home to high-capacity nonprofit organizations and existing infrastructure that supports their work, while others have sometimes struggled to connect with resources. Some team members had worked together before and were able to hit the ground running, while others needed time to learn about each other and the best ways to get things done.

Each group has taken a different approach to developing the projects they hope will strengthen affordability and equity in their cities. Here’s a look at the work underway in three of the 3C cities: Chicago, Miami, and Los Angeles.

Chicago: Lowering the Homeownership Threshold

Early in the 3C process, the Chicago team’s members knew they wanted to focus on expanding homeownership. The city’s homeownership rates for Black and Latino families, 35 percent and 43 percent, respectively, are below the national averages.

They also knew they wanted to work with two-flats and four-flats, iconic Chicago housing styles developed in the early 1900s to accommodate immigrants and Black migrants from the South. These traditionally affordable housing options, which comprise a quarter of the city’s current housing stock, have dwindled as people converted them to single-family homes or replaced them with new developments.

The question facing the Chicago team was, what neighborhoods should they focus on as they developed their initial demonstration project? “We wanted to be thoughtful and strategic about where we could make an impact,” says Lynnette McRae, director of the 3C initiative at the Chicago Community Trust, which is the program’s lead organization. The team wanted to pick areas whose residents were already working toward homeownership, and places that had an existing fabric of two-flats and four-flats as well as vacant lots where more could be built.

Eventually, the team decided to focus on Garfield Park and Humboldt Park, both majority Black and Latino communities. Garfield Park is already part of a couple of major redevelopment efforts—one led by the city, another by a coalition of nonprofits—that 3C’s work could leverage and amplify.

The group ran into a roadblock fairly quickly. Efforts to expand homeownership usually target families earning at least 80 percent of area median income (AMI). But Garfield Park and Humboldt Park are low-income communities where most households earn significantly below that.

“Doing an affordable housing project at 100 percent of AMI—that might check a lot of people’s boxes, but we know the vast majority of our residents earn under 60 percent of AMI,” says Mike Tomas, executive director of the Garfield Park Community Council. He and Humboldt Park representatives, as members of the 3C team, pushed for options that could serve more residents.

That point created some tension—“healthy tension,” Tomas calls it—but in the end, the question of how to serve lower-income residents interested in pursuing homeownership has become the central mission of the Chicago team’s work.

This year, the team is moving into a deeper engagement phase, says Ashlee Cunningham, initiative director at CCI, who advises the Chicago team. “Now it’s time for them to build the pipeline of buyers, start thinking about the housing typologies, and look more strategically at what the funding opportunities and needs are.” 

The team is hoping to develop a set of solutions that expands homeownership at both 60–80 percent of AMI and 80–120 percent—but successfully reaching that lower quintile will require solving three key problems. Can the program better identify and prepare potential homeowners through housing counseling? Can creating a flexible lending pool help provide lower-income families with mortgages? And can the team work with developers and the city to acquire land and build more affordable units, so the inventory is there when buyers are ready?

They’re difficult questions, but the team is up for the challenge, says Donna Clarke, chief operating officer of Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, a team member that provides financial assistance, education, and support to help middle-class and working-class families purchase and maintain homes: “It pushes us to find solutions and be innovative.”

When the work of 3C is done, says Cunningham, “we’ll be able to say that this team has created a culture of homeownership, promoted equal access to capital, and expanded an affordable housing inventory. And through those three things, they will create a model for other communities.”

Miami: Betting Big on Small-Scale Development

Last summer, HUD Secretary Marcia Fudge declared Miami “the epicenter of the housing crisis in this country.” That’s not only the result of typical pressures like low supply and gentrification. Financial and regulatory aspects of Florida’s housing environment tend to favor large private developers, and therefore Miami doesn’t have a well-rounded ecosystem that includes small or nonprofit housing developers or experienced community development financial institutions (CDFIs).

In 2018, the organization Miami Homes for All brought together local stakeholders to consider those needs, launching the Greater Miami Housing Alliance to further address them. That coalition worked productively for two years, coming up with a set of policy recommendations for city and state leaders. So when 3C launched in 2021, the Miami team, which includes many participants from the earlier effort, had a head start.

Now, however, the team needed to find projects in their early stages that could illustrate the benefits of the policy changes its members had recommended. “So much had already been done by the Greater Miami Housing Alliance. But we need to be able to build out that approach” to demonstrate what those recommendations could look like in practice, says Lisa Martinez, who leads the Miami team.

The group determined that it wanted to focus on anti-displacement strategies in predominantly Black communities through housing preservation and the construction of small-scale developments. Its members canvassed current housing-related projects throughout the region, eventually choosing to invest in five that illustrate key needs and offer the promise of important learnings.

The five projects they selected are very different. One uses public land for a community land trust model providing homeownership opportunities. Another offers rehabilitation assistance to small-unit landlords facing code violations and fines. Two projects are doing rehab or super-small-scale development but need predevelopment funding. And the fifth is aiming to include low-cost office space in an affordable housing development.

They’re currently all in different stages, with the first one slated to be done by early 2024. 3C will provide funding and project management to help each project get across the finish line. “Each of these deals will encounter barriers we’ll have to overcome,” says Annie Lord, executive director of Miami Homes for All, the team’s lead organization.

The goal is to make policy makers and financial institutions aware of the projects once they’re fully underway, highlighting how money from 3C has been critical to their progress and illustrating how new funding sources from the city—to assist builders in acquiring land, for example, or to help local small-unit landlords renovate their buildings—could make all the difference.

As the projects evolve, the 3C team is working with community members where they are occurring. Because of gentrification, some residents are suspicious of any development activity.

Santra Denis is the executive director of the Miami Workers Center and a core team member. She’s invited people from several neighborhoods to join a residents’ council, aiming to give them a clear voice in the decision-making process. “We’re definitely going to be bringing it all back to the tenants,” she says. “We’ll be talking to them, getting intel, making sure [these developments] feel good to them.” That, she says, is the only way the initiative can work.   

Los Angeles: Diversifying Housing Types

In Los Angeles, the 3C team is working in South LA, where it will prioritize new construction for homeownership, as well as preservation of existing affordable rental units.

But LA has some built-in limitations—namely, the high cost of land. Building new affordable single-family homes on individual lots is simply not feasible there, and group members spent months investigating ways to lower prices. Could they take advantage of SB9, California’s new law allowing homeowners to quadruple density on their properties? Could shared-ownership models help buyers build wealth?  

In the end, they settled on something seemingly more conventional: condos. “Which might not sound that innovative, but it is for South LA. No condos exist there,” says Alejandro Gonzalez, program manager for LA’s 3C initiative. Condos can be purchased with conventional mortgages, and the community is full of underbuilt parking lots and low-rise strip malls that could be repurposed for higher-density housing.  

But even factoring in land use incentives and down payment assistance to get first-time buyers into the units, local costs are so high that the LA team couldn’t find a way to make mortgages available to residents earning less than 80 percent of AMI, which was a goal of many team members. 

“Our biggest challenge has been the desire of many of our community-based partners to serve folks under 80 percent—which we all want to do,” says Tom de Simone, executive director of Genesis LA, a large CDFI that leads the team. The group repeatedly discussed the issue, with some members pointing out that even LA residents who earn 100 percent of AMI struggle to afford homes, and that offering condos at that price point would allow some Black professionals to remain in the South LA neighborhood who would otherwise be priced out.

Marsha Mitchell was one of the team members involved in these discussions. Mitchell, director of communications at Community Coalition, an organization working to transform the social and economic conditions of the neighborhood, says she understands the financial realities in the city that ultimately helped shape the group’s approach—and notes that she appreciated the back and forth. “Just the fact that we had those discussions, it’s really important.”

De Simone says the debate influenced him as well. “It was an eye opener. Maybe we can’t get 100 percent of the units under 80 [percent AMI], but we need to try for some,” he says. He thinks small savings coming from reduced parking, density bonuses, or modular construction could lower prices just enough to make units more affordable. And he muses that if local elected officials see the feasibility of investing in condos to expand the supply of affordable homes, they might eventually commit public funding that could further lower the cost for renters and homebuyers.

The team is also focused on preserving multifamily rentals, but that work won’t start until later this year, when a new state funding source becomes available. For now, the group has its hands full acquiring property suitable for condo construction and finalizing the first project’s design—steps that will be informed, as all the decisions to date have been, by dialogue and consensus building. 

That focus on community and consensus building is a defining characteristic of the 3C initiative, and it will continue to guide the discussions and decisions of all five teams. “A lot of times, the community is an afterthought,” says Mitchell. “That’s one thing that makes this project different.”

In all five cities, 3C program leaders are determined to address the country’s affordable housing crisis in a new way. While they recognize the shared systemic challenges facing communities of color across the country, they view every city as a unique environment whose neighborhoods, history, policy environment, and culture all play important roles in the creation of new housing models—and whose policy makers, practitioners, and residents are best positioned to craft strategies and solutions that will work in their communities. 

Amanda Abrams is a freelance journalist based in Durham, North Carolina.

Lead image: A residential neighborhood in South Los Angeles, with downtown visible in the background. Credit: Misael Vasquez, Southern California HUD Specialist with Century 21 Allstars.

Related Content

President’s Message: Think Land Policy Is Unrelated to Racial Justice? Think Again

As remote and hybrid work evolves from exception to rule, draining downtowns of office workers and money, cities around the world are asking some version of the same question: Can we convert half-empty cubicles and conference rooms into housing?   

For better or worse, Calgary, Alberta, started grappling with that question years ago—and may offer some lessons for cities just now exploring office conversions. 

A city of 1.3 million, Calgary has seen its share of booms and busts as the corporate capital of Canada’s oil and gas industry. But when crude oil prices started sinking in 2014, they took the city’s commercial property market down with them. Office buildings in downtown Calgary have lost about $16 billion in property value since 2015, resulting in a loss of tax revenue that impacts the entire city.  

“The conversations around our office vacancy issue started around 2015,” says Natalie Marchut, program manager for Calgary’s downtown strategy team. “Office vacancy had started climbing, we weren’t seeing any reabsorption, and it started to become quite alarming.” By the time COVID closures hit in 2020, there weren’t a whole lot of downtown office workers left to send home.  

So city officials worked with developers, businesses, and other partners to come up with a plan. With about a third of the office space downtown sitting vacant—some 14 million square feet—the city set a goal of removing 6 million square feet of office inventory over the next 10 years, ideally through residential conversions. With that process now well underway, Calgary’s experience offers some lessons for other cities looking to encourage adaptive reuse.

Offer financial incentives. As Isaac Newton would say, an object at rest tends to stay at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force. Even though converting a half-vacant office building to homes typically costs less than demolishing it and rebuilding from scratch, many property owners don’t have the capacity or desire to take on such a big project, and instead succumb to inertia, letting buildings sit idle. “A big thing we realized was that most building owners weren’t taking the initiative on their own to repurpose those vacant office towers,” Marchut says. So Calgary decided to offer financial incentives to kickstart the process.

The city council approved an initial $100 million in municipal funding in 2021—and another $53 million in November 2022—to support adaptive reuse projects downtown, allowing the city to reimburse developers at $75 per square foot of office space converted. 

Even at that generous rate, which was calculated to cover about a third of the estimated $225-per-square-foot cost of such conversions at the program’s outset, some developers find it hard to make the numbers square, Marchut says, given rising interest rates and inflation. But the first two rounds of the program garnered far more project proposals than there was funding.  

So far, eight conversions have been approved. The first five projects will subtract over 660,000 square feet of office space from the downtown commercial market by converting it into some 700 new homes; the remaining three have yet to be officially announced, as the city first assists with relocating any remaining tenants.

Recalibrate revenue expectations. One concern that came up often in early discussions is that commercial properties are typically taxed at a higher rate than residential ones. “That was a big one that we had to get our heads around, but also help our council get their heads around: When you convert these to residential, they’re going to be taxed at a lower rate, so we’re not going to be getting what we could if they were fully occupied commercial spaces,” Marchut says. “Yes. But we will not see the absorption of 14 million square feet of office space. We just will never get there.”  

The situation is so dire right now that some downtown buildings are assessed for their land value only, she adds. “Of course you need commercial property downtown, and of course they will always pay more to the city in tax revenue—but not if they’re all empty,” Marchut says. Meanwhile, removing excess inventory should reduce the vacancy rate, helping to stabilize and even restore the value of the remaining office space. (Another strategy that can address escalating vacancies in an equitable way, according to researchers, is to implement a split-rate property tax, which taxes lots at a higher rate than the structures on them, thus encouraging landowners to invest in languishing properties.)

Pursuing adaptive reuse has the potential to revive struggling downtowns and sustain them in a new way, says Amy Cotter, director of climate strategies at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, where she relates urban land policy and planning to climate resilience, sustainability, and spatial equity. Converting excess workspace to housing offers the prospect of a 24/7 population keeping a city vibrant and economically healthy, “just differently than when we had central business districts with a 9-to-5 daytime population and suburbanites commuting in,” she explains.

“A significant part of the economy in any city is made up of small business owners who are dependent on people being there and eating in their restaurants, buying their flowers, stopping by the bodega, or what have you,” Cotter says. “So the financial benefit of having residents in those units isn’t necessarily explained or quantified in its entirety by municipal revenue.”   

Prioritize flexibility and simplicity. Beyond offering financial incentives, Calgary is taking other steps to encourage conversions. Most properties downtown, for example, are exempt from change-of-use permitting requirements. “That saves, on average, six months,” Marchut notes, and removes the risk that projects could be bogged down or blocked altogether.

Since developers need to invest an enormous amount of time and money in a project even before proposing it to the city, simply indicating general support for conversions provides an important boost in confidence, Marchut said. “Obviously, you can’t guarantee an approval until you have a plan set in front of you that you can review against the rules. But a notional, ‘Yes, the city is supportive of what you’re trying to achieve on this site,’ goes a long way in giving comfort to developers.”  

To accelerate conversions and attract as many applicants as possible, the city intentionally kept the program simple, without specific affordable housing requirements, for example. Marchut says that has allowed the city to prioritize projects that best align with its equity, climate, and planning goals.  

“Every project that is coming online through this program is doing more than just converting office to residential,” Marchut says. “We’ve got a few that are going to be doing affordable housing . . . we have others that are doing additional public realm improvements—and this is all optional. We don’t require it, but applicants are coming to the table with really solid proposals, because they know the program is so competitive, and so they’re kind of bringing their A game.”  

The program’s first conversion project, The Cornerstone by Peoplefirst Developments, is slated for completion later this year and will create 112 family-oriented apartments; 40 percent of them will be rented below market rate. Another project, the 176-unit Palliser One by Aspen, will include a public park and skating rink at ground level. “We’re going to see a finished product really soon,” Marchut says. “I’m super excited to finally see one open their doors and invite new residents in.” 

Jon Gorey is a staff writer for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. 

Image: The Cornerstone by Peoplefirst Developments, an adaptive reuse project in Calgary, Alberta, will create a family-oriented residence (left) out of a commercial office building (right). Credit: Courtesy of Peoplefirst Developments.

Related Content

President’s Message: Make Way for Mixed Use

E

n publicaciones realizadas en la última Época Dorada, Henry George advirtió acerca de los peligros sociales y económicos de donar plus-valías a propietarios que no habían hecho nada para ganárselas. En esta nueva Época Dorada, la desigualdad económica combinada con tasas de interés persistentemente bajas conduce al empeoramiento de la redistribución de la riqueza, ya que una parte cada vez mayor va a quienes tienen recursos, mientras que a cada vez más familias les resulta imposible pagar los precios desorbitantes de las viviendas decentes. Una consecuencia positiva de la pandemia es que se hizo un llamamiento a la voluntad política para abordar dos desafíos relacionados que tienen su origen en políticas de suelo: la crisis de asequibilidad de las viviendas y las brechas de riqueza provocadas por un racismo estructural.

Entre politólogos y gestores de políticas está surgiendo un consenso sobre que ambos desafíos son el resultado de políticas de suelo excluyentes. Si bien la exclusión es el factor principal, no es el único. Lo que es más importante, no existe una única solución que logre mágicamente que las viviendas sean más asequibles y, al mismo tiempo, disminuya las brechas de riqueza.

Decenas de gobiernos locales, estatales y nacionales (incluido el de Pasco, Washington, que se perfiló en este sentido) están reformando la zonificación residencial que anteriormente solo permitía viviendas unifamiliares independientes. La lógica de esta intervención es razonable. La zonificación unifamiliar limita el desarrollo, ya que impone restricciones como tamaños mínimos de lotes. Como resultado, aumentan los costos de las viviendas, lo que impide que las familias de ingresos más bajos las compren o alquilen en barrios atractivos. Al relajar estas políticas, será posible producir más viviendas a precios más económicos, al menos en teoría.

Los fundamentalistas del mercado aducen que los incentivos financieros son tan poderosos que, si logramos construir dos, cuatro o incluso doce unidades en un predio en el que antes se podía edificar solo una, la solución de la crisis de viviendas asequibles estará garantizada, gracias al aumento de la producción. Pero existe una gran diferencia entre permitir el desarrollo de múltiples unidades y el desarrollo de estas en sí. Y no hay ninguna garantía de que sean asequibles. Se han construido muchos condominios y departamentos prohibitivos en ubicaciones de alta densidad, como la ciudad de Nueva York, donde la escasez de viviendas asequibles es crítica. Una gran cantidad de ellos están vacíos. ¿Cómo pueden lugares como Pasco evitar que suceda lo mismo?

Parte de la respuesta tiene que ver con el mercado de viviendas. Como mencioné antes, la vivienda representa dos mercancías muy diferentes que se comercializan en el mismo mercado. Cada unidad puede satisfacer la demanda de un techo para una familia o la de rendimientos para ávidos inversionistas. Muchas veces, pero no siempre, una vivienda puede satisfacer ambas, cuando es el propietario quien ocupa la unidad. Sin embargo, cada vez más a menudo vemos familias que compiten por un techo disponible con inversionistas saturados de liquidez. A excepción de una intervención innovadora realizada por el Puerto de Cincinnati que analizaré en otro momento, suelen ganar los inversionistas.

A medida que la desigualdad económica global empeora, la brecha entre la provisión de techo y la oportunidad de inversión precipita una escasez inexorable de viviendas asequibles, aunque no de viviendas en sí. En los Estados Unidos, contamos con alrededor de 20 millones más de unidades habitacionales que hogares y hay más viviendas que hogares en todos los mercados de viviendas del país. Según el censo estadounidense, incluso en un mercado reducido como el de Pasco, hay 23.126 unidades habitacionales, pero solo 22.174 hogares. El mercado metropolitano en el que se encuentra Pasco contiene 106.104 unidades habitacionales y 100.336 hogares. Si bien la sobreoferta no es grande, es un buen ejemplo: nuestro problema no es la oferta, sino el tipo de viviendas que ofrecemos (o permitimos que se ofrezca).

Además, la tierra es una mercancía que se comercializa en muchos mercados, como bien de inversión y como bien de usos múltiples: residencial, industrial, comercial y agrícola. El precio del suelo deriva de una compleja combinación de factores sociales, legales y económicos que están prácticamente fuera de la égida del propietario. Si más personas emigran a una ciudad o a un barrio, el valor del suelo sube. Si se realizan mejoras en infraestructura, como tratamiento de aguas residuales o transporte accesible, el valor del suelo sube. Si las políticas locales permiten un desarrollo más intensivo en un predio, su valor aumentará.

¿Quién gana cuando se permiten edificaciones multifamiliares en lotes que solían ser unifamiliares? Los propietarios que reciben plusvalías caídas del cielo están entre los grandes ganadores. Este aumento de la plusvalía pone a los propietarios de la zona en riesgo, ya que puede aumentar los impuestos. Si los cambios de zonificación no se diseñan como parte de una estrategia más amplia que apunte a abordar la capacidad de pago, pueden propiciar desplazamientos sin quererlo. Los urbanistas de Pasco lo saben y están elaborando un conjunto de tácticas integrales y equilibradas para que su comunidad siga siendo asequible. 

Los antecedentes de exclusión racial del país complican aún más los mercados del suelo y la vivienda, y se eluden todas las iniciativas para hacer frente a esta. Históricamente, restricciones de escritura, cláusulas legales y otras prácticas explícitas, aunque hoy en día ilegales, garantizaron la exclusión de las personas de determinados barrios en función de su color de piel, etnia o afiliación religiosa. A esto se sumaron prácticas financieras descaradamente racistas que se establecieron en los orígenes del sistema moderno de financiamiento de viviendas. Durante seis décadas, hemos intentado luchar, con poco éxito, contra estas formas de racismo estructural a través de políticas públicas. Esta historia sirve como moraleja.

A partir de la promulgación de la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964, la Ley de Vivienda Justa de 1968 y la Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades de Crédito de 1974, la nación prohíbe formalmente la discriminación en materia de viviendas y préstamos. La Ley de Reinversión Comunitaria de 1977 impuso más obligaciones de hacer sobre entidades crediticias reguladas a fin de satisfacer las necesidades de crédito de sus comunidades. Aun así, en 2018, el Centro de Periodismo Investigativo analizó 31 millones de hipotecas y descubrió que las entidades crediticias reguladas negaban hipotecas convencionales a personas de color, en un porcentaje significativamente más alto que a las personas blancas en 61 áreas metropolitanas, incluso después de controlar sus ingresos y otros factores socioeconómicos. La brecha racial nacional en cuanto a tasas de adquisición de viviendas es peor hoy que en 1960, cuando comenzaron las iniciativas para abordar la discriminación en materia de vivienda. 

Cerrar la brecha racial de la riqueza requerirá mucho más que nivelar el campo de juego financiero y producir más unidades habitacionales. Contar con viviendas estables y asequibles en zonas de grandes oportunidades es fundamental para el éxito económico de las familias a largo plazo. Pero al incrementar el parque de viviendas no aumenta necesariamente la disponibilidad de viviendas asequibles para familias de bajos ingresos, ni se garantiza que las poblaciones históricamente excluidas tengan acceso a oportunidades para adquirir viviendas que generen riqueza en barrios prósperos.

En casi todos los mercados de viviendas de los Estados Unidos, estamos produciendo demasiadas viviendas del tipo incorrecto y permitiendo que el parque actual quede por fuera del control local. Los alquileres cada vez más altos alientan la transformación de hogares unifamiliares en unidades para alquiler a una escala sin precedentes. Los fondos de inversión inmobiliaria en viviendas unifamiliares para alquiler se han convertido en una excelente oportunidad de inversión. Según CoreLogic, los inversionistas adquirieron más del 25 por ciento de todas las viviendas unifamiliares que se compraron en los Estados Unidos en los últimos dos trimestres de 2021. Una sola reforma de zonificación no cambiará la manera en la que funciona el mercado, y nada hará que el capital global deje de superar las ofertas de las familias que necesitan un techo en las transacciones de viviendas en barrios atractivos, a menos que se tomen otras medidas.

Al redesarrollar antiguas zonas de viviendas unifamiliares, debemos implementar fuertes requisitos de inclusión que obliguen a los propietarios a construir viviendas asequibles. Además, es necesario brindar y proteger oportunidades para que familias que históricamente quedaron excluidas compren casas asequibles y aumenten su patrimonio. En lugar de regalar derechos de desarrollo adicionales a los propietarios, estos deberían venderse. Los derechos de desarrollo se comercializan activamente en muchos mercados privados y algunos públicos de los Estados Unidos. Los municipios podrían recaudar miles de millones de dólares con la venta de estos derechos, y las ganancias se podrían utilizar para iniciativas que aborden la brecha racial de la riqueza mediante, por ejemplo, la provisión de ayudas generosas para pagar anticipos para viviendas o reducir los impuestos sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria.

Una vez que hayamos establecido un suministro razonable de viviendas asequibles, debemos preservarlas. Para esto, habrá que proteger el parque de viviendas asequibles de los mercados de capital global. Esto puede lograrse fácilmente si se aplican impuestos más altos sobre las ganancias de capital obtenidas de transacciones inmobiliarias especulativas. En Taiwán, los impuestos sobre la plusvalía tuvieron un efecto paralizador sobre la especulación inmobiliaria. Además, las restricciones de escritura pueden limitar los precios de venta futuros. Acuerdos de propiedad alternativos, como cooperativas de patrimonio limitado o fideicomisos de suelo comunitarios, pueden garantizar una capacidad de pago permanente. Si no actuamos ya, en las próximas décadas enfrentaremos crisis continuas de vivienda asequible. Pero es importante advertir una cosa: limitar la ventaja financiera para preservar las viviendas asequibles obstaculizará nuestros esfuerzos para eliminar las brechas raciales de la riqueza mediante la adquisición de viviendas. Esto ilustra los desafíos de intervenir en sistemas complejos. Una vez que reconozcamos la complejidad, podremos considerar las posibles negociaciones para encontrar un compromiso práctico y aceptable. 

En el Instituto Lincoln, aplaudimos el reconocimiento de las políticas de suelo como el origen de los mayores desafíos sociales y económicos. Pero las intervenciones simplistas en sistemas de suelo y vivienda complejos no servirán para hacer frente a estos desafíos asombrosamente intrincados. No podemos confiar en el incremento de la oferta de viviendas como si fuera una solución mágica. Debemos sumar otras políticas a la reforma de zonificación y probar distintas combinaciones en un proceso iterativo. A medida que avanzamos, debemos tener presentes las palabras de H. L. Mencken: “Para todo problema humano hay siempre una solución clara, plausible y equivocada”.

Imagen: Este dúplex en Portland, Oregón, es un ejemplo de vivienda “intermedia faltante” (o missing middle), que puede ofrecer opciones más asequibles en barrios que antiguamente eran unifamiliares. Para que sean verdaderamente efectivos, los cambios de zonificación que permiten la disponibilidad de este tipo de viviendas también deben exigir que estas sean asequibles y formen parte de una estrategia de vivienda más amplia. Crédito: Biblioteca de fotos de viviendas intermedias del Instituto Sightline vía Flickr CC BY 2.0.