Workforce Housing

Abstract In many cities, people with jobs essential to daily urban life—bus drivers, teachers, police, nurses and the like—cannot afford housing in proximity to their work. Municipal efforts to counter such job–housing imbalances include targeting such workers specifically or moderate-income households, more broadly, for housing support. This article investigates and assesses housing policy for modest-income workers in two cities, Chicago and London. Based on review of documents and key informant interviews, each city’s policy context, aims, means and outcomes are analyzed. Effective strategies include working with public, private and third-sector partners to find upstream cost-effective solutions, increasing shared equity/ownership products and developing mechanisms to ensure long-term affordability of workforce housing. While each city’s policies reflect local conditions, they also are indicative of broad trends in intermediate housing policy: an increase in stakeholders involved in programme administration and delivery, a continued focus on homeownership, rising income thresholds for eligibility and a shift away from targeting employment sectors.

Abstract The lack of affordable housing has been perceived as a barrier for economic development in rural areas where there is a shortage of housing for the workforce. This article reported the results of a series of Town Hall meetings where workforce housing issues were discussed and the results of an e-mail survey of members of the Georgia Economic Developers Association (GEDA). The GEDA provided a statewide framework linking both public and private organizations with shared interests in economic development. Participants in the Town Hall meetings as well as the economic developers who responded to the survey were not convinced that housing is a key to economic development. Many of the respondents in both groups agreed that there was an inadequate supply of housing types. However, a substantial proportion in both groups thought that there was too much of certain housing types. Relatively high percentages in both groups were unaware of housing finance programs and other incentives to create workforce housing. Both groups identified several important challenges to developing rural workforce housing and felt that funds available to assist with the development of single family and multi-family housing were insufficient to meet current and future demand.

ABSTRACT This work presents a methodology to rank heritage sites regarding rehabilitation, considering both the characteristics of building sites and of the urban environment in the surrounding area. The objective is to aid the decision process of building rehabilitation by ranking the sites according to their potential for re-emergence in the affordable housing rental market. The developed methodology is based on a combination of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and spatial analysis of geographical data, in order to construct an index, the “rehabilitation potential”, which is understandable by rehabilitation technicians and land managers and is applicable to support a list of priorities of building rehabilitation interventions. The methodology was applied to a case study consisting of a set of 33 heritage sites of the workforce housing typology in Lisbon. These were built in the early industrial age in Portugal and are owned by the city municipality. The application of MCDA was a collaborative process that brought together the expertise of the academy and of the public administration. The results included a sensitivity analysis and gave form to a recommendation of five sites, selected from the total workforce housing set, to be rehabilitated in the near future.

here is a specific group of wage-earners who are caught between a rock and a hard place in the housing market in high cost areas. Earning too little to afford a home, they are relegated either to the rental market or to a crushing commute. Earning too much to be considered lowor moderate-income, they don’t qualify for many programs that could help them buy their first home. In the community and economic development field, “workforce housing” generally refers to units geared toward this group of earners falling between 80 and 120 percent of area median income (AMI). While housing these earners— typically teachers, nurses, and firefighters—in the communities where they work is an undisputed community need, financing the developments that would serve this market niche challenges some of our assumptions about what constitutes “affordable housing.” Traditionally, community development activities have been geared toward those households earning less than 80 percent of AMI. But in high cost areas, the argument can be made that policies and resources—and perhaps even CRA consideration—should stretch to accommodate households earning as much as 150 percent of AMI, since they too have difficulty finding affordable housing options. A number of jurisdictions with rising housing costs have established workforce housing initiatives that develop affordable housing and provide homebuyer assistance programs to this group. In addition, private investments around the country are beginning to fill the financing gap. In this article, highlighted are several new and unique Californiabased workforce housing funds aimed at addressing the housing needs of this group of earners. Though in various stages of formation, these funds have brought to the table a wide array of investors. Many financial institutions, which have traditionally been involved in community development, have invested in these funds, but other mission-driven investors such as insurance companies and pension funds have also acknowledged the importance of addressing this need and have made substantial investments. Each of these funds tackles the “soft costs” of development. The cost of equity capital, in particular, can be crippling in Stuck in the Middle Financing Workforce Housing

The challenging task of providing high-quality workforce housing is further complicated in a rent-stabilized housing market such as New York City. Socially conscious, fiscally responsible landlords must conduct major capital improvements and apartment maintenance with an eye toward creating a safe and attractive living environment while also meeting investors’ return expectations. How does a for-profit company add value to its portfolio while managing to keep rents affordable? This case study of Urban American, LLC, examines how one company’s operational model works within rent stabilization laws to create healthy returns and reinvigorate the workforce housing stock in and around New York City. The author would like to thank Urban American, LLC, and especially James Eisenberg, Joshua Eisenberg, Philip Eisenberg, Ann Heath, and Frost Travis for their guidance and goodwill during the course of preparing this case study. Any errors of fact or interpretation are the author’s alone.

Cadorette, A. J. (2009). Employer-assisted housing : a solution to the workforce housing issue in New Hampshire. Retrieved from http://academicarchive.snhu.edu

California is facing a housing crisis. One group that has been highly affected has been the workforce of moderate-income citizens who often have to contribute over 30% of their income towards housing expenses. To answer the question of how best affordable ownership housing programs can serve this group, I analyzed four different models of affordable housing compared to market rate ownership and rental models in the City of Davis. This included Dos Pinos (limited equity housing cooperative), Aggie Village (limited appreciation land trust model), Southfield Park (limited appreciation condo), and the City of Davis Affordable Ownership Housing Program (limited appreciation single family homes). I compared the level of affordability for each model from the year the model was first implemented in Davis, to their status in 2019. I found that while each model of affordable ownership housing was less expensive than the comparable market rate option, certain models were more effective at producing affordable prices as well as increasing affordability over time. These differences should be recognized, and the most effective models should be implemented in future plans for creating affordable workforce housing.

This study analyzes the utility of a panelized exterior wall system in workforce housing. First, it introduces why the need for the project exists. Second, it touches on how Cal Poly procured the project and who the client is. Third, it lays out how the project was dealt with as far as its structure and the roles of the students taking part in the cohort. Fourth, it looks at the process of designing the panels, the various restrictions the students had to deal with in designing them, and how the panels changed over time due to new constraints being made or due to the constraints being loosened. Fifth, it discusses why certain panel design decisions were made and how the design of the panels affects the overall design and cost of the house. Finally, the study concludes by explaining the lessons learned from this panel design process and what the advantages and disadvantages of panelization were. The method of panelization discussed is not the most sustainable building method, however, in this specific case, panelization did provide for a large labor cost saving for the client. Since the primary goal of the project was to help working families to afford a home, panelization helped to make the project a success.

The United States and Spain have a varied history in their efforts to provide and preserve affordable housing. While one of Spain’s main housing issues is its dearth of rental housing, the United States is troubled by a significantly higher percentage of housing cost-burdened residents. In Spain, an estimated 10% of the total population was housing cost-burdened in 2013 (defined as paying over 40% of income on housing). In contrast, an alarming 37% of US households were housing cost-burdened in 2017 (defined in as paying over 30% of income on housing). While the histories of housing policies and initiatives have differed greatly in both countries, historical and current trends demonstrate that there is still much to be done. This article examines housing policies in Spain and the United States, highlights progressive housing policies emerging from Austin, Texas and provides a case study of a workforce housing development in Austin, Texas. The reader will gain an understanding of how these policies, tools and developments could serve as an example for addressing Spain’s housing crisis.