Terner Center Blog: No Limits

Putting the Tool to Work: Takeaways from the Housing Development Dashboard

Posted on by Carol Galante

The Terner Center’s recent release of the Housing Development Dashboard was met with enthusiasm from media outlets, practitioners, and policymakers, all commenting on its important contribution to our understanding of local housing production and related policies. I want to share some of my biggest takeaways from the Dashboard, to illustrate why and how I think it can provide critical insight into these issues, and help to pave a way forward in addressing our housing challenges in the Bay Area and eventually, nationwide.

In many ways, the Dashboard validates, and provides evidence for, much of my intuition (honed from a career in local and federal public service and affordable housing development in California) around the challenges and opportunities in housing policy. At a high level, the Dashboard confirms three key things:

  1.  A locality’s zoning is a critical factor in calculating the impact specific policy levers - such as changes to density and parking requirements - might have on housing production.
  2. Underlying market conditions (such as construction costs and rents) play the largest role in determining project feasibility. If policymakers do not adequately consider economic feasibility, policy responses will be inadequate or have unintended consequences.
  3. Inclusionary housing policies, in particular, are sensitive to the way market factors and other local planning policies interact in a place. When assessing their potential impact, inclusionary policies should be looked at in terms of the way they both affect, and in turn are affected by, these factors.
The Importance of Zoning

The Policy Gauge part of the Dashboard demonstrates that for some communities, go-to policy levers like increasing density or reducing parking ratios may be necessary, but on their own totally insufficient, for these types of communities to contribute their fair share to new residential development. Why? Because zoning in such communities overwhelmingly favors the development of single family homes. Consequent to this, current planning practices simply won’t generate a sufficient amount of multifamily housing to make a difference; applying all other policy levers (e.g. density and parking) in these communities just won’t move the dial. 

Let’s take the examples of Menlo Park and San Francisco as two extremes. The Policy Gauge shows us that Menlo Park has a baseline potential to add between 70 and 459 more housing units on top of its current count of 13,313. If you take the midpoint of that range (264 units), Menlo Park’s housing stock increases by less than 2 percent!

Looking at the same question in San Francisco, you get a very different picture. San Francisco has a baseline potential to add between 34,771 and 40,214 housing units to its current total housing stock of 372,560 units.  Using the midpoint of 37,492, you see there is a 10% potential increase in the overall housing stock in San Francisco.  While Menlo Park is a much smaller community and certainly couldn’t be expected to contribute as much new housing as San Francisco, its baseline zoning still leaves its’ housing production woefully, and proportionally, inadequate.

The Concurrent Importance of Market Forces

The above takeaway articulates why more appropriately zoned land improves the relative impact of policy levers. Meanwhile, underlying market conditions are also a significant variable, and influence development feasibility. The Dashboard shows that there is a highly sensitive interaction between policy levers and market conditions, and this interaction should be closely examined as part of the policy dialogue.

Let’s break that down by comparing San Francisco and Oakland. These communities both have a much larger share of appropriately zoned land (than, say, Menlo Park). The costs involved in production (e.g. construction and labor) are also similar. However, the application of the same policy lever (such as 30% reduction in parking or 40% increase in density) in these two jurisdictions will not produce the same results in terms of number of housing units built. Why?

Because variations in local market conditions, such as rents, heavily shape the feasibility of a development in that place. Although the Development Calculator doesn’t yet show project development probabilities by jurisdiction, it does show exactly how these market factors change the development calculus. Though there is a boom in interest, more projects and sites are still marginal for new development in Oakland because Oakland’s market isn’t in the same place as San Francisco; an identical development won’t have the same odds of getting constructed in each city, nor will it have equal odds in different neighborhoods within the same city.

Returning to the Gauge, we can see that adjustments to Oakland’s parking and retail requirements will make a huge difference there because it lowers the cost of development - making lower market rents more feasible (see chart below). In San Francisco on the other hand, policy levers such as a reduction in permitting time would actually have a much greater impact, relative to other levers. These variations can be accounted for in three ways:

  1. The market in San Francisco can absorb existing costs better.
  2. San Francisco has already taken steps to decrease parking ratios, for example, so lowering them further more has less impact.
  3. Timelines for approval and permitting are currently so long in San Francisco that decreasing them, by for example, 33%, makes a substantial difference.[1]

Ultimately, the Dashboard shows that existing zoning rules and underlying market conditions interact in idiosyncratic ways depending on the place. When considering what policies to apply in that place, and the impact those policies might have on overall housing production, it is essential to understand, and look closely at, this market-policy interaction. My third biggest takeaway, focusing on affordable housing inclusionary and in-lieu fee ordinances, underscores this idea.

Inclusionary: Not a Standalone Policy

The Dashboard tells two stories: one about the influence of policy and market conditions on housing production overall, and the other about the influence of these factors on affordable housing in particular. When assessing the impact inclusionary ordinances might have, we need to look carefully at how market forces and policies are converging and how this will affect, and be affected by them.

Let’s take a couple more specific examples. The City of Oakland adopted a policy that made upward adjustments to the income levels served (up to 120% of area median income) so that more developments could be economically feasible. The Dashboard predicts this will result in the production of more affordable units than if a lower affordability standard were in place, and that they will likely be built on-site. This is not perhaps what advocates expect, but it certainly supports a closer examination of inclusionary stipulations.

Oakland also, wisely, doesn’t have a one-size-fits-all policy for every neighborhood within its borders, instead accommodating differing market conditions at a smaller scale. If the City were to adopt a parking ratio of 30 percent and reduce ground floor retail requirements by 30 percent, it could increase housing production by 64 percent, including a 57 percent increase in affordable housing, as the below graphic shows.

To put a finer point on it, maxing out these levers while simultaneously increasing density by the maximum amount as well, with existing inclusionary policies in place, could result in nearly 100% more housing production, including of affordable units.  Adopting more expansive inclusionary policies alone would not have this magnitude of outcome. Furthermore, if you implemented these other policy levers, it would also be feasible to lower income levels for affordability targets without significantly impacting the number of units that get built.

Oakland’s case illustrates the importance of drilling down into not just the intent of these policies, but their impact when considered in context of current market conditions, and policies already in place on the ground. Ultimately, just “piling on” inclusionary requirements without looking at these market and policy interactions will backfire (less, and less affordable units, will get built overall and fewer fees will be paid).

In experimenting with the way the tool helps policymakers do this, Rachel Flynn, Director of Planning and Building for the City of Oakland noted: “The Housing Development Dashboard will help elected officials develop policies based on nuanced and relevant data – as they consider the varying opinions and viewpoints of interest groups.  We look forward to putting the Dashboard to good use in Oakland.”

The Dashboard allows us to better understand current conditions and assess whether the right enabling environment is in place to address our community’s housing challenges. It positions us to chart a clearer, more informed path forward. As we look towards expanding the Dashboard, it will contribute to these efforts at the local, state, and national level, and contribute meaningfully to the future of our housing landscape.

[1] Total permitting times include both approvals and ministerial permitting. Because the proportion of time reduced (rather than number of months) is the same in both cities, it follows that the percent increase in housing units is similar in San Francisco and Oakland.

Launching the Housing Development Dashboard

Posted on by Carol Galante

In the short time since we launched the Terner Center for Housing Innovation, I have been inundated with requests to weigh-in on the issue of how to best address the housing affordability crisis- not just at its epicenter in the San Francisco Bay Area- but in similarly situated high job growth regions from Boston to San Diego. While there are multiple contributing factors to the crisis, I keep coming back to one simple premise: supply matters, and we need to expand housing supply in equitable and environmentally sustainable ways.  This statement rarely makes anyone happy.  Most want to hear answers…

Why By-Right Affordable Housing in California is the Right Thing to do

Posted on by Carol Galante

The following piece was originally drafted as a letter of support for Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed legislation to streamline local housing approvals. The original letter, with citations, can be found here.   The Permit Streamlining Act. On May 13, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown proposed a change to state law that would streamline affordable housing proposals and spur much needed housing production. Introduced as a part of the administration’s May Revision to the 2016-17 Budget, the by-right bill would effectively change the way local jurisdictions approve housing projects. In doing so, Brown has acknowledged that in order to facilitate more building throughout…

Has The Expansion of American Cities Slowed Down?

Posted on by Issi Romem
Filed under: Informing the Dialogue,

This piece originally appeared on the BuildZoom blog. The original post can be found here. Key takeaways: As a whole, U.S. cities maintained a constant pace of outward expansion into rural territory since the 1950s, but behind the facade two groups of thriving cities are behaving very differently. The first group of cities substantially reduced the pace of outward expansion beginning in the 1970s, channeling its economic strength into higher property values. This group includes San Francisco, Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Diego, Washington, Philadelphia, Portland and Miami. In contrast, the second group of cities accelerated its outward expansion,…

Urban Revival? Not For Most Americans

Posted on by Jed Kolko

The U.S. population is now less urban than before the start of the housing bubble. While well-educated, higher-income young adults have become much more likely to live in dense urban neighborhoods, most demographic groups have been left out of the urban revival. In recent years, numerous studies and media reports have documented that college-educated young adults have been drawn to urban centers. At times some have claimed a broader demographic reversal in which cities grow faster than suburbs, and even the end of the suburbs. But, in fact, the U.S. continues to suburbanize. The share of Americans living in urban…

Why Millennials Still Live With Their Parents

Posted on by Jed Kolko

This piece originally appeared on Jed Kolko's blog. The original post can be found here. The entire increase in young adults living with their parents over the past twenty years can be explained by demographic shifts. That means the high share of millennials living with parents today might be the new normal. This morning the Census reported that more young adults are living with their parents in 2015 than during the recession. Despite widespread expectations (including my own) that young people would move out as the job market recovered, they are not. The share of 18-34 year-olds living with parents…

Federal Housing Administration Delivers Success

Posted on by Carol Galante

Today, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) delivered its Annual Report to Congress and the report demonstrates that FHA met and exceeded the 2% capital reserve requirement for the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (MMIF) and improved the Fund value by over $40 billion since it went negative in fiscal year 2012. This good news validates that the policies put in place by FHA over the last 7 years have enabled FHA to strengthen its financial position while also strengthening the economy and providing access to mortgage credit to millions of families. The FHA team deserves tremendous credit for this achievement. The…

Housing Highlights from the 2014 American Community Survey

Posted on by Jed Kolko
Filed under: Demographic Trends,

The Census Bureau has just released the 2014 American Community Survey (ACS), the most detailed and comprehensive regular source of housing data for the U.S. and local areas. The data show a housing market that remains in recovery, with concerns about rental affordability alongside longer-term issues like declining homeownership. As always, underlying the national trends are huge differences among local markets. Here are the housing highlights from the 2014 ACS, with more detail available in this slide deck. Homeownership and household formation: The homeownership rate fell to 63.1% in 2014 from 63.5% in 2013, down from a peak of 67.3%…

Who Is Actually Forming New Households?

For several quarters, the Census has reported an increase in household formation. This is the turnaround that the housing market has been waiting years for. During the recession, the number of households grew slowly, as young adults increasingly stayed in their parents’ homes and others doubled up, too, with siblings, adult children, or roommates. Now, the job market has improved, and household formation is on the rise, approaching or exceeding historical averages. As new households form, they fill up vacant homes, pushing up prices and rents. In response, homebuilders build more, which in turn adds to overall economic activity. But…

Housing: The Silent Crisis?

This piece was originally published on the J. Ronald Terwilliger Foudation for Housing America's Families Blog on June 30th, 2015. The original post can be found here. June 18th marked the official launch of the J. Ronald Terwilliger Foundation for Housing America’s Families. As a member of their National Advisory Committee, I was in attendance for the event, and had the opportunity to share some thoughts on the “Silent Housing Crisis.” The subject is of particular interest as I prepare to launch The Terner Center for Housing Innovation, which shares many of the goals of JRT Housing. Both JRT Housing…