The Florida Affordable Housing Suitability Model Florida Housing Coalition State Conference Sept. 27, 2011
The Florida Affordable Housing Suitability Model Supported with funding from: Wells Fargo Bank of America John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation 2
The Florida Affordable Housing Suitability Model 1. Model structure 2. An example: the AHS in Orange County 3. Evaluating the Assisted Housing Inventory through the AHS scores 3
Model Structure Affordable Housing Suitability Final Score: 100 Residential Suitability Rental Housing Cost Driving Cost Transit Accessibility Score: 25 Score: 25 Score: 25 Score: 25 AHS: A GIS model where variables are combined in four components to define the degree in which a given area is suitable for the development and preservation of affordable housing Scoring: Each component is assigned a score between 0 and 25 where: 0 is not suitable and 25 is highly suitable. The component scores are a reflection of the current interrelationships among the set of spatial characteristics; the relationships are relative to local conditions, there are no external standards, thresholds or benchmarks. 4
Example: AHS in Orange County Note: In this example all the variables within the same component were equally weighted. Alternatively we could use a weighting tool to capture the preferences of the 5 community.
Evaluating the Assisted Housing Inventory Method: Each property in the Assisted Housing Inventory in Orange County was assigned a score based on the average of the AHS result in an area defined by a radius of 400 meters from the property location. 6
Evaluating the Assisted Housing Inventory 7
Model Structure Affordable Housing Suitability Residential Suitability Rental Housing Cost Driving Cost Transit Accessibility Physical Infrastructure and Environment Characteristics Accessibility Residential Suitability is composed of: Physical infrastructure and environment accessibility characteristics 8
Example: AHS in Orange County 9
Model Structure Affordable Housing Suitability Residential Suitability Rental Housing Cost Driving Cost Transit Accessibility Physical Infrastructure and Environment Characteristics Accessibility Rental Housing Cost: Median Gross Rent for the Census Block Group The higher the score the lower the housing cost. 10
Example: AHS in Orange County 11
Model Structure Affordable Housing Suitability Residential Suitability Rental Housing Cost Driving Cost Transit Accessibility Physical Infrastructure and Environment Characteristics Accessibility Driving Cost: Estimated using length and number of trips (including work, shopping, social and recreation, and other home- and non-home-based trips from NHTS 2009 data) in combination with other factors such as density, land use mix, and street connectivity. 12
Example: AHS in Orange County 13
Model Structure Affordable Housing Suitability Residential Suitability Rental Housing Cost Driving Cost Transit Accessibility Physical Infrastructure and Environment Characteristics Accessibility Transit Accessibility: Estimated through three steps: Where does the transit route go, especially in terms of employment opportunities (density and proximity). Transit distance and time taking into account routes and frequencies. Proximity and density of transit stops in relation to residential locations. 14
Example: AHS in Orange County 15
Example: AHS in Orange County Affordable Housing Suitability Residential Suitability Rental Housing Cost Driving Cost Transit Accessibility Physical Infrastructure and Environment Characteristics Accessibility 16
Example: AHS in Orange County 17
Infrastructure + Environmental Characteristics (I) Characteristics (N) Accessibility (NA) Total Residential Suitability Score (I+N+NA=R1) Rental Cost (R2) Driving Cost (D) Transit Accessibility (T) Final Score = R1+R2+D+T Evaluating the Assisted Housing Inventory HUD (33) 4.6 4.5 5.9 14.9 17.8 16.7 13.4 62.9 FHFC + LHFA (23) 3.8 5.3 4.7 13.8 15.7 17.0 11.4 58.0 LHFA (13) 4.3 4.5 5.0 13.7 16.4 17.3 9.5 56.9 FHFC (82) 3.4 6.2 4.5 14.0 15.5 16.0 6.9 52.5 Guarantee (8) 3.5 5.7 4.7 13.9 17.2 14.3 6.8 52.2 RD (9) 2.1 3.6 4.1 9.8 17.6 14.7 4.3 46.4 Program analysis 1: HUD properties tend to have higher scores, mainly because of high Transit and Accessibility and low Rental Costs. 18
Infrastructure + Environmental Characteristics (I) Characteristics (N) Accessibility (NA) Total Residential Suitability Score (I+N+NA=R1) Rental Cost (R2) Driving Cost (D) Transit Accessibility (T) Final Score = R1+R2+D+T Evaluating the Assisted Housing Inventory 1960's (6) 7.2 1.8 6.8 15.8 16.8 20.9 22.3 75.7 1970's (14) 4.7 3.8 5.6 14.1 18.4 16.2 12.5 61.2 1980's (29) 3.5 5.0 5.1 13.7 17.4 16.1 9.9 57.1 1990's (69) 3.5 5.8 4.5 13.8 16.0 15.7 6.6 52.1 2000's (48) 3.4 6.0 4.6 14.0 15.4 16.3 8.9 54.7 Age analysis 2: Newest properties tend to have lower scores because of low Transit and Accessibility although they fare better in terms of social characteristics. However, properties built in the 2000 s show higher scores and better accessibility. Does this reflect current policy priorities and outcomes of the UAC? 19
Relationships of AHS scores with other variables AHS scores and historical sitting: Properties built in the 1980s and 1990s: The trend towards the suburbanization of assisted housing properties intensifies, AHS scores for these two decades are lower. 20
Relationships of AHS scores with other variables AHS scores and historical sitting: Properties built in the 2000s: AHS location scores improve relative to the previous two decades. 21
Evaluating the Assisted Housing Inventory Florida Housing Finance Properties 30.0 Transit Accesss Score - higher score = greater transit accessability 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 FHFC Poly. (FHFC) 0.0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Earliest Year of Funding Age analysis 2: In the case of FHFC properties this priority for highest transit accessibility is clear when plotting the scores against the year of funding 22
Example: AHS in Orange County 23
Example: AHS in Orange County 24
Example: AHS in Orange County 25