The Florida Affordable Housing Model Research Project...The Florida Affordable Housing Suitability Model 1. Model structure 2. An example: the AHS in Orange County 3. Evaluating the

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

4

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.

Affordable Housing Suitability

Final Score: 100

Residential Suitability

Score: 25

Rental Housing Cost

Score: 25

Driving Cost

Score: 25

Transit Accessibility

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

Example: AHS in Orange County

5

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 community.

Evaluating the Assisted Housing Inventory

6

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.


7

Model Structure

8

Residential Suitability is composed of: • Physical infrastructure and environment • Neighborhood accessibility • Neighborhood characteristics

Affordable Housing

Suitability


Physical Infrastructure

and Environment

Neighborhood Characteristics

Neighborhood Accessibility

Rental Housing Cost

Driving Cost


9


Model Structure

10

Rental Housing Cost:

Median Gross Rent for the Census Block Group The higher the score the lower the housing cost.

Affordable Housing

Suitability



and Environment



Rental Housing Cost

Driving Cost


11


Model Structure

12

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.

Affordable Housing

Suitability



and Environment



Rental Housing Cost

Driving Cost


13


Model Structure

14

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.

Affordable Housing

Suitability



and Environment



Rental Housing Cost

Driving Cost


15



16

Affordable Housing

Suitability



and Environment



Rental Housing Cost

Driving Cost


17



18

Program analysis 1: HUD properties tend to have higher scores, mainly because of high Transit and Neighborhood Accessibility and low Rental Costs.

Infr

astr

uctu

re +

Envir

onm

enta

l

Ch

ara

cte

ristics (

I)

Ne

igh

bo

rho

od

Chara

cte

ristics (

N)

Ne

igh

bo

rho

od

Accessib

ility

(N

A)

Tota

l R

esid

ential

Suitabili

ty S

core

(I+

N+

NA

=R

1)

Renta

l C

ost

(R2)

Drivin

g C

ost

(D)

Tra

nsit

Accessib

ility

(T

)

Fin

al S

core

=

R1

+R

2+

D+

T

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


19

Age analysis 2: Newest properties tend to have lower scores because of low Transit and Neighborhood 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?

Infr

astr

uctu

re +

Envir

onm

enta

l

Ch

ara

cte

ristics (

I)

Ne

igh

bo

rho

od

Chara

cte

ristics (

N)

Ne

igh

bo

rho

od

Accessib

ility

(N

A)

Tota

l R

esid

ential

Suitabili

ty S

core

(I+

N+

NA

=R

1)

Renta

l C

ost

(R2)

Drivin

g C

ost

(D)

Tra

nsit

Accessib

ility

(T

)

Fin

al S

core

=

R1

+R

2+

D+

T

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

Relationships of AHS scores with other variables

20

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.

Relationships of AHS scores with other variables

21

AHS scores and historical sitting: Properties “built” in the 2000s: AHS location scores improve relative to the previous two decades.


22

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

Florida Housing Finance Properties

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Earliest Year of Funding

Tra

nsit

Acc

esss

Sco

re -

hig

her

scor

e =

grea

ter

tran

sit a

cces

sabi

lity

FHFC

Poly. (FHFC)

23


24


25


Documents

The Florida Affordable Housing Model Research Project...The Florida Affordable Housing Suitability Model 1. Model structure 2. An example: the AHS in Orange County 3. Evaluating the