scholarly journals The low-income single-family house and the effectiveness of architects in affecting affordability

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron Dulaney
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Affordable Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
The United States ◽  
Single Family ◽  
Actual Effectiveness ◽  
Family Housing ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
House Design ◽  
Family House

Architects are increasingly engaged in efforts to provide affordable, owner-occupied housing in the United States. Yet architects’ roles in broadly addressing affordable housing remain marginal as was anecdotally evident by the absence of architects at a recent university-sponsored affordable housing workshop. Apparently, the potential contributions of architects in “the development of innovative approaches and best practices” related to affordable, owner-occupied housing is not always valued to housing policymakers and planners such as those who organized this workshop. This paper speculatively explores the gap between the potential value of architects and their actual effectiveness at realizing widespread relevancy, innovation, and change in improving the quality and attainability of affordable, owner occupied housing and how this gap may contribute to the undervaluation and marginalization of architects’ efforts to address affordable housing needs in the United States. Case studies of several recent U.S. house design competitions exemplify these gaps. Potential strategies for closing these gaps and thus appreciating the value of architects’ efforts in this endeavor are identified.To become central in providing much-needed affordable, owner-occupied housing, architects must make the value of their potential contributions evident. This requires a clear definition of design goals, a rigorous assessment of built projects, and the thorough dissemination of findings and methodologies. Architects must engage those fields to which they have, in the U.S., long relinquished affordable, single-family housing. Architects must demonstrate that qualitative design improvements are not just possible within the frameworks and agendas of those other fields but that good design will better enable the achievement of those extra-disciplinary goals.

Millennial ‘YIMBYs’ and boomer ‘NIMBYs’: Generational views on housing affordability in the United States

2020 ◽  
pp. 003802612091612
Author(s):  
Max Holleran
Keyword(s):  
Baby Boomers ◽  
Affordable Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Rental Housing ◽  
The United States ◽  
Housing Affordability ◽  
Single Family ◽  
Market Rate ◽  
Job Opportunities ◽  
Housing Costs

This article examines housing activism in five American cities using interviews with millennial-age housing activists, seeking more apartment development, and baby boomers who are members of neighbourhood groups that oppose growth. Many of the groups supporting growth have banded together under the banner of the ‘Yes in My Backyard’ (YIMBY) movement which seeks fewer zoning laws and pushes for market-rate rental housing. In desirable cities with thriving job opportunities, housing costs are pricing out not only low-income renters but also the middle class. The millennial activists sampled blame baby boomers for the lack of affordable housing because of resistance to higher density construction in neighbourhoods with single-family homes (characterising these people as having a ‘Not in My Backyard’ [NIMBY] mindset). The research shows that boomers and millennials not only disagree over urban growth but also more fundamental questions of what makes a liveable city.

scholarly journals Planning for affordable housing, its engagement with mixed use planning, and revising how affordability is defined

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karla Tamayo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Affordable Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
The United States ◽  
Housing Developments ◽  
Mixed Use ◽  
Market Trends ◽  
Emerging Themes

Affordable housing has become synonymous with mixed-use planning within affordable housing strategies across Canada and the United States. This paper first looks to understand why planning for affordable housing has widely engaged with mixed-use planning, then looks to understand the resulting impacts by summarizing recent empirical research within the intersection of affordable housing and mixed-use planning, and outlining emerging themes. This paper finds that affordable housing that engages with mixed-use planning is often associated with gentrification efforts, displacement, and inequitable development. Specifically analyzing the role that definitions of affordability and applications of these definitions have in relation to gentrification efforts, displacement, and inequitable development, this paper finds that mixed-use, affordable housing developments that insist on using market-level measures of affordability will continue to demonstrate the potential to cater to market trends instead of the needs of low-income residents if intervening measures are not in place.

scholarly journals Shared Equity Homeownership in the United States: A Literature Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meagan M. Ehlenz ◽  
Constance Taylor
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Housing Policy ◽  
Affordable Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current State ◽  
Shared Equity ◽  
Scholarly Discourse

This article reviews the concept of shared equity homeownership (SEH) in the United States. The review examines the origins of the SEH model and its historic precedents. It considers the impetus for SEH, setting the discourse within the context of US housing policy and, specifically, low-income homeownership research. Subsequently, the review assesses the current state of SEH research, including the evidence associated with SEH as an affordable housing strategy, its application and challenges in the field, and gaps in the scholarly discourse.

scholarly journals Affordable Housing Crisis or Shortage?: Reconciling Legal Scholarship with Free Market Solutions Over the Use of Eminent Domain for Economic Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony W. Cosgrove
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Affordable Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Free Market ◽  
The United States ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Difficult Time ◽  
Low Income Families

Throughout the United States, low-income families are having an increasingly difficult time finding an affordable place to live.[1] Due to high rents, static incomes, and a shortage of housing, local communities, particularly in urban areas, are struggling to fight off this wave of decline and displacement.[2] Currently in the U.S., an estimated 12 million families are now spending more than half of their income on rent.[3] According to Federal Guidelines, “[f]amilies who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.”[4]A large reason for this overspending by low-income families is that the supply of affordable housing is shrinking.[5] Landlords and tenants both are adding to the affordable housing problem as “all sides are being squeezed.”[6] Today, most new construction on rental housing is for the high-end market, “not for low and middle-income families.”[7] So while the problem is clear, the cause of the problem is anything but.This note seeks a better understanding of the current housing problems plaguing local communities around the United States. Whether it is attributable to a crisis of societal construction or a shortage in the supply of affordable housing, this note attempts to reconcile current legal scholarship on local government initiatives, and 

scholarly journals Affordable Housing Crisis or Shortage?: Reconciling Legal Scholarship with Free Market Solutions Over the Use of Eminent Domain for Economic Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony W. Cosgrove
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Affordable Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Free Market ◽  
The United States ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Difficult Time ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
Market Solutions

Throughout the United States, low-income families are having an increasingly difficult time finding an affordable place to live.[1] Due to high rents, static incomes, and a shortage of housing, local communities, particularly in urban areas, are struggling to fight off this wave of decline and displacement.[2] Currently in the U.S., an estimated 12 million families are now spending more than half of their income on rent.[3] According to Federal Guidelines, “[f]amilies who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.”[4]A large reason for this overspending by low-income families is that the supply of affordable housing is shrinking.[5] Landlords and tenants both are adding to the affordable housing problem as “all sides are being squeezed.”[6] Today, most new construction on rental housing is for the high-end market, “not for low and middle-income families.”[7] So while the problem is clear, the cause of the problem is anything but.This note seeks a better understanding of the current housing problems plaguing local communities around the United States. Whether it is attributable to a crisis of societal construction or a shortage in the supply of affordable housing, this note attempts to reconcile current legal scholarship on local government initiatives, and economic free market solutions to lower barriers.

scholarly journals Affordable Housing Crisis or Shortage?: Reconciling Legal Scholarship with Free Market Solutions Over the Use of Eminent Domain for Economic Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony W. Cosgrove
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Affordable Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Free Market ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
Market Solutions

Throughout the United States, low-income families are having an increasingly difficult time finding an affordable place to live. Due to high rents, static incomes, and a shortage of housing, local communities, particularly in urban areas, are struggling to fight off this wave of decline and displacement. Currently in the U.S., an estimated 12 million families are now spending more than half of their income on rent. According to Federal Guidelines, “[f]amilies who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing are considered cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.”A large reason for this overspending by low-income families is that the supply of affordable housing is shrinking. Landlords and tenants both are adding to the affordable housing problem as “all sides are being squeezed.” Today, most new construction on rental housing is for the high-end market, “not for low and middle-income families.” So while the problem is clear, the cause of the problem is anything but.This note seeks a better understanding of the current housing problems plaguing local communities around the United States. Whether it is attributable to a crisis of societal construction or a shortage in the supply of affordable housing, this note attempts to reconcile current legal scholarship on local government initiatives, and economic free market solutions to lower barriers.Part I of this note examines the historical background of government initiatives to promote local development primarily through the mechanism of eminent domain. Frequently one of the first tools pulled out of the local government toolkit, eminent domain has evolved over the past century along with a shroud of controversy over its use. Part II details the current problems associated with local governments’ use of eminent domain, particularly regarding its effectiveness (or lack thereof) in accomplishing the government’s intended policy. Part III observes many of the other incentives local governments are using beyond eminent domain and examines their effectiveness in redeveloping their communities for all classes of residents.Part IV reviews current proposals of legal and government-side solutions including “inclusionary” eminent domain, Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs), and Community Development Corporations (CDCs). Part V then proposes alternatives to these regulatory proposals through market-oriented solutions based on increasing the overall supply in the market through deregulation of the zoning and permitting process. Exploring case studies in: Durham, North Carolina: Atlanta, Georgia: and Anaheim, California, this note will make the case that the solution to creating more affordable housing can be found in a reconciliation of both the legal/government and market-based proposals. Part VI offers this reconciliation and provides a comparative study of a proposal first implemented in Rotterdam, Netherlands, and its potential application to local governments in the United States. Lastly, I will conclude this note by describing how local governments should help alleviate the affordable housing problem in light of the reconciliation of government and market-based solutions.

scholarly journals Planning for affordable housing, its engagement with mixed use planning, and revising how affordability is defined

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karla Tamayo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Affordable Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
The United States ◽  
Housing Developments ◽  
Mixed Use ◽  
Market Trends ◽  
Emerging Themes

Affordable housing has become synonymous with mixed-use planning within affordable housing strategies across Canada and the United States. This paper first looks to understand why planning for affordable housing has widely engaged with mixed-use planning, then looks to understand the resulting impacts by summarizing recent empirical research within the intersection of affordable housing and mixed-use planning, and outlining emerging themes. This paper finds that affordable housing that engages with mixed-use planning is often associated with gentrification efforts, displacement, and inequitable development. Specifically analyzing the role that definitions of affordability and applications of these definitions have in relation to gentrification efforts, displacement, and inequitable development, this paper finds that mixed-use, affordable housing developments that insist on using market-level measures of affordability will continue to demonstrate the potential to cater to market trends instead of the needs of low-income residents if intervening measures are not in place.

Getting By

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Hershkoff ◽  
Stephen Loffredo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Affordable Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
The United States ◽  
Labor Rights ◽  
Speaking Up ◽  
The Right

Over the last generation, inequality has risen, wages have fallen, and confidence that children will have a better future is at an all-time low. To be sure, a new generation is speaking up in support of universal health care, better public schools, affordable housing, and livable wages. But until the United States adopts and adheres to policies that ensure dignity and decency for all, people need to get by. This book addresses that imperative. Getting By offers an integrated, critical account of the programs, rights, and legal protections that most directly affect poor and low-income people in the United States, whether they are unemployed, underemployed, or employed, and whether they work within the home or outside the home. Although frayed and incomplete, the American safety net nevertheless is critical to those who can access and obtain its benefits—indeed, in some cases, those benefits can make the difference between life and death. The book covers cash assistance programs, employment and labor rights, food assistance, health care, housing programs, education, consumer and banking laws, rights in public spaces, judicial access, and the right to vote. The book primarily focuses on federal laws and programs, but in some contexts invites attention to state laws and programs. The rules and requirements are complicated, often unnecessarily so, and popular know-how is essential to prevent a widening gap between rights that exist on paper and their enforcement on the ground. The central goal of this volume is to provide a resource to individuals, groups, and communities that wish to claim existing rights and mobilize for progressive change.

Populism and Liberal Democracy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takis S. Pappas
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Comprehensive Theory ◽  
The People ◽  
Original Definition ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Great Relevance ◽  
Definition Of

Based on an original definition of modern populism as “democratic illiberalism” and many years of meticulous research, Takis Pappas marshals extraordinary empirical evidence from Argentina, Greece, Peru, Italy, Venezuela, Ecuador, Hungary, the United States, Spain, and Brazil to develop a comprehensive theory about populism. He addresses all key issues in the debate about populism and answers significant questions of great relevance for today’s liberal democracy, including: • What is modern populism and how can it be differentiated from comparable phenomena like nativism and autocracy? • Where in Latin America has populism become most successful? Where in Europe did it emerge first? Why did its rise to power in the United States come so late? • Is Trump a populist and, if so, could he be compared best with Venezuela’s Chávez, France’s Le Pens, or Turkey’s Erdoğan? • Why has populism thrived in post-authoritarian Greece but not in Spain? And why in Argentina and not in Brazil? • Can populism ever succeed without a charismatic leader? If not, what does leadership tell us about how to challenge populism? • Who are “the people” who vote for populist parties, how are these “made” into a group, and what is in their minds? • Is there a “populist blueprint” that all populists use when in power? And what are the long-term consequences of populist rule? • What does the expansion, and possibly solidification, of populism mean for the very nature and future of contemporary democracy? Populism and Liberal Democracy will change the ways the reader understands populism and imagines the prospects of liberal democracy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document