Search

Inclusion of affordable housing in transit-oriented developments (TODs) is necessary for addressing the mobility and shelter needs of transit-dependent and low-income populations. Affordable housing in TODs, however, remains scarce despite state-level policies, interest group advocacy, and developer enthusiasm. We used a multiple case study method and focused on TOD areas in communities with disadvantaged populations in Southern California to examine barriers to and opportunities for affordable housing. We examined the contents of specific plans adopted by local governments to facilitate TODs around 10 selected transit stations in Los Angeles and Orange counties and conducted interviews with planners, policymakers, and developers involved in achieving affordable housing. Our findings indicated that although TOD specific plans permitted higher-density developments, they neither prioritized affordable housing nor presented a coherent vision for an inclusive transit community that would address the needs of different types of households. Moreover, onerous requirements for securing subsidies, patchwork financing, uncertainties in the approval process, and competition from market-rate housing inhibited affordable housing development. Although we did not analyze community opposition to TODs, it was hinted at by our interviewees. Targeting affordable housing in TODs, providing incentives, and strengthening the institutional framework are critical to achieving inclusive transit communities. The development of TODs in a politically fragmented region like Southern California necessitates a lead organization to procure affordable housing investments and strengthen the housing–transportation nexus. We note broader implications of the findings beyond California. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many fast-growing metropolitan regions face a housing affordability crisis that necessitates cities change their land use policies to address this problem. How do cities in metropolitan regions change their land use policies to equitably address the region's housing needs? We focused on 180 cities in the Southern California region, which has a shortage of housing for all income groups and a severe shortage of affordable housing. We first examined the region-wide distribution of land uses and evaluated whether land use portfolios of cities are associated with their populations' socioeconomic characteristics using cluster analysis and one-way analysis of variance. Next, we examined land use change by cities and measured the "weakening" (a reduction in cities' share of residential land use for multifamily housing from 2008 to 2016) and "exclusiveness" (cities' share of residential land use for single-family housing in 2016) of their land use portfolios. We revealed inequities in the region-wide distribution of multifamily land use, found an association between land use portfolios of cities and their populations' socioeconomic characteristics, and thus conclude that land use change by cities inequitably addresses the region's housing needs. We did not, however, examine the effects of land use change on housing production or affordability, which could provide further insights. Our findings suggest that a) California's state government should require cities to reform their land use policies to mitigate the region-wide inequities in the distribution of multifamily housing and to equitably address the housing affordability crisis and b) researchers could similarly evaluate land use portfolios of cities in other metropolitan regions to suggest how to equitably address the region's housing needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many local governments face the challenge of addressing the shortage of affordable housing. This study examines the effectiveness of incentives and construction alternatives available from Southern California cities and those used by developers to address the need for affordable housing, using a survey research method. The results suggest that while density bonus ranks highest among the incentives available from cities, other incentives—design flexibility, subsidies, and fast-track processing—contribute considerably but were not available from many cities. Because few municipalities can offer subsidies, planners might offer no-cost incentives such as design flexibility and fast-track processing to encourage inclusionary housing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers frequently identify key similarities across certain types of places and develop typologies of places to discuss new development trends, reveal common problems, and recommend solutions. However~ places that share some similarities may also have notable disparities that deserve serious consideration. Scholars recently identified the 50 largest, fast-growing suburban counties in United States metropolitan areas, asserting that they are growing in similar ways, have similar problems, and can benefit from sharing solutions. Given this, the paper focuses on two pairs of southern California counties that are ranked high in the list of 50 counties to examine whether the counties are actually developing differently in important ways. Because the differences are likely to be reflected in neighborhood-scale housing projects, the paper evaluates whether there are considerable differences in the design elements of projects across the two pairs of counties. How might the projects contribute to the relative quality of their emerging urban form? The paper identifies opportunities and challenges for creating a better metropolitan form and concludes with recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]