July 23, 2007
COMMENTARY:Singles on the rise | Providing small, urban housing units could stem suburban sprawl
By Elizabeth Trice, founder
Ecolofts Housing, Portland
Until recently, if you lived alone and earned an average income, you could forget about owning a home without either some sort of subsidy or a very long commute. That may be about to change, one town at a time.
As of the 2000 Census, households consisting of a single adult living alone became the largest household type both nationally and in Maine, where almost 30% of all households are one person living alone. This group is growing at four times the rate of households with two or more people, and made up 60% of all new households added to the state between 1990 and 2005. And despite the fact that they make half what other households make, they're buying houses, and they're especially buying condos.
The National Association of Realtors reports that almost 40% of homes purchased in 2006 were bought by unmarried people ˆ and this number is growing.
What's interesting about this situation is that while many towns might think about affordable homeownership in terms of young working class families in the suburbs, homeowners are more likely to range in age from early 30s to retiring baby boomers. They are college-educated and prefer living in downtowns. There is evidence that people living alone, particularly women ˆ who buy twice as many homes as men ˆ prefer smaller, less expensive properties, preferably in urban areas, where a number of conveniences and opportunities for social interaction exist.
Meanwhile, market trends are leaning towards larger homes further from service centers. An analysis I did of homes sold in Greater Portland in 2004 showed that those properties affordable to the average person living alone were more than 40 minutes from Portland, at which point the costs of commuting start to outweigh the savings in house costs. This adds to transportation costs, which already make up almost 20% of the average household budget nationally.
At a time when many are concerned about retaining young people and providing for aging baby boomers, providing smaller, more affordable homeownership opportunities will be key. Add to that concerns about revitalizing downtowns and reducing traffic ˆ and interest in increasing walking and other healthy activities ˆ and there is a revolution waiting to happen.
With one-person and single-headed households becoming the norm, towns have the opportunity to integrate more of these people, many of whom have extra time, education, and other resources to share with the rest of the community. Allowing smaller, less expensive homeownership housing in village centers and downtowns can free up rental units and homeownership subsidies for families that need them.
For towns and cities hoping to revitalize their downtowns, allowing smaller, denser housing increases the amount of foot traffic to local businesses, and may eventually create some of the density needed for regional transit. What's more, since people living alone need less space, there is the possibility that housing can be built without the subsidies usually expected in affordable housing developments.
Ironically, local zoning makes it very difficult to build housing for the people that many towns would like to attract: young educated singles and aging baby boomers with disposable income. Ordinances that restrict small lots or multi-"family", urban-style housing tend to push development towards large units on large suburban or rural lots. In urban areas, ordinances requiring one or more off-street parking spaces per housing unit have the net effect of incentivising luxury condominiums that are prohibitively expensive.
What's to be done? Towns can look at their local zoning ordinances and allow both accessory units and small units built closer together in village centers and downtowns. Other states have developed Small Ownership Unit ordinances that allow greater density and reduced parking for housing units that are small enough to discourage inhabitation by more than one person ˆ in single-family homes this is often under 1,000 sq. ft., and condos can be capped as low as 650 sq. ft. Another tool is to count condos under 500 sq. ft. as half a unit, hence allowing more of them. Towns that want to increase affordable homeownership can identify just who needs that housing ˆ is it actually a young family or is it really a divorced baby boomer? Also keep an eye out for new types of housing that include some shared amenities ˆ such as home office space, guest rooms, or shared cars ˆ as a way to make units more affordable to people who live alone.
One such development to watch is a project on which I'm currently consulting: Random Orbit Inc.'s 26-unit condo development on High and Danforth streets in Portland. With condos starting under 500 sq. ft., limited parking, shared cars, green building standards and prices a single worker can afford, this development will be a test case for the demand for this type of housing. After all, there's no shortage of potential buyers, and there's money to be made.
Ecolofts Housing, Portland
Until recently, if you lived alone and earned an average income, you could forget about owning a home without either some sort of subsidy or a very long commute. That may be about to change, one town at a time.
As of the 2000 Census, households consisting of a single adult living alone became the largest household type both nationally and in Maine, where almost 30% of all households are one person living alone. This group is growing at four times the rate of households with two or more people, and made up 60% of all new households added to the state between 1990 and 2005. And despite the fact that they make half what other households make, they're buying houses, and they're especially buying condos.
The National Association of Realtors reports that almost 40% of homes purchased in 2006 were bought by unmarried people ˆ and this number is growing.
What's interesting about this situation is that while many towns might think about affordable homeownership in terms of young working class families in the suburbs, homeowners are more likely to range in age from early 30s to retiring baby boomers. They are college-educated and prefer living in downtowns. There is evidence that people living alone, particularly women ˆ who buy twice as many homes as men ˆ prefer smaller, less expensive properties, preferably in urban areas, where a number of conveniences and opportunities for social interaction exist.
Meanwhile, market trends are leaning towards larger homes further from service centers. An analysis I did of homes sold in Greater Portland in 2004 showed that those properties affordable to the average person living alone were more than 40 minutes from Portland, at which point the costs of commuting start to outweigh the savings in house costs. This adds to transportation costs, which already make up almost 20% of the average household budget nationally.
At a time when many are concerned about retaining young people and providing for aging baby boomers, providing smaller, more affordable homeownership opportunities will be key. Add to that concerns about revitalizing downtowns and reducing traffic ˆ and interest in increasing walking and other healthy activities ˆ and there is a revolution waiting to happen.
With one-person and single-headed households becoming the norm, towns have the opportunity to integrate more of these people, many of whom have extra time, education, and other resources to share with the rest of the community. Allowing smaller, less expensive homeownership housing in village centers and downtowns can free up rental units and homeownership subsidies for families that need them.
For towns and cities hoping to revitalize their downtowns, allowing smaller, denser housing increases the amount of foot traffic to local businesses, and may eventually create some of the density needed for regional transit. What's more, since people living alone need less space, there is the possibility that housing can be built without the subsidies usually expected in affordable housing developments.
Ironically, local zoning makes it very difficult to build housing for the people that many towns would like to attract: young educated singles and aging baby boomers with disposable income. Ordinances that restrict small lots or multi-"family", urban-style housing tend to push development towards large units on large suburban or rural lots. In urban areas, ordinances requiring one or more off-street parking spaces per housing unit have the net effect of incentivising luxury condominiums that are prohibitively expensive.
What's to be done? Towns can look at their local zoning ordinances and allow both accessory units and small units built closer together in village centers and downtowns. Other states have developed Small Ownership Unit ordinances that allow greater density and reduced parking for housing units that are small enough to discourage inhabitation by more than one person ˆ in single-family homes this is often under 1,000 sq. ft., and condos can be capped as low as 650 sq. ft. Another tool is to count condos under 500 sq. ft. as half a unit, hence allowing more of them. Towns that want to increase affordable homeownership can identify just who needs that housing ˆ is it actually a young family or is it really a divorced baby boomer? Also keep an eye out for new types of housing that include some shared amenities ˆ such as home office space, guest rooms, or shared cars ˆ as a way to make units more affordable to people who live alone.
One such development to watch is a project on which I'm currently consulting: Random Orbit Inc.'s 26-unit condo development on High and Danforth streets in Portland. With condos starting under 500 sq. ft., limited parking, shared cars, green building standards and prices a single worker can afford, this development will be a test case for the demand for this type of housing. After all, there's no shortage of potential buyers, and there's money to be made.
Most Recent
Most Recent
Comments