Does Affordable Housing Make the Surrounding Neighborhood Less Affordable?
A Urban Institute research brief found that affordable housing developments in Alexandria, Virginia, were associated with a small increase in surrounding property values.

Could building affordable housing make the surrounding neighborhoods less affordable? That's the finding of a recent research brief from the Urban Institute showing the construction of income-restricted affordable housing units was associated with rising prices for nearby homes.
The Urban Institute brief from April 2022, written by researchers Christina Stacy and Christopher Davis, looked at the impact of 40 developments on home prices in Alexandria, Virginia. The examined projects include both wholly affordable projects—where all units are offered at below-market rates to lower-income renters—and market-rate projects that included some affordable set-aside units.
The two researchers found that these projects increased home prices within a sixteenth of a mile by .09 percent. When largely market-rate developments were excluded from the analysis, home prices increased by an even higher .11 percent.
Affordable housing projects also increased housing prices more in lower-income census tracts than in higher-income census tracts. They increased home prices by .17 percent in census tracts where median incomes were below Alexandria's median income and .06 percent in census tracts where median incomes were above Alexandria's median income.
Stacy and Davis frame their findings as a refutation of a common criticism of publicly subsidized affordable housing development: that it will decrease nearby homeowners' property values.
"Although the impact of affordable housing on nearby property values is not the primary reason to build affordable housing, individuals often cite it as a reason to oppose such developments," they write. "Given the known benefits of affordable housing on housing stability, access to opportunity, the economy as a whole, and the overall health of households with low incomes, these results support the development of additional affordable housing in the city of Alexandria."
On the other hand, higher home prices in the adjacent neighborhood also present affordability problems of their own. Those with incomes too high to qualify for the affordable housing units are left paying higher prices to live in the same neighborhood.
This dovetails with one possible explanation for why affordable housing projects would increase home prices in the first place: They consume land that could have been used for totally market-rate projects.
Those new market-rate units would both increase supply and absorb demand from higher-income renters or homebuyers. Because an affordable housing development's income restrictions end up excluding them, those higher-income renters and buyers instead bid up the prices of nearby homes.
That could plausibly explain why affordable housing developments raised prices even more when market-rate developments with set-aside affordable units were excluded from the Urban Institute's analysis. The presence of the market-rate units in those projects absorbed the market-rate demand, thus suppressing adjacent property value increases.
Stacy and Davis offer a different explanation for why affordable housing might push up nearby home prices. They suggest that high design requirements for these projects make the buildings desirable, aesthetically pleasing neighborhood features.
"It increases the amenity effect. People like living next to nice things," Davis tells Reason in a phone interview.
Depending on what occupied the space previously, Davis suggests both market-rate and affordable housing developments could increase property values, saying if it's replacing "vacant housing that wasn't well-maintained, it's likely either of those two things would increase" property values.
Absent that amenity effect, the Urban Institute brief suggests that affordable housing functions as a form of housing redistribution.
The income-restricted affordable units give some lower-income people housing in desirable neighborhoods at below-market rates. But by limiting the supply of land that could go to market-rate projects, they are raising housing costs for middle- and higher-income residents.
Depending on where they're built, they could be raising housing costs for lower-income residents as well who don't end up winning places in the new building. As mentioned, the Urban Institute brief notes that Alexandria's affordable housing developments raised home prices the most in lower-income census tracts.
That's a trade-off to keep in mind as lawmakers at the state and federal levels consider increasing subsidies for affordable housing construction.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yeah, not likely.
More likely that the "increase in affordable housing" was due to an increase in housing developments, which were targeted at higher prices than the existing homes in the area.
Or maybe the (Pro) Urban Housing Institute found a conclusion they were looking for.
Maybe Bidenflation made the prices increase, not affordable housing?
I paid $30,000 for my first home in 1975 now that house would be over $100,000 and there was no affordable housing built nearby!
Understanding of internet and basic typing skill… It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for cdc05 new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply… Visit following page for more information….......Visit Here
Bingo
There’s no way these bullshit calculation fall outside the margin of error (.09%? .11%?), so yeah, these sociologists found the results they were looking for.
This report has no value. Outside of showing the “Urban Institue” isn’t afraid to lie with statistics.
Sometimes an "affordable housing" project will incidentally remove blight from an area, which then can positively impact adjacent property values.
Affordable housing is often a relative number, well off neighborhoods have less well off affordable housing. Affordable developments in my home town are running over 1/2 a million. and half a million dollar homes require a min $100k salary that is not affordable. there is no such thing as affordable in housing in California
"Affordable housing" is a term of art in CA with a technical definition.
The usual definition is that created by HUD—housing that is available for no more than 30% of the occupants' household income.
Yes, this is a joke. Arlington VA RE market is not in any way normal with the coming Amazon HQ, tons of new dvelopment, tiny old cape cods for $1million.
There are lot of ways to skin this cat. We, of course, have lived in an era of enormous housing price increases. Depending on how the study was constructed, the housing price increases could have been due to the fact that housing prices were going to increase anyways, and had something other than "Affordable Housing" been developed, prices would have risen even more.
This is all reasons why trying to The Science! (TM) people into accepting affordable housing is silly, and we should be focused on the moral case for letting developers do their thing with their land.
Personally, I love our neighborhood where there are apartments, condos, town houses, houses and gated houses all within a walk of several pools, parks and schools. I always shake my head when I look at people trying to fight exactly this type of economically diverse city planning while simultaneously wailing about the plight of minorites, etc.
Personally, I love our neighborhood where there are apartments, condos, town houses, houses and gated houses all within a walk of several pools, parks and schools.
You live in Irvine, correct?
Not disagreeing with your general point, but Irvine is not the greatest example of willy-nilly, uncontrolled development.
Planned by The Irvine Company, not the City of Irvine.
The Irvine Company, not the City of Irvine
A distinction without a difference.
Not true at all. In the case of Irvine Company, they wanted to maximize the value of their land by creating supply that meets market demand. In the case of Irvine City, decisions are made by Homeowners, who are trying to keep their property valuable by telling developers what they can do with their property.
There is an important distinction there.
"Not disagreeing with your general point, but Irvine is not the greatest example of willy-nilly, uncontrolled development."
Irvine was developed and designed privately. It is possible to let developers do their thing and not get "willy-nilly, uncontrolled development".
In fact, what is happening today is that people who live in Irvine want to use the local government to prevent future developments of anything but Gated Communities with McMansions on them. Office park? Nope, too much traffic. Apartments? Nah we don't want no Riff Raff here!
Maybe, just maybe, govt should stay out of this lane.
That's a trade-off to keep in mind as lawmakers at the state and federal levels consider increasing subsidies for affordable housing construction.
Aaaand, that does not help.
There is no problem so terrible that government intervention can't make it worse.
You know, Christian, you're a good guy and I like your articles.
Yikes
A single city study? Come on, that's pretty much junk science.
Are those numbers correct? 0.09% and 0.11%? If so, I seriously question whether the data can be sufficient to show such small differences. Quite frankly, I'm skeptical that 9% is statistically significant from 11% for such a study but it's at least plausible.
Digging deeper, this fault can't be laid on Reason. The linked brief uses the same sloppy notation in their executive summary. Further down they use better notation - and also disclose the standard deviations of each measure. However, they fail to comment on the fact that their standard deviations are almost as large as the effects they claim to have uncovered.
I notice the twinkletarians are making a cause celebre out of "affordable housing" lately. What's up with that?
That's because like most of the egalitarian brigade, there aren't enough poor POCS in their neighborhoods to assuage their white guilt. And also like the left, they will NEVER submit themselves to the horrors they create.
It may also be a reaction to those on the faux right fiercely supporting suburban zoning laws, private property rights be damned.
"It increases the amenity effect. People like living next to nice things," Davis tells Reason in a phone interview.
No one likes living next to affordable housing, not even poor people.
You're missing the point. If developers are required to put some "affordable" housing in a development, but also need to include amenities to attract market-price buyers, the "affordable" occupants also benefit from those amenities. It doesn't matter who likes it.
A tenth of a percent property value increase? At least they confined their totals to a sixteenth of a mile. However, that's not only insignificant. That's unmeasurable. On a half-million dollar McMansion, that comes out to $500. That is almost the definition of a zero result.
That's the point. No effect on housing values attributable to "affordable" housing.
This is just fucking laughably pathetic.
Reason is just fucking laughably pathetic
My god, how stupid to you have to be to not understand that developers, when they want to build a high value development, are often blackmailed into building some "affordable housing" in order to get their permits?
See, for instance.
The author Christian Britschgi, misses the two very obvious (to a libertarian) points about affordable housing project set asides.
First it's essentially the buyers of the non-subsidized (by the builder) units pay more than the cost of the units while the lucky buyers pay less than the cost of their units. In other words, it's government forced redistribution for the privilege of building a multi-unit development.
Second, it encourages government corruption or favoritism in choosing who the lucky subsidized tenant will be. I expect it will be like the Rev. Sharpton and his rent controlled offices in NYC: his rent is subsidized by builders and taxpayers via government force.
And what happens when a tenant moves out? The tenant sells their right to that subsidized unit, to the next tenant, negating the value of the subsidy (depending upon how long the scheme continues). From then on, that affordable housing is no longer affordable (unless you ignore the cost of buying the right to rent the unit from the current tenant).
Finally, given those buyers of non-subsidized units are subsidizing the subsidized units, isn't it obvious you're going to have to pay more for those units, and that results in the miniscule and irrelevant fraction of a percentage of higher prices. Simply, they cost more because they come with an ongoing subsidy cost built into the asking price.
For the reasons above, I put this article and Brookings' research on the subject, into the propaganda category. Brookings is trying to argue that government forced affordable housing units in multi-unit developments, doesn't cause the neighborhood to decline; specifically in property values, and in fact does the opposite.
All it really does, is increase the cost of housing for a large group of non-subsidized folks, to benefit a very few, which becomes a political reward/weapon that benefits the bureaucrat choosing tenants, the politicians restricting who gets permits to build, the developer who gets the project, and one tenant (who may have paid a bribe to get it).
"...Finally, given those buyers of non-subsidized units are subsidizing the subsidized units, isn't it obvious you're going to have to pay more for those units, and that results in the miniscule and irrelevant fraction of a percentage of higher prices. Simply, they cost more because they come with an ongoing subsidy cost built into the asking price."
"Market rate" housing costs rise, as (per your post), the "m-r" housing subsidizes the "b-m-r" housing.
IOWs. "b-m-r" housing causes a rise in housing costs in general, so, yes, you could claim in 'increases property values'. By coercion.
"A Urban Institute research brief found that affordable housing developments in Alexandria, Virginia, were associated with a small increase in surrounding property values."
And Dems find Trump causing the current inflation!
Does not pass the sniff test.
"I don't often use statistics, but when I do, I cite the margin of error."
0.06%? 0.17%? There's no way those numbers are meaningful. But maybe the value went up due to the value of the aluminum and latex in the discarded beer cans and condoms. Which is to say, how much of that "affordable housing" is Section 8?
People without assets to begin with are at the mercy of the FED policy that inflates assets. Affordable means nothing when the FED out spends the bottom 50%.
There's a difference between "affordable housing" and HUD projects. Force a certain percentage of housing to be below market rate, then the area becomes less affordable overall. Put in a HUD project, and the surrounding area becomes much less desirable.
do that same study in indianapolis and i'm sure the outcome would be quite different
The two researchers found that these projects increased home prices within a sixteenth of a mile by .09 percent.
Whoa Nelly!!!
An increase of 0.0009!
An extra penny for every hundred dollars in value - ouch!
If there's anything to this at all, it's most likely that owners of surrounding properties calculate that the government will want to buy their lots and, as everybody knows, the government is the biggest sucker on earth.
FJB
Out of ALL the low income projects in America, they found one that didn't hurt others property values and they call this a win?
Utter tripe
More likely that the "increase in affordable housing" was due to an increase in housing developments, which were targeted at higher prices than the existing homes in the area.
I have saw it here: https://newjerseyloteryresults.com/