Can TODs Include Affordable Housing?

AbstractProblem, research strategy, and findings 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.Takeaway for practice 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.Keywords: affordable housingdisadvantaged communitiesTOD ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank Professor Ann Forsyth, editor of the Journal of the American Planning Association; and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, which considerably improved the article. We also thank Nida Ahmed, Elizabeth Joun, Sang-O Kim, Lilly Nie, Isabel Qi, and Hanke Shao for excellent research assistance.RESEARCH SUPPORTThis research was supported by a USDOT Grant 65A0674, TO-041 from the METRANS Transportation Center.Notes1 We refer to housing affordable to low-income households as affordable housing throughout this article.2 In California, local governments adopt specific plans as policies and regulations to implement the jurisdiction’s future development policies included in the general plan and housing element. The housing element is a required section of the general plan of the jurisdiction (California Governor’s Office of Planning & Research, Citation2001). State law mandates that the housing element must be updated every 8 years based on a schedule set by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.3 Section 65583 of California’s Government Code sets forth requirements for the scope and content of the housing element (California Government Code Section 65583).4 See Meyerson and Banfield (Citation1955) for a broader context of public housing projects of the past, and NIMBYism.5 CalEPA has created an analytical tool called CalEnviroScreen to help identify disadvantaged communities (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Citationn.d.b). For details, also see California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Citationn.d.a).6 Typically, local governments consider the half-mile radius around a transit station a catchment area for TODs, which tends to overestimate population within walking distance (Guerra & Cervero, Citation2013). Instead, they should consider a half-mile diamond (pedestrian network distance), which is a better measure.7 Santa Ana’s TOD specific plan was initially titled “Santa Ana Renaissance Specific Plan” and later titled “Santa Ana Transit Zoning Code.”8 The approval process of multifamily projects in Southern California takes a long time and varies across jurisdictions. The average approval time from 2014 to 2016 in Los Angeles was 13.1 months, whereas in Santa Monica it was 48.3 months (The Lewis Center, Citationn.d.).Additional informationNotes on contributorsAjay GardeAJAY GARDE (agarde@uci.edu) is an associate professor at the University of California, Irvine.Huê-Tâm JammeHUÊ-TÂM JAMME (Hue-Tam.Jamme@asu.edu) is an assistant professor at Arizona State University.Benjamin ToneyBENJAMIN TONEY (btoney@usc.edu) is a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California (USC).Deepak BahlDEEPAK BAHL (bahl@usc.edu) is an adjunct associate professor at USC.Tridib BanerjeeTRIDIB BANERJEE (tbanerje@usc.edu) is a professor emeritus at USC.