Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Ohio State University | 33 West 11th Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43201 | Phone: (614) 688-5429 | Fax: (614) 688-5592
/KirwanInstitute
www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
Housing in the HilltopCreating a Baseline Typology to Guide Investment (Preliminary Findings)
By Jason Reece, Jillian Olinger, Kip Holley, and Audrey Porter; Maps and illustrations by Yumi Choi and SoYoung Lee, Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
T hrough our work with communities for over a decade, Kirwan has come to understand that cre-
ating communities of opportunity that support the success of residents depends on a myriad of factors. Stable and affordable housing must be combined with access to decent, stable jobs. Access to quality education actually starts outside of the classroom, in neighborhoods that are safe and that encourage scholastic success. To gain the benefits of econom-ic opportunities, residents must also have access to good healthcare and meaningful civic structures that allow them to reap the full benefits of new opportuni-ties. Finally, we understand that these opportunities
have to be available to all community members in order for assets to truly have a positive effect on neighborhood conditions. The more people who have meaningful access to community assets, the healthier the overall community can be.
In August 2014, The Kirwan Institute was contracted by Homes on the Hill CDC (HOTH), through support of a technical assistance grant through the Community Development Collaborative of Greater Columbus, to conduct a preliminary needs assessment with a focus on housing, for the Greater Hilltop community. The goal was to better understand the housing market realities for the
2
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
many neighborhoods that make up the Hilltop, in order to make more strategic investment de-cisions to promote neighborhood stabilization and opportunity.
It is equally important to explore the assets avail-able in the Hilltop—what are existing assets that can be built on with housing investments? One of the best assets in the Hilltop is its diversity across many dimensions—cultural, social, and econom-ic. In fact, many residents shared that this was a great strength of the community. And yet, there was recognition that diversity is complex. It’s not well- understood yet how to really leverage diver-sity as a catalyst, and, even more fundamental was the acknowledgement that there may need to be some “educating” around the value of diversity. As one resident pointed out, it’s “fighting a much
broader social issue than just diversity in the Hilltop. You’re fighting diversity as a whole and let’s face it, not everyone is like the people in this room who value and embrace diversity. We’re not just trying to get people to buy into the value of diversity in the Hilltop, it’s do you value diversity?”
The Greater Hilltop in context: residents respond
Respondents identified a wealth of different assets, ranging from activities and groups, to acces-sibility and amenities. Many described neighbors as “friendly” and “helpful.” Several parks were identified as gathering points, including Westgate, Glenwood, and Holton Parks. Hilltonia Elemen-tary and Freedom Schools were lifted up. And the history of the Hilltop itself was viewed as rich and something that should be communicated and shared, perhaps through a festival or tours. But what was most clearly communicated was the pride residents took in their home and communi-ty, many of whom have long family histories of being in the community. In fact, some shared that being a “Hilltopper” trumped other ‘identities’ such as race or class.
However, there are real challenges present in the community. There is widespread agreement that redevelopment efforts have not been “at the level needed,” especially given the size of the Hilltop. Many pointed out that city, state, and national programs have been ineffective. Others were more candid about the relative neglect they felt of the Hilltop by the city, compared to other neighbor-hoods. The absence of large anchor institutions to assist in redevelopment was noted. In terms of the housing market, many noted the deep challenges spawned by the foreclosure crisis, such as issues of vacant housing, or outside investors that are not engaged in the community and do not take care of their properties.
In our surveys and interviews with community members, crime and safety stood out as a universal concern. People spoke of the prevalence of drug- and gang-related violence in some neighborhoods as an impediment to opportunity. People also were concerned about crime along major corridors such as Sullivant Avenue, West Broad Street, and Hague Avenue as challenges to a healthy neighborhood. Intermingled with the issue of safety was neglect and cleanliness. A number of survey respondents pointed to a need for neighborhood
DIVERSITY IN THE HILLTOP
When asked about assets in the Hilltop, one resident shared, “I think diversi-ty comes to mind. Diversity on every indicator that you can think of, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic statuses. I think that just for every neighborhood that there is, there’s diversity, unique qualities to it, which is where a lot of the strengths come from for the com-munity. But I also think as with many things, where your strengths are, that’s where your challenges are as well.”
Some [residents] shared that being a “Hilltopper” trumped other ‘identities’ such as race or class
3
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
cleanups, and some talked about the connection between neglect and crime.
Residents also spoke of the lack of educational resources in the Hilltop. Though there was an ac-knowledgement that educators and administrators were doing the best they could with what they had, there were few resources for them to draw on. One respondent pointed to the lack of early childhood education as a particularly egregious problem and made a link between early childhood education and later economic success in the community.
Concentrated poverty, particularly in the Highland West neighborhood, was a key concern of many. In some parts of this neighborhood, poverty rates have more than doubled, from 23% to 47% from 2000 to 2012, and homeownership has dropped more than 10% over the same period.1 This has not escaped the notice of respondents, particularly those who live in Highland West. Such concentration tends to exacerbate other issues in a community. Research shows that in areas of concentrated poverty, residents often have less access to resources for success and are less able to advocate for changes in their communities.2
This study is a first step towards understanding the complexities of stabilization and redevel-opment in the Greater Hilltop community. It is in no way definitive, nor is it complete. We recog-nize that there is much more engagement work to be done, and more analysis that could help shed further light on the complexities. We stress, however, that every block has value, even the most dis-tressed. The “market” may not always accurately assess that value, and that is why we created the prioritization framework (described in SECTION III), that includes looking at other “soft” assets, for example, social capital; the housing analysis—the “hard” data—is but one factor out of five. We offer this study as a starting point, and look forward to continuing the conversation.
In some parts of this neighborhood, poverty rates have more than doubled, from 23% to 47% from 2000 to 2012
4
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
SECTION II
Why create a housing market typology?
Amidst the reality of dwindling resources for neighborhood planning, the creation of a housing market typology is an increasingly popular method of ‘data-driven decision-making’ being de-
ployed in communities and cities across the country. These efforts are using data to make strategic, innovative decisions on where and how to invest these limited resources. A typology allows stake-holders to develop a more nuanced understanding of the housing market realities of the commu-nities in which they are investing, and set priorities accordingly. It provides an objective, spatial context about market robustness. Defining housing markets in this way more accurately reflects underlying conditions of the market, rather than imposing arbitrary boundaries defined by polit-ical parameters, for example.
This is the “new model” of neighborhood planning. Decades of well-intentioned, if not always successful, neighborhood sta-bilization efforts, for example housing acquisition and rehab programs, have shown that in some cases, “…a ‘worst-first’ ap-proach often does not make sense. Many administrators are now urging priority for neighborhoods that are more near the middle of the distribution—areas that have substantial fore-closures, but also enough existing market strength that a rea-sonable amount of investment might restore healthy private market conditions….”3
This is not to say that areas of significant market distress should not receive attention, but that different tools of stabi-lization, such as demolition and land banking, may make the most sense in such areas in the short term; these communities of high market distress are likely experiencing other challeng-es, such as crime and poverty—issues that property rehabili-tation strategies alone cannot address. Too often, under the old model of ‘worst-first’, even in those instances where there have been impressive results, “these approaches could not be replicated at a scale needed to address [vacancy issues]. And, because [investments] were targeted to areas where there was ongoing population loss and steeply declining housing values, the achievements were often eclipsed by ongoing housing abandonment.”4 This describes the problem the city of Balti-more faced for several years in its efforts to get a handle on the city’s vacancy and abandonment challenges.a A typology allows stakeholders to design context-appropriate strategies for stabilization and revitalization.
A. Baltimore has struggled with substantial population loss over the past 50 years that resulted in 16,000 vacant buildings in 2010, 25% of which were owned by the city. Like other cities, Baltimore tried to stem the tide of blight that this level of vacancy brings about by targeting resources to the communities of highest need. While these efforts were met with some success—redevelopment of public housing and devel-opment of hundreds of new homes for very low income renters and homeowners, the costs were high and efforts could not be replicated at the scale needed. Thus, in 2010, the city launched the Vacant to Value program that focuses resources to transitional neighborhoods where modest public investments could be a stabilizing force. See Ellen Janes and Sandra Davis, “Vacants to Value: Baltimore’s Market-Based Ap-proach to Vacant Property Redevelopment,” Chapter in Putting Data to Work: Data-driven Approaches to Strengthening Neighborhoods. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. December 2011.
5
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
We now have research documenting the importance of such context. In response to the foreclosure crisis that devastated neighborhoods across the country, including the Hilltop, the Department of Housing and Urban Development administered neighborhood stabilization funds through its Neighborhood Stabilization Programs (NSP1 and 2). In NSP1, funds were allo-cated to those communities in greatest need. While the invest-ments seemed generous (about $4 billion for the first round), NSP1 touched no more than 3–4%b of vacant parcels in any of the recipient communities—the funds were simply insuf-ficient to combat the level of blight in these communities.5
When it comes to neighborhood stabilization, context matters. NSP1 funds were targeted to highly distressed properties that were surrounded, for blocks, by other highly distressed prop-erties. The creation of a typology provides the critical spatial/market context necessary for making impactful investment decisions—prioritizing investments to take advantage of ad-jacent market strengths.
B. For example, although Philadelphia received roughly $16.8 million in NSP1 funds, only an estimated 0.7% of properties were “touched.” Detroit received $47 million, but only an estimated 3.6% of vacant properties were touched. In Chicago, $55 million and 0.7%, respective-ly. See Ira Goldstein, “Maximizing the Impact of Federal NSP Investments through Strategic Use of Local Market Data,” in REO and Vacant Properties: Strategies for Neighborhood Stabilization, a joint publication by The Federal Reserve Banks of Boston and Cleveland and the Federal Reserve Board. 2010.
FORECLOSURE CRISIS
The foreclosure crisis hit the Hilltop hard as well. As one resident de-scribed the continuing fallout, “There’s a lot of dynamics going on… economy declined, middle class got slammed, mom lost job, dad got downsized, the spiral starts, there’s no way to catch up. Even now. … Tough for a lot of fam-ilies. The fact that now it’s very dif-ficult to get a loan… because you have to have money in the bank, good credit score.”
6
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
SECTION III
Applications in the Greater Hilltop Creating a housing market typology for the Greater Hilltop
To develop our typology, Kirwan first conducted a best practice review of the metrics and meth-odology other communities have used for targeting community investment. Several of these
communities used the Market Value Analysis approach developed by The Reinvestment Fund.c We also looked at an approach developed for the city of Youngstown,6 and reviewed a typology created for the city of Columbus in 2006 by Community Research Partners.7
Based on these reviews, we used the following indicators to create our typology:
INDICATOR
Number of Housing Units
Percentage of Vacant Units
Percentage of Commercial Units
Percentage of Foreclosures
Percentage of Units Owner Occupied
Median House Value
Number of Affordable Rental Units (below median gross rent of neighborhood)
Number of Affordable Owner-occupied Units (below median monthly owner cost of neighborhood)
RELATION TO HOUSING MARKET STRENGTH
Positive
Negative
Negative
Negative
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
We pulled the data for each block group in the Greater Hilltop area. After identifying the data for each census block group, we combined all of the indicators in order to give each block group a score relative to the rest of the Hilltop that allowed us to see how one area of the Hilltop compared to other areas of the community. We then worked to categorize the block groups into categories that correlated with the research.
We settled on three different methods for categorizing the block groups according to their rela-tive housing health. First, we created a map that separated the block groups into five quantiles of equal number from most healthy (top 20% of block groups) to least healthy (bottom 20% of block groups) (FIGURE 1). Another method that we used was to separate the block groups into five natural numerical clusters with a method called natural breaks (FIGURE 2). Finally, we used the z-score methodology commonly used in our Opportunity Mapping work to determine the five categories in which to place individual block groups.
C. To date, these analyses have been conducted in Baltimore, Washington DC, Milwaukee, New Jersey, and Philadelphia. See http://www.trfund.com/policy/public-policy/market-value-analysis/
7
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
Each method gave us a slightly different picture of housing opportunity on the Hilltop (please see the Appendix for these maps). For instance, the z-score method showed the southern portion of the Hilltop to be more opportunity rich and less economically diverse than the other two methods, while the natural breaks method painted the most economically diverse and optimistic portrait of housing in the Hilltop. However, the maps also showed some general similarities and so we decided to combine the three different maps into one in order to give us a more comprehensive and nuanced picture of housing on the Hilltop (FIGURE 3).
Figure 1. Quantile Distribution
Figure 2. Natural Breaks Distribution
20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Bou
ndar
y Bou
ndar
y
Bou
ndar
y
8
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
I-70
I-270
BroadSt
EakinRd
HagueAve
DemorestRd
ClimeRd
MoundSt
BriggsRd
WilsonRd
HoltR
d
Harri
sbur
gPike
Gant
zRd
HarrisAve
OliveSt
Mc KinleyAve
FrankRd
I-670
Big Run SouthRd
Geor
gesv
illeR
d
DyerRd
Gren
erAv
e
HomeRd
WarrenAve
I-71
DublinRd
AlkireRd
EurekaAve
SteeleAve
Ogd
enAv
e
SullivantAve
PhillipiRd
RoysAve
ValleyviewDr
Brow
nRd
SylvanAve
TerraceAve
PowellAve
HallRd
BurgessAve
ClarendonAve
GoodaleBlvd
SouthwestBlvd
ParlinDr
RichardsonAve
FremontSt
Gran
dvie
wAv
e
WhiteheadRd
Binn
sBlv
d
1stAve
High
land
Ave
Broa
dway
Mur
ray
HillR
d
Mix
Ave
Hardy ParkwaySt
Big RunRd
BrehlAve
BelvidereAve
Oxl
eyRd
Wilt
shire
Rd
3rdAve
Holly
HillD
r Wes
tgat
eAve
HarrisonRd
ParksideRd
BrinkerAve
Hoov
erRd
SpringmontAve
El PasoDr
DanaAve
VanderbergRd
PlankPl
MulfordRd
Wed
gew
oodD
r
Wrexham
Ave
MarlaneDr
FisherRd
Salis
bury
Rd
HopkinsAve
WicklowRd
ReaAve
TownSt
BluhmRd
RaceSt
DibbleeAve
StephenDr
AutoM
allDr
YatesAve
DoverRd
HydeRd
MainSt
SextonDr
RidgeSt
RyanAve
Yale
Ave
Mid
land
Ave
Hoos
eDr
Westm
oorAve
HartRd
BigTreeDr
Old
VillageRd
Cent
ralA
ve
Fores
tDr
Laza
rRd
Ned
raSt
Urli
nAve
CarillaLn
LinnetAve
LynwardRd
Bron
wyn
Ave
OakleyAve
La VistaDr
ParkwickDr
Kade
rlyDr
Twin CreeksDr
Racin
eAve
LittleAve
Blue RockBlvd
HaldyAve
WoodburyAve
Jade
St
FeddernAve
Rive
rben
dRd
LowellDr
SurfaceRd
Gard
enHe
ight
sAve
WestportR
d
BroadviewAve
Glen
nAve
Jose
phin
eAve
Breeze HillDr
ArdathRd
LetchworthAve
Miri
amDr
SalemAve
RichmondRd
ChinquoSt
JanitrolRd
Industr
ial Mile
Rd
Gene
vaAv
e
WestbranchRd
Maclam
Dr
SchultzAve
ZinerCir
ChateauSt
HiltonAve
Linc
olnR
d
PerimeterDr
Cast
leto
nSt
Just
usRd
EastfieldDr
InterchangeRd
Woo
dbro
okLn
ColumbianAve
HarperRd
FloralAve
Tena
graW
ay
Topa
zDr
ParrauDr
Mar
ibet
hPl
Deve
ronL
n
JacksonRd
GuilfordAve
HardingDr
EdsonDr
Bluff RunDr
HaydenAve
Hollo
wRu
nDr
ParkwestDr
Galli
Ct
GreenvilleRd
CreeksideDr
MarsdaleAve
ScottCt
HiloLn
WestwoodDr
Dist
ribut
ionD
r
Hickory WoodDr
CommerceSq
Blox
omSt
Win
esap
Dr
Bain
ston
eCt
SpaatzAve
Long
woo
dAve
AlbertaSt
Ore
lAve
Ow
lSt
Baw
ston
eCt
Sout
hwes
tern
Rd
Kram
erAv
e
Pinn
acle
Dr
El GrecoDr
KlibreckDr
Wes
tbro
okDr
TarrytonCt
RanelleDr
Village ParkDr
Mc CarleyDr
TamarackAve
Sunf
low
erDr
EldonAve
StilesAve
BrownleafRd
IvernessDr
AddisonDr
ShoppersLn
Hadl
eyDr RuthCt
SuncrestAve
VidaWay
Old HomeRd
CarrigallenLn
Lync
ross
St
Wes
tbro
okVi
llage
Dr
Wes
tshi
reRd
GarlingAve
Deer PathDr
EdwinSt
Dyer
Ln
SafinRd
PonderosaDr
Schi
lling
Ln
UnroeAve
High CreekDr
Oak ForestDr
GrimesDr
LionDr
CarolAve
PheasantRun
Plane TreeDr
Onslo
wDr
AdmiralDr
SheltonSt
CandleberryCt
Autu
mn
Villa
geDr
KingscreekDr
StellaCt
Toke
nDr
Crev
isLn
FisherRd
RaceSt
DublinRd
AlkireRd
Roys
Ave
LowellDr
Figure 3. Housing Market ConditionsGreater Hilltop (Columbus, Ohio)
This map shows housing market conditions in the Hilltop neighborhood. By using the natural breaks, quantile, and z score methods of categorizing data, census block groups were assigned a score from 1 to 5 for each method. A score of 1 was indicative of a weaker housing market. Scores for each variable were totaled, resulting in an aggregate score for each block group. These totals were then sorted from least to greatest and grouped into 5 categories based on housing market strength in each block group: 1) Distressed, 2) Transitional, 3) Stable, 4) Emerging, and 5) Competitive.
Source: ACS 2008–2012, HUD Data User 2009
Housing Market Condition
Distressed
Transitional
Stable
Emerging
Competitive
N
Miles
0 0.5 1
9
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
Drawn from our best practice review, we used the following definitions for each typology:
• Competitive: Robust housing market with high own-er-occupancy rates and high property values. Foreclo-sure, vacancy, and abandonment rates are all very low. Single family detached homes dominate the area and there is usually not a mix of housing types. Lowest percent of commercial properties.
• Emerging: Robust housing market but with homeown-ership rates slightly below the area-wide average. Ap-pealing areas for property owners looking for stable investment environments. More variety in housing types and more commercial in the areas.
• Stable: Rate of foreclosure is just below the area average. Generally average real estate values. High homeownership rate. Some commercial properties.
• Transitional: Typically found on the inner edge of stable neighborhoods. Moderate real estate values with higher median sales in areas with commercial land uses. Foreclosure rates are slightly higher than average, but occupancy rates are also higher than average. Highest rate of rental subsidy. Highest percent of commercial properties.
• Distressed: Highest levels of vacant homes and vacant lots as found in all the categories. Very high foreclosure rate. Low owner occupancy/homeownership rate and lowest sale prices. Comparatively high percent of commercial rate.
Finally, we developed the following prioritization framework, based on five factors, qualitative and quantitative.
1. Housing market analysis
2. Synergy around investments
3. Commercial resource landscape
4. Perceptions (based on stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and survey responses)
5. Neighborhood organizational/social capital (based on stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and survey responses)
A highly distressed block group surrounded by other highly dis-tressed block groups represents a large expanse of market distress without adjacent stronger markets upon which to build. Conversely, a highly distressed block group that has transitional or steady block groups near it may be able to draw on those positive local market forces to help effect change.
Ira Goldstein, “Maximizing the Impact of Federal NSP Investments through Strategic Use of Local Market Data.”
10
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
Future Housing Investment Projectsand Potential Sites
Hilltop Homes II
Land Bank Owned by County
Land Bank Owned by City
Figure 4. Hilltop Housing Investment Projects
G
)
G
)
)
G
)
G
G
G
G
)
)
)
)
G
G
G
G G
G
G
)
G
)
G
GG
G
G
BroadSt
I-70
EakinRd
Hagu
eAve
OliveSt
MoundSt
Wils
onRd
HarrisAve
WarrenAve
FisherRd
SteeleAve
Roys
Ave
ValleyviewDr
Ogd
enAv
e
EurekaAve
SylvanAve
SullivantAve
I-670
TerraceAve
PowellAve
BurgessAve
FremontSt
WhiteheadRd
DemorestRd
ClarendonAve
HighlandAve
RichardsonAve
DerrerRd
SaffordAve
BelvidereAve
Wes
tgat
eAve
ParksideRd
BrinkerAve
Wrexham
Ave
SpringmontAve
WicklowRd
ButlerAve
RaceSt
DibbleeAve Mc KinleyAve
MidlandAve
Binn
sBlv
d
Westm
oorAve
MaryAve
RidgeAve
HarrisonRd
OakleyAve
WayneAve
HalseyPl
ElliottAve
Algo
nqui
nAve
Hald
yAve
UnionAve
SextonDr
ReaAve
Whi
teth
orne
Ave
Huro
nAve
PowhatanAve
Wilt
shire
Rd
Salis
bury
Rd
HilltoniaAveN
ashobaAveLetchworthAve
WheatlandAve
SouthamptonAve
Raci
neAv
e
Holly
HillD
r
ChaseAve
Athe
nsSt
ColumbianAve
HarperRd
FloralAve
JosephineAve
Ches
ters
hire
Rd
DorenAve
Dext
erAv
e
HardingDr
EdsonDr
Fren
chDr
Wedgew
oodDr
Exch
ange
Dr
WestwoodDr
LoganSt
Com
mer
ceSq
Crescen
tDr
OngSt
GuernseyAve
FairmontAve
TishmanSt
AlbertaSt
OrelAve
AnnetteSt
PalmettoSt
Roth
Ave
Joyf
ulSt
RanelleDr
SheridanSt
KevinCt
EldonAve
GraceSt
SuncrestAve
JoanRd
Brix
ham
Rd
CrescentRd
Doul
tonC
t
PostleRd
DixieCt
ProspectSt
VioletStIn
dust
ryDr
VidaPl
Mau
rineD
r
VanderbergRd
GlenviewBlvd
MurrayAve
CarolAve
Wes
tmoo
rCt
RaySt
SheltonSt
SuttonAve
Pow
ellC
ir
PlumSt
Great WesternBlvd
FairfieldPl
TradeRd
Derrer HillDr
PervianceSt
DerrerCt
WrenSt
WhitethorneAve
RichardsonAve
NashobaAve
Brin
kerA
ve
OgdenAve
Eldo
nAve
SullivantAve
Roys
Ave
Huro
nAve
Mid
land
Ave
AlbertaSt
HarrisAve
BurgessAve
OakleyAve
Brin
kerA
ve
WestgateAve
Binn
sBlv
d
WhiteheadRd
EurekaAve
WicklowRd
WayneAve
RaceSt
WheatlandAve
Colu
mbi
anAv
e
GraceSt
G
)G
)
)
G)
G
G
G
G)
)
)
)
G
G
GGG
G
G
)G
)G
GG
GG
I-70
BroadSt
I-270
EakinRd
FisherRd
ClimeRd
Hagu
eAve
BriggsRd
MoundSt
Dem
ores
tRd
AlkireRd
Wils
onRd
HarrisburgPike
HarrisAve
OliveSt
Brow
nRd
I-670
FrankRd
Geor
gesv
illeR
d
WarrenAve
Mc KinleyAve
HoltR
d
EurekaAve
SteeleAve
SullivantAve
ValleyviewDr
OgdenAve
PhillipiRd
Sylv
anAv
e
Clar
endo
nAve
Gant
zRd
Wilt
shire
Rd
HollyHillDr
Wes
tgat
eAve
Big Run SouthRd
HallRd
RidgeSt
ParkwickDr
WayneAve
RichmondRd
FloralAve
Anth
onyD
r
Hollo
wRu
nDr
Exch
ange
Dr
FerrellPl
Big
Run
Bluf
fsBl
vd
CarrigallenLn
Hyat
tDr
AlkireRd
I 70
I270
I 270
I 70
This map shows the housing market conditions in Greater Hilltop, overlaid with housing investment project locations by Homes On The Hill. Future Projects (Hilltop Homes II, 39 Parcels) and Potential Project Sites (Land Banks, 109 Locations Owned by Cities + 4 Locations Owned by County) Housing Investments Completed Before 2015: HOTH Historical Properties (20 Rehab Parcels + 10 New Parcels), 44 Hilltop Home Repair Locations, and 46 Rebuilding Together Locations
Source: ACS 2008–2012, HUD Data User 2009
Housing Investment Projects Completed Before 2015
Hilltop Home Repair
Rebuilding Together
HOTH Historical Inventory (New)
HOTH Historical Inventory (Rehab)
Miles0 0.5 1
N
11
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
Phase I Findings: Prioritization in the Hilltop
Recommendation 1A: Identify opportunities for concentrated acquisition of units or property in transitional zones adjacent to areas of strength (stable, emerging, or competitive). Research supports targeting future housing (acquisition/rehabilitation/repair) investments in transitional and stable zones. The good news is that Hilltop Homes II already reflects this recommendation, and will be a move in the right direction (FIGURE 4). The typology points to additional areas that could be well-positioned for investment; however, before committing to these areas, the maps must be vetted, which brings us to the next recommendation.
• As part of the targeted acquisition process, we would also recommend working with the city and county land banks to identify properties suitable for land bank acquisition, espe-cially those that are in the transitional areas, to capitalize on each organizations’ invest-ments (in this case, Hilltop Homes II properties) (see FIGURE 8 of pending foreclosures in the Appendix).
Recommendation 1B: Ground truth the maps with residents and subject matter experts, such as local planners. This process should also include a “windshield tour,” an on-site inspection of blocks to verify that they match the typology, including the ‘boundaries’ outlined on the maps. It will be important to ask why these boundaries are where they are, especially if there is not a phys-ical barrier (for example, a rail road track).
ADDITIONAL PHASE I RECOMMENDATIONSCollect information on commercial resources and other nodes of investment. An important component of building (and preserving) market value in the Greater Hilltop will be developing—and communicating—the amenities available to residents, both current and future. There was an overwhelming desire for more commercial features in the greater community—residents distinctly described their desire to spend their money in their community. A better understanding of the eco-nomic landscape and opportunities for synergy is necessary for leveraging housing investments.
Prioritize a “perceptions” campaign. The perceptions of the Greater Hilltop, especially external perceptions, con-tinue to pose a challenge to the revitalization of the com-munity. Residents were clear, in our focus groups and our surveys, that this was a key concern in the community. Several spoke of a desire for a vehicle that could promote the good developments happening in the community, not only for internal morale, but to also communicate to those outside of the community that good things are happening and it’s a place worthy of investment. Many shared that the external perceptions of the community, especially regarding crime, do not fit the reality. Further, some spoke of the need to “call out” the media, for example, when they mistakenly name the Hilltop as a scene of a crime. There may be support for developing a campaign at OSU through a Public Communications course.
Strategies beyond housing will be critical for distressed zones, which will be discussed in the next sec-tion. Below we outline further recommendations for moving forward with the typology. We want to stress, however, that every block has value, even the most distressed. The “market” may not always accurately assess that value, and that is why we created the prioritization framework outlined above, that includes looking at other “soft” assets, for example, social capital; the housing analysis—the “hard” data—is but one factor out of five.
“these good things that are happening in our neighborhood… the story doesn’t get told. So how do we begin to tell the story?”
12
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
SECTION IV
Additional Recommendations and Opportunities for Moving Forward
Below we outline Phase II and Phase III strategic planning opportunities for moving forward with the baseline assessment.
Phase II: Refining the Prioritization Process
Recommendation 2A: Additional asset mapping and identifying other synergies to draw on. The baseline assessment included here is a good first step to better understanding the many factors influencing the strength of a neighborhood’s housing market. However, the housing analysis is but one of five prioritization considerations. The “hard” data only tell part of the story of neighborhood potential. It will also be important to have a deeper understanding of other existing stabilization efforts that can be leveraged. These could be formal, for example the city’s Mow to Own program, or less formal, such as neighborhood clean ups and block watches. It will be especially important to uncover assets such as these in the more distressed blocks.
Recommendation 2B: Supplementing the housing data with other indicators of stability. The data we analyzed for the typology all pertained to housing. However, additional data (“layers”) would enhance the explanatory power of the typology. Several of these issues were raised in our focus groups and survey responses, and research documents their effects on neighborhood stabil-ity.8 We recommend looking at the following data as part of the Phase II analysis:
• Crime
• Poverty
• Code violations
• ‘Call for service’ hot spots (fire, police)
• Vacant property (land and units)
• Investor activity
• Commercial resources landscape
• Other stabilization efforts
Below we describe how additional analyses could be used.
• A deeper dive into layers of distress. As described above, neighborhoods that show up as distressed are often experiencing challenges beyond vacancy and abandonment, such as crime and poverty. Additional analysis to understand the various dimensions of dis-tress is needed in order to develop the most appropriate strategies. Developing strategies to address the challenges of crime and poverty, for example, in distressed communities
13
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
can “prime” these neighborhoods for future investment, especially when coupled with demolition and land banking.
• Identifying “problem properties.” Assessing vacant properties, code violations, and calls for service could help pinpoint “hot spots” of problem properties.
» Developing a proactive code enforcement strategy. By mapping vacant properties, stakeholders “can assess the capacity of a given vacant property or group of proper-ties to attract private investment.”9 Those properties located in transitional or stable markets will have the most capacity. Such an analysis could serve several purposes. Balti-more’s Vacant to Value program has used en-hanced code enforcement in areas where there is some market strength (i.e. transitional zones) to foster redevelopment of vacant properties: “because code enforcement is most aggressive in areas with functioning housing markets, owners should be able to support the cost of property improvements, and in cases when they cannot, the markets are stable enough to support the sale of the property.”10 This strat-egy clearly points to the city as a key partner, but it also can be viewed as an opportunity for empowering residents, especially in distressed markets. For example, capacity-building for “grassroots” enforcement in these neigh-borhoods through block watches and 311 reporting could be part of such a strategy. A home repair program would also make sense with this strategy, to help homeown-ers in these areas make the necessary improvements. The approach may also weed out investors who have no intention of taking care of their property.
» Challenges of irresponsible investord ownership. Understanding the “demand” in the Greater Hilltop neighborhoods—is it coming from home buyers or from absentee owners?—will be key for moving forward. Both have implications for neighborhood stabilization efforts. A shift in a neighborhood to more investors and fewer home buyers can be an indication of market deterioration.11 Anecdotally, outside investor ownership has been cited as a key challenge in redevelopment efforts of the area. A reliable approximation of investor activity could include looking at the ratio of house sales to home purchase origination loans.12 Residents were clear that absentee and neglectful landlords—and the lack of enforcement for their properties—were a barrier to the redevelopment of neighborhoods, especially those neighborhoods experienc-ing the challenges of concentrated poverty.
Phase II and III: Building on assets through relationships
Hilltop residents were able to identify a number of entities and residents working to address the challenges highlighted in the report. Overwhelmingly, respondents pointed to civic associations such as Westgate Neighbors Association and Highland West Neighbors Association as entities working to make things better in the Hilltop. Other groups, such as the Friends of Westgate Park and the Hilltop Business Association were also pointed out as helpful to the community. Respon-dents also pointed to the wealth of churches in the community that provided support to communi-
Better, proactive enforcement of building codes and faster response to safety issues were recurrent re-sponses to survey questions about needed improvements in their area. Residents are looking for support from the City as they try to clean up their neighborhoods and project a better image of the Hilltop.
D. By irresponsible investors, we mean those owners who buy properties with no intention of maintaining or improving them, and those who “flip” properties—investors who make minimal cosmetic changes to deteriorated properties and sell them quickly.
14
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
ty members. The Hilltop library branch, the YMCA, and local businesses such as Dirty Frank’s and Halderman’s Cleaners were all listed as organizations doing good work in the community. There is clearly no shortage of organizations and people working towards positive change in the community.
The challenge, however, seems to lie in bringing these myriad groups and efforts together to work towards a common vision. Too many groups seem to be working in isolation, and frankly, ‘infighting’ has been cited by respondents as a challenge in the community.
As a primary investor in housing on the Hilltop, Homes on the Hill (HOTH) has the opportunity to use its resources to bridge some of these divides and partner with existing organizations that work on challenges outside of the housing realm. We know that these other challenges will bear on the success of housing investments. Partnerships with block watches, business asso-ciations, neighborhood associations, and other groups could help Homes on the Hill leverage its resources in a way that can help spur other efforts focused on alleviating further challeng-es in the community. For instance, Homes on the Hill could use home improvement and investment activities to employ local workers and build the skills and knowledge of prospective homeowners and renters. HOTH can also coordinate public events with advocacy groups in order to build the capacity of individual community members by helping to introduce them to the wealth of resources that the community has to offer, as well as helping traditionally marginalized residents build their capacity to advocate for larger community wide changes.
By coordinating initiatives and sharing resources with neigh-borhood associations, local businesses, and service providers, Homes on the Hill can help ensure that more resources are available to more people, particularly those who are the most marginalized in the community, while also reducing costs for all parties.13 Through community partnerships, Homes on the Hill could also pursue funding opportunities that can be used for capacity-building outside of the housing arena. For instance, in Pittsburgh, a part-nership between housing advocates, family welfare advocates, and those working to provide better jobs was formed to address all three concerns. Together, they were able to pursue HUD Neighbor-hood Stabilization Program grants that were then used to connect low-residents with work oppor-tunities related to the revitalization of homes in their neighborhood.14 Partnerships such as these are vital for directing resources to the systemic barriers that keep people from opportunity.
Principles from the Central Hilltop Revitalization Strategy reflect this understanding that housing in-vestments are but one factor in supporting neighborhood stabi-lization. Quality and affordable housing is a critical foundation of a strong community of opportuni-ty. But perhaps even more funda-mental than housing are the re-lationships in the community (i.e. social capital). They are key to the success of community develop-ment efforts.
#8: Integrate community building activities into physical develop-ment plans
#9: Add design principles and amenities that promote health and social capital
15
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
Conclusion
The work of neighborhood stabilization is not easily or quickly achieved, but it can be done. The Hilltop has a wealth of assets upon which to build a more pros-perous and opportunity-rich community. Chief among these assets are its people. Hard-working, friendly, and diverse, Hilltop residents are overwhelmingly proud to call the Hilltop home, and are deeply committed to the community and improv-ing conditions for themselves and their neighbors. As we learned in our engage-ments with residents, they have creative ideas for how to make improvements, for example, festivals, 5Ks, history tours, and a community newspaper that hits every corner of the Hilltop, to name a few.
It is also clear that they have a partner in Homes on the Hill. The desire to have a better understanding of the housing mi-cro-markets, not only to inform their investments but to also allow them to bring others to the table to show them the oppor-tunities, further demonstrates the commitment of Homes on the Hill to the community. However housing investments, though critical, are only one component of neighborhood stabilization. Perhaps more important is the ability of community members, investors, and other stakeholders to come together and coalesce around a broad vision for the community—a vision that ensures that the amazing amount of community assets are available for all residents and that everyone, regardless of background or circumstance, is seen as valuable within the community. While it is important to understand that the Hilltop is comprised of many different neighborhoods experiencing different circum-stances, it is also important to acknowledge that a broad vision of the Hilltop’s future—one that includes all voices—gives the Hilltop its best chance at growing more prosperous and vibrant in the future.
The Hilltop has a wealth of assets upon which to build a more prosperous and opportunity-rich community
16
KIRWAN INSTITUTE RESEARCH REPORT • June 2015
/KirwanInstitute | www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu
References
1. US Census Bureau. (2000, January 10, 2012 January 12) American Factfinder.
2. Uslander, Eric M., Mitchell Brown. “Inequality, Trust, and Civic Engagement” American Politics Research. Vol. 31 No. X, 2003. pp 1–28 p. 2
3. Pettit, Kathryn S. and G. Thomas Kingsley. “Framework: The New Potential for Data in Managing Neighborhood Change,” Chapter in Putting Data to Work: Data-driven Approaches to Strengthening Neighborhoods. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. December 2011. Page 10.
4. Janes, Ellen and Sandra Davis. “Vacants to Value: Baltimore’s Market-Based Approach to Vacant Property Redevelop-ment,” Chapter in Putting Data to Work: Data-driven Approaches to Strengthening Neighborhoods. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. December 2011. Pages 80–81.
5. Goldstein, Ira. “Maximizing the Impact of Federal NSP Investments through Strategic Use of Local Market Data,” in REO and Vacant Properties: Strategies for Neighborhood Stabilization, a joint publication by The Federal Reserve Banks of Boston and Cleveland and the Federal Reserve Board. 2010.
6. Youngstown Neighborhood Development Corporation. “Neighborhood Conditions Report,” 2013.
7. Community Research Partners. “A Local Housing Market Typology for the City of Columbus, Ohio: A Tool for Communi-ty Development,” December 2006.
8. For example, on investor activity and destabilization effects, see Allan Mallach and Chris Walker, “Using Data to Address the Challenge of Irresponsible Investors in Neighborhoods,” in Putting Data to Work: Data-driven Approaches to Strength-ening Neighborhoods, a publication of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, December 2011.
9. Supra n. 3 at 83
10. Id. at 85
11. Walker, Chris and Allan Mallach. “Using Data to Address the Challenge of Irresponsible Investors in Neighborhoods,” Chapter in Putting Data to Work: Data-driven Approaches to Strengthening Neighborhoods. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. December 2011. Page 33.
12. There are other methods that could be pursued. See the Walker and Mallach chapter, id., for other methods.
13. Levy, Diane K., Zach McDade, and Kassie Dumlao. “Effects from Living in Mixed-Income Communities for Low-Income Families: A Review of the Literature,” Urban Institute. November 2010. Page 11.
14. Springer, David PhD., Deborah Stokes Sharp, and Theresa Foy. “Coordinated Service Delivery and Children’s Well-Be-ing,” Journal of Community Practice: Vol. 8 No. 2. Fall 2000. Pgs. 39–52. Page 41.
Appendix
I-70
Broa
dSt
I-71
I-270
Mou
ndSt
4thSt
Eaki
nRd
FrontSt
HagueAve
Fishe
rRd
Clim
eRd
Brig
gsRd
Fran
kRd
DemorestRd
HighSt
WilsonRd
Tow
nSt
HarrisburgPike
HarrisAve
Long
St
3rdSt
Oliv
eSt
Mc K
inle
yAve
Sprin
gSt
HoltRd
PearlSt
HarmonAve
I-670
Hart
Rd
GeorgesvilleRd
GrenerAve
WarrenAve
United States Route 23
Good
aleB
lvd
Stim
mel
Rd
GantzRd
Mai
nSt
NeilAve
Good
aleS
t
EurekaAve
Gree
nlaw
nAve
Stee
leAv
e
OgdenAveSu
lliva
ntAv
e
PhillipiRd
RoysAve
Valle
yvie
wDr
Rich
St
CentralAve
SylvanAve
TerraceAve
PowellAve
City ParkAve
YaleAve
Alki
reRd
Dubl
inRd
BurgessAve
ClarendonAve
BrownRd
JacksonPike
RichardsonAve
Frem
ontS
t
Whi
tehe
adRd
5thSt
BinnsBlvd
Spru
ceSt
Big Ru
n Sou
thRd
GrantAve
Whit
tierSt
GiftSt
HighlandAve
Stat
eSt
Scot
tSt
Burr
Ave
ParkSt
MixAve
BSt
GayS
t
HallR
d
Big
RunR
d
BelvidereAve
WiltshireRd
Nobl
eSt
GrandviewAve
Holly HillDr
Rich
terR
d
WestgateAve
Harri
sonR
d
Park
sideR
dBrinkerAve
Sprin
gmon
tAve
Fran
k-Re
fuge
eExp
y
El Pa
soDr
Hardy ParkwaySt
Fulto
nSt
Vand
erbe
rgRd
CypressAve
GrubbSt
Plan
kPl
WedgewoodDr
WrexhamAve
MaconAly
SouderAve
Hopk
insA
ve
Cam
pbel
lAve
Wick
low
Rd
ReaA
ve
BluhmRd
Race
St
Dibb
leeA
ve
StephenDr
ChestershireRd
ShortSt
HawkesAve
Hyde
Rd
Butt
lesA
ve
Sext
onDr
Mol
erSt
Dove
rRd
RyanAve
MidlandAve
JaegerSt
OakS
t
Mar
yAve
HooseDr
Scio
toBl
vd
Little
Ave
Big TreeDr
BelleSt
NedraSt
Twin
RiversD
r
BankSt
Linne
tAve
KerrSt
Lynw
ardR
d
BronwynAve
OakleyAve
Alco
ttRd
Capi
talS
t
ParkwickDr
KaderlyDr
Beck
St
RacineAve
6thSt
Rock
Cre
ekDr
Blue
Roc
kBlvd
WoodburyAve
JadeSt
Fedd
ernA
ve
RiverbendRd
Low
ellDr
Surfa
ceRd
WestportR
d
Rose
mon
tAve
JosephineAve
Bree
ze H
illDr
LetchworthAve
Delra
yRd
Rich
mon
dRd
WallSt
Jani
trol
Rd
Hosa
ckSt
John
St
Will
ow R
unRd
MaclamDr
SchultzAve
LudlowSt
Perim
eter
Dr
East
field
Dr
ShellyDr
Inte
rcha
ngeR
d
WoodbrookLn
ColumbianAve
Reni
ckSt
Harp
erRd
Forn
offR
d
Flor
alAv
e
TopazDr
Parr
auDr
Chin
quoS
t
ForestwindDr
Mar
ibet
hPl
EmigRd
DeveronLn
Trac
yCir
Edso
nDr
DerrerRd Hollow RunDr
Park
wes
tDr
GalliCt
CreeksideDr
Mar
sdal
eAve
LucasSt
Arne
lleRd
SouthFwy
DeckenbachRd
Wal
nutS
t
DistributionDr
Hick
ory W
oodD
r
Commerc
eSq
Hick
oryS
t
Gree
nlea
fRd
FurnaceSt
Spaa
tzAv
e
Gold
en Le
afLn
TishmanSt
Albe
rtaS
t
OwlSt
Alam
edaD
r
SouthwesternRd
Unite
d St
ates
Rou
te 3
3
KramerAve
PinnacleDr
Klib
reck
Dr
Big Run BluffsBlvd
KirbyAve
Villa
ge P
arkD
r
Cool
idge
Dr
MayAve
SunflowerDr
EldonAve
Cabl
eAve
Shop
pers
Ln
HadleyDr
ScottDr
Sunc
rest
Ave
ViaductDr
CarrigallenLn
CozzinsSt
WestshireRd
KyleCt
New
mar
ketD
r
AvisSt
Garli
ngAv
e
Deer
Path
Dr
EdwinSt
SafinRd
CountrybrookDr
SchillingLn
High
Cre
ekDr
IndustryDr
Lexm
ontR
d
Caro
lAve
PheasantRun
OnslowDr
Bunk
erAv
e
CrevisLn
Low
ellDr
Fulto
nSt
3rdSt
Fish
erRd
I-670
Bu
ttle
sAve
EurekaAve
3rdSt
Sulli
vant
Ave
Rich
St
AlkireRd
This
map
show
s hou
sing
mar
ket c
ondi
tions
in th
e Hi
lltop
nei
ghbo
rhoo
d.By
usin
g th
e na
tura
l bre
aks m
etho
d of
cat
egor
ising
dat
a, c
ensu
s blo
ck g
roup
s wer
e as
signe
d a
scor
e fr
om 1
to 5
. Th
is m
etho
d se
eks t
o gr
oup
simila
r fig
ures
toge
ther
by
iden
tifyi
ng c
lust
ers o
f dat
a po
ints
. A
scor
e of
1 w
as in
dica
tive
of a
wea
ker h
ousin
g m
arke
t and
con
vers
ely.
Sco
res f
or e
ach
varia
ble
wer
e to
tale
d,
resu
lting
in a
n ag
greg
ate
scor
e fo
r eac
h bl
ock
grou
p. T
hese
tota
l wer
e th
en so
rted
from
leas
t to
grea
test
and
gro
uped
into
5 c
ateg
orie
s bas
ed o
n ho
usin
g m
arke
t str
engt
h in
eac
h bl
ock
grou
p:
1) D
istre
ssed
; 2) T
rans
ition
al; 3
) Sta
ble:
4) E
mer
ging
; and
5) C
ompe
titiv
e.
Sour
ce: A
CS 2
008-
2012
, HUD
Dat
a U
ser 2
009
Hous
ing
Mar
ket C
ondi
tions
- Gre
ater
Hill
top
(Col
umbu
s, O
H)
01
0.5
Mile
s
Lege
nd
Hous
ing
Mar
ket C
ondi
tion
Dist
ress
ed
Tran
sitio
nal
Stab
le
Emer
ging
Com
petit
ive
Desc
ript
ion
Scor
e Na
tura
l Bre
akDe
scri
ptio
nSc
ore
Natu
ral B
reak
117
4-30
71
0-20
.8%
230
8-41
52
20.8
1-42
.41%
341
6-53
23
42.4
2-57
.82%
453
3-82
24
57.8
3-67
.47%
582
3-11
415
67.4
8-96
.33%
112
.68-
23.1
6%1
02
8.95
-12.
67%
21-
7060
03
5.85
-8.9
4%3
7060
1-92
700
40.
01-5
.84%
492
701-
1191
005
0%5
1191
01-1
5290
01
40-1
131
68-2
252
18-3
92
226-
437
310
-17
343
8-70
54
4-9
470
6-12
255
0-3
512
26-2
124
112
.11-
14.8
6%1
0-22
210
.62-
12.1
0%2
26-6
03
7.26
-10.
61%
361
-98
40.
01 -7
.25%
499
- 138
50%
513
9-30
1
H7
Affo
rdab
le
rent
al u
nits
(b
elow
med
ian
gros
s re
nt o
f ne
ighb
orho
od)
H8
Affo
rdab
le
Ow
ner u
nits
(b
elow
med
ian
mon
thly
ow
ner c
ost o
f ne
ighb
orho
od)
H4Fo
recl
osur
e ra
te
H5%
ow
ner
occu
pied
un
its
H6M
edia
n ho
usin
g Va
lue
H1#
of H
ousi
ng
Units
H2Va
canc
y Ra
te
H3#
of
Com
mer
cial
Un
its
Figure 5Housing market conditions map using the Natural Breaks method of categorizing.
I-70
Broa
dSt
I-71
I-270
Mou
ndSt
4thSt
Eaki
nRd
FrontSt
HagueAve
Fishe
rRd
Clim
eRd
Brig
gsRd
Fran
kRd
DemorestRd
HighSt
WilsonRd
Tow
nSt
HarrisburgPike
HarrisAve
Long
St
3rdSt
Oliv
eSt
Mc K
inle
yAve
Sprin
gSt
HoltRd
PearlSt
HarmonAve
I-670
Hart
Rd
GeorgesvilleRd
GrenerAve
WarrenAve
United States Route 23
Good
aleB
lvd
Stim
mel
Rd
GantzRd
Mai
nSt
NeilAve
Good
aleS
t
EurekaAve
Gree
nlaw
nAve
Stee
leAv
e
OgdenAveSu
lliva
ntAv
e
PhillipiRd
RoysAve
Valle
yvie
wDr
Rich
St
CentralAve
SylvanAve
TerraceAve
PowellAve
City ParkAve
YaleAve
Alki
reRd
Dubl
inRd
BurgessAve
ClarendonAve
BrownRd
JacksonPike
RichardsonAve
Frem
ontS
t
Whi
tehe
adRd
5thSt
BinnsBlvd
Spru
ceSt
Big Ru
n Sou
thRd
GrantAve
Whit
tierSt
GiftSt
HighlandAve
Stat
eSt
Scot
tSt
Burr
Ave
ParkSt
MixAve
BSt
GayS
t
HallR
d
Big
RunR
d
BelvidereAve
WiltshireRd
Nobl
eSt
GrandviewAve
Holly HillDr
Rich
terR
d
WestgateAve
Harri
sonR
d
Park
sideR
dBrinkerAve
Sprin
gmon
tAve
Fran
k-Re
fuge
eExp
y
El Pa
soDr
Hardy ParkwaySt
Fulto
nSt
Vand
erbe
rgRd
CypressAve
GrubbSt
Plan
kPl
WedgewoodDr
WrexhamAve
MaconAly
SouderAve
Hopk
insA
ve
Cam
pbel
lAve
Wick
low
Rd
ReaA
ve
BluhmRd
Race
St
Dibb
leeA
ve
StephenDr
ChestershireRd
ShortSt
HawkesAve
Hyde
Rd
Butt
lesA
ve
Sext
onDr
Mol
erSt
Dove
rRd
RyanAve
MidlandAve
JaegerSt
OakS
t
Mar
yAve
HooseDr
Scio
toBl
vd
Little
Ave
Big TreeDr
BelleSt
NedraSt
Twin
RiversD
r
BankSt
Linne
tAve
KerrSt
Lynw
ardR
d
BronwynAve
OakleyAve
Alco
ttRd
Capi
talS
t
ParkwickDr
KaderlyDr
Beck
St
RacineAve
6thSt
Rock
Cre
ekDr
Blue
Roc
kBlvd
WoodburyAve
JadeSt
Fedd
ernA
ve
RiverbendRd
Low
ellDr
Surfa
ceRd
WestportR
d
Rose
mon
tAve
JosephineAve
Bree
ze H
illDr
LetchworthAve
Delra
yRd
Rich
mon
dRd
WallSt
Jani
trol
Rd
Hosa
ckSt
John
St
Will
ow R
unRd
MaclamDr
SchultzAve
LudlowSt
Perim
eter
Dr
East
field
Dr
ShellyDr
Inte
rcha
ngeR
d
WoodbrookLn
ColumbianAve
Reni
ckSt
Harp
erRd
Forn
offR
d
Flor
alAv
e
TopazDr
Parr
auDr
Chin
quoS
t
ForestwindDr
Mar
ibet
hPl
EmigRd
DeveronLn
Trac
yCir
Edso
nDr
DerrerRd Hollow RunDr
Park
wes
tDr
GalliCt
CreeksideDr
Mar
sdal
eAve
LucasSt
Arne
lleRd
SouthFwy
DeckenbachRd
Wal
nutS
t
DistributionDr
Hick
ory W
oodD
r
Commerc
eSq
Hick
oryS
t
Gree
nlea
fRd
FurnaceSt
Spaa
tzAv
e
Gold
en Le
afLn
TishmanSt
Albe
rtaS
t
OwlSt
Alam
edaD
r
SouthwesternRd
Unite
d St
ates
Rou
te 3
3
KramerAve
PinnacleDr
Klib
reck
Dr
Big Run BluffsBlvd
KirbyAve
Villa
ge P
arkD
r
Cool
idge
Dr
MayAve
SunflowerDr
EldonAve
Cabl
eAve
Shop
pers
Ln
HadleyDr
ScottDr
Sunc
rest
Ave
ViaductDr
CarrigallenLn
CozzinsSt
WestshireRd
KyleCt
New
mar
ketD
r
AvisSt
Garli
ngAv
e
Deer
Path
Dr
EdwinSt
SafinRd
CountrybrookDr
SchillingLn
High
Cre
ekDr
IndustryDr
Lexm
ontR
d
Caro
lAve
PheasantRun
OnslowDr
Bunk
erAv
e
CrevisLn
Low
ellDr
Fulto
nSt
3rdSt
Fish
erRd
I-670
Bu
ttle
sAve
EurekaAve
3rdSt
Sulli
vant
Ave
Rich
St
AlkireRd
This
map
show
s hou
sing
mar
ket c
ondi
tions
in th
e Hi
lltop
nei
ghbo
rhoo
d.By
usin
g th
e qu
antil
e sc
ore
met
hod,
cen
sus b
lock
gro
ups w
ere
assig
ned
a sc
ore
from
1 to
5 fo
r eac
h m
etho
d.
A sc
ore
of 1
was
indi
cativ
e of
a w
eake
r hou
sing
mar
ket.
Scor
es fo
r eac
h va
riabl
e w
ere
tota
led,
resu
lting
in a
n ag
greg
ate
scor
e fo
r eac
h bl
ock
grou
p. T
hese
tota
ls w
ere
then
sort
ed fr
om le
ast t
o gr
eate
st a
nd g
roup
ed in
to 5
cate
gorie
s ba
sed
on h
ousin
g m
arke
t str
engt
h in
eac
h bl
ock
grou
p: 1
) Dist
ress
ed; 2
) Tra
nsiti
onal
; 3) S
tabl
e:
4) E
mer
ging
; and
5) C
ompe
titiv
e. T
hen,
by
givi
ng a
scor
e fo
r eac
h ca
tego
ry fr
om 1
to 5
, to
tal s
core
is a
ggre
gate
d w
ith e
ach
met
hod.
Sour
ce: A
CS 2
008-
2012
, HUD
Dat
a U
ser 2
009
Hous
ing
Mar
ket C
ondi
tions
- Gre
ater
Hill
top
(Col
umbu
s, O
H)
01
0.5
Mile
s
Lege
nd
Hous
ing
Mar
ket C
ondi
tion
Dist
ress
ed
Tran
sitio
nal
Stab
le
Emer
ging
Com
petit
ive
Desc
ript
ion
Scor
e Q
uant
ileDe
scri
ptio
nSc
ore
Qua
ntile
117
4-34
61
0-28
.49%
234
7-38
62
28.5
0-44
.91%
338
7-45
73
44.9
2-57
.20%
445
8-69
74
57.2
1-76
.85%
569
8-11
415
76.8
6-96
.33%
111
.45-
23.1
6%1
0-64
800
28.
25-1
1.44
%2
6480
1-78
200
34.
32-8
.24%
378
201-
9840
04
0.01
-4.3
1%4
9840
1-11
1700
50%
511
701-
1529
001
9-11
31
68-1
972
6-8
219
8-34
23
4-5
334
3-49
44
2-3
449
5-78
65
0-1
578
7-21
241
14.1
8-14
.86%
10-
312
12.1
1-14
.17%
232
-59
310
.62-
12.1
%3
60-8
84
8.85
-10.
61%
489
-114
50-
8 .84
%5
115-
301
H4Fo
recl
osur
e ra
teH8
Affo
rdab
le
Ow
ner u
nits
(b
elow
med
ian
mon
thly
ow
ner c
ost o
f ne
ighb
orho
od)
H6M
edia
n ho
usin
g Va
lue
H3#
of
Com
mer
cial
Un
itsH7
Affo
rdab
le
rent
al u
nits
(b
elow
med
ian
gros
s re
nt o
f ne
ighb
orho
od)
H1#
of H
ousi
ng
Units
H5%
ow
ner
occu
pied
un
its
H2Va
canc
y Ra
te
Figure 6Housing market conditions map using the Quantile method of categorizing.
I-70
Broa
dSt
I-71
I-270
Mou
ndSt
4thSt
Eaki
nRd
FrontSt
HagueAve
Fishe
rRd
Clim
eRd
Brig
gsRd
Fran
kRd
DemorestRd
HighSt
WilsonRd
Tow
nSt
HarrisburgPike
HarrisAve
Long
St3rdSt
Oliv
eSt
Mc
Kinl
eyAv
e
Sprin
gSt
HoltRd
PearlSt
HarmonAve
I-670
Hart
Rd
GeorgesvilleRd
GrenerAve
WarrenAve
UnitedStatesRoute23
Good
aleB
lvd
Stim
mel
Rd
GantzRd
Mai
nSt
NeilAve
Good
aleS
t
EurekaAve
Gree
nlaw
nAve
Stee
leAv
e
OgdenAve
Sulli
vant
Ave
PhillipiRd
RoysAve
Valle
yvie
wDr
Rich
St
CentralAve
SylvanAve
TerraceAve
PowellAve
City ParkAve
YaleAve
Alki
reRd
Dubl
inRd
BurgessAve
ClarendonAve
BrownRd
JacksonPike
RichardsonAve
Frem
ontS
t
Whi
tehe
adRd
5thSt
BinnsBlvd
Spru
ceSt
BigRu
nSout
hRd
GrantAve
Whit
tierSt
GiftSt
HighlandAve
Stat
eSt
Scot
tSt
Burr
Ave
ParkSt
MixAve
BSt
GayS
t
HallR
d
Big
RunR
d
BelvidereAve
WiltshireRd
Nob
leSt
GrandviewAve
HollyHillDr
Rich
terR
d
WestgateAve
Harri
sonR
d
Park
sideR
dBrinkerAve
Sprin
gmon
tAve
Fran
k-Re
fuge
eExp
y
ElPa
soDr
HardyParkwaySt
Fulto
nSt
Vand
erbe
rgRd
CypressAve
GrubbSt
Plan
kPl
WedgewoodDr
WrexhamAve
MaconAly
SouderAve
Hopk
insA
ve
Cam
pbel
lAve
Wic
klow
Rd
ReaA
ve
BluhmRd
Race
St
Dibb
leeA
ve
StephenDr
ChestershireRd
ShortSt
HawkesAve
Hyde
Rd
Butt
lesA
ve
Sext
onDr
Mol
erSt
Dove
rRd
RyanAve
MidlandAve
JaegerSt
Oak
St
Mar
yAve
HooseDr
Scio
toBl
vd
Litt
leAv
e
Big TreeDr
BelleSt
NedraSt
Twin
RiversD
r
BankSt
Linne
tAve
KerrSt
Lynw
ardR
d
BronwynAve
OakleyAve
Alco
ttRd
Capi
talS
t
ParkwickDr
KaderlyDr
Beck
St
RacineAve
6thSt
Rock
Cree
kDr
Blue
Rock
Blvd
WoodburyAve
JadeSt
Fedd
ernA
ve
RiverbendRd
Low
ellD
r
Surfa
ceRd
WestportR
d
Rose
mon
tAve
JosephineAve
Bree
zeHi
llDr
LetchworthAve
Delra
yRd
Rich
mon
dRd
WallSt
Jani
trol
Rd
Hosa
ckSt
John
St
Will
owRu
nRd
MaclamDr
SchultzAve
LudlowSt
Perim
eter
Dr
East
field
Dr
ShellyDr
Inte
rcha
ngeR
d
WoodbrookLn
ColumbianAve
Reni
ckSt
Harp
erRd
Forn
offR
d
Flor
alAv
e
TopazDr
Parr
auDr
Chin
quoS
t
ForestwindDr
Mar
ibet
hPl
EmigRd
DeveronLn
Trac
yCir
Edso
nDr
DerrerRd HollowRunDr
Park
wes
tDr
GalliCt
CreeksideDr
Mar
sdal
eAve
LucasSt
Arne
lleRd
SouthFwy
DeckenbachRd
Wal
nutS
t
DistributionDr
Hick
oryW
oodD
r
Commerc
eSq
Hick
oryS
t
Gree
nlea
fRd
FurnaceSt
Spaa
tzAv
e
Gold
enLe
afLn
TishmanSt
Albe
rtaS
t
OwlSt
Alam
edaD
r
SouthwesternRd
Unite
dSt
ates
Rout
e33
KramerAve
PinnacleDr
Klib
reck
Dr
BigRunBluffsBlvd
KirbyAve
Villa
gePa
rkDr
Cool
idge
Dr
MayAve
SunflowerDr
EldonAve
Cabl
eAve
Shop
pers
Ln
HadleyDr
ScottDr
Sunc
rest
Ave
ViaductDr
CarrigallenLn
CozzinsSt
WestshireRd
KyleCt
New
mar
ketD
r
AvisSt
Garli
ngAv
e
Deer
Path
Dr
EdwinSt
SafinRd
CountrybrookDr
SchillingLn
High
Cree
kDr
IndustryDr
Lexm
ontR
d
Caro
lAve
PheasantRun
OnslowDrBu
nker
Ave
CrevisLn
Low
ellD
r
Fulto
nSt
3rdSt
Fish
erRd
I-670
Butt
lesA
ve
EurekaAve
3rdSt
Sulli
vant
Ave
Rich
St
AlkireRd
Figure 7Housing market conditions map using the Z-score method of categorizing.
Figure 8Housing market conditions map including land banks and pending foreclosures.
Housing Market Conditions
Housing Units Owner Occupied Housing Units
Renter Occupied Housing Units
Homeownership Rate
Distressed 3,820 1,169 2,651 30.60%Transitional 5,009 2,183 2,826 43.58%Stable 4,737 2,504 2,233 52.86%Emerging 5,047 3,351 1,696 66.40%Competitive 4,480 2,716 1,764 60.63%
30.60%
43.58%
52.86%
66.40%
60.63%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Distressed TransiConal Stable Emerging CompeCCve
Homeownership Rate by Housing Market Condi8ons
Figure 9Homeownership Rate by Housing Market Conditions
For More InformationThe Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University is known and respected nationally and deeply engaged in social issues. We are focused on projects that are integrated with sound research, strategic communication, and advocacy. To learn more, visit www.kirwaninstitute.osu.edu.
This publication was produced by the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University. As a university-wide, interdisciplinary research institute, the Kirwan Institute works to deepen understanding of the causes of—and solutions to—racial and ethnic disparities worldwide and to bring about a society that is fair and just for all people.
Kirwan Institute research is designed to be actively used to solve problems in society. Its research and staff expertise are shared through an extensive network of colleagues and partners—ranging from other researchers, grassroots social justice advocates, policymakers, and community leaders nationally and globally, who can quickly put ideas into action.
The Ohio State University33 West 11th Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43201
Phone: (614) 688-5429Fax: (614) 688-5592www.KirwanInstitute.osu.edu