Housing

Barriers to Housing Production in Oregon

A summary of our recently released report on Barriers to Housing Production in Oregon:

This brief summarizes research conducted by faculty from the Institute for Policy Research & Engagement (IPRE) on barriers to housing construction in Oregon. The research team conducted a literature review, reviewed municipal housing-related documents and plans, and conducted a survey of local government staff, private sector housing developers and nonprofit housing developers. The summary report highlights key barriers and offers recommendations on how local and state policy might soften key barriers.

To understand perspectives on barriers to housing production, we developed and administered an online survey to selected stakeholder groups. We targeted (1) local government staff (primarily planners, but other staff in cities that do not have planning staff), (2) for-profit housing developers, and (3) non-profit housing developers. A total of 323 individuals participated in the survey; 134 government representatives (41% of respondents), 105 private sector developers (33%), 52 nonprofit housing developers (16%) and 32 that could not be categorized in the three primary groups (10%).

Exhibit 1 shows the top 12 barriers reported among the 61 included in the survey ranked by the percentage of respondents indicated they barrier was “extreme.” Barriers from 4 of the 5 categories emerge in the top 12 with several barriers related to construction costs (construction and materials), industry structure, and land supply constituting the most consistently rated extreme barriers. Additionally, the mismatch in housing supply for low and moderate income to compete the market and the lack of supply keeping up with population growth are demand related barriers that are perceived as extreme.  Key conclusions from our research include:

  • Barriers are varied and interact in complex ways
  • Regulatory barriers are real but vary by community and are community dependent
  • Land supply is generally perceived as a barrier, but the constraint is much more nuanced than having an adequate supply of land in UGBs – provision of infrastructure and the size of lots pose barriers
  • Industry-related barriers (e.g., construction and labor costs; availability of labor) are significant and difficult to address with state policy
  • Private and nonprofit housing developers perceive process barriers (e.g., permitting, fees, etc.) as extreme at much higher rates than the public sector.
  • The private sector is not producing lower cost housing

To check out our recommended solutions and read more about our research see:

Barriers to Housing Production Brief

Barriers to Housing Production Summary Report_

Barriers Housing Production Technical Report 

 

 

Rebecca Lewis Leave a comment

Metropolitan Cooperation to Combat Climate Change through Transportation and Housing: Part 1- Research Approach

In this series of blog posts, I will summarize and describe sabbatical research conducted while living in Malmö Sweden for 4 months in 2022.

   Part 1: Research Approach

Part 2:  Policy Context

Part 3: “National Negotiation” Overview

Part 4: Key Lessons Learned

Originally, I intended to blog about research more frequently, but I got immersed in the experience and the research process.  I will start this series by describing how I approached this study and undertook research.  As I’ll discuss later, conducting research in a different language and policy context offered some puzzles to figure out.

Malmö Street Construction to Prepare for Express Buses

I became interested in this policy after hearing about it on our study abroad class in 2019 during a presentation by the city of Malmö bicycle planners who were talking about massive expansion in bus and bike infrastructure thanks to funding from the Swedish government under the “big city package.”  Under the “National Negotiation on Housing and Infrastructure,” (Sverigeförhandlingen) the national government builds cycling and transit infrastructure in exchange for the local government committing to a specific number housing units to accommodate population growth within the major cities of Malmö, Stockholm, and Gothenburg. I found this policy to be innovative and collaborative by trading massive infrastructure investment needed to support climate targets for dense housing needed to support bicycling and transit.

I want to understand how this policy was adopted and implemented, and carry lessons learned back to the U.S. context. My objectives:

1) To understand the political context and policy adoption process for the National Negotiation on Housing and Infrastructure, including how land use regulations and transportation finance changed.

2) To learn where the policy has influenced local decision making and urban form and where the policy has diverged from original conception to actual implementation locally; and

3) To apply lessons learned to inform policy formulation and implementation at a local, state, and federal level in the United States.

Approach

To conduct this research, I lived in Malmö, Sweden for 4 months, where I held a visiting researcher appointment at Malmö University within the Department of Urban Studies.  I began my research by identifying, downloading, translating, and summarizing key policies related to housing, land use, and transport. To examine this policy, I needed to understand the systems governing the use of land, construction of housing, and provision of transportation infrastructure.  I also needed to understand governance and taxation at a local, regional, and national level. Colleagues at Malmö University offered informal knowledge to confirm my understanding of policy prior to conducting interviews.

I gathered and translated national and city level documents that described the “Big City” agreements in Malmö, Stockholm, and Gothenburg.  These documents included the original frameworks, annual reports, and quarterly meeting meetings.  After summarizing these documents, I began scheduling interviews with key stakeholders at a national, regional, and local level.  Within each city, I scheduled interviews with planners, regional transit providers, bicycle infrastructure designers, and national transportation agency staff.  I also conducted site visits to see the places where new housing is being planned/constructed. To glean lessons learned for the U.S., I probed interviewees on the policy adoption process, collaboration, implementation, and key lessons learned.

Component Intent Approach
1) Context – Housing, Transportation, Land Use a) Describe context for land use planning and transportation planning in Sweden

b) Describe real estate and housing approach in Sweden to understand methods of allocation and construction

 

 a) identified Swedish names for key documents including comprehensive plan, detailed plan, mobility plan, housing supply plan, etc

b) locate and download documents in Swedish

c) translate documents into English using Google Translate

d) Read and summarize key documents

e) Verify understanding of approach with colleagues
2) National Negotiation – Context a) Describe the intent and goals of National Negotiation

b) Summarize key agreements with big cities: number of housing units, transportation investments, timeline, cost

c) Document progress to implement key projects (create maps)

 a) identified Swedish names for key documents including final report, annual reports,

b) locate and download documents in Swedish

c) translate documents into English using Google Translate

d) Read and summarize key documents

e)Search documents and websites to identify areas (using maps) of transit expansion and housing development (target for site visits)

 
3) National Negotiation – Evaluation

 

 

 a) Obtain perspectives on policy adoption and strengths and weaknesses of approach

b) Visualize new housing construction to visualize transformation (photos)

c) Visualize new transportation infrastructure (photos)

 a) Search websites to identify names to contact (note – most email addresses for individuals not readily available in Sweden)

b) Set up and conduct interviews with key individuals at the local, regional, and national level representing housing, transportation, and land use

c) Using research from Part 2 conduct site visits

 
4) Synthesis a) Examine key lessons learned from adoption to inform policy in the United States. In particular, I will focus on Oregon because it is the most innovative land use and transportation policy state in the U.S. and presents a useful context to analyze transferability of this Swedish policy.

b) Offer broader recommendations for local, state, and federal roles, including funding mechanisms. that are applicable nationwide.

 

 a) Write up and describe research process

b) Synthesize information from stakeholder interviews to develop key themes

c) Write up final report

Gothenburg – Construction and street for new tramline

 

In addition to the academic description above, I want to offer a bit of reflection on some of the differences and challenges with doing research on a policy in a different country.  While I’ve participated in comparative research in the past and led educational experiences abroad, conducting qualitative research in another country and another language was new to me.

I came across three different challenges:

  • Language and document access: I heard about the policy from a presentation and was able to find a 4 page summary in English. I found the same thing for the comprehensive plan.  As I got more settled in Sweden, I figured out what the Swedish words for various documents and thus, how to search for them.  The English versions of documents were ~10-20 pages but the Swedish versions are 300+ pages! Then I was able to locate and download documents in Swedish, and then use Google Translate to translate them into English – it’s not perfect, but it gives me the gist of what I need to know even if the wording might sound a bit awkward. I did a lot of independent research and then verified my understanding through informal conversations with university colleagues.
  • Finding interview contacts: My colleagues had some connections the helped me get in the door for interviews, but in some cases I had trouble finding the names and email addresses of appropriate contacts. I scoured annual reports and meeting minutes to find names of key staff at the city level but often found higher-level officials (like city managers) rather than technical experts. I could sometimes find names, but no email addresses meaning that I emailed a general email account for the city and awaited a response to get connected to the right people.  (Somewhat of a black box approach.) This actually worked out (to my surprise!), but it took more time than I anticipated.
  • Technical conversations in another language: As I’ve mentioned, English is spoken fluently and extensively throughout Sweden as it’s part of primary education across the country. As an English speaker, it was easy to take this for granted – I was extremely lucky that I was able to conduct interviews in my native (and only fluent) language and that contacts were willing to speak to me.  Several times, my interviewees noted how they hadn’t spoke English recently (partially due to COVID and the lack of visitors/travel) and how difficult it was to find the translation for technical terms.  I joked with one interview about how talking in English at a coffeeshop is much different than talking about comprehensive planning. This part of the process gave me a new perspective on something I had been taking for granted and gave me a great appreciation for the time and attention people gave me.  As I plan to continue collaborating in Sweden, it has also encouraged me to continue my study of the language so I can get more up to speed in these conversations.

In the next series of blogs, I’ll describe and summarize my understanding of context and policy.

Rebecca Lewis Leave a comment

About the neighborhood — Lugnet

In researching MKB for my previous post, I also wanted to learn more about our neighborhood and when these houses were constructed.  While Sweden has a detailed Land Registry with lots of details about properties, it seems that you need a personnumber to access details.  I dug a bit deeper and took a step back to better understand the Swedish approach to housing.  I found out our housing was build in the 1970s.

Sweden experienced a population & economic boom following World War II and committed to an approach of improving the quality of housing and building public housing through municipally owned housing companies.  The new housing had greenspace & parks and access to services (like preschools, shown below) integrated. Unlike many other countries, municipally owned housing is not means-tested meaning access isn’t limited by falling under a certain income threshold or paying a certain percentage of your income for housing. That means people of all incomes have access to publicly provided housing.  Over half of renters in Sweden live in public housing. About 30% of people are renters.  (As an aside, the cost of housing to buy seems very reasonable – approximately $400K for a 1100 square foot condo in the heart of the city.  While it’s not easy to compare in this way,  a quick search in Boston, a similar sized /quality apartment is at least double this price.) The lack of “means-testing” has become a critique of the Swedish approach to housing.  This is something I want to learn more about – what if you’re under the income requirements and can’t find housing? Stockholm has famously long queues for apartments.

In 1965, due to the ongoing housing shortage, Sweden committed to building one million homes over 10 years through the famous ‘Million Homes Programme’.    The intent was to provide higher quality housing and produce new housing to meet housing shortages.  The construction was heavily subsidized for lower income housing.

Our neighborhood is called “Lugnet” and the name of our street translates to “calm street.” It is lined with 6 story buildings with courtyards, so this doesn’t necessarily align with the name of the street.  I wanted to know more about this style of housing and when it was built. Digging deeper, I learned this:

The Lugnet district was originally a legendary working-class district in central Malmö, which was demolished to make way for a modern building. During the 1960s and 1970s, the simple street houses that have existed here since the middle of the 19th century were demolished. Our properties were built in 1979 and 1890.- MKB

Talking to locals and colleagues, everyone seems to have a slightly different take on whether demolition as good, bad, or necessary.  Some say the homes were really cute and historic but others say the quality was poor and the homes were built in geologically compromised way. This site shares some of the history and controversy of demolishing the older, working class homes & neighborhood for new construction.

This website provides a lot of photos of the area before demolition: https://bilderisyd.se/produkt-tagg/lugnet.

Lugnet photos (including schools)

Connecting this example to the U.S. context, the construction of this neighborhood serves as an example of what we call urban renewal where older, working class neighborhoods were demolished to build new post-war construction.  In my own hometown of Frankfort, Kentucky, the “Crawfish Bottom” neighborhood was demolished to build a Civic Center & large state office building (which were recently demolished in 2018.) In this neighborhood, the result was more density in close access to the city center. Here in Sweden, the new Lugnet neighborhood was developed with consideration of childcare, greenspace, and serving older adults. It’s pretty remarkable to see the preschool inside our building (and across the street) so active all day and a mix of age groups living in the city center.  In the U.S., we’ve started integrating services more in permanent supportive housing but it is far from the norm.

As I continue my research on land use, housing, and transportation, I want to better understand:

  • What does land seizure/eminent domain look like in Sweden? (How do public agencies gain access to land?)
  • Where is new housing being constructed? Is it infill or greenfield?
  • How do people of all income levels access housing?
Rebecca Lewis Leave a comment

Living in Malmö

We have arrived in Malmö and are getting settled into our new city where we will live for nearly 4 months.  As a city planning professor, I’m constantly trying to understand urban form and transportation networks when I’m traveling.  As I acclimate to a new city, I’m trying to understand when various parts were developed, how, and under what policies and laws. I’ve learned so much about the politics of Sweden and history of this city & housing in just a few short days – I’m eager to learn more.

Lugna Gatan courtyard

We are living in an apartment held by the university for visiting researchers.  Our apartment is located near the center of the city, close to Strogatan (shopping street) and Triangeln (transit station and mall/shopping area.) The street where we are living is called Lugna gatan which translates to “calm street” in the neighborhood “Lugnet.”

The urban design in this area is interesting – there are several 7 story u-shaped apartment buildings with courtyards in the middle.  The apartments are designed very well with tons of light in each room. While the complexes are bulky, each building is split up so there are ~28 apartments accessed through individual doors (rather than a large central entry way with long, winding hallways.  Each floor has 4 apartments and the design also means few shared walls. The building is remarkably quiet.  There’s shared laundry in the basement and a courtyard with a playground, bbq area, bike racks, and recycling/compost.  There is a pre-school across the street. The buildings are made of brick with aluminum siding around the balconies, which gives a somewhat brutalist feel.

Outside of Lugna gatan

School across from building

We assumed the buildings were constructed post-war and started doing some additional research.  It turns out our apartment building is owned and maintained by MKB, which is the city of Malmö’s non-profit housing authority.  We kept seeing “MKB” on apartment buildings and looked it up. Some interesting facts:

From what I can tell, you register interest in an apartment online and search vacancies through the website.  There is a municipal housing agency (Boplats Syd) that aggregates apartments from MKB and other landlords. Some of the apartments have minimum income requirements, and in general, you have to earn 1.5x the rent. There are requirements about second homes, savings, debt, and number of tenants.  Some also mentioned that your work couldn’t be too far from your home! One says: “You can usually have a maximum of 2 hours commuting distance one way between your work and home.”  The rents are very reasonable and are set through tenant/landlord negotiations. For example, our rent for a furnished 1 bedroom, 61 sq meter (656 sq ft) is 8423 SEK (or $896 a month) including all utilities except broadband. For a nice apartment steps away from the center of city, I find this remarkably reasonable.

I found out some interesting facts about Lugnet that I’ll share in a future post after some further research.  As I embark on my research project in Sweden, I want to find out more about:

  • How is construction of government subsidized housing financed?
    • Does the government offer both housing construction subsidy and rent subsidy?
  • How is land obtained to construct housing?
  • Who is eligible for government supported housing?
  • How long are the waiting lists for housing? (queues)
  • What are the building codes and maintenance requirements for government supported housing?
  • What are the characteristics of other landlords and rents (beyond MKB?)
Rebecca Lewis 2 Comments