Complexity of Apartment Complexes

[Richard Brand]

"There is fear among homeowners, builders, Realtors and politicians that this project will devalue area property values, increase crime, affect the school system and generally have a negative impact on the area," Linda Houston, representative of a homeowners association, tells the Houston Chronicle during a protest over proposed low income apartments in March 2011.  City planners face many decisions; planning and zoning are one of the most prominent and highly controversial choices for the planner. Few zoning choices can make more of an impact than housing. Does the city put in apartments, or single housing only?

Just as Mrs. Houston articulated, there are certain negative prejudices associated with apartments in general, and especially low-income housing. Place yourself in the shoes of a city planner. As you make this zoning decision, you have to realize the negative impact on your city. Apartment complexes mean dense population. Per square mile, multi-family dwellings mean more people in a given space than single family dwellings. This translates into more need for public services; more police, firefighters, mass transit, schools, and even more access to hospitals. More people also means more public assistance, Medicaid, and food stamp programs. There is currently no standard among renting practices as to whom the property owner can let live in the apartments. According to a recent poll on www.multifamilyinsider.com, sixty-three percent of people felt there was a higher crime rate in and around apartment complexes than in areas without them. Homeowners around the proposed site have fears of a diminished property value, traffic congestion in their commute, even increased traffic in and out of their neighborhoods. With all of the negatives, it may appear strange for a planner to zone areas specifically for multifamily complexes. Apartments, however, offer a wide range of benefits for the cities they are built in.

With the negative image that apartments have, it is a wonder that any city would include them in their planning. The truth is, however, that apartment complexes, and the people that live in them, contribute a lot to the city. In fact, the National Multi-Housing Council (NMHC) claims that most of the negative images about apartment complexes are myths and simply not true. The NMHC compiled data that claimed there were no more violent crimes in the complexes than in areas without them. In opposition to Mrs. Houston’s claim about property values, a National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) study shows that single-family houses within 300 feet of an apartment complex increased between 1987 and 1995 an average of 3.12 percent per year, while houses not near one increased an average of 3.19 percent per year. Contrary to popular belief, studies have shown that the there is no more of a strain on public services with apartments in the city. Instead of driving away businesses, the dense population attracts industries; there is a ready labor force in centralized locales. In fact in 1998 the National Association of Home Builders estimated that for every 100 unit complex built in the city 122 jobs were created in the same year in that city, which translate into $579,000 in local taxes and an estimated $5.2 million in local economies. Industry relies on labor, they will move to where the labor is most available. The high number of new residents also means that local businesses, and service-based industries will be needed in that area.

One of the long heralded complaints is that apartment renters do not pay taxes and therefore create a strain on the local municipal government. Landlords often pay a higher property tax than single family dwellings that enjoy the homestead exemption. This cost is covered in the monthly rent charged to the residents. This actually gives the local government more income than houses would in the same area.

It is true however, that traffic in these areas can become congested. A good city planner knows and understands this and plans accordingly. By putting complexes next to busy roads, capable of handling the added traffic not only prevents the side streets from overflowing, but gives the complex visibility to attract potential residents.

Finally in the age of “green-belt” housing, the apartment complex gives a unique advantage to the city planner. The new trend is to place everything a resident could want or need within walking distance of the complex. Several new buildings include these amenities in the complex itself. These neighborhoods create a self-containing community, with the hope of eliminating congestion by eliminating the need for residents to drive.

[Pamela Ann Cameron]

Some people cannot afford to live in a home.  Apartments are needed because people need a roof over their heads that they can afford.  One side of this issue has to be compassion.

[Gabriela Gaspar]

I like how your article shows the two sides of the problem. I do agree that apartment complexes are a relief to so many people that can by no means afford a house. City planning wise, I can see how the "green-belt" housing has potential to create better quality of life to the population. I believe that most of the hostility towards apartment complexes comes from the belief that home owning equals financial success, but when home owners start seeing the benefits of multifamily complexes in their area they will realize the positive sides to it. It sure is a challenge and there are a lot of issues to be dealt with - the article mentions a handful of them, but in the long term I believe that the apartment complex "culture" will become more acceptable in America.

[27a5kggx4ujf5]

All of these are well thought out arguments for the pros and cons of having apartments in your city.  On the other hand, I think the more direct thing that needs to addressed is that a large majority of citizens NEED apartments.  Regardless of an apartment complex's advantage or disadvantage to those around them, they are a cheaper way of living that is a necessity for millions of Americans.  I think a city planner should well think out the consequences and benefits of building apartments but when it comes down to it, it's a matter of compassion and ethics that although it may not be ideal to supply housing for lower income families, it is a need for them.  If they cannot afford or are not in the stage of life where they could buy or rent a house, they must have available apartments to live in.  I know it's not always logical or productive to think in this mindset but I think it's unavoidable that cities must have apartment complexes.

[Richard Brand]

Does the city planner need to have compassion for the less afluent?

Tessa Brown said:

All of these are well thought out arguments for the pros and cons of having apartments in your city.  On the other hand, I think the more direct thing that needs to addressed is that a large majority of citizens NEED apartments.  Regardless of an apartment complex's advantage or disadvantage to those around them, they are a cheaper way of living that is a necessity for millions of Americans.  I think a city planner should well think out the consequences and benefits of building apartments but when it comes down to it, it's a matter of compassion and ethics that although it may not be ideal to supply housing for lower income families, it is a need for them.  If they cannot afford or are not in the stage of life where they could buy or rent a house, they must have available apartments to live in.  I know it's not always logical or productive to think in this mindset but I think it's unavoidable that cities must have apartment complexes.

[Chelsea Nelson]

I agree with both Tessa and Pam, city planners not only should but have the obligation to give though to all types of people that could possibly inhabit the city they are planning.  Apartments provide a financial alternative to buying a house and when you are struggling to stay afloat buying a house is out of the question.  Pam brought up the issue of compassion and I believe that from a Christian's point of view compassion should always be in the fore-front of our minds.  Life happens and the economy is bad and that means people are unable to make big purchases such as houses and apartments provide an cost efficient substitute.  City planners have to also remember that some people are not prepared to purchase a home for example a young couple with no kids, college students, or maybe even empty nesters looking to down grade.  Apartments are not only cost efficient they are usually located in more metropolitan areas which are closer to jobs, shopping locations, and restaurants which is more appealing to certain people when deciding where to live.  In summation city planners should have compassion for the less affluent but that is not the only reason to consider building apartments because while they are cheaper than purchasing a home they are still good sources of income.  

Tessa Brown said:

All of these are well thought out arguments for the pros and cons of having apartments in your city.  On the other hand, I think the more direct thing that needs to addressed is that a large majority of citizens NEED apartments.  Regardless of an apartment complex's advantage or disadvantage to those around them, they are a cheaper way of living that is a necessity for millions of Americans.  I think a city planner should well think out the consequences and benefits of building apartments but when it comes down to it, it's a matter of compassion and ethics that although it may not be ideal to supply housing for lower income families, it is a need for them.  If they cannot afford or are not in the stage of life where they could buy or rent a house, they must have available apartments to live in.  I know it's not always logical or productive to think in this mindset but I think it's unavoidable that cities must have apartment complexes.

[Gabriela Gaspar]

Shifting the discussion a little bit to the side of home builders and buyers, there is a very interesting article - that can be found here - that talks about how the hopes for the housing market in the US should lie in the Baby Boomers. According to the article, Baby Boomers "are in a better position to buy today than they have been in years." 

 

That could be good news to home builders, in a sense that there are potential home buyers out there, but they are not the first-timers anymore. Because of the many credit issues the first-time home buyers are facing with the crisis, they are no longer the clientele home builders and real state agents should be looking for. However, while young buyers are facing tough times in the housing market, baby boomers are in their best time to buy. As the article further mentions, "with affordability at record highs, boomers should be right in the middle of bailing this generation out of the housing morass."

 

It seems to me that the solution to the problem of apartment complexes and their negative image is easier than I imagined. If home builders and sellers focus their attention on who wants and can buy a house right now - the middle aged - then the housing market will be able to recover at a faster and even better rate than if they relied mostly on first timers. At the same time, apartment complexes become a great short term (and long term, why not?) solution to struggling young adults and families who have been severely struck by the economic crisis. 

 

Add to it the benefits of having apartment complexes in an area - more people, more labor force, more industries, services, commerce, and all that was mentioned in article above - and there is a reasonable solution to both parts: home builders will have potential buyers and those who cannot afford housing today will live within their budget until they are able to afford a house.