Creating a Baseline Typology to Guide Investment ...kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/.../01/FINAL-revised-report-6-17.pdfold model of ‘worst-first’, even in those instances where there

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


/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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

Creating a Baseline Typology to Guide Investment ...kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/.../01/FINAL-revised-report-6-17.pdfold model of ‘worst-first’, even in those instances where there

Documents