The housing affordability measure illustrates the relationship between income and housing costs. A household that spends 30% or more of its collective monthly income to cover housing costs is considered to be “housing cost-burden[ed].”[1] Those spending between 30% and 49.9% of their monthly income are categorized as “moderately housing cost-burden[ed],” while those spending more than 50% are categorized as “severely housing cost-burden[ed].”[2]

How much a household spends on housing costs affects the household’s overall financial situation. More money spent on housing leaves less in the household budget for other needs, such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care, as well as for incidental purchases and saving for the future.

The estimated housing costs as a percentage of household income are categorized by tenure: all households, those that own their housing unit, and those that rent their housing unit.

Throughout the period of analysis, the percentage of housing cost-burdened renter households in Champaign County was higher than the percentage of housing cost-burdened homeowner households in Champaign County. All three categories saw year-to-year fluctuations between 2005 and 2023, and none of the three show a consistent trend. However, all three categories were estimated to have a lower percentage of housing cost-burdened households in 2023 than in 2005.

Data on estimated housing costs as a percentage of monthly income was sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates, which are released annually.

As with any datasets that are estimates rather than exact counts, it is important to take into account the margins of error (listed in the column beside each figure) when drawing conclusions from the data.

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data in 2020. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The Census Bureau states that the 2020 ACS 1-year experimental tables use an experimental estimation methodology and should not be compared with other ACS data. For these reasons, and because data is not available for Champaign County, no data for 2020 is included in this Indicator.

For interested data users, the 2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental data release includes a dataset on Housing Tenure.

[1] Schwarz, M. and E. Watson. (2008). Who can afford to live in a home?: A look at data from the 2006 American Community Survey. U.S. Census Bureau.

[2] Ibid.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (17 October 2024).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2022 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (22 September 2023).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (30 September 2022).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 June 2021).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using data.census.gov; (10 June 2021).;U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (13 September 2018).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (14 September 2017).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (19 September 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2013 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; 16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2007 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2006 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).; U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B25106; generated by CCRPC staff; using American FactFinder; (16 March 2016).

This map shows households that spend 30 percent or more of their income on housing, a threshold widely used by many affordable housing advocates and official government sources including Housing and Urban Development. Census asks about income and housing costs to understand whether housing is affordable in local communities. When housing is not sufficient or not affordable, income data helps communities: Enroll eligible households in programs designed to assist them.Qualify for grants from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Program, Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), and other programs.When rental housing is not affordable, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses rent data to determine the amount of tenant subsidies in housing assistance programs.Map opens in Atlanta. Use the bookmarks or search bar to view other cities. Data is symbolized to show the relationship between burdensome housing costs for owner households with a mortgage and renter households:This map uses these hosted feature layers containing the most recent American Community Survey data. These layers are part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas, and are updated every year when the American Community Survey releases new estimates, so values in the map always reflect the newest data available.

This table contains data on the percent of households paying more than 30% (or 50%) of monthly household income towards housing costs for California, its regions, counties, cities/towns, and census tracts. Data is from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Consolidated Planning Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) and the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS). The table is part of a series of indicators in the [Healthy Communities Data and Indicators Project of the Office of Health Equity] Affordable, quality housing is central to health, conferring protection from the environment and supporting family life. Housing costs—typically the largest, single expense in a family's budget—also impact decisions that affect health. As housing consumes larger proportions of household income, families have less income for nutrition, health care, transportation, education, etc. Severe cost burdens may induce poverty—which is associated with developmental and behavioral problems in children and accelerated cognitive and physical decline in adults. Low-income families and minority communities are disproportionately affected by the lack of affordable, quality housing. More information about the data table and a data dictionary can be found in the Attachments.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR List Rents (EC9)

FULL MEASURE NAME List Rents

LAST UPDATED October 2016

DESCRIPTION List rent refers to the advertised rents for available rental housing and serves as a measure of housing costs for new households moving into a neighborhood, city, county or region.

DATA SOURCE real Answers (1994 – 2015) no link

Zillow Metro Median Listing Price All Homes (2010-2016) http://www.zillow.com/research/data/

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) List rents data reflects median rent prices advertised for available apartments rather than median rent payments; more information is available in the indicator definition above. Regional and local geographies rely on data collected by real Answers, a research organization and database publisher specializing in the multifamily housing market. real Answers focuses on collecting longitudinal data for individual rental properties through quarterly surveys. For the Bay Area, their database is comprised of properties with 40 to 3,000+ housing units. Median list prices most likely have an upward bias due to the exclusion of smaller properties. The bias may be most extreme in geographies where large rental properties represent a small portion of the overall rental market. A map of the individual properties surveyed is included in the Local Focus section.

Individual properties surveyed provided lower- and upper-bound ranges for the various types of housing available (studio, 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, etc.). Median lower- and upper-bound prices are determined across all housing types for the regional and county geographies. The median list price represented in Vital Signs is the average of the median lower- and upper-bound prices for the region and counties. Median upper-bound prices are determined across all housing types for the city geographies. The median list price represented in Vital Signs is the median upper-bound price for cities. For simplicity, only the mean list rent is displayed for the individual properties. The metro areas geography rely upon Zillow data, which is the median price for rentals listed through www.zillow.com during the month. Like the real Answers data, Zillow's median list prices most likely have an upward bias since small properties are underrepresented in Zillow's listings. The metro area data for the Bay Area cannot be compared to the regional Bay Area data. Due to afore mentioned data limitations, this data is suitable for analyzing the change in list rents over time but not necessarily comparisons of absolute list rents. Metro area boundaries reflects today’s metro area definitions by county for consistency, rather than historical metro area boundaries.

Due to the limited number of rental properties surveyed, city-level data is unavailable for Atherton, Belvedere, Brisbane, Calistoga, Clayton, Cloverdale, Cotati, Fairfax, Half Moon Bay, Healdsburg, Hillsborough, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno, Moranga, Oakley, Orinda, Portola Valley, Rio Vista, Ross, San Anselmo, San Carlos, Saratoga, Sebastopol, Windsor, Woodside, and Yountville.

Inflation-adjusted data are presented to illustrate how rents have grown relative to overall price increases; that said, the use of the Consumer Price Index does create some challenges given the fact that housing represents a major chunk of consumer goods bundle used to calculate CPI. This reflects a methodological tradeoff between precision and accuracy and is a common concern when working with any commodity that is a major component of CPI itself. Percent change in inflation-adjusted median is calculated with respect to the median price from the fourth quarter or December of the base year.

This dataset contains multifamily affordable and market-rate housing sites (typically 5+ units) in the City of Detroit that have been built or rehabbed since 2015, or are currently under construction. Most sites are rental housing, though some are for sale. The data are collected from developers, other government departments and agencies, and proprietary data sources in order to track new multifamily and affordable housing construction and rehabilitation occurring in throughout the city, in service of the City's multifamily affordable housing goals. Data are compiled by various teams within the Housing and Revitalization Department (HRD), led by the Preservation Team. This dataset reflects HRD's current knowledge of multifamily units under construction in the city and will be updated as the department's knowledge changes. For more information about the City's multifamily affordable housing policies and goals, visit here.Affordability level for affordable units are measured by the percentage of the Area Median Income (AMI) that a household could earn for that unit to be considered affordable for them. For example, a unit that rents at a 60% AMI threshold would be affordable to a household earning 60% or less of the median income for the area. Rent affordability is typically defined as housing costs consuming 30% or less of monthly income. Regulated housing programs are designed to serve households based on certain income benchmarks relative to AMI, and these income benchmarks vary based on household size. Detroit city's AMI levels are set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Fair Market Rent (FMR) area. For more information on AMI in Detroit, visit here.

This dataset contains existing multifamily rental sites in the City of Detroit with housing units that have been preserved as affordable since 2018 with assistance from the public sector.

Over time, affordable units are at risk of falling off line, either due to obsolescence or conversion to market-rate rents. This dataset contains occupied multifamily rental housing sites (typically 5+ units) in the City of Detroit, including those that have units that have been preserved as affordable since 2015 through public funding, regulatory agreements, and other means of assistance from the public sector. Data are collected from developers, other governmental departments and agencies, and proprietary data sources by various teams within the Housing and Revitalization Department, led by the Preservation Team. Data have been tracked since 2018 in service of citywide housing preservation goals. This reflects HRD's current knowledge of multifamily units in the city and will be updated as the department's knowledge changes. For more information about the City's multifamily affordable housing policies and goals, visit here.

Affordability level for affordable units are measured by the percentage of the Area Median Income (AMI) that a household could earn for that unit to be considered affordable for them. For example, a unit that rents at a 60% AMI threshold would be affordable to a household earning 60% or less of the median income for the area. Rent affordability is typically defined as housing costs consuming 30% or less of monthly income. Regulated housing programs are designed to serve households based on certain income benchmarks relative to AMI, and these income benchmarks vary based on household size. Detroit city's AMI levels are set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Fair Market Rent (FMR) area. For more information on AMI in Detroit, visit here.

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Masterx-AI/Project_Housing_Price_Prediction_/main/hs.jpg" alt="">

Description:

A simple yet challenging project, to predict the housing price based on certain factors like house area, bedrooms, furnished, nearness to mainroad, etc. The dataset is small yet, it's complexity arises due to the fact that it has strong multicollinearity. Can you overcome these obstacles & build a decent predictive model?

Acknowledgement:

Harrison, D. and Rubinfeld, D.L. (1978) Hedonic prices and the demand for clean air. J. Environ. Economics and Management 5, 81–102. Belsley D.A., Kuh, E. and Welsch, R.E. (1980) Regression Diagnostics. Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York: Wiley.

Objective:

• Understand the Dataset & cleanup (if required).
• Build Regression models to predict the sales w.r.t a single & multiple feature.
• Also evaluate the models & compare thier respective scores like R2, RMSE, etc.

This layer shows housing costs as a percentage of household income. This is shown by tract, county, and state boundaries. This service is updated annually to contain the most currently released American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. Income is based on earnings in past 12 months of survey. This layer is symbolized to show the percent of renter households that spend 30.0% or more of their household income on gross rent (contract rent plus tenant-paid utilities). To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right. Current Vintage: 2019-2023ACS Table(s): B25070, B25091 Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of API call: December 12, 2024National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. For more information about ACS layers, visit the FAQ. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Click here to learn more about ACS data releases.Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases, specifically, the National Sub-State Geography Database (named tlgdb_(year)_a_us_substategeo.gdb). Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines erased for cartographic and mapping purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 Areal Hydrography boundaries offered by TIGER. Water bodies and rivers which are 50 million square meters or larger (mid to large sized water bodies) are erased from the tract level boundaries, as well as additional important features. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 2023 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. These are erased to more accurately portray the coastlines and Great Lakes. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters).The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto RicoCensus tracts with no population that occur in areas of water, such as oceans, are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99).Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page.Negative values (e.g., -4444...) have been set to null, with the exception of -5555... which has been set to zero. These negative values exist in the raw API data to indicate the following situations:The margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.Either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution, or in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.The estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.The data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small.

Measures the ability of housing voucher holders to find housing in the private rental market. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program is the federal government?s largest low-income housing assistance program where people can seek housing in the private market. The maximum housing assistance is generally the lesser of the payment standard minus 30% of the family's monthly adjusted income or the gross rent for the unit minus 30% of monthly adjusted income. Source: Picture of Subsidized Housing, HUD Years Available: 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023

This dataset describes information related to the City of Mesa Housing Authority (MHA) which administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The program assists low-income individuals or families living in Mesa with rental assistance according to their income. Information in this dataset is used to calculate the Utilization Rate (the percentage of vouchers that are leased up of the number of allocated vouchers from US Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) to MHA) and the Voucher Budget Authority (the percentage of the allocated funding dollars for rent payments on behalf of current housing voucher participants).

Rental Affordability Analysis Based on Median Income

Trends in Tier-Based Affordability Across the U.S

By Zillow Data [source]

About this dataset

This dataset contains rental affordability data for different regions in the US, giving valuable insights into regional rental markets. Renters can use this information to identify where their budget will go the farthest. The cities are organized by rent tier in order to analyze affordability trends within and between different housing stock types. Within each region, the data includes median household income, Zillow Rent Index (ZRI), and percent of income spent on rent.

The Zillow Home Value Forecast (ZHVF) is used to calculate future combined mortgage pay/rent payments in each region using current median home prices, actual outstanding debt amounts and 30-year fixed mortgage interest rates reported through partnership with TransUnion credit bureau. Zillow also provides a breakdown of cash vs financing purchases for buyers looking for an investment or cash option solution.

This dataset provides an effective tool for consumers who want to better understand how their budget fits into diverse rental markets across the US; from condominiums and co-ops, multifamily residences with five or more units, duplexes and triplexes - every renter can determine how their housing budget should be adjusted as they consider multiple living possibilities throughout the country based on real-time price data!

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

Introduction

Getting Started

• First, you'll need to download the TieredAffordability_Rental.csv dataset from this Kaggle page onto your computer or device.

• After downloading the data set onto your device, open it with any CSV viewing software of your choice (ex: Excel). It will include columns for RegionName**RegionName** , homes type/housing stock (All Homes or Condo/Co-op) SizeRank , Rent tier tier , Date date , median household income income , Zillow Rent Index zri and PercentIncomeSpentOnRent percentage (what portion of monthly median house-hold goes toward monthly mortgage payment) .

• To begin analyzing rental prices across different regions using this dataset, look first at column four: SizeRank; which ranks each region based on size - smallest regions listed first and largest at last - so that you can compare a similar range of Regions when looking at affordability by home sizes larger than one unit multiplex dwellings.*Duples/Triplex*. Once there is an understanding of how all homes compare overall now it is time to consider home types Multifamily 5+ units according to rent tiers tier .

• Next, choose one or more region(s) for comparison based on their rank in SizeRank column –so that all information gathered about them reflects what portionof households fall into certain categories ; eg; All Homes / Small Home /Large Home / MultiPlex Dwelling and what tier does each size rank falls into eg.: Affordable/Slightly Expensive/ Moderately Expensive etc.. This will enable further abstraction from other elements like date vs inflation rate per month or periodical intervals set herein by Rate segmentation i e dates givenin ‘Date’Columns – making the task easier and more direct while analyzing renatalAffordibility Analysis Based On Median Income zri 00 zwi & PCISOR 00 PCIRO

Research Ideas

• Use the PercentIncomeSpentOnRent column to compare rental affordability between regions within a particular tier and determine optimal rent tiers for relocating families.
• Analyze how market conditions are affecting rental affordability over time by using the income, zri, and PercentageIncomeSpentOnRent columns.
• Identify trends in housing prices for different tiers over the years by comparing SizeRank data with Zillow Home Value Forecast (ZHVF) numbers across different regions in order to identify locations that may be headed up or down in terms of home values (and therefore rent levels)

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

See the dataset description for more information.

Columns

File: TieredAffordability_Rental.csv | Column name | Description | |:-----------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------| | RegionName | The name of the region. (String) ...

Additional affordable dwellings by local authority district, England 1991-92 to 2016-17

This dataset describes the additions to the stock of affordable housing from the period 1991-92 to 2016-17, broken down by local authority district. Note that over that period, there have been numerous changes to the structure of local government, therefore some districts do not have values for the full series of years, only for those years when the corresponding local authority was in operation. Affordable housing is the sum of affordable rent, social rent, intermediate rent and affordable home ownership. Affordable homes are defined in line with the National Planning Policy Framework, published 27 March 2012, as housing units (or traveller pitches and bed spaces when describing a shared dwelling such as a hostel) provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility may be determined with regard to local authority allocations policies, local incomes and local house prices depending on the type of affordable housing. Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision. Affordable rented housing is a new form of social housing, introduced in 2011 as the main type of affordable housing supply. It may only be delivered with grant through the Affordable Homes Programme 2011-17 and other associated and subsequent programmes or without grant by local authority and other providers, where a contract or confirmation of the ability to charge an affordable rent is in place. Affordable rented homes are let by local authorities or private registered providers of social housing to households who are eligible for social rented housing. Affordable rent is subject to rent controls that require a rent of up to 80 per cent of the local market rent (including service charges, where applicable). Social rented housing is rented housing owned and managed by local authorities and private registered providers, for which target rents are determined through the national rent regime. It may also include rented housing managed by other persons and provided under equivalent rental arrangements to the above. Intermediate affordable housing is housing at prices and rents above those of social rent but below market price or rents, and which meet the criteria as set out in the definition for affordable housing. These can include equity loan products, shared ownership and intermediate rent. The data in this dataset were derived from Tables 1006C, 1006aC, 1007C and 1008C of the DCLG 'Live statistical tables', available in the form of Excel spreadsheets here. For further guidance see the Affordable Housing Supply: April 2016 to March 2017 England Statistical Release.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Home Prices (EC7)

FULL MEASURE NAME Home Prices

LAST UPDATED August 2019

DESCRIPTION Home prices refer to the cost of purchasing one’s own house or condominium. While a significant share of residents may choose to rent, home prices represent a primary driver of housing affordability in a given region, county or city.

DATA SOURCE Zillow Median Sale Price (1997-2018) http://www.zillow.com/research/data/

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers Data Table (1997-2018; specific to each metro area) http://data.bls.gov

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Median housing price estimates for the region, counties, cities, and zip code come from analysis of individual home sales by Zillow. The median sale price is the price separating the higher half of the sales from the lower half. In other words, 50 percent of home sales are below or above the median value. Zillow defines all homes as single-family residential, condominium, and co-operative homes with a county record. Single-family residences are detached, which means the home is an individual structure with its own lot. Condominiums are units that you own in a multi-unit complex, such as an apartment building. Co-operative homes are slightly different from condominiums where the homeowners own shares in the corporation that owns the building, not the actual units themselves.

For metropolitan area comparison values, the Bay Area metro area’s median home sale price is the population-weighted average of the nine counties’ median home prices. Home sales prices are not reliably available for Houston, because Texas is a non-disclosure state. For more information on non-disclosure states, see: http://www.zillow.com/blog/chronicles-of-data-collection-ii-non-disclosure-states-3783/

Inflation-adjusted data are presented to illustrate how home prices have grown relative to overall price increases; that said, the use of the Consumer Price Index does create some challenges given the fact that housing represents a major chunk of consumer goods bundle used to calculate CPI. This reflects a methodological tradeoff between precision and accuracy and is a common concern when working with any commodity that is a major component of CPI itself.

Since passage of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, the federal government has provided housing assistance to low-income renters. Most of these housing subsidies were provided under programs administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or predecessor agencies. All programs covered in this report provide subsidies that reduce rents for low-income tenants who meet program eligibility requirements. Generally, households pay rent equal to 30 percent of their incomes, after deductions, while the federal government pays the remainder of rent or rental costs. To qualify for a subsidy, an applicant’s income must initially fall below a certain income limit. These income limits are HUD-determined, location specific, and vary by household size. Applicants for housing assistance are usually placed on a waiting list until a subsidized unit becomes available.Assistance provided under HUD programs falls into three categories: public housing, tenant-based, and privately owned, project-based.In public housing, local housing agencies receive allocations of HUD funding to build, operate or make improvements to housing. The housing is owned by the local agencies. Public housing is a form of project-based subsidy because households may receive assistance only if they agree to live at a particular public housing project.Currently, tenant based assistance is the most prevalent form of housing assistance provided. Historically, tenant based assistance began with the Section 8 certificate and voucher programs, which were created in 1974 and 1983, respectively. These programs were replaced by the Housing Choice Voucher program, under legislation enacted in 1998. Tenant based programs allow participants to find and lease housing in the private market. Local public housing agencies (PHAs) and some state agencies serving as PHAs enter into contracts with HUD to administer the programs. The PHAs then enter into contracts with private landlords. The housing must meet housing quality standards and other program requirements. The subsidies are used to supplement the rent paid by low-income households. Under tenant-based programs, assisted households may move and take their subsidy with them. The primary difference between certificates and vouchers is that under certificates, there was a maximum rent which the unit may not exceed. By contrast, vouchers have no specific maximum rent; the low-income household must pay any excess over the payment standard, an amount that is determined locally and that is based on the Fair Market Rent. HUD calculates the Fair Market Rent based on the 40th percentile of the gross rents paid by recent movers for non-luxury units meeting certain quality standards.The third major type of HUD rental assistance is a collection of programs generally referred to as multifamily assisted, or, privately-owned, project-based housing. These types of housing assistance fall under a collection of programs created during the last four decades. What these programs have in common is that they provide rental housing that is owned by private landlords who enter into contracts with HUD in order to receive housing subsidies. The subsidies pay the difference between tenant rent and total rental costs. The subsidy arrangement is termed project-based because the assisted household may not take the subsidy and move to another location. The single largest project-based program was the Section 8 program, which was created in 1974. This program allowed for new construction and substantial rehabilitation that was delivered through a wide variety of financing mechanisms. An important variant of project-based Section 8 was the Loan Management Set Aside (LMSA) program, which was provided in projects financed under Federal Housing Administration (FHA) programs that were not originally intended to provide deep subsidy rental assistance. Projects receiving these LMSA “piggyback” subsidies were developed under the Section 236 program, the Section 221(d)(3) Below Market Interest Rate (BMIR) program, and others that were unassisted when originally developed.Picture of Subsidized Households does not cover other housing

Housing Index in Hong Kong increased to 143.46 points in November 23 from 142.49 points in the previous week. This dataset provides - Hong Kong House Price Index - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

New Zonage “A/B/C” applicable from 01/10/2014 (Ministerial Decree of 01 August 2014).

The “A/B/C” zoning, created in 2003 at the time when Robien’s rental investment scheme was introduced, characterises the tension of the local real estate market, i.e. the adequacy of the demand for and the supply of available housing on a territory. It consists of five modalities ranging from the most tense (Abis) to the most relaxed (C).Franche-Comté is only affected by zones B2 and C. Several financial schemes use this zoning to determine the eligibility of territories for aid or to adjust their parameters (level of aid, ceiling of rents, etc.). These include the Intermediate Rental Investment Facility for Individuals (see Duflot Zoning), the Old Borloo, the Intermediate Rental Loan (PLI), the Zero Rate Loan (PTZ), the Social Accession Rental Loan (PSLA) and the Social Access Loan (PAS) to property, and the reduced rate VAT in the ANRU area.Some ANAH aid to social lenders is also linked to a ceiling on rent and the amount of resources of the tenant, which varies according to the zoning A/B/C. Following a consultation conducted by the Regional Prefect with the local authorities in the 4th quarter of 2013, the new zoning A/B/C was adopted by the Minister in charge of Housing on 1 August 2014. For Franche-Comté, 19 new municipalities were reclassified from C to B2, while no decommissioning was recorded. Its entry into force varies between 1 October 2014 and 1 February 2015 depending on the arrangements attached to it:

as of 1 October 2014 for: — the zero-rate loan; — the guarantee scheme of the FGAS; — the reduced rate VAT scheme for intermediate rental accommodation (279-0a A of the CGI); — the aid scheme for intermediate rental investment for private individuals (199 novitiies of the General Tax Code (CGI); — promises of sales of public land, pursuant to Article R. 3211-15 of the General Code of Ownership of Public Persons;

on 1 January 2015 for: — the benefit of aid from the National Housing Agency, the ‘old Borloo’ tax scheme; — the intermediate rental loan; — reduced VAT in ANRU area; — devices related to HLM promotion; — the assessment of resources for new intermediate dwellings held by HLML bodies in the context of their service of general economic interest;

as of 1 February 2015 for: — approvals of social loans for leasing-accession.

Data sources: order of the Minister of Housing dated 01 August 2014

Urban Displacement Project’s (UDP) Estimated Displacement Risk (EDR) model for California identifies varying levels of displacement risk for low-income renter households in all census tracts in the state from 2015 to 2019(1). The model uses machine learning to determine which variables are most strongly related to displacement at the household level and to predict tract-level displacement risk statewide while controlling for region. UDP defines displacement risk as a census tract with characteristics which, according to the model, are strongly correlated with more low-income population loss than gain. In other words, the model estimates that more low-income households are leaving these neighborhoods than moving in.This map is a conservative estimate of low-income loss and should be considered a tool to help identify housing vulnerability. Displacement may occur because of either investment, disinvestment, or disaster-driven forces. Because this risk assessment does not identify the causes of displacement, UDP does not recommend that the tool be used to assess vulnerability to investment such as new housing construction or infrastructure improvements. HCD recommends combining this map with on-the-ground accounts of displacement, as well as other related data such as overcrowding, cost burden, and income diversity to achieve a full understanding of displacement risk.If you see a tract or area that does not seem right, please fill out this form to help UDP ground-truth the method and improve their model.How should I read the displacement map layers?The AFFH Data Viewer includes three separate displacement layers that were generated by the EDR model. The “50-80% AMI” layer shows the level of displacement risk for low-income (LI) households specifically. Since UDP has reason to believe that the data may not accurately capture extremely low-income (ELI) households due to the difficulty in counting this population, UDP combined ELI and very low-income (VLI) household predictions into one group—the “0-50% AMI” layer—by opting for the more “extreme” displacement scenario (e.g., if a tract was categorized as “Elevated” for VLI households but “Extreme” for ELI households, UDP assigned the tract to the “Extreme” category for the 0-50% layer). For these two layers, tracts are assigned to one of the following categories, with darker red colors representing higher displacement risk and lighter orange colors representing less risk:• Low Data Quality: the tract has less than 500 total households and/or the census margins of error were greater than 15% of the estimate (shaded gray).• Lower Displacement Risk: the model estimates that the loss of low-income households is less than the gain in low-income households. However, some of these areas may have small pockets of displacement within their boundaries. • At Risk of Displacement: the model estimates there is potential displacement or risk of displacement of the given population in these tracts.• Elevated Displacement: the model estimates there is a small amount of displacement (e.g., 10%) of the given population.• High Displacement: the model estimates there is a relatively high amount of displacement (e.g., 20%) of the given population.• Extreme Displacement: the model estimates there is an extreme level of displacement (e.g., greater than 20%) of the given population. The “Overall Displacement” layer shows the number of income groups experiencing any displacement risk. For example, in the dark red tracts (“2 income groups”), the model estimates displacement (Elevated, High, or Extreme) for both of the two income groups. In the light orange tracts categorized as “At Risk of Displacement”, one or all three income groups had to have been categorized as “At Risk of Displacement”. Light yellow tracts in the “Overall Displacement” layer are not experiencing UDP’s definition of displacement according to the model. Some of these yellow tracts may be majority low-income experiencing small to significant growth in this population while in other cases they may be high-income and exclusive (and therefore have few low-income residents to begin with). One major limitation to the model is that the migration data UDP uses likely does not capture some vulnerable populations, such as undocumented households. This means that some yellow tracts may be experiencing high rates of displacement among these types of households. MethodologyThe EDR is a first-of-its-kind model that uses machine learning and household level data to predict displacement. To create the EDR, UDP first joined household-level data from Data Axle (formerly Infogroup) with tract-level data from the 2014 and 2019 5-year American Community Survey; Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) data from various sources compiled by California Housing and Community Development; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data; and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Location Database.UDP then used a machine learning model to determine which variables are most strongly related to displacement at the household level and to predict tract-level displacement risk statewide while controlling for region. UDP modeled displacement risk as the net migration rate of three separate renter households income categories: extremely low-income (ELI), very low-income (VLI), and low-income (LI). These households have incomes between 0-30% of the Area Median Income (AMI), 30-50% AMI, and 50-80% AMI, respectively. Tracts that have a predicted net loss within these groups are considered to experience displacement in three degrees: elevated, high, and extreme. UDP also includes a “At Risk of Displacement” category in tracts that might be experiencing displacement.What are the main limitations of this map?1. Because the map uses 2019 data, it does not reflect more recent trends. The pandemic, which started in 2020, has exacerbated income inequality and increased housing costs, meaning that UDP’s map likely underestimates current displacement risk throughout the state.2. The model examines displacement risk for renters only, and does not account for the fact that many homeowners are also facing housing and gentrification pressures. As a result, the map generally only highlights areas with relatively high renter populations, and neighborhoods with higher homeownership rates that are known to be experiencing gentrification and displacement are not as prominent as one might expect.3. The model does not incorporate data on new housing construction or infrastructure projects. The map therefore does not capture the potential impacts of these developments on displacement risk; it only accounts for other characteristics such as demographics and some features of the built environment. Two of UDP’s other studies—on new housing construction and green infrastructure—explore the relationships between these factors and displacement.Variable ImportanceFigures 1, 2, and 3 show the most important variables for each of the three models—ELI, VLI, and LI. The horizontal bars show the importance of each variable in predicting displacement for the respective group. All three models share a similar order of variable importance with median rent, percent non-white, rent gap (i.e., rental market pressure calculated using the difference between nearby and local rents), percent renters, percent high-income households, and percent of low-income households driving much of the displacement estimation. Other important variables include building types as well as economic and socio-demographic characteristics. For a full list of the variables included in the final models, ranked by descending order of importance, and their definitions see all three tabs of this spreadsheet. “Importance” is defined in two ways: 1. % Inclusion: The average proportion of times this variable was included in the model’s decision tree as the most important or driving factor.2. MeanRank: The average rank of importance for each variable across the numerous model runs where higher numbers mean higher ranking. Figures 1 through 3 below show each of the model variable rankings ordered by importance. The red lines represent Jenks Breaks, which are designed to sort values into their most “natural” clusters. Variable importance for each model shows a substantial drop-off after about 10 variables, meaning a relatively small number of variables account for a large amount of the predictive power in UDP’s displacement model.Figure 1. Variable Importance for Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet.Figure 2. Variable Importance for Very Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet. Figure 3. Variable Importance for Extremely Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet.Source: Chapple, K., & Thomas, T., and Zuk, M. (2022). Urban Displacement Project website. Berkeley, CA: Urban Displacement Project.(1) UDP used this time-frame because (a) the 2020 census had a large non-response rate and it implemented a new statistical modification that obscures and misrepresents racial and economic characteristics at the census tract level and (b) pandemic mobility trends are still in flux and UDP believes 2019 is more representative of “normal” or non-pandemic displacement trends.

New Zonage “A/B/C” applicable from 01/10/2014 (Ministerial Decree of 01 August 2014). The “A/B/C” zoning, created in 2003 at the time when Robien’s rental investment scheme was introduced, characterises the tension of the local real estate market, i.e. the adequacy of the demand for and the supply of available housing on a territory. It consists of five modalities ranging from the most tense (Abis) to the most relaxed (C).Franche-Comté is only affected by zones B2 and C. Several financial schemes use this zoning to determine the eligibility of territories for aid or to adjust their parameters (level of aid, ceiling of rents, etc.). These include the Intermediate Rental Investment Facility for Individuals (see Duflot Zoning), the Old Borloo, the Intermediate Rental Loan (PLI), the Zero Rate Loan (PTZ), the Social Accession Rental Loan (PSLA) and the Social Access Loan (PAS) to property, and the reduced rate VAT in the ANRU area.Some ANAH aid to social lenders is also linked to a ceiling on rent and the amount of resources of the tenant, which varies according to the zoning A/B/C. Following a consultation conducted by the Regional Prefect with the local authorities in the 4th quarter of 2013, the new zoning A/B/C was adopted by the Minister in charge of Housing on 1 August 2014. For Franche-Comté, 19 new municipalities were reclassified from C to B2, while no decommissioning was recorded. Its entry into force varies between 1 October 2014 and 1 February 2015 depending on the arrangements attached to it: as of 1 October 2014 for: — the zero-rate loan; — the guarantee scheme of the FGAS; — the reduced rate VAT scheme for intermediate rental accommodation (279-0a A of the CGI); — the aid scheme for intermediate rental investment for private individuals (199 novitiies of the General Tax Code (CGI); — promises of sales of public land, pursuant to Article R. 3211-15 of the General Code of Ownership of Public Persons; on 1 January 2015 for: — the benefit of aid from the National Housing Agency, the ‘old Borloo’ tax scheme; — the intermediate rental loan; — reduced VAT in ANRU area; — devices related to HLM promotion; — the assessment of resources for new intermediate dwellings held by HLML bodies in the context of their service of general economic interest; as of 1 February 2015 for: — approvals of social loans for leasing-accession. Data sources: order of the Minister of Housing dated 01 August 2014

Key Table Information.Table Title.Lower Contract Rent Quartile (Dollars).Table ID.ACSDT1Y2024.B25057.Survey/Program.American Community Survey.Year.2024.Dataset.ACS 1-Year Estimates Detailed Tables.Source.U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates.Dataset Universe.The dataset universe of the American Community Survey (ACS) is the U.S. resident population and housing. For more information about ACS residence rules, see the ACS Design and Methodology Report. Note that each table describes the specific universe of interest for that set of estimates..Methodology.Unit(s) of Observation.American Community Survey (ACS) data are collected from individuals living in housing units and group quarters, and about housing units whether occupied or vacant. For more information about ACS sampling and data collection, see the ACS Design and Methodology Report..Geography Coverage.ACS data generally reflect the geographic boundaries of legal and statistical areas as of January 1 of the estimate year. For more information, see Geography Boundaries by Year.Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Sampling.The ACS consists of two separate samples: housing unit addresses and group quarters facilities. Independent housing unit address samples are selected for each county or county-equivalent in the U.S. and Puerto Rico, with sampling rates depending on a measure of size for the area. For more information on sampling in the ACS, see the Accuracy of the Data document..Confidentiality.The Census Bureau has modified or suppressed some estimates in ACS data products to protect respondents' confidentiality. Title 13 United States Code, Section 9, prohibits the Census Bureau from publishing results in which an individual's data can be identified. For more information on confidentiality protection in the ACS, see the Accuracy of the Data document..Technical Documentation/Methodology.Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section.Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Users must consider potential differences in geographic boundaries, questionnaire content or coding, or other methodological issues when comparing ACS data from different years. Statistically significant differences shown in ACS Comparison Profiles, or in data users' own analysis, may be the result of these differences and thus might not necessarily reflect changes to the social, economic, housing, or demographic characteristics being compared. For more information, see Comparing ACS Data..Weights.ACS estimates are obtained from a raking ratio estimation procedure that results in the assignment of two sets of weights: a weight to each sample person record and a weight to each sample housing unit record. Estimates of person characteristics are based on the person weight. Estimates of family, household, and housing unit characteristics are based on the housing unit weight. For any given geographic area, a characteristic total is estimated by summing the weights assigned to the persons, households, families or housing units possessing the characteristic in the geographic area. For more information on weighting and estimation in the ACS, see the Accuracy of the Data document.Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and est...

The Location Affordability Index (LAI) estimates the percentage of a family’s income dedicated to the combined cost of housing and transportation in a given location. Because what is “affordable” is different for everyone, users can choose among a diverse set of family profiles—which vary by household income, size, and number of commuters—and see the affordability landscape for each in a given neighborhood, city, or region. The Location Affordability Index (LAI) estimates three dependent variables of transportation behavior (auto ownership, auto use, and transit use) as functions of 14 independent variables (median income, per capita income, average household size, average commuters per household, residential density, gross density, block density, intersection density, transit connectivity, transit frequency of service, transit access shed, employment access, job diversity, and average commute distance). To hone in on the built environment’s influence on transportation costs, the independent household variables (income, household size, and commuters per household) are set at fixed values to control for any variation they might cause. The LAI also estimates two dependent variables of housing costs (Selected Monthly Owner Costs and Gross Rent) as functions of 16 independent variables: regional median selected monthly owner costs and regional median gross rent in addition to the 14 variables used in the transportation model.

To learn more about the Location Affordability Index (v.1.0) visit: https://www.locationaffordability.info/LAPMethods.pdf, for questions about the spatial attribution of this dataset, please reach out to us at GISHelpdesk@hud.gov. Data Dictionary: DD_Location Affordability Indev v.1.0. Date of Coverage: 2005-2009 https://www.locationaffordability.info/LAPMethodsV2.pdf