Pub. 3 2018 Issue 4

16 www.ctaahq.org • There were 52.8 million U.S. households in 1960. In 2016, the number was 125.82. • The average size of a family in 1960 was 3.67. In 2016, the average family size was 3.14. • Although there are still many traditional families, the U.S. also has many small, nontraditional households, with or without children. Despite the fact that multifamily housing can more easi- ly provide affordable homes for people than single-family homes, that doesn’t mean everyone is sold on the idea. What are the main objections? • Multifamily housing could put bigger burdens on al- ready-crowded schools, provide less revenue, and need more support than more traditional communities. • Some people worry that multifamily housing will have a negative effect on the value of a neighborhood’s single-family homes. • There is a concern about increased crime and stability. • Traffic congestion and parking problems could both become issues. Research has provided the following answers to these objections: • Multifamily housing provides less of a burden for school systems because the number of children living there is relatively small. Apartments and condominiums are most attractive to people who are single, who have no children, or whose children have grown. As a result, traditional housing puts a bigger burden on schools than multifamily homes. What about revenue? Multifamily housing pays more in property taxes than single-family homes because in most places, these communities are treated as com- mercial real estate and are taxed accordingly. What about the need for additional support? If people need homes, they will have to be supported somewhere. It’s better to figure out the best choices for that necessary growth, and to plan accordingly. High-density communities are more efficient than low-density communities. • Communities that have multifamily homes tend to have higher property values than other kinds of communities. In working communities, those in multifamily hous- ing often have higher household income than those in lower density communities. Houses with apartments near appreciate faster than houses without any nearby apartments. Of course, it is important for multifamily communities to be places that are built with attractive landscaping and entrances. The key is taking care of the communities and not letting them become run down over time. • Evidence does not suggest that renters are less involved with their communities than other residents, are less social, or more prone to crime. Community activity is roughly the same, and multifamily residents are twice as likely to socialize with neighbors as those in more traditional housing. Also, it isn’t a given that renters move or are less social. In Western Europe, for example, many renters are more stable in terms of turnover than U.S. residents are. Crime is harder to measure, because there have not been a lot of studies, but the studies that do exist say that increased crime is associated with lower socio- economic status, not with high-density communities. • What about traffic congestion and parking problems? People in multifamily housing tend to have fewer cars and to drive less. Increasingly, those who live in multifamily communities are also located close to alternative forms of transportation, and they live closer to stores, work, and cultural events. Increased traffic is more apparent in a multifamily community than it might be in a low-density community, but the truth is that a well-planned multi- family community will actually generate less traffic and need fewer parking spaces, not more. Multifamily living makes all kinds of sense as the U.S. pre- pares for a future in which there will be an increased need for good, affordable, and efficient housing.