Examining Changes in Long‐Term Neighborhood Housing Vacancy during The 2011 to 2014 U.S. National Recovery

ABSTRACT

High levels of neighborhood housing vacancy—especially periods exceeding more than several months—have long been a concern to community developers and policymakers in the United States. During the foreclosure crisis, such concerns became more pronounced, exemplified by the adoption of three legislated rounds of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program from 2008 to 2011. Despite such concern, what we know about longer term neighborhood housing vacancy has been limited, in part by a lack of good data. This article utilizes data from the U.S. Postal Service to explore changes in vacancy over a critical period of broader housing market recovery. It identifies the extent to which neighborhood characteristics predict changes in long‐term vacancy from 2011 to 2014 for the 50 largest metropolitan areas. High neighborhood vacancy rates persisted in some neighborhoods during this period, and these tended to be high‐poverty neighborhoods. Neighborhoods with more Hispanic and Asian residents experienced larger declines in long‐term vacancy. However, poorer neighborhoods lagged significantly. If a neighborhood had a poverty rate that was one standard deviation above—and a median income that was one standard deviation below—an otherwise comparable neighborhood, it was expected to see 13% more vacancies at the end of the period.

Notes

The percentage of mortgageable properties that are foreclosed upon was calculated by Immergluck () using Lender Processing Services data and data on single‐family properties from the U.S. Census. For more explanation, see Immergluck (). August 2008 is the latest date for which these data were made available.

The HUD‐USPS data suffer from a severe discontinuity during early 2010 and HUD recommends against measuring changes across this period. Hence, only data following this discontinuity are used in this study.

The HUD‐USPS data also provide counts of what the USPS calls no stat addresses, which include some long‐term vacant properties that are not classified as vacant because they are not viewed as habitable. While in some instances these properties might be viewed as very long‐term vacancies, the data on these units are extremely noisy, include partially constructed units, and other unusual addresses. They also vary widely across different regions and may induce substantial measurement error. In a telephone conversation, HUD staff involved in compiling the data recommended against using no stat addresses in studies of long‐term residential vacancy.

The U.S. Census Bureau () defines central and outlying metropolitan counties as follows: “Under the standards, the county (or counties) in which at least 50 percent of the population resides within urban areas of 10,000 or more population, or that contain at least 5,000 people residing within a single urban area of 10,000 or more population, is identified as a ‘central county’ (counties). Additional ‘outlying counties’ are included in the CBSA (core based statistical area) if they meet specified requirements of commuting to or from the central counties.” Approximately 7% of census tracts in this study are located in counties defined by the Census Bureau as outlying.

The original data set from HUD‐USPS consisted of over 38,000 census tracts across the 50 metropolitan areas. However, in the full regression, approximately 7% of census tracts did not have complete data for all variables in the model, reducing the set of census tracts available for the model to 36,095.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dan Immergluck

Dan Immergluck is Professor in the School of City and Regional Planning at Georgia Tech, where he conducts research on housing, community development, real estate and mortgage finance, and related topics. He is the author of four books, over four dozen scholarly articles, numerous book chapters and encyclopedia entries, and scores of research reports. He is an Associate Editor of the Journal of the American Planning Association, and sits on the editorial boards of four journals. His most recent book is Preventing the Next Mortgage Crisis: The Meltdown, the Federal Response, and the Future of Housing in America (2015).