1
JOBS HOUSING FIT IN THE
BAY AREA
Chris Benner, University of California Davis
From jobs-housing balance to fit
2




First systematic studies in the late 1980s
Found that commute distance was affected by a
multitude of factors
Low-income workers given special consideration
Appropriate “fit” between jobs and housing often
discussed but never explicitly studied
Issues and opportunities
3

Why should we care?
 VMT,


GHG, and equity
Current conditions versus projections
Appropriate geography of analysis
Prototype jobs-housing fit analysis
(Sacramento Area Council of Governments)
Data
4

Jobs
 Longitudinal
Employer-Household Dynamics
 http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/
 Any geography possible
 Low-wage ≤ $1250/month

Affordable rental units
 American
Community Survey
 Census Summary File 1
 Rent ≤ $750/month
 Margins of error (places vs. tracts)
Method
5

Jurisdiction level
 Linked
to political process and decisions regarding
affordable housing provision

Tract/buffer level
 More
closely linked to VMT
 Avoids problems with arbitrary boundaries
6


Red = Severe
shortage of
affordable rental
units
Blue = Excess of
affordable rental
units in relation to
available lowwage jobs
mappingregionalchange.ucdavis.edu
Table 1: Jobs and Housing in the 20 Largest Cities and Towns in the Bay Area Region, 2011
Job-Housing Ratio
Jobs
Housing Units
Affordable
Rental
(Deficit) or
Surplus (to
Low-Wage
reach JHFIT
Jobs/Housing Ratio of
All Jobs/All
Affordable All Housing
County
Place
Fit Ratio
2.00)
Housing
All
Low-Wage Rental
Units
San Francisco
San Francisco city
2.09
(2,387)
1.66
589,717
110,483
52,855
354,875
Santa Clara
San Jose city
3.98
(18,416)
1.18
365,159
74,112
18,640
309,575
Alameda
Oakland city
1.38
8,627
1.20
197,708
38,225
27,739
164,278
Santa Clara
Santa Clara city
6.72
(4,698)
2.23
97,286
13,380
1,992
43,696
Santa Clara
Palo Alto city
6.32
(3,458)
3.44
91,707
10,115
1,600
26,661
Alameda
Fremont city
8.67
(5,659)
1.21
87,368
14,711
1,697
71,936
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale city
3.65
(2,059)
1.50
81,982
9,121
2,502
54,652
Sonoma
Santa Rosa city
3.31
(3,253)
1.04
67,502
16,450
4,972
64,611
Alameda
Hayward city
5.05
(3,629)
1.38
64,932
12,022
2,382
47,099
Contra Costa
Walnut Creek city
10.36
(3,729)
1.76
54,512
9,241
892
30,995
Santa Clara
Mountain View city
4.03
(1,712)
1.66
53,707
6,791
1,684
32,309
Alameda
Pleasanton city
21.08
(4,760)
2.12
52,358
10,518
499
24,703
Contra Costa
Concord city
5.63
(3,873)
1.08
50,829
12,009
2,132
46,931
San Mateo
Redwood City city
5.81
(2,201)
1.74
49,845
6,710
1,154
28,646
Alameda
Berkeley city
1.95
161
1.07
49,459
11,391
5,856
46,418
San Mateo
South San Francisco city 5.08
(1,889)
2.04
43,910
6,227
1,225
21,500
Santa Clara
Milpitas city
9.85
(3,109)
2.18
41,817
7,801
792
19,224
San Mateo
San Mateo city
5.64
(2,723)
1.06
41,104
8,435
1,495
38,863
Contra Costa
San Ramon city
16.04
(2,676)
1.66
41,067
6,113
381
24,764
Alameda
San Leandro city
4.46
(2,354)
1.28
38,742
8,538
1,915
30,364
Sourcs:
7 Authors' Analysis of LEHD and ACS data
Table 1: Jobs and Housing in the 20 Largest Cities and Towns in the Bay Area Region, 2011
Job-Housing Ratio
Jobs
Housing Units
Affordable
Rental
(Deficit) or
Surplus (to
Multiple Silicon Valley Cities with
Low-Wage
reach JHFIT
Jobs/Housing Ratio of
All Jobs/All JHFit > 5
Affordable All Housing
County
Place
Fit Ratio
2.00)
Housing
All
Low-Wage Rental
Units
San Francisco
San Francisco city
2.09
(2,387)
1.66
589,717
110,483
52,855
354,875
Santa Clara
San Jose city
3.98
(18,416)
1.18
365,159
74,112
18,640
309,575
Alameda
Oakland city
1.38
8,627
1.20
197,708
38,225
27,739
164,278
Santa Clara
Santa Clara city
6.72
(4,698)
2.23
97,286
13,380
1,992
43,696
Santa Clara
Palo Alto city
6.32
(3,458)
3.44
91,707
10,115
1,600
26,661
Alameda
Fremont city
8.67
(5,659)
1.21
87,368
14,711
1,697
71,936
Multiple
Eastern
Suburbs
with
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale city
3.65
(2,059)
1.50
81,982
9,121
2,502
54,652
Sonoma
Santa Rosa city
3.31
(3,253)
1.04
67,502
4,972
64,611
JHFit > 1016,450
Alameda
Hayward city
5.05
(3,629)
1.38
64,932
12,022
2,382
47,099
Contra Costa
Walnut Creek city
10.36
(3,729)
1.76
54,512
9,241
892
30,995
Santa Clara
Mountain View city
4.03
(1,712)
1.66
53,707
6,791
1,684
32,309
Alameda
Pleasanton city
21.08
(4,760)
2.12
52,358
10,518
499
24,703
Contra Costa
Concord city
5.63
(3,873)
1.08
50,829
12,009
2,132
46,931
San Mateo
Redwood City city
5.81
(2,201)
1.74
49,845
6,710
1,154
28,646
Alameda
Berkeley city
1.95
161
1.07
49,459
11,391
5,856
46,418
San Mateo
South San Francisco city 5.08
(1,889)
2.04
43,910
6,227
1,225
21,500
Santa Clara
Milpitas city
9.85
(3,109)
2.18
41,817
7,801
792
19,224
San Mateo
San Mateo city
5.64
(2,723)
1.06
41,104
8,435
1,495
38,863
Contra Costa
San Ramon city
16.04
(2,676)
1.66
41,067
6,113
381
24,764
Alameda
San Leandro city
4.46
(2,354)
1.28
38,742
8,538
1,915
30,364
Sourcs:
8 Authors' Analysis of LEHD and ACS data
Table 2: Jobs and Housing in the 20 cities and towns with the highest low-wage jobs/housing fit ratio in the Bay Area Region
Job-Housing Ratio
Jobs
Housing Units
Affordable
Rental Deficit
Low-Wage
(to reach
Jobs/Housing JHFIT Ratio of All Jobs/All
Affordable All Housing
County
Place
Fit Ratio
2.00)
Housing
All
Low-Wage Rental
Units
Contra Costa Lafayette city
24.54
(1,274)
1.10
9,767
2,773
113
8,912
San Mateo Burlingame city
22.21
(2,547)
2.85
35,609
5,598
252
12,504
Alameda
Pleasanton city
21.08
(4,760)
2.12
52,358
10,518
499
24,703
Contra Costa San Ramon city
16.04
(2,676)
1.66
41,067
6,113
381
24,764
San Mateo San Carlos city
15.64
(1,160)
1.14
13,143
2,659
170
11,501
Alameda
Dublin city
14.93
(1,926)
1.11
16,421
4,448
298
14,786
Santa Clara Morgan Hill city
13.08
(1,546)
1.06
13,108
3,650
279
12,362
Marin
Corte Madera town
12.97
(697)
1.60
6,436
1,647
127
4,015
Alameda
Piedmont city
12.15
(234)
0.45
1,658
559
46
3,684
Santa Clara Los Altos city
12.12
(825)
0.86
9,264
1,976
163
10,808
Santa Clara Cupertino city
11.89
(2,068)
1.56
32,568
4,971
418
20,852
Marin
Larkspur city
11.79
(514)
0.98
5,897
1,238
105
6,033
Santa Clara Los Gatos town
10.62
(1,573)
1.26
15,576
3,875
365
12,388
Contra Costa Danville town
10.49
(1,197)
0.68
10,373
2,958
282
15,220
Contra Costa Walnut Creek city
10.36
(3,729)
1.76
54,512
9,241
892
30,995
Sonoma
Sonoma city
10.16
(1,241)
1.94
9,805
3,089
304
5,045
San Mateo Brisbane city
10.09
(263)
3.54
6,356
656
65
1,795
Santa Clara Milpitas city
9.85
(3,109)
2.18
41,817
7,801
792
19,224
San Mateo Millbrae city
9.50
(555)
0.59
4,956
1,406
148
8,416
Alameda
Newark city
9.40
(1,640)
1.20
15,924
4,165
443
13,217
Alameda
Fremont city
8.67
(5,659)
1.21
87,368
14,711
1,697
71,936
Source: Authors' Analysis of LEHD and ACS data
9
10
Tract/buffer level results
Buffer definition
11
•
Sidestep problems with
arbitrary jurisdictional
boundaries
•
Test different sizes using travel
data
•
Highlights small geographies
with poor fit
Example buffer definition
12
13
14
15
Commute performance
by Alex Karner
Bay Area VMT
16


Data from activitybased microsimulation
of daily travel patterns
in 2010
Allows analysis of lowwage VMT attracted to
each zone
Bay Area VMT
Low-wage worker 1
15 mile one-way commute
Low-wage worker 2
12 mile one-way commute
Census Tract 15
Total work VMT attracted = 49
Total workers = 3
Attracted work VMT per worker
= 49/3 = 16.3
Low-wage worker 3
22 mile one-way commute
Bay Area VMT
18
Mean VMT attracted by JH fit category
JH fit category
0 – 2.2
2.2 – 4
>4
VMT attracted
7.10
7.61
10.4
Model results
JH fit category
Coefficient
p-value
2.2 – 4
0.51
0.005
>4
3.31
< 0.001
N = 1592, R2 = 0.24
Bay Area VMT
19
Conclusions
20



New method to calculate and track changes in jobshousing fit over time using public data
Highlights opportunities for affordable housing
provision and economic development
Clear implications for low-income commute
performance
Contact
Chris Benner
[email protected]
http://regionalchange.ucdavis.edu
http://mappingregionalchange.ucdavis.edu
Acknowledgements
Collaborators
Bidita Tithi
Alex Karner
Jonathan London
Catherine Garoupa-White
Advocates
Felicity Gasser
Sam Tepperman-Gelfant
Lisa Hershey