A Sustainability Analysis of Workforce Housing Development Tools
Executive Summary
May 1, 2020
Elizabeth Van Horn
The State of Arizona and Maricopa County have an established reputation for being
unaffordable when it comes to housing costs to income ratios. A number of factors are
contributing to this growing divide between incomes and housing costs including an
underproduction of units, stagnant wages, and instability of key affordable housing funding
sources (Kingsella, 2019; NLIHC, 2019a; NLIHC, 2019b). As housing affordability has
decreased, a parallel trend has emerged—residents, particularly millennials, are increasingly
demanding walkable, livable, transit-oriented neighborhoods (Pfeiffer, Pearthree, & Ehlenz,
2019). In response to demands, local governments are reinvesting in urban cores through capital
improvement and large-scale infrastructure projects such as new transit lines, bicycle
infrastructure, and green infrastructure. These investments can provide economic and
environmental benefits. However, while they seem ecologically and socially conscious, they
often co-opt sustainable development practices to increase profits at the expense of communities,
driving economic and cultural neighborhood change, or gentrification (Zuk et al. 2018; Checker,
2011). Without an intentional focus on equity, these projects often displace low-to-middleincome and minority households currently living in newly desirable areas, depriving them of any
economic and environmental benefits. This is a process coined as environmental gentrification
(Checker, 2011).
The purpose of this project is to extract displacement from the environmental
gentrification process by identifying workforce housing solutions that contribute to holistically
sustainable outcomes. By developing workforce and affordable housing in areas undergoing
environmental gentrification, two problems central to the housing crisis can be addressed at
once—residential displacement and the limited supply of affordable housing for low-to-middleincome households. My client for this project, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Arizona Task
Force for Health, Equity, and Housing Affordability, opted to focus on workforce housing
development, serving households earning 60 to 120 percent of the area median income (AMI).
Housing typologies for this income range are often neglected because they are considered less
profitable and are largely ineligible for government subsidies, earning them the title the “missing
middle” (OD, 2020). The idea of addressing the missing middle with tools for creating naturally
affordable, market-rate development resonated with the Task Force. It also aligns with ULI’s
goals, the interests of their membership base, and therefore, their scope of influence.
To address Arizona’s housing shortage and affordability crisis and to mitigate
displacement in Valley cities, I produced a set of viable workforce housing development tools
for the Valley and assessed them using a simplified version of Gibson’s (2006) core criteria for
sustainability. First, I created an extensive inventory of workforce housing tools based on
conversations with local stakeholders during the Task Force’s Solutions Round Table event. I
presented the inventory to the Task Force leadership to collect feedback and select six tools for
1
May 1, 2020
Page

A Sustainability Analysis of Workforce Housing Development Tools

focused research and expert interviews. The selected tools include off-site construction,
cohousing, land banks, missing middle infill models, community land trusts combined with
limited equity cooperatives, and public-private partnerships. A minimum of one expert per topic
was consulted in addition to several local housing experts. The research focused on identifying
best practices and guidance on tool development and implementation for the public and private
sectors, as well as best practices for embedding health and equity.
Based on my research, I assessed each tool using evaluative questions informed by the
four key components of healthy and equitable housing solutions as defined by the Task Force—
regulations, financing, location and land, and partnerships—and the four sustainability
dimensions derived from Gibson’s (2006) core criteria for sustainability. The four dimensions of
sustainability are environment, social, economic, and holistic. The tools and sustainability
assessments will be presented in a white paper for the Task Force, ULI Arizona, and ULI
National to share with stakeholders. In addition to best practices for implementing and
developing each tool, I discovered several other issues of note. First, a widely used term for
“workforce housing” should be established so a common language is used by all of the
stakeholders involved in its production. Second, there is a general need for more research on the
topic of workforce housing, particularly with regard to financing tools and cost reduction
measures. Third, the stakeholders in the Valley are well aware of the barriers to workforce
housing development and the potential tools that could be used to remove them, but the barriers
often seem insurmountable. Last, while each of the tools described in the white paper is valuable,
they will be much more impactful if they are implemented in combination.
In light of my findings, there are several other actions the Task Force, ULI, or future
students could take to better address the housing affordability crisis and prevent displacement.
They could continue to research other workforce housing development tools identified during the
round table event, in particular those related to financing. They could reach out to knowledgeable
partners locally and nationwide to redesign these tools for the Arizona context. They could use
covid-19 as an example to illustrate the need for safe and healthy housing for all. Last, and most
importantly, they should begin the arduous task of engaging the public, building awareness, and
organizing around regulatory solutions as regulations and planning processes present some of the
greatest barriers.

May 1, 2020

Page

2