Insights

Into Housing and Community

Development Policy

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research Assessments of Shared Housing in the United States

Shared housing, generally defined as a living arrangement in which two or more unrelated people share a house or apartment, is an affordable living arrangement in the United States, particularly in urban areas with high housing costs. Shared housing ranges from home sharing, where a homeowner rents out a room in the owner-occupied property to a person seeking affordable housing, to co-living, where an individual rents a private room in a single-family or multifamily building but shares common areas with other tenants. Shared housing can take different forms, and many U.S. and international shared housing organizations and companies facilitate shared housing arrangements or build formal shared housing developments.

Shared housing arrangements can vary from short-term, transient housing to long-term, permanent housing. The range of possible setup options means that shared housing can benefit many people, including those new to a city; those in search of affordable housing who may not qualify for or receive housing assistance; transient workers in need of housing while working on a contract; senior homeowners looking for long-term assistance to age in place; individuals wanting to live communally in an “intentional community”; families living in multigenerational arrangements; or homeowners simply wanting to reduce their housing cost burden. Indeed, the different shared housing models can offer flexibility for individuals not ready to commit to long-term housing solutions or for those wanting to save money for other housing options.

Shared housing can provide greater flexibility for a housing stock to meet current market demands by housing more people in a housing unit. High demand for housing in urban areas reduces the availability of affordable housing, increasing the price for housing and the housing-cost burden of residents in those areas. Housing affordability may be further reduced by restrictive building regulations and zoning codes in these areas, among other factors. In response to increasing housing costs, many people share housing to reduce their housing-cost burdens. Individuals living in shared housing weigh a variety of tradeoffs when deciding whether to share housing—including their willingness to pay—with preferences over privacy, communality, types of space, amounts of living space, and location, among other hedonic influences. Some individuals, facing economic constraints, choose to share housing because of the relatively lower housing cost compared with living alone, and yet others prefer to share housing regardless of price factors.

The paper finds that there are many different types of formal and informal shared housing arrangements, and that they can offer a range of benefits to residents, including reduced social isolation. They allow for flexibility in a housing stock and can allow individuals to live in more opportunity-laden locations, especially in times or areas where housing supply is more constrained. Two of the more common types of shared housing are home sharing and co-living; home sharing is a way for homeowners to reduce their housing costs and provide an affordable housing option to others. Formal co-living models, reinforced through the design of housing built specifically for co-living, are a rapidly growing sector of real estate markets, because they present a convenient way for young professionals to move to and live in a new city, often in communities nearby to desirable urban amenities and places of employment.

Many cities and states in the United States and other countries are embracing shared housing models, through regulatory reform of the built environment to allow these arrangements and pilot initiatives of shared housing designed for particular populations, including low-income tenants, formerly homeless individuals, and other underserved households. Across different measures, there has been a small increase between 2000 and 2019 in the prevalence of households who share housing. Depending on the expansiveness of the definition for shared housing, the current rate of shared housing is somewhere between 3 and 20 percent of all housing units.

Moreover, there are a substantial number of homes which might be called “undercrowded”, with 26 percent of homes having two or more bedrooms per person in the household. This suggests a potential capacity for greater shared housing.

2

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

This paper offers an overview of shared housing in the United States from both a theoretical and a practical standpoint. Overall, it addresses what shared housing is, examines which households live in shared housing arrangements and why, and discusses the various shared housing models available in the United States—including organizations that either directly provide or facilitate (often matching prospective tenants to providers) shared housing options. Section 2 gives a brief history of shared housing in the United States; details some of the economic, social, and health-related factors that play a role in the behavior of individuals who choose to share housing; and analyzes indicators showing the prevalence of shared housing in the United States. Section 3 describes the models and challenges of home sharing and co-living in the United States in more detail and draws on qualitative interviews that U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) staff have conducted with leading home sharing and co-living firms. Section 4 provides examples of federal and state initiatives in shared housing, including allowances for shared housing as an alternative living arrangement that assisted residents can use in HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program and specific international research partnerships around shared housing between HUD and foreign governments.

Why Do People Share Housing?

Shared housing is a unique housing

industrialization and urbanization and

and homeowners live in many

design and living arrangement that

declined with the suburbanization

other types of shared housing

residents pursue formally or informally

of American housing. In today’s era

arrangements and are motivated to

for a variety of reasons. In the United

of “reurbanization” of American

do so generally by some combination

States, single-room occupancy (SRO)

cities—as seen from an upward trend

of economic, social, and health-

housing exemplifies a visible form

in population growth starting in some

related factors. Some of these factors

of shared housing that rose with

cities in the 1980s1 —both renters

are detailed below.

Figure 1. A Typology of Shared Housing

Same Housing Unit

Same Building

Flat Share

Unrelated roommates, often from the same

Co-Living

Individual renting of private and often

generation and without children, living

furnished rooms, typically in multifamily

in the same house or apartment unit.

buildings, with shared common spaces in

Typically with individual bedrooms but

individual units and in buildings. Frequently

sharing common spaces, including kitchens

targeting adult professionals in high-demand

and baths

housing markets

Multigenera-

Related or unrelated household with two or

Single-Room

Affordable housing designed for low-

tional

more adult generations

Occupancy

income tenants renting small and sometimes

Household

(SRO) housing

furnished single rooms, with shared kitchens

and baths in the building

Home

Renting out of homes by resident

Co-Housing

Private, individually amenitized, self-

Sharing

homeowners in exchange for services,

contained units or homes clustered

typically senior homeowners looking for

around shared space to form intentional

support to age in place

communities, which can be organized

formally as a homeowner’s association or

Group Home

Private home for individuals needing social

housing cooperative

assistance, such as drug rehabilitation,

often with an on-site resident manager

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

3

Although SROs

around fireproofing8 and ventilation9),

many factors, like proximity to work;

remain an important

regulatory reform, 10 and advancements

family needs; and preferences around

in public health11 mean that it is now

amenities, individual space, and privacy.

form of shared

possible to build dense housing with

Hedonic pricing studies of shared

lowered minimum unit sizes without

housing in the form of Airbnb rentals

housing for certain

creating unsafe and unsanitary habitation.

(attempting to measure the contribution

housing users, shared Although SROs remain an important

of various internal and external factors

form of shared housing for certain

to the housing price) found that, across

housing has expanded housing users, shared housing has

cities, individuals were willing to pay

to cover many other

expanded to cover many other types

an additional premium for rentals that

of housing. Some of the most common

were listed as an “entire home” or “entire

types of housing.

types are detailed in Figure 1 and can be

apartment” as compared to a private

differentiated based on whether residents

room or shared room, holding other

are sharing the same housing unit or the

factors constant. 12,13 This finding shows

History of Shared Housing

same building. Many shared housing

that the norm may be for people to

arrangements, such as home sharing

willingly pay more for privacy; however,

Shared housing has been a common

and co-living, are becoming increasingly

these preferences may be limited by

housing arrangement throughout U.S.

common, as can be seen through the

a person’s income, wealth, and how

history. Early co-living concepts can be

establishment and growth of these

much they can afford to spend on

traced back to the early 19th century

models in the formal real estate sector.

housing costs. As a person ages, these

in the form of single-room occupancy

preferences can change as well. Many

buildings and boarding houses in large

Many shared housing people who can afford the option of

urban areas. 2 These shared housing

living alone prefer the privacy and

models offered affordable housing

arrangements,

autonomy that living alone provides.

for people who came to urban areas

such as home

Figure 1. A Typology of Shared Housing

to work. As metropolitan economies

The financial situation of many people

grew, however, overcrowding led to the

sharing and co-

living in high-cost areas, however, may

perception and proliferation of unsafe

living, are becoming

not enable them to live alone in preferred

conditions in boarding houses in many

locations near their jobs or other desired

urban areas, and as safety regulations,

increasingly

amenities, such as public transportation,

building codes, and occupancy limits

safety, entertainment, and other amenities

became commonplace, these housing

common, as can be

associated with well-served urban areas.

arrangements either became tightly

seen through the

Shared housing provides a way to reduce

regulated or were largely outlawed by

housing costs while still living in a more

states and localities. SROs began to

establishment and

preferred area. Indeed, shared housing

wane in the 1920s, and single-family

growth of these

represents a tradeoff in preferences

homeownership became increasingly

between privacy and the opportunity

prevalent after World War II with the

models in the formal

to live in a higher-quality home or

cheap production of housing, increasing

neighborhood than an individual or

incomes, the development of American

real estate sector.

family could afford on their own. A survey

suburbs, and the promotion of the nuclear

of welfare-assisted families in unassisted

familyi as a social norm. 3 Many SROs were

Economic Factors for

private housing in the state of Virginia,

demolished or converted into other uses,

Shared Housing

for example, found that living in shared

like offices or hotels. Research has paired

housing, as opposed to living alone, was

the reduction in SROs, which was often

Shared housing enables people to live

associated with reduced rent burden and

politically motivated,4 with increases in

more affordably by reducing their

better physical housing quality. 14

homelessness and the use of motels and

housing costs; shared housing most

hotels as informal housing for low-income

often occurs in metropolitan areas

renters with limited social capital.5

with high housing costs. Of course,

shared housing is not for everyone:

Technological advancements in the

people have different preferences in

construction industry6,7 (especially

their housing arrangements based on

i Generally defined as a couple and their dependent children, which is regarded as a basic social unit.

4

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

Shared housing

which point they may have increased

housing costs, and that they will often

represents a tradeoff their income or accumulated enough

double up with family members first.iii

in preferences

wealth to afford the upfront costs of

homeownership.ii Renting also provides

Social Factors for

between privacy

people with flexibility to move for

Shared Housing

employment or other reasons, whereas

and the opportunity

homeowners are frequently tied to their

Although economic factors are the

to live in a higher-

area of residence. Moreover, the ability

primary motivator for people sharing

for shared housing to foster the sharing

housing, there are many social benefits

quality home or

of childcare gives mothers more time to

to consider in shared housing, including

neighborhood than

invest in their own human capital and

companionship—whether in the form

improve their economic position19—key

of a housemate, a cohabitating partner,

an individual or

factors for consideration in addition

a relative, or a marriage. Most residents

to preferences for proximity to work,

of shared housing report having at

family could afford

family, and amenities.

least occasional social events with the

on their own.

participation of the full household.

Sharing housing is also a viable option for

They report emotional support and

those experiencing economic insecurity

companionship as the best aspects about

Reasons for “doubling up” or sharing

who need a place to live. After all, if

living in a shared house, and a lack of

housing vary individually but come

an individual’s income is impeded due

privacy, a need to compromise or restrict

down to some tradeoff between social

to a job loss, shared housing can help

lifestyles, and having to cope with other

and economic factors. 15 Economic

alleviate the financial burden of housing

housemates’ moods as the worst.21 Living

factors include housing costs, income,

costs by sharing that cost with family

with someone can increase social support

expenditures, other expenses, and a

or others. Economic downturns appear

and interaction; this increase can reduce

person’s ability to pay for a housing unit.

to influence the rate of shared housing.

loneliness, which can have positive health

Research on home sharing indicates that

For instance, according to the U.S.

effects. 22 Research indicates that loneliness

economic factors are the main motivating

Census Bureau, the number of shared

is associated with reduced overall well-

factor for shared housing.16 Evidence from

households increased during the Great

being, including both poorer physical

Zillow suggests a relationship between

Recession. 20 A 2012 Census report

and mental health. 23

the unaffordability of rental markets and

found that in 2007, 13.9 percent of

“doubling up” behavior. For instance, in

households, or 31.0 million households,

In a 2010 study, He, O’Flaherty, and

2017, Los Angeles had the highest share

included an additional adult; in 2010,

Rosenheck questioned why shared

of adults living with roommates or adult

that percentage increased by 3 million

housing arrangements were uncommon

parents (50 percent), while also being the

households to 34.5 million households,

or discouraged policy responses for

third most expensive rental market in the

or 15 percent of all households. Of the

formerly homeless people or people

country.17 Interviews with shared housing

roughly 31 million households that

at risk of homelessness, and whether

organizations indicate that economic

included an additional adult in 2007, 2.4

there were any adverse effects to

factors are the primary reason people

percent, or 5.3 million households, were

sharing housing. 24 In doing so, they

share housing. 18

households with an unrelated adult, and

analyzed data from the Department of

those figures increased to 2.7 percent,

Health and Human Services’ Access to

Lifecycle factors—such as age, marriage,

or 6.3 million households, in 2010.

Community Care and Effective Services

and having children—also influence

Most commonly, the additional adult in

and Supports (ACCESS) program, a

a person’s housing preferences.

a household was a relative or child of

5-year demonstration program meant to

Traditionally, young adults rent

the householder. These changes show

identify and evaluate the effectiveness of

housing until they have accumulated

that macroeconomic conditions can lead

integrated service systems for homeless

enough wealth or until they marry, at

individuals to share housing to reduce

populations with serious mental

ii The costs associated with homeownership also play a role, including the downpayment and ongoing maintenance. Research points to wealth and income as some of the largest barriers to homeownership, particularly because of the large upfront cost in the form of a downpayment. Despite the link between homeownership and the building of wealth in the long run, owning is generally more expensive than renting, so financial constraints can be a barrier to homeownership and influence a person’s decision on whether to rent or own, and whether to live alone or share housing. Shared arrangements make housing more affordable by reducing housing costs for the individuals involved.

iii Manhertz, Treh. 2020 “Almost 3 Million Adults Moved Back Home in Wake of Coronavirus.” Seattle, WA: Zillow. https://www.zillow.com/research/coronavirus-adults-

moving-home-27271/. Analyzing CPS data, Zillow research analysis reports that roughly 2.7 million adults moved in with a parent or grandparent in March and April of 2020. About 2.2 million of the adults were between 18 and 25 years old. The Zillow article notes that the living situation of this age group fluctuates in normal times, and the volatility of their living situation is exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic due to uncertainties in labor markets and of in-person attendance at universities.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

5

illnesses.iv They found that shared

lead to conflicts between individuals

of trust in some form by vetting

housing did not negatively impact

in shared housing. Indeed, one must

participants, arranging interviews

participants’ mental health.25

consider many social factors when living

between participants, following up with

with another person. These arrangements

participants, and acting as mediators in

According to interviews with shared

are based on the trust between the

case of conflict. Digitalization and the

housing organizations, homeowners

individuals involved. This trust includes

advancement of technology have also

participating in shared housing programs

the safety of the participating individuals

led to the capacity for individuals to vet

are often senior citizens living alone.26

and the property and the commitment of

new tenants; this practice lowers the

Due to ties to one’s home and community,

the individuals to pay their portion of the

risk of introducing an individual into a

most senior homeowners want to age

housing costs and split the labor for any

space who has different household and

in place, even if their homes cannot

domestic chores.

lifestyle expectations, but can also lead

meet their physical needs. 27 In many

to discrimination.32 Digitalization can

cases, these seniors benefit from shared

Trust is crucial in

also facilitate the logistics of independent

housing arrangements, not only because

house sharing and remove barriers to

of reduced housing costs, but also

managing conflict.

contractual obligations, such as splitting

the additional companionship, social

utility bills.

interaction, and assistance with needs. 28

Trust is crucial in managing conflict.

One study of home-sharers found that

Conflict can arise from power imbalances

Health Factors for

residents aged 70 and above with a

(between resident owners and tenants) or

Shared Housing

roommate reported better health across

when tenants have different expectations

multiple dimensions, including sleeping

for the household. Qualitative research

Social relationships are a major benefit

and eating better, feeling happier,

has shown that individuals who have

of shared housing and can mitigate the

increased physical activity and energy

a greater commitment to sharing, did

substantial negative health effects that

levels, and worrying less.29

not choose to live in shared housing

often accompany social isolation and

solely for financial reasons, and

loneliness. A meta-analysis of studies

In many cases,

approach shared housing lifestyles with

examining the connection between

seniors benefit from

a willingness to compromise, are better

loneliness and health found increased

at managing conflict. 30 The quality of

mortality rates among those reporting

shared housing

relationships and the way in which

loneliness, social isolation, and living

residents choose to engage in them

alone. 33 Mechanisms for this increased

arrangements, not

can greatly affect the social and health

mortality risk include poorer health

only because of

benefits of sharing housing. 31

behaviors when living alone, like poorer

sleep, physical inactivity, and smoking.

reduced housing

The quality of

Being part of a social network at home

costs, but also

relationships and the

is associated with conformity to certain

social norms around health and self-

the additional

way in which residents care. Having social relationships can

also provide individuals with self-esteem

companionship,

choose to engage

and greater purpose. Additionally, the

social interaction, and

in them can greatly

decreased social isolation associated with

shared housing can reduce the risk of

assistance with needs.

affect the social and

domestic violence. 34,35

health benefits of

Health benefits can also stem from the

Like any other housing arrangement,

sharing housing.

economic benefits of shared housing. 36

however, shared housing requires

Cost savings derived from shared housing

compatibility among the individuals

can free up expenditures for families in

involved. Clashes in personality, work

Importantly, shared housing

shared households to invest in better

schedules, lifestyles, and noise levels can

organizations often take on the burden

food and in necessary medical costs,

iv The ACCESS (Access to Community Care and Effective Services and Supports) program was a 5-year demonstration that evaluated the impact of integrated services on outcomes of homeless people with severe mental illness. The program took place from 1994 to 1998 and was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The program provided funding and technical assistance to experimental and control sites in nine different states and provided funding for outreach and services at each site. Data was collected on participants at entry into the program and 3 and 12 months later. Outcome data was collected from 7,055 participants. For more information on the ACCESS program, see: https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ps.53.8.945.

6

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

both preventive care and direct treatment. 37

Social relationships are a major benefit

Studies have found that shared housing can

better support children with health issues

of shared housing and can mitigate the

ranging from asthma to malnutrition. 38

substantial negative health effects that often An array of economic and social factors influence the positive impact that shared

accompany social isolation and loneliness.

housing can have on residents’ health.

Health Considerations for Shared Housing During a Public Health Emergency

Shared housing can be associated

sharing housing with some

household expectations. It may also

with negative health impacts if

challenges, which are similar to

involve meeting certain housing

it results in overcrowding. This

challenges residents may face around

quality standards to ensure that any

association is especially pertinent

other household expectations, like

resident who becomes affected by the

given the time of publication, where

chores, rules about visitors, and

virus can self-isolate without harming

the COVID-19 pandemic continues

other household activities, but are

their housemates.

to affect the way of life across the

compounded due to the severity of

world, and, by some metrics, seems

the risks to health and livelihood.

Pandemics such as COVID-19 are

to be spreading more quickly in

Shared housing residents who have

once-in-a-lifetime events, and, while

areas with higher residential density.

come together through shared beliefs,

governments should always invest in

The connection between disease and

like in many co-ops and other types

emergency preparedness, pandemics

density, however, is not immediately

of intentional communities, may be

may present characteristics of

obvious. With COVID-19, some rural

more willing to develop and comply

a “black swan” event (that is,

recreation areas in the United States

with new household policies during

rare and unpredictable events

have seen similar rates of infection

emergency scenarios. For example,

despite post-hoc rationalizations

spread as in dense urban areas.

certain medium-sized co-ops in

for predictability), requiring ad

The geography of socioeconomics

Oakland, California; San Francisco,

hoc policies to respond to crisis

also plays a large role. According to

California; Berkeley, California;

scenarios. How residents and owners

urbanist Richard Florida, “There is a

Boulder, Colorado; Providence,

of shared housing make contingency

huge difference between rich dense

Rhode Island; New York City, New

plans to protect their health and

places, where people can shelter in

York; and Austin, Texas have all

safety during public health crises

place, work remotely, and have all of

published household policies that

may play a lesser role in the overall

their food and other needs delivered

they developed and co-signed under

health of residents in their long-term

to them, and poor dense places,

COVID-19, many categorizing their

relationship with shared housing.

which push people out onto the

allowable activities into different

streets, into stores and onto crowded

phases of the pandemic. The Centers

Sources: Florida, Richard. 2020. The

transit with one another.” These

for Disease Control and Prevention

Geography of Coronavirus. CityLab.

complexities have been addressed in

released safety information on

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2020/04/

the shared housing literature through

living in shared housing during the

coronavirus-spread-map-city-urban-

the “voluntary vs. involuntary” lens,

COVID-19 pandemic, including

density-suburbs-rural-data/609394/

namely, delineating shared housing

limiting or avoiding nonessential

behavior and outcomes based on the

visitors and stocking COVID-19

Tina, Cynthia. 2020. COVID-19

constraints under which individuals

prevention supplies, such as soaps,

Resources. Center for Intentional

either choose or are forced to live in

sanitizers, tissues, trash bins, and

Community. https://www.ic.org/

shared housing.

if possible, cloth face coverings.

covid-19-resources/

Maximizing health and happiness

Public health situations like the

during crisis situations involves

Center for Disease Control. 2019. Living

COVID-19 national emergency,

a level of trust between shared

in Shared Housing. https://www.cdc.gov/

ongoing at the time of this paper's

housing residents that there will

coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/

publication, can present residents

be compliance with agreed-upon

shared-housing/index.html

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

7

Prevalence of Shared Housing

of household members to their head

CPS and ACS show that, although the

in the United States

of household, and multigenerational

prevalence of shared housing varies

households. See Figure 2 for a summary

substantially depending on the age of

One can measure the prevalence of

of the analysis of these variables.

the household head, roughly 7 percent

shared housing in the United States using

of households contain more than one

multiple approaches. Here, we look at

Data from the AHS shows that 76

family; 9 percent of households include

data captured by major federal surveys.

percent of occupied housing units

subfamilies or secondary individuals

We examine the following variables

have more than one bedroom per

(a steadily growing 2-percentage-point

captured by the American Housing

person. Formal measures from CPS

increase in share from 2000 to 2019);

Survey (AHS), American Community

and ACS indicate that shared housing

4 percent of ACS respondents are

Survey (ACS), and Current Population

represents a less common but growing

not related to the head of household;

Survey (CPS):v the number of unoccupied

housing arrangement for American

and 20 percent of Americans live in

bedrooms in housing units, the number

households, whereas AHS data shows

multigenerational households with more

of families per household, the types of

the capacity for shared housing in

than two adult generations (a steadily

families in households, the relationship

the U.S. housing stock. Data from the

growing 8-percentage-point increase in

v Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and American Community Survey (ACS) provide information on household composition in the United States. The ACS is an ongoing household survey that samples approximately 3.5 million randomly selected households per year. The survey captures detailed social, demographic, economic, and housing data of the U.S. population. Surveys are conducted by mail through a questionnaire delivered to an address, via internet, through in-person interviews by U.S. Census Bureau field representatives, and by telephone.

The CPS is a household survey conducted monthly, using a probability sample of roughly 60,000 households. Households are interviewed by Census field representatives once a month for 4 consecutive months, and then interviewed again over the same 4 months, 1 year later. Households from each state and the District of Columbia are included in the survey. The survey provides information on the labor market and household composition and demographics. Data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) of the CPS provides further detailed social and economic information on individuals in a household and household composition.

ASEC data is used by the U.S. Census Bureau to measure poverty.

The American Housing Survey provides information on the housing stock, vacancies, housing costs, and the condition of housing units, among other detailed information on housing. The survey is conducted biennially in odd-numbered years. In 2017, the most recently completed survey, the survey sampled 114,860 housing units.

Figure 2: Metrics on the Prevalence of Shared Housing in the United States

Shared Housing Metric

Data Source

Time Period

Findings

Unoccupied bedrooms

American Housing

2019

Of all occupied housing units:

Survey

• 26% have 2+ bedrooms per person

• 50% have 1-2 bedrooms per person

• 24% have <1 bedroom per person

Finder.com analysis

2017

• There are 33.6 million spare rooms in the United States

of U.S. Census data

• There are ~9.4% more bedrooms than people

Number of families

Current Population

2020

• 94% of households contain one family

per household

Survey

• 4% of households contain two families

• 2% of households contain three or more families

Types of families in

Current Population

2020

• 73% of households are primary families

households

Survey

• 18% of households are nonfamily householders

• 9% of households are subfamilies and

secondary individuals

Relationship between

American

2019

• 3% of people identified as nonrelatives in relation to the

household members

Community Survey

head of household

Multigenerational

American

2019

• 35% of households are one-generation households

households

Community Survey

• 53% of households are two-generation households

• 9% of households are three-generation households

8

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

The prevalence of shared housing in the

bedrooms per person, whereas 50 percent

have between one and two bedrooms per

United States likely ranges somewhere

person. Having more than one bedroom

between 3 to 20 percent of households,

per person may make sense if residents

have rooms they use as office spaces

depending on the dataset and definition used.

or guest bedrooms; however, couples

typically share a bedroom, which would

share from 1980 to 2016). The variance

Unoccupied Bedrooms

reduce the average number of bedrooms

among these indicators paint a different

per person. The fact that just 24 percent

picture depending on how shared

Data on unoccupied bedrooms represent

of occupied units have less than one

housing is defined, demonstrating the

one measure used to examine the

bedroom per person suggests that

importance of additional research to

capacity for shared housing in the

undercrowding is much more prevalent

capture changes in Americans’ living

United States. This measure indicates

than overcrowding in the United States.vi

arrangements. Overall, these measures

the capacity for homeowners to engage

See Figure 3.

illustrate some degree of increase in the

in home sharing, based on the presence

rate and prevalence of shared housing

of extra unoccupied bedrooms in a

According to a 2017 analysis by finder.

and suggest the capacity for further

house. The AHS finds that 26 percent of

com, U.S. Census data show that there

expansion of such housing arrangements.

occupied housing units have two or more

are approximately 33.6 million spare

vi Undercrowding occurs when there are too few occupants in a housing unit. In context, this percentage is a national measurement of all housing units, and there is variation in crowdedness in different housing markets across the United States, where some markets have greater and lesser degrees of crowding and undercrowding in housing units. In some areas of the United States, there is an acute problem of overcrowding in housing units, notably in Indian Country/Tribal Lands.

Figure 3. Number of Bedrooms Per Person in Occupied Housing Units in the United States 60%

50%

50%

40%

30%

26%

e of occupied housing units

20%

Shar

13%

11%

10%

1%

0%

0.66 or less

0.67 to 0.99

1.00 to 1.99

2 or more

No bedrooms

Source: American Housing Survey, 2017 National – Rooms, Size, and Amenities – All Occupied Units U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

9

rooms in the United States. This finding

Number of Families Per Household

unrelated adults. These figures have

is based on aggregate estimates of

been relatively stable over the past two

roughly 357 million bedrooms for 324

The Current Population Survey (CPS)

decades. Since 2001, the percentage of

million people, or 9.4 percent more

counts the number of families living

one-family households increased by 0.9

bedrooms than people.39 This aggregate

in a household, defining family as

percent at an annual rate of 0.045; the

estimate is likely an overestimate of the

anyone related by blood, adoption, or

percentage of two-family households

availability for home sharing because

marriage, whereas unrelated individuals

decreased by 1.06 percent at an annual

it appears to include bedrooms in

are counted as a separate family. This

rate of 0.063; and the percentage of three

vacant housing for sale or rent and

measurement considers households with

or more family households increased by

does not account for households that

multiple generations as one family (for

0.15 percent at an annual rate of 0.0075.

are using their additional rooms for

example, a married couple with children

This CPS data shows that among all

essential purposes. Separately, a 2017

living together with grandparents would

households, sharing housing is relatively

analysis of local real estate markets

be counted as one family). According to

uncommon despite the possible capacity

by Trulia examined boomer-headed

CPS data, in 2020, roughly 94 percent

to do so.

households in the 100 largest U.S.

of households contained one family;

housing markets, and they found

4 percent of households contained

In 2020, among households headed

at least 3.6 million unoccupied

two families; and 2 percent contained

by those aged 65 and older, nearly 98

rooms, not counting offices or guest

three or more families. By counting the

percent were one-family households and

rooms, in these markets.40 Either way,

number of families in a household, we

2 percent were two-family households,

each of these estimates shows the

can generally see that roughly 6 percent

including unrelated individuals. CPS

United States’ potential capacity to

of households included more than one

data further suggests that relatively few

absorb demand for home sharing.

family, and that percentage includes

senior-aged households contained more

Figure 4. Share of Households That Contain More Than One Family by Age Cohort of Householder 25-34 35-64 65-99

13

12

10.5

10.9

11

10

9

8

7

6

5.4

4.7

5

4

3

2.6

2.4

2

1

0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Source: Current Population Survey, NFAMS variable

10

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

than one family, indicating that there are

Nonfamily householders, defined as a

Related subfamilies are defined as a

few senior-aged households participating

person maintaining a household while

married couple with or without children,

in shared housing relative to households

living alone or with nonrelatives, made

or a single parent with one or more

in other age cohorts. See Figure 4 for a

up about 18 percent of households.

children under 18. An example of a

breakdown by age cohort.

Subfamilies (subfamilies do not maintain

related subfamily is a married couple

the household but live in someone

sharing the home of the husband’s or

Types of Families in Households

else’s home) and secondary individuals

wife’s parents. In 2020, about 3 percent

(unrelated roomers, boarders, resident

of households in the United States were

The CPS also counts the types of

employees) account for about 9 percent

related subfamilies. Unrelated subfamilies

families living in a household, defining

of the remaining household types.

are defined as a married couple with

five different family types: primary

These data show that most households

or without children, or a single parent

families, nonfamily householders, related

in the United States are occupied by

with one or more children under

subfamilies, unrelated subfamilies, and

primary families. Unrelated subfamilies

18, and can include guests, partners,

secondary individuals. By this count,

and secondary individuals, who can be

roommates, or resident employees

in 2020 primary families—defined as

considered as sharing housing, make

and their spouses and children. In

a group of two or more people related

up about 6 percent of all households.

2020, 0.18 percent of households

by birth, marriage, or adoption that

See Figure 5 for the percentage of

in the United States were unrelated

is living together—make up nearly

households with subfamilies or

subfamilies. A secondary individual is

three-fourths of all households.vii

secondary individuals.

defined as a roomer, boarder, or resident

vii According to CPS data, in 2020, roughly 73.21 percent of households were occupied by primary families; 17.8 percent of households were occupied by nonfamily householders; 8.98 percent of households were occupied by subfamilies or secondary individuals. Over the past two decades, these percentages have been relatively stable.

Since 2001, the percentage of primary families decreased by 2.54 during the period at an annual rate of 0.127; the percentage of nonfamily households increased by 1.15

during the period at an annual rate of 0.0575; and the percentage of subfamily and secondary individuals increased by 1.39 during the period at an annual rate of 0.0695.

Figure 5. Percentage of Households with Subfamily or Secondary Individual

10

9.2

8

7.5

6

4

2

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Source: Current Population Survey

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

11

employee with no relatives in the

million, an increase of 33 percent,

housing costs for participants,

household; this includes group quarter

the segment of the older population

such arrangements can allow for

members not living with a relative. In

sharing their homes grew from 1.3 to

grandparents to “age in place” in a

2020, about 6 percent of households

1.8 percent, and the number of older

familiar environment. Grandparents

in the United States were secondary

adults in these arrangements grew by

can also help parents supervise their

individuals. During the same period

88 percent (from about 470,000 to

children, reducing the costs for daycare

about 9 percent of households included

nearly 988,000).

and other childcare. See Figure 6 for

a subfamily or secondary individual.

the percentage of Americans living in

Separately, the Census released a report

multigenerational households.45

Relationship Between Household

on shared households in 2012 titled,

Member and Household Head

“Poverty and Shared Households by

In 2019, among all reporting adult

State: 2011,” which found that in

households, about 35 percent were

The ACS captures the relationship of each

2007, 17.6 percent of households were

one-generation households, 54 percent

individual to the household head. Among

shared households, and in 2010, that

were two-generation households, and 9

the 13 different types of relationships

number increased to 19.4 percent.42

percent were three-generation or more

captured are “other non-relatives”—

Also, the report found that in 2007,

households. Since 2001, the percentage

defined as people paying or working for

16 percent of adults were additional

of one-generation households increased

accommodations. ACS data show that

adults in a shared household, and that

by 0.63 at an annual rate of 0.033; two-

in 2019, 2.95 percent of respondents

in 2010, that number increased to 17.3

generation households decreased by 5.07

identified as other nonrelatives in relation

percent. 43 The report further found that

percent at an annual rate of 0.267; and

to the head of household. Since 2001,

most (80.8 percent) additional adults

three or more generational households

that percentage has increased by 1.73 at

in shared households were relatives of

increased by 1.97 percent at an annual rate

an annual rate of 0.091.

the householder, whereas 19.2 percent

of 0.104. The share of households with

were not relatives. Adult children of the

three or more generations has increased in

A 2018 article from Harvard University’s

householder were the most common

recent years. 46

Joint Center for Housing Studies

additional adult at 47.1 percent,

examined the prevalence of shared

whereas 8.1 percent were siblings, 9.6

Analyzing ACS data, Pew Research

housing among people aged 65 and

percent were parents, and 16 percent

found that in 2018, 20 percent of the

older. Using 2016 ACS data, the author

were other relatives.44

population lived in multigenerational

found that shared housing arrangements

housing, a 5-percentage-point increase

among people aged 65 and older are

Multigenerational Households

from 2000.47 In their analysis, they

relatively small in scope but increasing.

define multigenerational housing

In 2016, roughly 879,000 people aged

Finally, ACS data on multigenerational

as housing that includes “two or

65 and older lived with another unrelated

households in the United States is

more adult generations, or including

person, whereas 12.8 million lived alone

examined. Multigenerational housing

grandparents and grandchildren

and another 21.7 million lived with a

is a common living arrangement in the

younger than 25.” The increase in

spouse or partner41:

United States; it is a household that

multigenerational households can be

consists of at least two adult generations.

explained partially by the increase of

Though the number and share of

Most commonly, this arrangement

racial and ethnic diversity in the United

older adults living with unrelated

occurs when grandparents live with

States and different cultural preferences.viii

roommates is small, both grew

their adult children and grandchildren.

Overall, based on varying methods

dramatically between 2006 and

Multigenerational housing can provide

of counting members of households,

2016. Over that time, when the

a range of benefits for participating

shared housing is a small but growing

older population grew from 38 to 50

individuals. In addition to reduced

way of living in the United States.

viii Pew Research shows that Asian and Hispanic populations are more likely to live in multigenerational households than White households, and these populations are growing more rapidly than White populations in the United States. Indeed, in 2016, the shares of households that are multigenerational are higher among Asians (29

percent), Hispanics (27 percent), and Blacks (26 percent) than among White households (16 percent).

12

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

Figure 6. Increasing Share of Americans Living in Multigenerational Households 20%

20%

17%

15%

15%

14%

12%

10%

5%

0%

1980

1990

2000

2009

2016

Sources: Pew Research Center, 2018; Decennial census and ACS data

Shared Housing Models in the United States

We now provide an overview of two of

age cohorts, from young adults starting

among home sharing organizations

the primary models for shared housing:

new jobs in big cities to retirees looking

and providing resources and learning

home sharing and co-living. Home

for extra income to help pay mortgages

opportunities for practitioners.49 The

sharing and co-living are operated

and property taxes. Most home sharing

housing model for home sharing

by both nonprofit and for-profit

participants who share their homes are

organizations, including best practices, is

organizations in the United States, and

older adults, however. 48

explained on the next page.

they tend to range in the length of their

leases and in their affordability. Several

Home sharing organizations have

Typically, home seekers and providers

existing home sharing and co-living

been operating in the United States for

contact a home sharing organization

organizations were interviewed to obtain

decades, with some current organizations

seeking a home sharing match.

qualitative information about their

having programs that began in the 1970s

Organizations often list their criteria for

operations for this section.

or 1980s. Home sharing organizations

participating on their websites and allow

in the United States have adapted their

participants to apply online through a

Home Sharing

models of matching home seekers

website template, or via e-mail or telephone.

and home providers over time. The

For participants providing housing, the

Home sharing organizations are

National Shared Housing Resource

organization typically visits and inspects the

intermediary organizations that match

Center (NSHRC) operates as a network

unit prior to placing a participant seeking

shared housing seekers to shared housing

for home sharing organizations in the

housing. 50 After participants apply, they

providers. Home sharing is available to all

United States, promoting best practices

are screened through background checks

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

13

Home Sharing Model

Vetting Process

Mateo, California, Human Investment

For example, HomeShare Vermont

Project (HIP) Housing participants

began their home sharing program by

Thorough vetting and interview

seek and enter into month-to-month

matching senior-aged home seekers

processes help ensure a successful

arrangements. On average, home

to senior-aged home providers. They

match is made between participants.

sharing arrangements last 2 to 3 years

found that the program gained interest

Home sharing organizations interview

in duration, with some arrangements

in other age cohorts, however, and

home providers to understand the

lasting 10 years or longer. Other

they then began an intergenerational

types of arrangements they seek.

organizations facilitate month-to-

approach to home sharing that did not

The information gathered includes

month arrangements, which on average

restrict participants by age or income;

preferences on desired rent payment;

last 1.5 years. Participants move on for

this approach opened the program to

the type of services preferred, if any;

many reasons, including changes in

more participants.

and compatibility information, such as

lifestyle or living situations.

sharing with an individual or a family,

Payment (Exchange of Rent

work schedule, and so on. The vetting

Client Base

and Services)

process—including applications,

background checks, and participant

Although most shared housing

When interviewing prospective

interviews—helps maximize the

organizations are available to anyone

home providers, shared housing

likelihood of compatibility among

seeking housing, the client base of

organizations ask what type of rent

participants. Through a trial

some organizations differ. For example,

payment or services the home provider

period, follow up, and mediation,

Impact Justice in Alameda County,

is seeking, whether rent payment

the organizations provide further

California, began a pilot program

only, services only, or a combination

assistance to ensure successful matches

called The Homecoming Project,

of rent and services. Likewise,

for participants.

which matches formerly incarcerated

prospective home seekers are asked

people with participating homeowners

about their preferences and their

Although shared housing

providing short-term housing limited

ability to provide rent payment and

organizations use similar models

to 6 months. The Homecoming Project

services. Rent can range extensively

for matchmaking, they can differ in

aims to reduce the recidivism rate

depending on the location of the

a variety of ways, including length

among the formerly incarcerated by

shared housing arrangement. Services

of leasing, rent payment, services

providing short-term, stable housing to

can include housework, yardwork,

provided, and client base.

help increase their chances to re-enter

pet care, fellowship and conversation,

society. The Homecoming Project

or running errands to the grocer or

Length of Leasing

subsidizes homeowners and, like other

pharmacy, and so on. Services are often

shared housing organizations, screens

specified in terms of number of hours

Home sharing organizations differ in

participants, facilitates the matching

per week or month. Services typically

the length of leasing arrangements

process, and offers follow up support.

do not include personal care.

for their matches—whether short-

term (such as month-to-month

Some shared housing organizations

Sources: Phone interviews with HomeShare

leasing arrangements) or long-term

adapt their shared housing programs

Vermont (conducted on June 25, 2019) and

(a year or more). For example, in San

to meet demand for their services.

HIP Housing (conducted on June 25, 2019)

and are interviewed by the organization,

ensure satisfaction and mediate in the case

that facilitate co-living—a housing

after which the organization arranges for

of conflict between participants.55

arrangement in which a tenant pays

the home seeker and home provider to

rent for a private bedroom but shares

meet.51,52,53 Finally, after a trial period, the

Co-Living

common living areas such as kitchens,

participants enter into a more formal leasing

bathrooms, and laundry facilities with

agreement. 54 Once participants are settled,

Co-living organizations are a type

other tenants. Co-living is convenient

organizations follow up with participants to

of shared housing organization

for people just arriving to a new city

14

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

or for people looking for an affordable

The increasing market

model.57 Co-living organizations operate

housing option in a high-demand area.

capitalization of co-

differently throughout the United States

Part of the co-living appeal is found in

depending on local regulations, the

the convenience and all-inclusive pricing

living shows that

types of co-living models in operation,

for renters, at the expense of reduced

and their target demographics. For

privacy and smaller living spaces. Co-

it is a fast-growing

example, Common is a co-living

living organizations typically bundle

real estate sector,

organization operating in eight major

their rent, utilities, and Wi-Fi into an all-

cities (as of 2020), with plans to expand

inclusive rate for renters. Many co-living

with opportunities to

to more U.S. cities.58,59 Common operates

providers offer fully furnished dwellings,

significantly impact

similar to hotels, in that it offers rooms

including furnished bedrooms, but

and common areas with high-end

provisions vary across organizations.

urban housing markets furniture, weekly cleaning, household

supplies (such as paper towels, toilet

Co-living buildings can range from large

in the United States.

paper, and cleaning supplies), and

multi-unit buildings to renovated single-

monthly community-building events.60

family homes with multiple bedrooms.

Co-living organizations often have

Common includes the costs for these

Co-living buildings are built or renovated

user-friendly websites and mobile apps,

amenities, including utilities and Wi-Fi,

to maximize density by adding extra

which serve as one-stop shops for

in the cost of rent, so that the price is

bedrooms, which can reduce the amount

renters and prospective renters. Housing

all-inclusive for renters. Rent for these

of square footage in a bedroom or

seekers can apply for membership and

co-living arrangements is at or near the

common area, such as a living room,

set up appointments for viewing units

market rate for similar group house

compared to traditional units. For new

(some co-living organizations offer

listings, but because co-living comes

developments, co-living organizations

virtual tours), whereas current renters

with furnished rooms and all-inclusive

advise developers on how to best

can pay rent and request services and

pricing, collecting payment for utilities

optimize properties for co-living, while

maintenance. It makes sense that co-

or other amenities is no hassle. These

for renovations, co-living organizations

living is technology-driven, given

higher-end co-living arrangements

advise property owners how to optimize

its origin during the digital age and

are typically marketed toward people

current space for maximum density.

its typical target market, which are

earning incomes of $60,000 to $80,000,

Co-living buildings can be found in

technology-savvy younger generations.56

or who are college-educated young

Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York

professionals moving to a new city

City, San Francisco, and Washington,

Variance in Co-Living Models

and are seeking convenient housing.

D.C., among other major U.S. cities.

The increasing market capitalization of

Co-living companies are typically

co-living shows that it is a fast-growing

organized into three different models:

real estate sector, with opportunities

the operator model, the full stack

to significantly impact urban housing

(developer-owner-operator) model,

markets in the United States.ix

and the single-family conversion

ix Of the total investment in co-living specific to the United States through 2018, 55 percent was made in 2018. Moreover, combined capital investment fundraising in U.S. and international co-living housing markets has grown more than 200 percent annually since 2015. In 2019 alone, about $3 billion in funding was secured for co-living development in the U.S. and international markets. Jones Lang LaSalle. 2019. Why investors are signing up for coliving. June 17, 2019. https://www.

us.jll.com/en/trends-and-insights/investor/why-investors-are-signing-up-for-coliving.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

15

Figure 7. Major U.S. Co-Living Developmentsx

Source: Cushman & Wakefield, https://cw-gbl-gws-prod.azureedge.net/-/media/cw/americas/united-states/insights/research-report-pdfs/2019/

coliving-report_may2019.pdf (p . 39) Figure 7.x

x Note this figure does not include every coliving organization in the United States. For example, PadSplit, based in Atlanta, has a current estimate of approximately 1,000 units, with an additional 2,000 units in the pipeline.

16

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

Figure 8. Common’s Co-Living Model

Traditional Rental

Co-Living

Bedroom Living Space Bathroom Amenities Services and Technology Source: Common, https://www.common.com/blog/2019/10/common-announced-as-winner-of-sharenyc-hpd

Other co-living organizations offer fewer

marketed toward temporary workers,

offers co-living housing at affordable

amenities, while still including fully

and those earning lower incomes, who

prices, where the average income of their

furnished buildings and all-inclusive

are seeking affordable housing. 61 For

members is $21,000. 62

pricing for renters. These are generally

example, PadSplit, based in Atlanta,

Co-Living Model

Leasing

around 12 months, but shorter leasing

membership and can begin applying to

Co-living organizations vary in

options ranging from 3 to 9 months

rent vacant units.

their leasing arrangements. Some

are also offered. For PadSplit, members

Rent Payments

organizations own and manage the

typically stay about 7.5 months.

unit or building and lease to tenants in

Depending on the co-living organization

Vetting Process

traditional leasing agreements. Other

and the leasing arrangement, rent

organizations facilitate short-term

Co-living organizations vet prospective

payments can be due monthly or weekly.

rentals for property owners looking to

members to ensure a safe living

Co-living members are only responsible

rent out a property. Similar to home

environment for all tenants. To become

for the rent owed for their room, not the

sharing organizations, co-living leasing

a co-living member, individuals typically

rent for the entire house or unit. Rent

arrangements can vary in duration from

must apply through online applications.

amounts can vary as well, with some

a single night to a full year or longer,

Some organizations charge one-time

organizations charging the market rate

depending on the co-living provider and

application fees. Once applications are

and others charging more affordable

the type of arrangement. The co-living

received, co-living organizations usually

rental rates.

provider is typically the leaseholder, so

run credit and criminal background

tenants sub-lease the rental space. For

checks. Once background checks

Sources: Phone interviews with Common and

Common, the typical lease length is

are cleared, applicants are offered

PadSplit conducted on January 24, 2020

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

17

Challenges Faced by Shared

organizations generally inform new

to the potential returns. Indeed, many

Housing Organizations

home-seeking participants of other

for-profit co-living models can charge

housing resources in the area.67

higher rents and net higher profits than

Shared housing organizations face a

traditional types of multifamily apartment

variety of challenges in their operations.

Funding Availability

buildings.73 These gains can motivate

Some include the availability of housing

private investors who are willing to take

stock, financing availability, and local

Funding for shared housing varies

on more risk to invest in developments

regulations that restrict shared housing.

depending on the business model of the

built for co-living models.

shared housing organization. Many shared

Housing Availability

housing organizations, especially home

Complying with Local Regulations

sharing organizations, operate as nonprofit

Demand for shared housing and

organizations in the United States. As

Depending on the jurisdiction, shared

services from shared housing

such, identifying funding sources can be

housing can be subject to the same or

organizations (both home sharing and

a challenge, particularly when operating

different land-use and zoning regulations

co-living organizations) exceeds the

resource-intensive programs such as

as other housing types. Navigating local

availability.63 In other words, there

home sharing, where staff are needed for

regulations can be a challenge, especially

are many more people seeking shared

each phase of shared housing. Funding

when organizations attempt to scale

housing arrangements than there are

sources for nonprofit providers vary by

operations across cities and jurisdictions.

formal shared housing arrangements

organization, but include fundraising,

These special housing types can be

available. Finding available home

donations, grants, state funds, and funds

difficult for regulators to assess within

providers is a challenge for shared

raised through partnership with other

local jurisdictions.

housing organizations.64,65 The older

nonprofit organizations with similar

that homeowners become, the less

housing objectives.68,69,70

Residential zoning ordinances can

likely they are to share their homes.

restrict the ability to share housing,

In some instances, by the time senior

Securing funding—particularly financing

thereby restricting the availability of

homeowners come around to the idea of

for new loans—can also be a challenge

affordable housing in an area.74 Zoning

shared housing, they need professional

among for-profit co-living organizations.

ordinances determine how land is

care beyond that which can be provided

Many lenders are hesitant because co-

used and what types of buildings and

through shared housing arrangements.

living is a relatively new housing model,

features are permitted or prohibited on

and fewer underwriting guidelines have

apportioned land. Zoning is the act of

There are many more

been established.71 Developers may be

partitioning land in a municipality for

people seeking shared

reluctant to engage an investment project

different purposes, such as for residence

involving the co-living model if there is

or commercial use. 75 Most land is not

housing arrangements

ultimately the risk they would have to

zoned federally in the United States;

rebuild and renovate the building if the

state governments have the authority to

than there are formal

project is unsuccessful.72 For renovations,

enforce zoning regulations, and states

shared housing

it can be difficult for owners to secure a

typically delegate that authority to local

traditional, lower-rate construction loan

governments and municipalities.

arrangements available. because co-living is a new housing model

and lenders are not ready to underwrite

Land-use regulations are traditionally

Due to the lack of available home

the risk. Even if the owner can go

put in place for reasons of public health

providers, and by nature of the

through with renovations, the owner may

and safety, and they also typically provide

arrangement, shared housing

have difficulty having the value of the

benefits to existing homeowners through

organizations cannot guarantee

property appraised without a comparable

restrictions on land uses and building

placement for home-seeking participants.

unit in the area.xi

allowances. Zoning regulations that set

Depending on the area, three to five

density restrictions, height restrictions,

times as many shared-housing seekers

Despite these challenges with a nascent

parking requirements, minimum lot sizes,

can exist as available providers.66 When

model, capital for co-living real estate

and open space requirements, among

there is a waitlist, shared housing

development can be raised by pointing

other rules, can discourage development

xi Some appraisers will not appraise the value of the home without a comparable housing unit. For single-family homes, appraisers generally determine the value of a home using a comparison approach, where they determine the value of a property by comparing it to other properties within the area that are similar in size and room count. They determine value by looking at home sales in the area over the previous three months, and adjust that value based off of location, upgrades, and other variables. Assessing the value of a home can be more difficult without a comparable housing unit, which is the case with co-living residences in single-family homes.

Source: phone interview with PadSplit conducted on June 30, 2020.

18

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

State University in Fort Collins because

With the exception

Restrictive

it reduces the availability of affordable

of a few localities,

housing by restricting the number of

occupancy laws have

people who may live in a dwelling

in the United States,

a direct impact on the

unit. By contrast, in Washington, D.C.,

the majority of land

occupancy limit laws allow up to six

ability for residents

unrelated people to live in a single-

zoned for residential

to engage in shared

family home.78 Restrictive occupancy

laws have a direct impact on the ability

uses is zoned for

housing models.

for residents to engage in shared

single-family homes.

housing models.

Accessory Dwelling Units

in areas where builders could otherwise

In Washington,

Some local jurisdictions allow for

maximize the number of units on land

homeowners to convert a portion of their

parcels and their occupancy to increase

D.C., occupancy

house or property to an ADU. ADUs—

profitability. Of particular relevance,

limit laws allow up

also known as accessory apartments,

shared housing organizations can

secondary suites, in-law apartments,

operate in multifamily residential zones,

to six unrelated

“granny” flats, carriage houses, backyard

but with the exception of a few localities,

people to live in a

cottages, and annexes—are dwelling

in the United States, the majority of land

units on a single-family lot that are

zoned for residential uses is zoned for

single-family home.

not the primary residence. There are

single-family homes. This section focuses

physical limitations to ADU conversions,

on several local land-use regulations

and some may be better suited for

that especially affect shared housing

Density Regulations

detached homes with larger lot space

opportunities: occupancy standards,

for conversion. ADUs require bathroom

density regulations, and rules around

Land-use ordinances that limit the

and kitchen facilities, and they can

accessory dwelling units (ADUs). A

number of housing units per acre

be connected or disconnected from

brief overview of strategies to reduce

can adversely impact the availability

the main housing unit. Commonly,

regulatory barriers to shared housing is

of affordable housing in an area by

homeowners with basements or attic

also provided.

reducing the overall supply of available

spaces will convert those areas into a

housing. 79 These land-use ordinances

separate ADU.

Occupancy Standards

can hinder not only population growth,

but also economic growth in a city, due

ADUs provide an additional housing

Housing regulations that impact

to constraints on labor markets and

unit on a property at an affordable

shared housing organizations include

productivity.80,81 As employment grows

price. ADUs provide additional income

occupancy standards, which limit the

in a city, the cost of housing in areas

for homeowners, despite their initial

maximum number of people who may

with density restrictions rises, pushing

construction cost. ADUs allow for

reside in a dwelling unit. For example,

people to suburban or exurban areas.

greater privacy for the homeowner than

the “U plus 2” occupancy ordinance

Density restrictions and restrictions on

a home sharing arrangement, while still

in Fort Collins, Colorado, restricts the

residential building features—down to

providing many of the same benefits of

number of unrelated people who may

parking and setback requirements—can

shared housing and affordable housing

live in a house to three people.xii,76 The

affect the capacity for shared housing

for the ADU tenant. 82

city of Fort Collins has recently been

arrangements and whether homeowners

considering amending their occupancy

can participate. The tightening of a

Local regulations may prohibit building

limit law to allow more people per

housing market and associated increases

ADUs because of density limits or

dwelling unit, so long as they adhere

in rents and home prices may lead more

concern over homeowners’ property

to additional safety and community

individuals to choose to share housing to

values. Narrow land uses due to zoning

standards. 77 The current ordinance is

save on housing costs but still live near a

in many cities prevent alternative

unfavorable among students at Colorado

preferred location.

housing options like ADUs, duplex

xii The “U plus 2” occupancy limit law, enacted in the 1960s, set the maximum permissible occupancy of a dwelling unit at one family and not more than one other person; or two adults and their dependents and not more than one additional person; or up to three unrelated persons in a dwelling unit located in an apartment complex containing units which were approved by the city.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

19

minimum floor area), having a separate

building features, proximity to transit,

Narrow land uses

entrance, and other requirements.

parking requirements, and other

due to zoning

Most jurisdictions in the United States,

regulations. Among major metropolitan

however, have yet to allow for ADU

areas in California, ADU permits

in many cities

development, despite the ease of their

increased from 225 in 2015 to 8,875

prevent alternative

ability to increase the supply of housing

in 2019. ” 87 The addition of ADUs to the

in a flexible manner. 84

housing stock of major cities in California

housing options like

has helped to provide affordable housing

Reducing Regulatory Barriers

units in these high-demand areas.

Accessory Dwelling

Units, duplex and

Reducing zoning and land use

Although some land-use and building

regulations can make housing

regulations are necessary for safety,

triplex housing, and

more affordable in areas with high

others can impede the availability of

multifamily buildings.

housing costs. For example, in 1969,

affordable housing, particularly in

Massachusetts recognized the need to

densely populated areas. In recognition

increase affordable housing in suburban

of the role regulatory barriers play in

and triplex housing, and multifamily

areas, which were predominantly zoned

reducing the availability of affordable

buildings.83 In January 2020, the

for single-family houses, and enacted

housing, the White House issued an

California state legislature passed a bill

the Comprehensive Permit and Zoning

Executive Order establishing the Council

expanding ADU permittance to two

Appeal Law. That law simplified the

on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to

ADUs per single-family lot, including

permitting process and encouraged

Affordable Housing, chaired by the

one full unattached ADU and one junior

affordable housing development. 85

Secretary of HUD.88 HUD published a

ADU that is converted from part of an

request for information on the topic of

existing residence. Washington, D.C.

In 2017, California enacted laws to

regulatory barriers to better understand

allows ADUs by-right in certain less

require local governments to adopt

how they impact local housing markets

densely populated neighborhoods and

ADU ordinances to facilitate ADU

in areas with high housing costs.

has rules around a home’s eligibility

development.86 The law reduced

for ADU conversion (for example,

restrictions placed on ADUs, including

Federal and State Programs and Initiatives for Shared Housing

Some federal and state programs and

HUD defines shared housing as an assisted

initiatives allow for shared housing. This

section discusses the role of shared housing

family sharing a housing unit (either a house or

in HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)

apartment) with another resident or residents.

program and examines state shared housing

initiatives in New York, Pennsylvania, and

Massachusetts. This section also includes

are found in 24 CFR § 982.615 through 24

Rent Calculation for Shared Housing

information on HUD’s international

CFR §982.618. There, HUD defines shared

in HCV

research partnerships on shared housing.

housing as an assisted family sharing a

housing unit (either a house or apartment)

Public housing authorities (PHA) are

HUD Housing Choice Voucher

with another resident or residents. Assisted

bound by the fair market rent (FMR) of an

Program and Shared Housing

families can share housing with other

area when calculating housing subsidies

assisted or unassisted families. Although the

for an individual. FMRs are used to

Shared housing is permitted in HUD’s HCV

owner of the unit may reside with assisted

determine payment standard amounts for

program.xiii Rules on the allowable use of

families, assisted families may not be related

the HCV program, in addition to payment

shared housing living arrangements in

to the owner, nor can housing assistance

standards for other HUD assisted housing

tenant-based rental assistance are specifically

be paid on behalf of the owner. The shared

programs. HUD calculates FMRs annually,

detailed under the HCV program. HUD

housing unit must meet the housing quality

with the goal of providing affordable

regulations for shared housing occupancy

standards (HQS) under 24 C.F.R. §982.401.

housing to program participants within

xiii Other HUD programs fund home rehabilitation, including the Federal Housing Administration 203(k) rehab mortgage insurance program and the HOME

Investment Partnerships Program managed by the Office of Community Planning and Development. Although these programs are not specific to shared housing, home rehabilitations can be done to facilitate shared housing.

20

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

an FMR area. FMRs are set high enough

recently homeless populations, whereas

to include many units and neighborhoods

Example:

others are home sharing programs

Co-living Developments under the ShareNYC Initiative

but set low enough to serve as many

marketed to seniors, and others are co-

Household includes mother and

program participants as possible. The

living developments with rents ranging

8-year-old daughter

current FMR definition sets the level at

in affordability from market-rate to

Bedrooms available to assisted

the 40th percentile of rent or the amount

extremely low-income.

family: 2

below which 40 percent of standard-

quality rental units are rented.

Total bedrooms in the unit: 3

89

New York

2 Bedrooms for assisted family

HUD regulations for rent payments and

÷ 3 Bedrooms in the unit

In New York City, the Department of

voucher usage in shared housing are

Housing Preservation and Development

.667 pro-rata share

found in 24 CFR § 982.617. Rent in

(HPD) began the ShareNYC initiative in

shared housing is calculated pro rata—by

2 BR payment standard: $400

2018. 91 The goal of the pilot program

dividing the number of bedrooms to be

3 BR payment standard: $565

was to create or preserve 300 affordable

rented to an assisted family by the total

housing units in the Brooklyn and

$565 x .667 (pro-rata share) = $377

number of bedrooms available. So, for

Manhattan boroughs through a

$377 is lower than the $400

a family with a housing voucher that is

competitive Request for Information

payment standard for the 2 BR

entitled to occupy three bedrooms in a

(RFI) and Expressions of Interest (RFEI)

family unit size

five-bedroom unit, their pro-rata share of

process for soliciting proposals. Co-living

rent used for calculating their payments

corporations like Common and PadSplit

would be three-fifths.

options. The notice enumerates the

partnered with developers and submitted

various models of shared housing offered

proposals for co-living developments

The Housing Choice Voucher Program

across U.S. rental housing markets and

under the ShareNYC initiative.

Guidebook provides guidelines for

the requirements needed for using HCVs

PHAs in calculating rent for program

in shared housing. The models include

ShareNYC is a flexible and innovative

participants to live in SROs, group

private for-profit co-living housing (such

initiative under New York City’s

housing, shared housing, and other

as a boarding house or any arrangement

Affordable Housing 2.0 agenda, with

special housing types.90 For shared

renting a single bedroom with a common

a goal to create and preserve 300,000

housing, the guidebook states that the

living room, kitchen, and dining room);

affordable homes in New York City by

payment standard for a family in shared

for-profit shared housing organizations

2026. Three proposals for three different

housing is the lower of the payment

(including online sites that match

sites were selected for the pilot initiative:

standard for the family unit size or the

roommates into single-family homes and

two in the East Harlem neighborhood of

pro-rata share of the payment standard

charge a fee for service); and nonprofit

Manhattan, and one in the Cypress Hills

for the shared housing unit size. An

shared housing matching services.

neighborhood of Brooklyn. Each site

example from the guidebook (in the next

uses different developers and co-living

column) helps explain this further.

State and Local Initiatives on

organizations.92 The projects selected by

Shared Housing

ShareNYC show the range of housing

Similar calculations are used in SROs,

users that could benefit from shared

group houses, and other special housing

Several U.S. states and municipalities

housing options, from formerly homeless

types. In these special types of housing

have launched shared housing initiatives

individuals with service needs to a mixed-

arrangements, program participants

and pilot programs to provide additional

income community. The selected projects

receive less subsidy than in traditional

affordable housing. The following section

also demonstrate the range of shared

assisted housing units.xiv

highlights initiatives found in New York,

housing designs that can be pursued to

Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. These

accommodate the needs and preferences

Furthermore, in a 2021 Notice from

initiatives bring together developers,

of different types of shared housing users.

HUD’s Office of Public and Indian

shared housing organizations, and local

Housing (PIH), HUD reiterated to PHAs

housing agencies to develop new housing

Pennsylvania

administering HCV programs that shared

or to convert existing housing stock for

housing is an allowable option for

use as shared housing. The initiatives

In November 2019, the City of

assisted families considering their housing

vary in scope: some are targeted toward

Philadelphia’s Office of Homeless

xiv He et al. (2010) show that living alone is more expensive than living with someone else and deduce that the per-person cost of maintaining a standard of living is considerably lower with two people living together compared to one person living alone. The authors argue, however, that current housing voucher policies could be discouraging the use of shared housing living arrangements. As mentioned earlier in this paper, the authors investigated negative effects of shared housing that might explain why housing policies discourage shared housing but did not find anything to this effect. See He, O’Flaherty, and Rosenheck (2010).

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

21

Co-living Developments under the ShareNYC Initiative

Ali Fourney Center & Ascendant

L+M Development

Cypress Hills Local Development

Neighborhood Development

Partners & Common

Corporation & PadSplit

• Neighborhood: East Harlem,

• Neighborhood: East Harlem,

• Neighborhood: Cypress Hills,

Manhattan

Manhattan

Brooklyn

• Units: 36

• Units: 56

• Units: 11

• Target population: Homeless

• Target population: Mixed income:

• Target population: Retention of existing

LGBT youth

one-third market rate, two-thirds from

tenants, who range from extremely low-

• Design: New 10-story building of four

very low-income to moderate-income

income to low-income tenants

shared duplex units and one shared

• Design: Two eight-story buildings with • Design: Rehab of existing two-story SRO

simplex unit. Fully furnished and with

each wing designed under a different

building to create spacious common

utility costs packaged into rent, with

typology, with variation in sizes of

areas, fully furnished units, and

green roof and cooling, and onsite

common spaces and distribution of

expanded outdoor recreational space,

social services

private and shared bathrooms

with utility costs packaged into rent

a formal agreement. The initiative aims to

The ShareNYC initiative shows the range of

prevent and end homelessness and was

individuals that can benefit from shared housing created to provide an affordable housing option for individuals leaving shelters,

options, from formerly homeless individuals

recovery houses, or other temporary

living arrangements. The city justifies the

with service needs to a mixed-income

program by highlighting its potential to

community, and the array of shared housing

reduce individual isolation and returns

to homelessness, incarceration, and use

designs that can be pursued to meet the needs

of crisis services, and also to promote

and preferences of different types of individuals.

community-building.

Services and the Department of

are occupied. 94 The responsibilities are

The State of Pennsylvania’s Department

Behavioral Health and Intellectual

split between property management

of Aging began the Shared Housing and

disAbility Services published a request

and service coordination. The service

Resource Exchange (SHARE) housing

for proposals to operate their shared

coordinator has 24/7 on-call capacity and

initiative in 2017.95 Funding for the

housing pilot program called Share

coordinates tenant services and handles

initiative came federally from a “Money

Place. 93 Share Place represents a subset

the matching process (conducting

Follows the Person” demonstration

of the Philadelphia Housing Authority’s

interviews, screening participants,

grant from the Centers for Medicare and

(PHA) initiative to house individuals

and mediating conflict). The property

Medicaid Services. The pilot program

at risk of homelessness. In addition

manager is the master lease holder and

was launched in the counties of Monroe,

to providing multifamily housing for

oversees intake, subleases, and rent

Pike, and Wayne. It was created to help

students at the Community College of

payments, which are not to exceed 30

senior homeowners aged 60 and up to

Philadelphia who were formerly in foster

percent of participant income. Eligible

age in place by matching them with an

care, and 10 units to house families,

participants are those who have a history

adult seeking affordable housing. The

18 three- and four-bedroom units were

of homelessness, earn income, and aspire

program operates like a home sharing

dedicated specifically to house around 50

to be a good housemate. Participants

program where tenants have their own

unrelated homeless adults.

are required to work with an external

bedrooms and provide companionship

case manager for at least 1 year. The

and services in exchange for low rent.

The program requires the PHA to

city specifically emphasizes choice

Rent averages around $350 per month,

rehabilitate the buildings to HUD

and control as essential components

in addition to the companionship and

housing quality standards and for

of Share Place, whereby participants

services requested.

a nonprofit entity or partnership to

choose whom to live with and develop

operate the program once the buildings

mutually supported house rules through

22

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

The Wayne County Area Agency on

City: Boston 2030.” The report found

housing. Two mentioned here are a

Aging coordinates the SHARE Housing

that senior citizens are the fastest

grant to study multigenerational housing

Initiative through a typical home sharing

growing demographic in the Boston

in Germany and a memorandum of

model. The agency handles applications,

area and make up the largest percent of

cooperation regarding aging in place

interviews, and background checks for all

homeowners. The report also estimated

strategies with the Japan Ministry of

participants. The agency interviews home

the availability of more than 38,000

Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and

providers, inspects the housing units, and

spare bedrooms in senior citizen homes

Tourism. HUD collaborates with experts

introduces prospective matches. After a

in Boston. After an evaluation of the

in both countries to understand best

trial period, the participants enter a home

pilot proved its value, in 2019, the city

practices for shared housing models in

sharing agreement. The agency follows

operationalized the program citywide,

their particular contexts.

up with matches and mediates in case

with the aim of matching 100 older

of conflict. Since 2017, the program has

adults with spare rooms to people in

German Marshall Fund Grant to

made 32 matches.96

need of a room by June 2020. 98 Boston’s

Study Multigenerational Housing

home sharing program, launched based

in Germany

Massachusetts

on evidence of the prevalence of senior

homeowners and their spare bedrooms,

HUD provides funding through a grant

In 2017, the City of Boston created

demonstrates the data-driven justification

to the German Marshall Fund (GMF) to

the Intergenerational Homeshare

to expand shared housing opportunities

study Germany’s “Wohnen für (Mehr)

Pilot program. 97 The program was

in a high-demand city.

Generationen” (Living with Multiple

a collaboration between the city’s

Generations) program. Through GMF’s

Age Strong Commission, the city’s

Boston’s home

Urban and Regional Policy Program and

Housing Innovation Lab, and Nesterly,

in partnership with Harvard University’s

a shared housing entity specializing

sharing program,

Joint Center for Housing Studies, GMF

in intergenerational housing in the

researchers will report on this federally

Boston metropolitan area. The program

launched based

subsidized program of private-public

matched senior homeowners with a

on evidence of the

partnerships, which began in the

spare bedroom with students in search

2000s and comprises 30 multifamily

of affordable housing. The pilot program

prevalence of senior

housing projects. The researchers seek

was conducted over a short period in

homeowners and

to understand the details of the model

2017 and quickly drew interest, receiving

and the program’s applicability to

more than 80 applications in 3 weeks.

their spare bedrooms,

housing models in the United States. The

The pilot program created eight home

researchers began their study in September

share matches during the period. The

demonstrates the data- 2019 and will conclude in March 2021.

average rent paid by tenants was $700,

driven justification to

with some tenants paying less in exchange

The benefits of multigenerational

for providing services. Following the

expand shared housing housing are similar to those of

home share model, Nesterly handles the

opportunities in a high-

shared housing: the ability for senior

application process, conducts background

homeowners to age in place and the

checks, and facilitates matches. Nesterly

demand city.

increase in the availability of affordable

also handles rent payment, which is set

housing for individuals. Indeed, many

up online through their website.

countries face similar challenges to the

HUD International Research

American issues of housing affordability

The Intergenerational Homeshare Pilot

Partnerships on Shared Housing

and an aging population.xv Aging

program came about after the city

populations require more care, and the

released a 2014 report on housing in

HUD has several international research

large aging baby-boomer generation

the city called “Housing a Changing

partnerships that focus on shared

creates additional demand. (See the

xv There are many shared housing organizations internationally, and these organizations operate similarly to those in the United States, where, after an application and vetting process by the matchmaking organizations, a renter is matched to a homeowner at a reduced rent in exchange for services. Similar to the National Shared Housing Resource Center in the United States, there are home sharing networks in other countries. For example, in the United Kingdom, Homeshare UK operates as a network for home sharing organizations. The network includes information on more than 20 home sharing providers across the United Kingdom.

International home sharing models, particularly those in Europe, can take on many forms. Most examples of shared housing in Europe focus on multigenerational housing by matching students seeking housing to senior homeowners with an available room. Students pay a reduced rent or a reduced rent and services to the senior homeowner in exchange for a room. The arrangement helps reduce the housing needs of students and reduce the need for developing additional student housing. Other shared housing arrangements are centered around community and independent living. The prevalence and types of shared housing programs that are present in other countries are influenced by sociocultural and historical factors around the types of living arrangements that groups and individuals are comfortable navigating.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

23

appendix for information on Shared

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,

provides both countries with valuable

Housing for the Elderly.) In the United

Transport and Tourism (MLIT) that

information on best practices for aging

Kingdom and elsewhere, there is more

focuses on aging in place among senior

in place.

demand for care than can be provided

populations in both countries.100 Both

under traditional social services, and

the United States and Japan are facing

Japan’s Urban Renaissance Agency

so alternative solutions, such as the

housing challenges associated with

has a robust partnership with Chubu

multigenerational housing program in

the demographic shift of an aging

University located in Nagoya. For

Germany, are being considered.99

population. (See the appendix for

example, the Kozoji New Town Housing

information on Shared Housing for the

Project in Nagoya is partnered with

Many countries face

Elderly.) In Japan, 28 percent of the

Chubu University to provide housing

similar challenges

population is 65 or older, and the birth

for students in exchange for students

rate is at a record low. In the United

volunteering to assist senior residents.

to the American

States, 16 percent of the population is

The students receive a 20-percent

65 or older and the birth rate is also

discount on their own housing unit

issues of housing

at a record low. The MOC focuses on

within the Kozoji New Town Housing

affordability and an

research on policies and practices of

Project in exchange for a minimum of

aging in place in both countries.

40 hours of volunteer work per year

aging population.

with seniors. This unique partnership

Through the partnership, HUD and

increases multi-generational interactions

MLIT have exchanged research and

with isolated senior individuals while

Memorandum of Cooperation

evaluation on the topic of aging in

providing companionship and assistance.

between HUD and the Japan

place; provided briefings on housing

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,

conditions facing seniors, including

Transport and Tourism

policies on housing for seniors; and

visited sites in each country to see

In 2017, HUD signed a memorandum

how and why these housing models

of cooperation (MOC) with the Japan

are implemented. The partnership

Conclusion

Shared housing in the United

As highlighted in this report, more

formerly homeless residents who need

States, starting with single-room

Americans that share housing do so

supportive services and supportive

occupancy housing during urban

informally, as can be seen through

communities. Further, shared housing

industrialization, has a rich history

changes in the number of families

can be a viable affordable housing option

in providing affordable housing in

per household, the types of families

as locales across the United States reform

high-cost, high-opportunity areas.

in households, and multigenerational

land-uses and building allowances—

Indeed, as presented in this report,

housing. Two of the primary formal

ranging from higher occupancy limits

shared housing can benefit households,

methods of shared housing in the United

to building allowances for accessory

particularly those facing economic

States are home sharing and co-living,

dwelling units—that result in greater

insecurity, with viable and affordable

which are operationalized through both

regulatory flexibilities and increased

housing options. Sharing housing can

for-profit and nonprofit models. At the

housing supply. Overall, shared housing

also have significant social and health-

federal level, shared housing is also an

is an affordable housing arrangement in

related benefits through its lessening

allowable type of assisted housing in

the United States that allows for a more

of social isolation and loneliness,

HUD’s HCV program. Various state and

efficient use of available housing stock

two of the greatest health risks to

municipal initiatives also use shared

and uses of future housing development

Americans. This finding is especially

housing models to expand affordable

and can be a particularly effective way to

true for senior individuals who prefer

housing opportunities to households;

expand affordable housing options for

to age in place, a population that will

these opportunities are often targeted

American households of various ages and

increase in size during the next decade

to certain populations, including senior

income levels.

as baby boomers age into retirement.

residents who are aging in place and

24

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

Appendix A: Shared Housing for Seniors

Shared housing can particularly benefit

communities.101,102 Not every senior

multigenerational housing, and naturally

senior populations by allowing them to

homeowner can age in place alone,

occurring retirement communities

reduce their housing costs and age in

however; the physical and financial

(NORCs)—can alleviate some of the

place. Research indicates that seniors

demands of maintaining a home

financial and physical demands of

prefer to age in place, in familiar home

can become too difficult for some

homeownership. Shared housing is also

settings, rather than move to assisted

senior homeowners. Shared housing

being pursued for senior households in

living centers or other retirement

options—including home sharing,

HUD-assisted housing.

Growth in Senior Households and Aging in Place

Population projections for the United

live in traditional communities, whereas

homeownership rates than their cohorts

States indicate that by 2030, for the first

only 3 percent live in community

before them.106 These trends indicate

time in U.S. history, more Americans will

housing with services and 4 percent

that older homeowners are shifting

be age 65 and older than children under

live in long-term care facilities.104 These

their preferences and holding onto their

the age of 18. 103 By 2034, a projected 77

demographics place more emphasis

homes for longer periods to age in place.

million Americans will be age 65 and

on senior-only housing. Studies show

The needs of the growing movement to

older, roughly one in five Americans. This

that seniors prefer to age in their own

age in place can pair well with shared

trend, due to the aging of baby boomers

homes in environments with which

housing arrangements.

into retirement, demonstrates that

they are familiar and have a sense of

housing for seniors will play an important

ownership, and that the likelihood of

A 2018 study by the Joint Center for

role in the overall housing landscape in

moving decreases with age.105 So, as the

Housing Studies on changes in housing

the coming decade.

population ages, aging in place is an

tenure looked at the housing tenure

increasing priority in senior housing.

transitions of adults age 50 and older.xvi The

Most senior Americans live in traditional

author analyzed data from the Panel Study

types of housing. Among adults aged 65

Trends in homeownership show that

of Income Dynamics (PSID) and found

and older receiving Medicare, 93 percent

recently retiring generations have higher

variance in housing tenure among this

xvi Several measures indicate that, not only is the United States population aging, it is also becoming more segregated by age. According to Joint Center for Housing Studies study, using the American Housing Survey (2017), one-third of households with a person age 55 or older live in communities that are age-restricted or where the majority of neighbors are 55 or older.

Figure 9. Historical Homeownership Rates for Household Heads Age 67 to 85

95

Good Times Cohort (1931-1941) Previous Generations (≤1930) 90

cent)

85

80

75

70

Homeownership Rate (per

65

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

Age

Source: Freddie Mac, www.freddiemac.com/fmac-resources/research/pdf/201901-Insight-02.pdf

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

25

Figure 10. Annual Homeownership Rates for the United States by Age Group: 1982–2019

90

80

70

cent

60

Per

50

40

30 1982

‘85

‘90

‘95

2000

‘05

‘10

‘15

2019

Recession

65 and over

55-64

45-54

United States

35-44

Under 35

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig07.pdf

demographic, specifically, that 62 percent of

remaining 34 percent of adults 50 years

renting during this period, which shows

adults age 50 and older always owned their

of age or older in the study’s sample frame

that housing tenure among older adults is

home during this period, whereas 4 percent

experienced housing tenure transitions

dynamic, with more transitions than may

always rented during the same period. The

of some combination of owning and

be more widely assumed.

Home Sharing

Senior homeowners who can live

kitchens and living rooms. With home

whose financial or physical abilities

independently yet may find day-to-day

sharing, homeowners can reduce their

have recently changed, such as senior

tasks more difficult, or who could use

housing costs with the additional

homeowners who have experienced a

extra income, could benefit from home

income received from rent and,

reduction in income from retirement,

sharing, a sub-type of shared housing.

depending on the specifics of the home

the death of a spouse, or unexpected

Home sharing is when a homeowner

share arrangement, receive services

medical expenses; home sharing may

rents out a spare bedroom to another

in addition to rent. Home sharing

also benefit senior homeowners with

adult but shares common areas like

is beneficial for senior homeowners

reduced physical abilities.xvii

xvii Why would seniors facing housing affordability issues choose to share their home with new renters instead of taking out a reverse mortgage through a home equity conversion mortgage (HECM) loan? HECMs may not be beneficial for everyone. They tend to pay off for homeowners who plan to remain in their home for years; a household that is not planning on remaining in place might prefer an alternative that does not require a long-term commitment. HECMs can be useful for seniors facing financial shocks, like new health costs, who need an injection of cash, but if this is not necessary, receiving rent from a tenant could be sufficient. Some homeowners may determine HECMs to be a useful financial product where there is depreciation or price uncertainty in the market because the loan is locked in regardless of changes to the home value. If prices are rising, renting could be the better option because what is received from the renter would keep pace with market growth. These macroeconomic factors play an additional role on top of personal behavioral factors in influencing a person’s decision to engage in home sharing or co-living as opposed to other solutions to deal with housing unaffordability.

26

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

In some home sharing arrangements,

homeowners. When home sharing

Although evidence from home tenure data

senior homeowners can receive services

arrangements are set up by home sharing

suggests that many seniors prefer to age in

from the renter, including help with

organizations, they inquire what type

place, not all who want to are able to do

housework, yardwork, pet care, and

of payment the homeowner would

so. Aging in place can require investment

errands. These additional services are a

like to receive, whether only rent or a

in home modification that may be difficult

benefit to the day-to-day living of senior

combination of rent and services.

for some homeowners.xviii,xix,xx

Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities

A NORC is a building or neighborhood

NORCs may also provide support

In New York, Elder Law Section 209

where there are a substantial number of

services for senior residents. NORCs

defines a NORC as an apartment

residents age 60 years or older. These

can be managed by nonprofit

building or housing complex that

areas can be defined as a neighborhood,

organizations that partner with

was not predominantly built for

apartment building, or housing complex

community healthcare providers

older adults (age 60 and older);

that was not originally intended to

and social service organizations to

that does not restrict admissions

house seniors. Early research on NORCs

provide on-site services based on

solely to older adults; where at least

defined them as housing developments

the needs of the community. NORC

40 percent of the units have an

not purposely built for seniors, in which

services promote independent

occupant who is an older adult, and

more than one-half of the residents are

living, improve the quality of

at least 250 residents of a building

age 60 or older.107 Other research and

life for residents, reduce the use

(or 500 residents of a housing

jurisdictions define NORCs similarly but

of emergency care, and slow the

complex) are older adults; and

with different parameters around age and

transition to assisted living and

where a majority of the older adults

the proportion of residents above that age.

nursing care facilities.

are low or moderate income.

Hamilton-Madison House (New York, NY)

Many NORCs are found in New York City; one example is the Hamilton-Madison House in the Lower East Side neighborhood.

The Hamilton-Madison House, a nonprofit settlement house established in 1898, manages the Alfred E. Smith Senior Services NORC and the Knickerbocker Village Senior Center NORC. The Hamilton-Madison House provides services to the local community, including programs for senior residents in New York City, such as daily meals, indoor and outdoor social activities, enrichment classes, and holiday events. The Hamilton-Madison House partners with other community organizations to provide special programs for seniors. The Hamilton-Madison House receives the majority of its funding publicly through agencies in the city and state, whereas a lesser amount comes from private donors.

Source: Hamilton-Madison House, http://www.hamiltonmadisonhouse.org/

Supportive Services in HUD-Assisted Housing

In recognition of the role of supportive

supportive services for low-income

Demonstration (SSD), also known as

services in aging in place, HUD

senior residents of HUD-assisted

the Integrated Wellness in Supportive

provided funding for research on

housing. The HUD Supportive Services

Housing (IWISH), aims to promote

xviii In a 1990 study on senior homeowners’ interest in home sharing and accessory dwelling units, David Varady examined why senior homeowners were or were not interested in home sharing or accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Through phone interviews, Varady found that need rather than capacity was the main reason homeowners were interested in home sharing or ADU conversion. Homeowners who had low income, outstanding debts, or were in poor health or physical condition indicated the greatest interest for home sharing and ADUs. Those residents interested in shared housing and ADU conversion, however, often lacked the physical or financial capacity to begin home sharing or to build an ADU.

xix HUD offers financing tools that can be used for ADU development or conversion, including the 203(k) renovation loan insured by the Federal Housing Administration and the HomeStyle loan guaranteed by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), a government-sponsored enterprise regulated by the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

xx Generally, the FHA-insured 203(k) loan is more lenient about the borrower’s credit and stricter about the types of renovations that are eligible, whereas the HomeStyle mortgage guaranteed by Fannie Mae is stricter about the borrower’s credit and more lenient about the types of renovations that are eligible. These loans offer some simplicity because they combine the home and ADU under the same mortgage, rather than packaging the ADU renovation under a separate loan requiring its own set of processes.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

27

and prolong aging in place for senior

HUD-assisted multifamily properties

that did not receive grant funding but

residents in HUD-assisted housing. The

in California, Illinois, Maryland,

received a stipend to participate in the

SSDxxi provides funding for a part-time

Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey,

evaluation; and a passive control group

wellness nurse and a full-time resident

and South Carolina that predominantly

of 44 properties that received neither

wellness director, whose role is to

or exclusively serve households headed

grant funding nor a stipend. The random

implement a strategy for coordinating

by people age 62 and older. HUD has

assignment permits an evaluation that

services. Among their responsibilities,

included a thorough evaluation as

quantifies the impact of the SSD model

they assess resident needs and interests;

part of the SSD to produce evidence

by comparing outcomes at the 40

develop Individual Health Aging

for Congress and stakeholders about

treatment group properties to outcomes

Plans (IHAP); engage with community

the impact of the demonstration. The

at the 84 properties in the active and

partners for resources and services;

HUD-assisted properties that are part

passive control groups. Results from the

engage with building management and

of the demonstration were randomly

evaluation will demonstrate to HUD and

maintenance to promote well-being;

assigned to one of three groups: a

housing researchers whether this specific

and work collaboratively to coordinate

treatment group of 40 properties that

model of shared housing for senior

support services.

received grant funding to hire a resident

residents, that is, the co-residency of

wellness director and a wellness nurse

senior households and a wellness director

As of 2020, the 3-year demonstration

and implement the SSD model; an

in the same multifamily building, leads to

is currently being implemented in

active control group of 40 properties

better health outcomes for residents.

xxi The demonstration was started in October 2017 and ends in September 2020. The SSD evaluation is expected to be completed in 2022.

28

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

Endnotes

1 Champion, Tony. 2001. “Urbanization, Suburbanization, Counterurbanization and Reurbanization,” Handbook of Urban Studies 160: 1.

2 HUD. 2019. “Co-living: A Non-traditional Affordable Housing Option.” The Edge. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-featd-article-042919.html

3 Hemmens, George C., Charles J. Hoch, and Jana Carp, eds. 1996. Under One Roof: Issues and Innovations in Shared Housing, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

4 Beckett, Katherine, and Steve Herbert. 2009. Banished: The New Social Control in Urban America. Bethesda, MD: Oxford University Press 5 Groth, Paul. 1994. Living Downtown: The History of Residential Hotels in the United States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft6j49p0wf/.

6 Wilson, Richa, and Kathleen Snodgrass. 2006. Early 20th-Century Building Materials: Introduction. 7300 Facilities Tech Tips. Washington, DC: United States Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.fs.fed.us/t-d//pubs/htmlpubs/htm06732314/index.htm.

7 Randall, Frank A. 1999. History of the Development of Building Construction in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

8 Friedman, Donald. 2010. Historical Building Construction: Design, Materials, and Technology. New York: WW Norton & Company.

9 Sherman, Max H. 2003. “ASHRAE and Residential Ventilation,” ASHRAE Journal 46: 1–12.

10 Listokin, David, and David B. Hattis. 2005. “Building Codes and Housing,” Cityscape 8 (1): 21–67.

11 Duffy, John. 1992. The Sanitarians: A History of American Public Health. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

12 Gibbs, Chris, Daniel Guttentag, Ulrike Gretzel, Jym Morton, and Alasdair Goodwill. 2018. “Pricing in the Sharing Economy: A Hedonic Pricing Model Applied to Airbnb Listings,” Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 35 (1): 46–56.

13 Dogru, Tarik, and Osman Pekin. 2017. “What Do Guests Value Most in Airbnb Accommodations? An Application of the Hedonic Pricing Approach,” Boston Hospitality Review 5 (2): 1–13.

14 Koebel, Theodore C., and Mary Ellen Rives. 1993. Poor Families and Poor Housing: The Search for Decent Housing in Virginia’s Private, Unassisted Market. Blacksburg, VA: Center for Housing Research, Virginia Tech.

15 Freeman, Lance. 2005. “Household Composition and Housing Assistance: Examining the Link” Cityscape 8 (2): 49–67. https://www.huduser.gov/

periodicals/cityscpe/vol8num2/ch3.pdf

16 Wang, Yuna, and Toshio Otsuki. 2016. “A Study on House Sharing in China’s Young Generation—Based on a Questionnaire Survey and Case Studies in Beijing,” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 15 (1): 17–2. https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.15.17

17 Zillow. 2017. Press Releases: Share of Adults Living with Roommates Higher than Ever Before. http://zillow.mediaroom.com/2017-12-14-Share-of-

Adults-Living-with-Roommates-Higher-than-Ever-Before#:~:text=SEATTLE%2C%20Dec.,in%20order%20to%20cut%20costs.

18 Phone interview with HIP Housing conducted on June 17, 2019.

19 Sandfort, Jodi R., and Martha S. Hill. 1996. “Assisting Young, Unmarried Mothers to Become Self-Sufficient: The Effects of Different Types of Early Economic Support,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58: 311–326.

20 Mykyta, Laryssa, and Suzanne Macartney. 2012. “Sharing a Household: Household Composition and Economic Well-Being: 2007–2010.” Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-242.pdf.

21 Mykyta, Laryssa, and Suzanne Macartney. (2012).

22 Ahrentzen, Sherry. 2003. “Double Indemnity or Double Delight? The Health Consequences of Shared Housing and ‘Doubling Up,’” Journal of Social Issues 59 (3): 547–568. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00077.

23 Ong, Anthony, Bert Uchino, and Elaine Wethington. 2015. “Loneliness and Health in Older Adults: A Mini-Review and Synthesis,” Gerontology 62

(4): 443–449 DOI: 10.1159/000441651.23

24 He, Yinghua, Brendan O’Flaherty, and Robert A. Rosenheck. 2010. “Is Shared Housing a Way to Reduce Homelessness? The Effect of Household Arrangements on Formerly Homeless People.” Journal of Housing Economics 19 (1): 1–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhe.2009.10.001.

25 He, O’Flaherty, and Rosenheck (2010).

26 Phone interview with HIP Housing conducted on June 17, 2019.

27 AARP. (n.d.). “Beyond 50.05: A Report to the Nation on Livable Communities: Creating Environments for Successful Aging.” Washington, DC: AARP https://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/beyond_50_communities.pdf.

28 Phone interview with HomeShare Vermont conducted on June 25, 2019.

29 Martinez, Laura, Raza Mirza, Andrea Austen, Jessica Hsieh, Christopher Klinger, Michelle Kuah, Anna Liu, Lynn McDonald, Rida Mohsin, Celeste Pang, Jennifer Rajewski, Tonya Salomons, and Iqra Sheikh. 2020. “More Than Just a Room: A Scoping Review of the Impact of Homesharing for Older Adults,” Innovation in Aging 4 (2): 1–12 DOI: 10.1093/geroni/igaa011

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

29

30 Baum, Frances. 1986. “Shared Housing: Making Alternative Lifestyles Work,” Australian Journal of Social Issues 21 (3): 197–212.

DOI:10.1002/j.1839-4655.1986.tb00824.x.

31 Heath, Sue, Katherine Davies, Gemma Edwards, and Rachael Scicluna. 2017. Shared Housing, Shared Lives: Everyday Experiences Across the Life-course. England, UK: Routledge.

32 Maalsen, Sophia. 2018. “’Generation Share’: Digitalized Geographies of Shared Housing,” Social & Cultural Geography 21 (3): 1–9. DOI:10.1080/14

649365.2018.1466355.

33 Holt-Lunstad, Julianne, Timothy B. Smith, Mark Baker, Tyler Harris, and David Stephenson. 2015. “Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-analytic Review,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 10 (2): 227–237.

34 Martin, Hugo. 1999. “Housing Strained at Seams in Parts of L.A. County.” The Los Angeles Times, p. A1. December 19.

35 Coohey, Carol. 2007. “The Relationship Between Mothers’ Social Networks and Severe Domestic Violence: A Test of the Social Isolation Hypothe-sis,” Violence and Victims 22 (4): 503–512.

36 Murray, Sally. 2006. “Poverty and Health,” Canadian Medical Association Journal 174 (7): 923.

37 Sharfstein, Joshua, and Megan Sandel. 1998. Not Safe at Home: How America’s Housing Crisis Threatens the Health of its Children. Boston, MA: Boston Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics.

38 Ibid.

39 Kidman, Angus. 2017. “How America’s Spare Bedrooms Could Be Worth $174.9 Billion.” New York: Finder.

https://www.finder.com/rent-spare-bedroom.

40 Simmons, Cameron. 2017. “Boom-mates: How Empty Nesters Could Help Ease a Housing Shortage.” San Francisco, CA: Trulia.

https://www.trulia.com/research/boommates.

41 Molinsky, Jennifer. 2018. Are More Older Adults Sharing Housing? Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard.

42 Macartney, Suzanne, and Laryssa Mykyta. 2012. Poverty and Shared Households by State: 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2012/acs/acsbr11-05.pdf.

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 Choi, Jung Hyun, Laurie Goodman, Jun Zhu, and John Walsh. 2019. “Senior Housing and Mobility: Recent Trends and Implications for the Housing Market.” Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/100953/senior_housing_and_mobility.pdf.

46 Ibid.

47 Cohn, D’Vera, and Jeffrey Passel. 2018. A Record 64 Million Americans Live in Multigenerational Households. Washington, DC: Pew Research.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/05/a-record-64-million-americans-live-in-multigenerational-households/.

48 Phone interview with HomeShare Vermont conducted on June 25, 2019.

49 National Shared Housing Resource Center. https://nationalsharedhousing.org/.

50 Phone interview with Affordable Living for the Aging conducted on June 18, 2019.

51 Ibid.

52 Phone interview with HomeShare Vermont conducted on June 25, 2019.

53 Phone interview with HIP Housing conducted on June 17, 2019.

54 Phone interview with Affordable Living for the Aging conducted on June 18, 2019.

55 Phone interview with HIP Housing conducted on June 17, 2019.

56 Brown, Dalvin. 2019. “Co-living Spaces: How Millennials, Gen Z Create Affordable Rent Situations in Big Cities.” USA Today. December 26.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/07/26/gen-z-co-living-blurs-line-between-residential-and-hotel-living/1812863001.

57 Cushman and Wakefield. 2019. “Survey of the Co-living Landscape.” Washington, DC: Cushman and Wakefield.

https://cw-gbl-gws-prod.azureedge.net/-/media/cw/americas/united-states/insights/research-report-pdfs/2019/coliving-report_may2019.pdf.

58 Phone interview with Common conducted on January 24, 2020.

59 Sisson, Patrick. 2019. “Coliving Pioneer Common Expanding Nationwide, Adding Thousands of Units.” Curbed.

https://www.curbed.com/2019/9/17/20869266/common-coliving-apartment-real-estate-expansion.

60 Ibid.

61 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2019. “Coliving: A Nontraditional Affordable Housing Option,” The Edge.

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-featd-article-042919.html.

30

Insights into Housing and Community Development Policy

62 Phone interview with PadSplit conducted on January 24, 2020.

63 Ibid.

64 Phone interview with HIP Housing conducted on June 17, 2019.

65 Phone interview with Affordable Living for the Aging conducted on June 18, 2019.

66 Phone interview with HomeShare Vermont conducted on June 25, 2019.

67 Ibid.

68 Ibid.

69 Phone interview with HIP Housing conducted on June 17, 2019.

70 Phone interview with Affordable Living for the Aging conducted on June 18, 2019.

71 Phone interview with PadSplit on January 24, 2020.

72 Parker, Will, and David Jeans. 2019. “Squeezing Profits from Shared Housing” The Real Deal. April 1. https://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/co-

living-in-new-york.

73 Ibid.

74 Glaeser, Edward L., Joseph Gyourko, and Raven Saks. 2004. “Why is Manhattan So Expensive? Regulation and the Rise in Housing Prices.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard. https://scholar.harvard.edu/glaeser/files/why_is_manhattan_so_expensive_regulation_and_the_rise_in_house_prices.pdf.

75 HUD. 2018. “Regulatory Barriers and Affordable Housing: Problems and Solutions.” Evidence Matters. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/spring18/highlight1.html.

76 Phone interview with AARP conducted on October 10, 2019.

77 Thomas, Dillon. 2019. “Possible ‘U+2’ Ordinance Change Divides Some Students & Landlords.” CBS Denver.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/01/29/fort-collins-u-2-ordinance/

78 Stein, Perry. 2015. “How Many People Can You Cram into a D.C. Group House?” Washington Post. March 11, 2015.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/11/how-many-people-can-you-cram-into-a-d-c-group-house/

79 Shroder, Mark. 2019. “Why Local Codes Matter.” The Edge. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-frm-asst-sec-040119.html.

80 Hsieh, Chang-Tai, and Enrico Moretti. 2019. “Housing Constraints and Spatial Misallocation,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 2019 11

(2): 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20170388.

81 Furth, Salim. 2020. “New Urban Econ Research Shows the Macroeconomic Benefits of Big Cities.” Fairfax, VA: Mercatus Center, George Mason University.

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/furth_-_special_study_-_new_urban_econ_research_shows_the_macroeconomic_benefits_of_big_cities_-_v1.pdf.

82 HUD. 1985. “Alternative Housing Arrangements: A Selected Information Guide.” Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Alternative-Housing-Arrangements.pdf

83 Spevak, Eli, and Melissa Stanton. 2019. “The ABCs of ADUs: A Guide to Accessory Dwelling Units and How They Expand Housing Options for People of All Ages. Washington, DC: AARP. https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/livable-communities/livable-documents/documents-2019/ADU-

guide-web-singles-071619.pdf.

84 Coppage, Jonathan. 2017. “Accessory Dwelling Units: A Flexible Free-Market Housing Solution.” Washington, DC: R Street Institute.

http://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/89.pdf.

85 HUD. 2018. “States Reduced Regulatory Barriers for Affordable Housing.” Evidence Matters. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/spring18/highlight3.html.

86 Garcia, David. 2017. “ADU Update: Early Lessons and Impacts of California’s State and Local Policy Changes.” Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley. http://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/ADU_Update_Brief_December_2017_.pdf.

87 Chapple, Garcia, Valchuis, and Tucker. 2020. “Reaching California’s ADU Potential: Progress to Date and the Need for ADU Finance” Berkeley.

Terner Center for Housing Innovation and Center for Community Innovation. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ADU-

Brief-2020.pdf.

88 White House. June 25, 2019. Executive Order Establishing a White House Council on Eliminating Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-establishing-white-house-council-eliminating-regulatory-barriers-affordable-housing/

89 HUD. 2018. “Proposals to Update the Fair Market Rent Formula.” Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Proposals-To-Update-the-Fair-Market-Rent-Formula.pdf.

90 HUD. 2020. “Housing Choice Voucher Program Guidebook.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/Special_Housing_Types_final_5.2020.pdf.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

31

91 New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. October 8, 2019. City Reveals Selected Shared Housing Development Proposals [Press Release]. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/hpd/news/092-19/city-reveals-selected-shared-housing-development-proposals#/0.

92 Ibid.

93 Request for Proposals to Operate Share Place, a New Shared Housing Pilot. The City of Philadelphia. November 2019.

https://www.phila.gov/media/20191127111324/Share-Place-RFP-Final.pdf.

94 Ibid.

95 Pennsylvania Department of Aging. 2019. “SHARE: Shared Housing and Resource Exchange.” Philadelphia, PA: Pennsylvania Department of

Aging. https://www.aging.pa.gov/organization/PennsylvaniaLongTermCareCouncil/Documents/2019_10_24%20Mtng%20Materials/SHARE%20-%20

Shared%20Housing%20Resource%20Exchange%20-%20Pilot%20Program%20Presentation.pdf

96 Ibid.

97 City Launches Intergenerational Homeshare Pilot Program. September 2017. City of Boston. https://www.boston.gov/news/city-launches-intergen-

erational-homeshare-pilot-program.

98 Daniel, Seth. 2019. “City Looking to Significantly Expand Intergenerational Home-Share in 2020.” Charlestown Patriot-Bridge. November 27, 2019.

https://charlestownbridge.com/2019/11/27/city-looking-to-significantly-expand-intergenerational-home-share-in-2020/.

99 McNeil & Hunter (2014).

100 HUD. 2017. “The U.S. and Japan Partner to Research Aging in Place.” The Edge. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-trending-040317.html.

101 HUD. 2013. “Aging in Place: Facilitating Choice and Independence.” Evidence Matters. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/fall13/highlight1.html.

102 Choi, Goodman, Zhu, and Walsh. 2019. “Senior Housing and Mobility: Recent Trends and Implications for the Housing Market.” Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/100953/senior_housing_and_mobility.pdf.

103 U.S. Census Bureau. March 13, 2018. Older People Projected to Outnumber Children for First Time in U.S. History. Release Number CB18-41.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html.

104 Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics. 2016. “Older Americans 2016: Key Indicators of Well-Being.” Washington, DC: Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics. https://agingstats.gov/docs/LatestReport/Older-Americans-2016-Key-Indicators-of-WellBeing.pdf.

105 AARP. 2018. “2018 Home and Community Preferences Survey: A National Survey of Adults Age 18-Plus.” Washington, DC: AARP. https://www.

aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/liv-com/2018/home-community-preferences-survey.doi.10.26419-2Fres.00231.001.pdf.

106 Freddie Mac. 2019. “While Seniors Age in Place, Millennials Wait Longer and May Pay More for their First Homes. Economic & Housing Research Insight.” Freddie Mac. http://www.freddiemac.com/fmac-resources/research/pdf/201901-Insight-02.pdf.

107 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2004. Supportive Services Programs in Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities. What is a NORC? Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/supportive-services-programs-naturally-occurring-retirement-communities/what-norc

Insights

HUD Office of Policy Development and Research

Ben J. Winter, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development

Heidi Joseph, Director, Research Utilization Division

Sean Martin, Author, Social Science Analyst, Office of Policy Development and Research Janet Li, Author, Economist, Office of Policy Development and Research

Insights

Into Housing and Community

Development Policy

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research June 2021

Document Outline

- Insights Into Housing and Community Development Policy

- Assessments of Shared Housing in the United States

- Why Do People Share Housing?

- Health Considerations for Shared Housing During a Public Health Emergency

- Shared Housing Models in the United States

- Home Sharing Model

- Co-Living Model

- Federal and State Programs and Initiatives for Shared Housing

- Conclusion

- Appendix A: Shared Housing for Seniors

- Growth in Senior Households and Aging in Place

- Home Sharing

- Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities

- Hamilton-Madison House (New York, NY)

- Supportive Services in HUD-Assisted Housing

- Endnotes

- Insights

Table of Contents

Insights Into Housing and Community Development Policy

Assessments of Shared Housing in the United States

Why Do People Share Housing?

Health Considerations for Shared Housing During a Public Health Emergency

Shared Housing Models in the United States

Home Sharing Model

Co-Living Model

Federal and State Programs and Initiatives for Shared Housing

Conclusion

Appendix A: Shared Housing for Seniors

Growth in Senior Households and Aging in Place

Home Sharing

Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities

Hamilton-Madison House (New York, NY)

Supportive Services in HUD-Assisted Housing

Endnotes

Insights