Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ANALYSIS OF THE MARKET FOR THE PHASE IB AFFORDABLE SENIOR RENTAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE OLD ARMSTRONG HIGH SCHOOL SITE CHURCH HILL NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD 1611 North 31st Street Richmond, Virginia 23223
Prepared for The Community Builders, Inc. (TCB)
Effective Date: September 18, 2015
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. 63 Chestnut Road, Suite 6
Paoli, PA 19301 610‐240‐0820
www.resadvisors.com
NCHMA MEMBER CERTIFICATION
This market study has been prepared by REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC., a member in good standing of the National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA). This study has been prepared in conformance with the standards adopted by NCHMA for the market analysts’ industry. These standards include the Standard Definitions of Key Terms Used in Market Studies, and Model Content Standards for the Content of Market Studies. These Standards are designed to enhance the quality of market studies and to make them easier to prepare, understand, and use by market analysts and by the end users. These Standards are voluntary only, and no legal responsibility regarding their use is assumed by the National Council of Housing Market Analysts. REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. is duly qualified and experienced in providing market analysis for Affordable Housing. The company’s principals participate in the National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA) educational and information sharing programs to maintain the highest professional standards and state-of-the-art knowledge. REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. is an independent market analyst. No principal or employee of REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. has any financial interest whatsoever in the development for which this analysis has been undertaken. (NOTE: Information on the National Council of Housing Market Analysts may be obtained by calling 202-939-1750, or by visiting www.housingonline.com)
NCHMA Market Study Index
Introduction: Members of the National Council of Housing Market Analysts provide the following
checklist referencing various components necessary to conduct a comprehensive market study for rental
housing. By completing the following checklist, the NCHMA Analyst certifies that he or she has
performed all necessary work to support the conclusions included within the comprehensive market
study. By completion of this checklist, the analyst asserts that he/she has completed all required items
per section.
Page Number(s)
Executive Summary
1 Executive Summary i ‐ iv
Scope of Work
2 Scope of Work i
Project Description
3 Unit mix including bedrooms, bathrooms, square footage, rents, and income targeting 3
4 Utilities (and utility sources) included in rent 3
5 Target market/population description 2
6 Project description including unit features and community amenities 1 ‐ 4
7 Date of construction/preliminary completion 3 ‐ 4
8 If rehabilitation, scope of work, existing rents, and existing vacancies N/A
Location
9 Concise description of the site and adjacent parcels 6 ‐ 8
10 Site photos/maps 7 ‐ 8
11 Map of community services 11
12 Site evaluation/neighborhood including visibility, accessibility, and crime 6 ‐ 15
Market Area
13 PMA description 5 ‐ 6
14 PMA Map 5
Employment and Economy
15 At‐Place employment trends 16 ‐22
16 Employment by sector 16 ‐ 17
17 Unemployment rates 17 ‐ 18
18 Area major employers/employment centers and proximity to site 18 ‐ 19
19 Recent or planned employment expansions/reductions 19 ‐ 20
Demographic Characteristics
20 Population and household estimates and projections 23
21 Area building permits 29
22 Population and household characteristics including income, tenure, and size 24 ‐ 29
23 For senior or special needs projects, provide data specific to target market 26, 28 ‐ 29
Competitive Environment
24 Comparable property profiles and photos 32 ‐ 46
25 Map of comparable properties 35, 40, 44
26 Existing rental housing evaluation including vacancy and rents 31 ‐ 48
27 Comparison of subject property to comparable properties 45 ‐ 46
28 Discussion of availability and cost of other affordable housing options including homeownership, if applicable
38 ‐ 45, 48
29 Rental communities under construction, approved, or proposed 31 ‐ 32
30 For senior or special needs populations, provide data specific to target market 38 ‐ 41
Affordability, Demand, and Penetration Rate Analysis
31 Estimate of demand 49 ‐ 52
32 Affordability analysis with capture rate 49 ‐ 53
33 Penetration rate analysis with capture rate 52
Analysis/Conclusions
34 Absorption rate and estimated stabilized occupancy for subject 50 ‐ 52
35 Evaluation of proposed rent levels including estimate of market/achievable rents. 53
36 Precise statement of key conclusions ii ‐ iv
37 Market strengths and weaknesses impacting project ii ‐ iv
38 Product recommendations and/or suggested modifications to subject iii
39 Discussion of subject property's impact on existing housing 48
40 Discussion of risks or other mitigating circumstances impacting subject 53 ‐ 54
41 Interviews with area housing stakeholders 55
Other Requirements
42 Certifications 59
43 Statement of qualifications 56 ‐ 58
44 Sources of data not otherwise identified N/A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i
A. Project Description ................................................................................................................................ 1
Proposed Number of Units ..................................................................................................................... 2
Utility Configuration ............................................................................................................................... 3
Unit and Common Area Amenities ......................................................................................................... 3
Developer’s Schedule ............................................................................................................................. 3
B. Location and Market Area Definition ................................................................................................... 5
Primary Market Area Definition ............................................................................................................. 5
Site Characteristics ................................................................................................................................. 6
Neighborhood Description ..................................................................................................................... 9
C. Employment and Economy .................................................................................................................. 16
Employment by Industry Sector ........................................................................................................... 16
Historical Unemployment .................................................................................................................... 17
Major Employers .................................................................................................................................. 18
Employment Growth ............................................................................................................................ 19
Typical Wages by Occupation ............................................................................................................... 20
Commuting Patterns for Workers ........................................................................................................ 21
D. Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 23
Population and Households ................................................................................................................ 23
Characteristics of the Population ......................................................................................................... 24
Households by Household Size – All Households ................................................................................. 25
Households by Household Size – Senior Households ........................................................................... 26
PMA Households by Tenure ................................................................................................................. 26
PMA Households by Income ................................................................................................................ 27
PMA Senior Households 62+ by Income and Tenure ........................................................................... 28
Residential Building Permits ................................................................................................................. 29
Demographic Trends ............................................................................................................................ 30
E. Competitive Environment ................................................................................................................... 31
Housing Stock in the Region and PMA ................................................................................................. 31
Comparable Market‐Rate Properties ................................................................................................... 32
Affordable Housing .............................................................................................................................. 38
Evaluation of the Subject Property; Most Comparable Properties ...................................................... 45
Rental Market Size ................................................................................................................................ 47
Summary of Vacancy Rates in the Market by Population Served ........................................................ 47
Impact on Existing Rental Housing Stock ............................................................................................. 48
Availability and Cost of Other Affordable Housing Options ................................................................. 48
F. Analysis/Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 49 Analysis of Income Levels of Potential Tenants ................................................................................... 49
Market Penetration .............................................................................................................................. 52
Market Rent and Achievable Rent ........................................................................................................ 53
Risks ...................................................................................................................................................... 53
G. Local Perspective of Rental Housing Market and Housing Alternatives ............................................ 55 Interviews with Local Officials .............................................................................................................. 55
Interviews with Local Housing Authority Officials ................................................................................ 55
H. Other Requirements ............................................................................................................................ 56 Limitations of the Engagement ............................................................................................................ 56
Qualifications of RES ............................................................................................................................. 56
Certifications ........................................................................................................................................ 59
Appendix follows page 59
Maps 1 Location of the Old Armstrong High School Property in the City of Richmond ..............................1 2 Site Plan for the Overall Redevelopment of the Old Armstrong High School Property .................1 3 PMA, Census Tract Boundaries, and Subject Property Location ....................................................5 4 Aerial Showing the Location of the Subject Property at the Old Armstrong High School Site And in the Church Hill North Neighborhood ................................................................................7 5 Location of Subject Property at the Old Armstrong High School Site ............................................7 6 Services and Shopping Near the Subject Property ...................................................................... 11 7 Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (All Jobs), City of Richmond, 2013 ................................................... 21 8 Location of Comparable Market‐Rate Properties in the PMA ..................................................... 35 9 Location of PMA Affordable Senior Rental Properties ................................................................ 40 10 Location of PMA Affordable General Occupancy Rental Properties ........................................... 44 Tables 1 Proposed Unit Distribution, Unit Size, Tenant Net Rents, Utility Allowances, and Gross Rents ....3 2 Transportation, Shopping, and Services near the Subject Property ............................................ 12 3 Violent Property Crimes per 1,000 Population ............................................................................ 15 4 PMA Employment by Industrial Section, 2015 ............................................................................ 17 5 Unemployment Rate by Year, 2004‐2014 .................................................................................... 18 6 Top Private Employers in Greater Richmond............................................................................... 19 7 Employment in the City of Richmond and the Richmond MSA, 2004 ‐ 2014 .............................. 19 8 Occupational Wage Estimates, Richmond Metropolitan Area, 2014 .......................................... 21 9 City of Richmond Job Counts, 2013 ............................................................................................. 22 10 Population and Households ......................................................................................................... 23 11 Selected Population Characteristics ............................................................................................ 24 12 Households by Number of Persons, 2015 Estimates ................................................................... 25 13 PMA Renter Households, 55+ and 62+ by Number of Persons, 2015 Estimates ......................... 26 14 Occupancy and Ownership Characteristics in the PMA and Richmond, 2015 ............................ 26 15 2015 Households by Household Income ..................................................................................... 27 16 PMA Households 62+ by Income and Tenure .............................................................................. 28 17 Permits for New Privately‐Owned Residential Units in the City of Richmond ............................ 29
18 Survey of Selected Comparable Market‐Rate Rental Apartment Buildings ................................ 33 19 Summary of Amenities and Apartment Features in Selected Market‐Rate Rental Properties ... 34 20 Survey of PMA Affordable Senior Rental Properties ................................................................... 39 21 Survey of PMA Affordable General Occupancy Rental Properties ............................................. 42 22 Net Demand ................................................................................................................................. 50
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Executive Summary | I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Community Builders, Inc. (TCB) retained Real Estate Strategies, Inc. (RES) to provide market analysis
services in connection with a second phase of the redevelopment of the Old Armstrong High School site
located in the City of Richmond’s East End. This development, which is Phase 1B of the larger
redevelopment, is a proposed 45‐unit senior building for households 62 years old and older and with
incomes below 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). TCB intends to submit an application for
four percent Low‐Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) to the Virginia Housing Development Authority
(VHDA). The proposed new senior housing units will be in a single new building to be constructed on a
30,036 square foot (0.69‐acre) portion of the site.
This market study by RES for Phase 1B has been prepared in accordance with the 2015 Market Study
Guidelines of VHDA and the Model Content Standards for Rental Housing Market Studies of the National
Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA), the model for market studies submitted to VHDA.
Description of the Site and Surrounding Area
Phase IB (the Subject Property) will be located near the center of the Old Armstrong High School site on
the northeastern side of a proposed new boulevard entering the site from a location near the
intersection of North 31st Street and V Street. The Subject Property is one component in the
redevelopment plan for the entire site, which includes construction of approximately 250 multifamily
mixed‐income rental units and 50 for‐sale units; a new neighborhood center; commercial and
recreational development on nearby Nine Mile Road; new infrastructure; and recreational, park, and
open space uses. A mix of housing types is proposed including the Subject Property and a second three‐
story multifamily building, single‐family homes, duplexes, and townhouses.
Overall, the site is somewhat triangular in shape and the topography is generally flat. It is bounded by
Oakwood Cemetery, North 31st Street, and Kuhn Street to the south. The southwestern portion of the
site near Kuhn Street, which is scheduled for development in later phases, has mature trees and the site
slopes down to a creek at the southern edge.
Current improvements include the buildings formerly used as a high school, together with a roadway,
parking areas, playing fields, asphalt multipurpose courts, and a playground. Local officials have advised
that the high school buildings will be demolished during January 2016 so that Phase I of the
redevelopment, which will be on the northeastern portion of the property near the intersection of
North 31st Street and Nine Mile Road, can commence. RES previously prepared a market study effective
during February 2015 for Phase I, a new 60‐unit mixed‐income rental development for general
occupancy that has received an allocation of nine percent LIHTCs.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Executive Summary | II
With the exception of commercial, business, and institutional uses along Nine Mile Road, the
surrounding neighborhood is primarily residential in character. Most of the nearby homes are older
bungalows that are generally maintained well. A new townhouse development by Habitat for
Humanities, Pillars at Oakwood, is located below the southern edge of the school site. Areas near the
Subject Property have been targeted by the City and the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing
Authority (RRHA) for redevelopment, and new and substantially rehabilitated for‐sale housing has been
developed about four to five blocks from the Subject Property. The area’s major institution is Bon
Secours Richmond Community Hospital, which is proposing to develop new medical and commercial
space along Nine Mile Road near the existing hospital. The Subject Property enjoys excellent access to
Interstate 64 (I‐64); public bus service is available along Nine Mile Road and North 30th Street.
Summary of the Project and Population Served
Phase IB of the redevelopment will be a new three‐story elevator building containing a total of 45
residential units together with community and management space. The Subject Property will serve
elderly households 62 years old and older with incomes at and below 60 percent of the Area Median
Income (AMI). All 45 units at the Subject Property will be replacement housing units for families living at
the Creighton Court public housing project, and all will have Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD)
subsidies from RRHA. Therefore, all households will pay 30 percent of income for gross rent (tenant paid
rent and utility allowance). The unit mix will include 43 one‐bedroom, one bath units and two, two‐
bedroom, two bath units. All of the units will have Universal Design (UD) features, and a total of 12 one‐
bedroom units and the two, two‐bedroom units will comply with both the Uniform Federal Accessibility
Standards (UFAS) and UD standards.
Common areas will include a lobby, lounge with warming kitchen, community room, management
office, and shared porches on the first floor of the building. The second and third floors will have
lounges with balconies at a location convenient to the laundry room. There will be on‐site parking for 18
vehicles; on‐street spaces will provide additional parking for residents and guests. Residents also will
have access to community amenities in the Old Armstrong High School Phase I development, including
the programs and services at the larger community center and the open space areas, pathways, and
outdoor amenities. The developer’s schedule calls for a closing in April 2016 and completion of
construction during April 2017.
Statement of Key Conclusions
Analysts’ Conclusion on Market Feasibility
Based on the procedures described herein, RES has determined that development of the Subject
Property is feasible in the Richmond market and the delineated East End Primary Market Area (PMA). It
is important to emphasize that all units at the Subject Property will have 15‐year RAD subsidies and all
units are a relocation resource for senior households currently living at Creighton Court.
Although capture and penetration rates were estimated to be high, 45.9 and 63.8 percent, respectively,
these rates reflect only the number of households within a narrow income band from $21,240 to
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Executive Summary | III
$35,640 with sufficient income to pay the rents the Subject Property without consideration of additional
subsidies. The capture and penetration rates do not include households with incomes below $21,240
who will be able to live at the Subject Property due to RAD assistance.
Demand for the proposed units at the Subject Property is far higher than indicated by the above
capture and penetration rates. When the effects of the RAD subsidies are considered in estimating Net
Demand, the capture rate is 15.6 percent of PMA households 65 and older and the penetration rate is
15.6 percent. The absorption and penetration rate calculations that consider the RAD subsidies are
consistent with the performance of the supply of affordable senior housing in the market and the fact
that RES identified only one vacant senior unit during September 2015.
RES estimates a brief absorption pace of three months. Lease‐up is projected to commence during June
2017 and all units are expected to be leased by the beginning of September 2017.
Recommendations and Suggested Modifications (if any)
RES has been working with TCB and has prepared market studies for the redevelopment of the Old
Armstrong School Site for 1.5 years. Market‐related comments during the process have been addressed
as concerns have been raised. RES has discussed with TCB the following recommendations that may
enhance absorption and the relative attractiveness of the Subject Property in the Richmond market:
Design and implement an aggressive marketing program for this new residential community.
The initial phases of in developing a new large‐scale residential community will set the tone for
the entire development and perceptions about it in the market. Therefore, RES has
recommended an aggressive marketing program early‐on, as soon as arrangements can be
made for space to showcase the development. A construction trailer, completion of the planned
neighborhood center early in the process, or renting space for a marketing and leasing office on
Nine Mile Road are alternatives for consideration.
Make gateway improvements to Nine Mile Road. Funding should be identified early in the
process to make the planned improvements to Nine Mile Road. The gateway concept
recommended by Torti Gallas would call attention to the new development and should be
created early in the process to help address the negative features now evident along Nine Mile
Road.
Add a new bus stop near the Subject Property so seniors living at the Subject Property do not
have to walk to Creighton and Nine Mile Road to catch a bus. If it is not possible to add a stop,
perhaps the existing bus stop can be relocated.
Summary of Positive and Negative Attributes and Issues
Positive Attributes:
Attractive site with a long history in the community.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Executive Summary | IV
The Old Armstrong School site is large enough to be able to establish a positive identity as a new
community.
Proximity to I‐64 offers access to the airport and locations throughout the metropolitan area.
An institutional anchor, Bon Secours Hospital is located nearby
Negative Attributes:
Crime rates are decreasing, but additional attention is needed.
Many nearby properties on Nine Mile Road are blighted and present a very poor image of the
immediate area. This issue should be addressed.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 1
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject of this market study is an
affordable senior residential development
to be constructed on a portion of the Old
Armstrong High School site. The address of
this larger site is 1611 North 31st,
Richmond, VA 23223. Called Church Hill
North Phase IB, the development will
include 45 residential units and common
areas on a 30,036 square foot (0.69‐acre)
portion of the site. The Subject Property
will be located on the northeastern side of
a new boulevard coming into the larger site
from the intersection of North 31st Street
and V Street. Map 1 shows the location of
the Old Armstrong High School site within
the City of Richmond and the East End
Planning District. Map 1 also shows location
of the Bon Secours Community Hospital and
the State Capitol in Richmond’s downtown.
The Subject Property is part of the larger
redevelopment of the 21.6‐acre Old
Armstrong School site, which is located
along North 31st Street from just south of
Nine Mile Road and extending to Kuhn
Street to the southwest. Map 2 shows the
site plan by Torti Gallas and Partners for the
entire site. The major road located to the
north is Nine Mile Road.
Plans for the redevelopment call for the
existing school structures to be demolished
and a new mixed‐income community with a
total of approximately 300 new units to be
constructed. Overall, the development
program includes about 250 multifamily
mixed‐income rental units and 50 for‐sale
units; a new neighborhood center;
commercial and recreational development
MAP 1: LOCATION OF THE OLD ARMSTRONG HIGH SCHOOL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND
MAP 2: SITE PLAN FOR THE OVERALL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE OLD ARMSTRONG HIGH SCHOOL PROPERTY
Subject Property
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 2
on nearby Nine Mile Road; new infrastructure; and recreational, park, and open space uses. A mix of
housing types is proposed including the Subject Property and a second multifamily building, single‐
family homes, duplexes, and townhouses.
The Phase IB development will be a single three‐story “L” shaped elevator building with a total of 18
parking spaces for residents, or 0.4 spaces per unit. All of the units will be a relocation resource for
households 62 years old and older who presently live in the nearby RRHA Creighton Court public housing
project. Creighton Court is located on the northeastern side of Nine Mile Road about four to six blocks
from the Subject Property. The property is scheduled to be demolished because it is physically and
functionally obsolete.
Proposed Number of Units
TCB’s proposed 45‐unit building will have 43 one‐bedroom, one bath units and two, two‐bedroom, two
bath units. All of the units will have Universal Design (UD) features, and a total of 12 one‐bedroom units
and the two, two‐bedroom units will comply with both the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards
(UFAS) and UD standards. RES has reviewed preliminary unit plans and elevations by Torti Gallas and
Partners, Architects, dated September 8, 2015 and preliminary specifications dated September 18, 2015.
The units are generous in size and have attractive layouts. Two of the building elevations by Torti Gallas
from the September 8, 2015 plans are provided below. All of the units will be targeted for occupancy by
households with incomes at, and below 60 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) in the City of
Richmond. Table 1 provides a breakdown by number of bedrooms and baths, net square feet, tenant
rents, utility allowances, and gross rents.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 3
TABLE 1: PROPOSED UNIT DISTRIBUTION, UNIT SIZES, TENANT NET RENTS, UTILITY ALLOWANCES, AND GROSS RENTS
Income Targeting and Unit Mix
Number of Units
Average Unit Sizes (Net Square Feet)
Tenant Rent
Utility Allowance Gross Rent
LIHTC 60% AMI
1 Bedroom 43 652 $640 $68 $708
2 Bedroom 2 1,034 $715 $91 $806
Total 45
Source: The Community Builders, Inc.; Torti Gallas & Partners
All of the residential units will have HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) subsidies from RRHA;
therefore, senior households actually will pay gross rents based on 30 percent of their adjusted income
for rent and utilities.
Utility Configuration
The utility allowances in Table 1, which were provided by RRHA, are the Allowances for Tenant‐
Furnished Utilities for the Richmond Area during 2014. Dated January 1, 2015, the allowance is for
apartment units in buildings with five or more units. Electric heating will be with heat pumps; hot water
and cooking will be electric. Tenants will pay their electric bills, including electric for lighting and central
air conditioning. Rents will include water, sewer, and trash service.
The Subject Property is being designed to comply with all mandatory provisions of the EarthCraft
Virginia Multifamily Criteria and to be certified at the Certified Level.
Unit and Common Area Amenities
Residential units at the Subject Property will have wood floors in living areas, carpet in bedrooms, and
ceramic tile in bathrooms. Windows will have Venetian blinds. Bathrooms will have vanities; accessible
units will have roll‐in showers. Kitchens will be equipped with ranges with a ducted hood, refrigerators,
dishwashers, and garbage disposals. There will be a laundry room on each floor of the building.
The three‐story structure will have two elevators. Common areas will include a lobby, lounge with
warming kitchen, community room, management office, and shared porches on the first floor of the
building. The second and third floor each will have a lounge with balcony at a location convenient to the
laundry room. In addition to on‐site parking for 18 vehicles, on‐street spaces will provide additional
parking for residents and guests. Residents also will have access to community amenities in the Old
Armstrong High School Phase 1 development, including the programs and services at the larger
community center and the open space areas, pathways, and outdoor amenities.
Developer’s Schedule
TCB’s current schedule calls for a closing in April 2016 and completion of construction during April 2017.
Lease‐up is projected to commence during June 2017; all units are expected to be leased by the
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 4
beginning of September 2017. Stabilization is projected for September 2017. The accelerated lease‐up
anticipates the relocation of households from Creighton Court and the ability to pre‐screen and select
residents before construction has been completed
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 5
B. LOCATION AND MARKET AREA DEFINITION
Primary Market Area Definition
The Primary Market Area (PMA) defined by RES is the East Planning District of the City of Richmond. The
PMA is based on 2010 census tract boundaries and includes a total of 12 tracts in Richmond, which are
tracts 201 through 212. To the east, south, and part of the north the boundaries of the City of Richmond
also are the boundaries of the PMA. The balance of the northern border is I‐64 and census tract
boundaries. To the west and southwest, the PMA boundary is Interstate 95 and the James River. Map 3
shows the delineation of the PMA and the location of the Subject Property.
The delineation of the PMA is based on information provided during interviews with property managers,
local officials, Realtors and developers. It is contiguous with the City’s East Planning District, and includes
only tracts in the City of Richmond. RES asked managers of senior housing properties about the location
of the prior residence of senior living at their complex. Managers of properties located within the PMA
reported that residents either had been living in the East End, or they had family ties to the area. In
contrast, management of the Carter Woods senior property located in Henrico County just north of Nine
Mile Road and about three‐fourths mile from the City’s limit, reported that only a few seniors from the
East End inquire about the availability of Carter Woods apartments, and they often have family living in
nearby areas of Henrico County. Based on this information, RES included only City of Richmond East
Planning tracts in the PMA.
MAP 3: PMA DEFINITION, CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARIES, AND SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION
Subject Property
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 6
Another factor influencing delineation of the PMA is the role of the Subject Property as a relocation
resource for households 62 years old and older and presently living at Creighton Court. RRHA
representatives interviewed during September 2015 in connection with this market study provided
information about seniors now living in Creighton Court. At that time, there were a total of 123
households 55 to 83 years old living in the Creighton public housing units, including 67 households
needing one‐bedroom units and 13 households with handicaps. Because of these demographics, RRHA
anticipates that all of the units at the Subject Property will be occupied by households relocated from
Creighton Court, meaning that 100 percent of the units at the Subject Property will be occupied by
households now living in the PMA.
The PMA includes neighborhoods that have undergone varying degrees of revitalization. To the west,
Shockoe Bottom and Shockoe Valley have rental units in new buildings and structures converted from
industrial and warehouse uses that attract young professionals working in nearby Downtown Richmond.
Church Hill, home of St. John’s Church known for the speech given there by Patrick Henry, has very
upscale historic homes and has become a hub for restaurants, bakeries, and other food‐related
establishments. The Union Hill and Chimborazo neighborhoods also have historic homes and have been
undergoing revitalization and redevelopment. For Church Hill, Union Hill, and Chimborazo the prevailing
lifestyles in the neighborhoods are ones with high percentages of singles and couples.
Revitalization and infill development are pushing east from these more established neighborhoods.
Further east, home sales prices are lower, as are rents, and there are concentrations of older public
housing projects primarily north of North 25th Street and Nine Mile Road. Included is the Creighton
Court public housing referenced above, which has a total of 504 units for general occupancy and is
slated for demolition and redevelopment. While often presented as many different neighborhoods,
Church Hill North has become the identity of much of the area on the eastern side of the PMA, including
areas near the Subject Property. New infill development, as well as substantial rehabilitation of sales
housing, is occurring in areas around Bon Secours Richmond Community Hospital, one of the PMA’s
prominent institutions. Activity initially involved rehabilitation and infill construction of single‐family
attached and detached housing by non‐profit organizations including Better Housing Coalition, Project
Homes, and Habitat for Humanity. Bon Secours Hospital has assisted by providing “gap” funding for
residential development near the hospital’s complex. More recently, however, private developers have
become active in Church Hill North and are constructing and rehabilitating additional housing units.
Similarly, owners have been rehabilitating housing units in the area, according to local officials, who
reported increased activity in recent months.
Site Characteristics
Description of the Site and Photographs
As indicated in Map 3 above, the Subject Property is located near the northeastern edge of the PMA and
very close to the City’s border with Henrico County. Seniors living at the Subject Property would need to
walk about one‐fourth mile along the new boulevard to be constructed and North 31st Street to reach
the intersection of Nine Mile Road (Route 33), and North 31st Street, the location of convenience stores
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 7
and restaurants. Map 4 provides an aerial perspective showing the location of the Subject Property and
surrounding areas.
MAP 4: AERIAL SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THE OLD ARMSTRONG HIGH SCHOOL
SITE AND IN THE CHURCH HILL NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD
Map 5 provides a closer view of the Old Armstrong High School property, which is outlined in green, and
the approximate location of the Subject Property. Also shown is the location of Creighton Court public
housing for which the Subject Property is a relocation resource.
MAP 5: LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THE OLD ARMSTRONG HIGH SCHOOL SITE
Approximate Location of the Subject
Property (Phase 1B) at the Old
Armstrong High School site
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 8
Site from N. 31st Street near the intersection with V Street,
looking east. The Subject Property from a location near N. 31st
and V Streets, looking east. The Subject Property is near the
center of the photo.
Site from North 31st Street near the intersection of V Street.
The Subject Property is beyond the end of the walkway.
The Subject Property is near the center of the photo
The most recent site inspection by RES was on
September 18, 2015; the photographs in this
section were taken at that time. Current
improvements at the Old Armstrong High School
site include buildings formerly used as a high
school, together with a roadway, parking areas,
playing fields, asphalt multipurpose courts, and a
playground. Local officials have advised that the
high school buildings will be demolished during
January 2016 so that redevelopment can
commence. The high school has been closed and
vacant since 2004, when this existing Armstrong
High School was merged with nearby John F.
Kennedy High School. While the merger
combined the two high schools at the Kennedy
location, the merged high school has the
Armstrong High School name. Armstrong is
named for former Union General, Samuel
Chapman Armstrong who, among other
achievements founded the Hampton Institute,
now Hampton University, a Historically Black
College.
Overall, the high school site is somewhat
triangular in shape and the topography is
generally flat. It is bounded by Oakwood
Cemetery, North 31st Street, and Kuhn Street to
the south. The southwestern portion of the larger
site, which is scheduled for development in later
phases, has mature trees and the site slopes
down to a creek at the southern edge. The
Subject Property will be located near the center
of the site on a new boulevard entering the site
at the intersection of North 31st and V Streets.
In sum, the Subject Property is Phase IB of a
much larger redevelopment intended to create an attractive, modern new mixed‐income residential
neighborhood on a property that has been vacant for more than 10 years.
Access and Visibility
As with the Old Armstrong High School site overall, the Subject Property should benefit from visibility
along Nine Mile Road and the traffic along the road. Data for 2014 available through the Virginia
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 9
Creighton Court from Nine Mile Rd.
Convenience Store at Intersection of N. 31st and Nine Mile Rd.
Eastlawn with Food Circus grocery
Stores on south side of Nine Mile Rd. Bon
Secours Hospital is visible behind them
Department of Transportation indicate average daily traffic of
8,300 vehicles on Nine Mile Road near the intersection with
North 25th Street and to the east. Average daily traffic on Nine
Mile Road within 1.49 miles of the intersection with Interstate
64 is 23,000 vehicles. With the interchange of I‐64 and Nine
Mile Road just over one‐third mile away, there is easy access
to the Richmond International Airport and the Norfolk area.
Neighborhood Description
Nine Mile Road
The frontage along Nine Mile Road near the Subject Property
includes a mix of vacant sites and structures, together with
commercial, residential, and institutional uses and Oakwood
Cemetery. RRHA’s Creighton Court public housing project is
located on the north side of Nine Mile Road. Oakwood
Cemetery is on the south side of Nine Mile Road opposite
Creighton Court. The Cemetery, which has about 176 acres of
land, is an active City of Richmond burial ground dating from
the 1850’s.
The one‐mile stretch of Nine Mile Road from the I‐64
interchange to the intersection with North 25th Street to the
west presently presents a very poor image of the immediate
area. Many properties are blighted and in need of
redevelopment. The advantage is that there are convenience
stores, food carry‐out establishments, and restaurants that
will serve seniors who will live at the Subject Property.
Redevelopment of the Old Armstrong High School site is part
of a much larger revitalization program, the City’s East End
Transformation initiative. While planned improvements on
Nine Mile Road are needed to further stabilize and enhance
this portion of the East End, new residential and planned
commercial development projects already are underway in
nearby blocks. In addition, streetscape improvements are
planned along Nine Mile Road to create a gateway into the
East End and the City of Richmond. Other new development
projects are proposed along Nine Mile Road near the
intersection with Creighton Road as part of the Old Armstrong
High School redevelopment overall; other initiatives by Bon
Secours will further enhance this stretch of the road.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 10
Bon Secours is located near the intersection of Nine Mile Road
and North 28th Street, about three blocks west of the
intersection of North 31st and V Streets. Proposed new medical
and retail development sponsored by the Hospital and located
near its existing facilities will help to improve the portion of
Nine Mile Road near the Hospital. The development is
expected to include a women’s center and a mixed‐use
building, a center for healthy communities and adjacent
wellness park, and a second medical office building. Plans for
the new development are moving forward, according to local
officials. In addition, Bon Secours and local officials have
recruited a full‐service grocery to build a store on a publicly
owned site at North 25th and Nine Mile Road, and the City has
committed $500,000 for this development. The improvements
are important in helping to bring change and enhance
conditions along one of the most heavily travelled routes
traversing the East End Neighborhood.
Neighborhood Residential Characteristics
North 31st Street, which is primarily residential near the Old
Armstrong High School site, is a relatively well traveled route.
Traffic counts available from Esri indicate average daily traffic
of 2,000 vehicles on North 31st Street between North T and
North U Streets. Residential structures along north 31st Street
near the intersection with V Street include a mix of older,
largely single‐family bungalows, as shown in the photos, built
in the 1940’s. Sale prices range from about $45,000 to $50,000.
Almost all of the homes appear well maintained. Data from the
2010 Census about housing tenure in the census tract indicate
that about 61 percent of housing units in the area were owner‐
occupied.
Further south along North 31st Street near the intersection of R
Street, Southside Community Development has rehabilitated
single‐family duplex homes with 1,350 to 1,450 square feet
that were sold during 2014 for $100,000. Located along North
33rd Street between Kuhn and T Streets is Pillars at Oakmont, a
community of 15 attached single‐family homes developed by
Habitat for Humanity. Completed during June 2013, the homes
sold at prices ranging from $100,000 to $108,000. During
September 2015 the asking price for one resale, a townhouse
Homes along the western side of N. 31st St
Attached homes ‐ 1129 and 1131 North
31st Street
Pillars at Oakmont
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 11
with three bedrooms, two baths, and 1,152 square feet, was $129,500. The Old Armstrong High School
site and the Subject Property also are located within a few blocks of the Church Hill North target area for
new and substantially rehabilitated homes for first‐time buyers. The area is located in the 1300 block of
North 26th, and North 27th Streets and the 2600 block of Q Street. Sales prices for the homes range from
$150,000 to $174,000. There are a total of 38 for‐sale homes in the development program.
Transportation, Shopping, and Services
Map 6 shows the location of transportation linkages, shopping, schools, medical services, places of
worship, and other services. The narrative following the map provides additional explanation about the
mapped items and also discusses other shopping and services not shown on the map. Table 2 on the
following page provides the key to the map.
MAP 6: SERVICES AND SHOPPING NEAR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 12
TABLE 2: TRANSPORTATION, SHOPPING, AND SERVICES NEAR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
Amenity/Establishment Address Distance from
Subject Property
Transportation
1 Bus Stop – GRTC Routes 7 and 45 9 Mile and Creighton Roads 0.2 mi North
Shopping and Services
2 Food Circus Grocery 1814 Creighton Road 0.1 mi North
3 Proposed Supermarket Site 9 Mile Road and North 25th Street 0.7 mi West
4 Family Dollar 1220 North 25th Street 0.7 mi West
5 Community Supermarket 1915 Mechanicsville Turnpike 1.5 mi Northwest
6 Farm Fresh Grocery 2320 East Main Street 1.7 mi South
7 CVS Pharmacy 2400 East Main Street 1.7 mi South
8 SunTrust Bank 2500 East Broad Street 1.5 mi South
Medical Services
9 Bon Secours Richmond Community Hospital 1500 North 28th Street 0.4 mi West
10 Bon Secours Medical Offices 1500 North 28th Street 0.4 mi West
11 Bon Secours East End Community Pharmacy 1510 North 28th Street 0.4 mi West
12 Vernon J Harris Medical Center 719 North 25th Street 1.1 mi Southwest
Schools
13 George Mason Elementary School 813 North 28th Street 0.9 mi Southwest
14 Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School 1000 Mosby Street 1.3 mi West
15 Armstrong High School 2300 Cool Lane 1.1 mi North
Community Services and Recreation
16 Richmond Police Precinct 1 2501 Q Street 0.8 mi Southwest
17 Richmond Public Library 2414 R Street 0.8 mi West
18 Good Shepherd Senior Center 1127 North 28th Street 0.7 mi Southwest
19 Robinson Theater Community Arts Center 2903 Q Street 0.7 mi Southwest
20 Ethel Bailey Furman Park North 28th Street 0.9 mi Southwest
21 Patrick Henry Park North 25th and East Broad Streets 0.9 mi Southwest
22 Chimborazo Park 2900 East Grace Street 1.3 mi South
Religious Institutions
23 Mt. Olivet Baptist Church 1223 North 25th Street 0.7 mi West
24 St. John's United Holy Church 1507 North 28th Street 0.4 mi West
25 Historic St. John's Church 2401 East Broad Street 1.5 mi Southwest
Sources: RES, Google Maps
Access to Transportation
As indicated by the proximity of the Subject Property to two major thoroughfares, which are Nine Mile
Road and I‐64, the Subject Property has excellent access for households with vehicles. In addition, there
is good access to public transportation, an important consideration because more than one‐fourth of
East End PMA households do not own a vehicle.
The East End PMA is served by the Greater Richmond Transportation Company (GRTC), and two routes
have bus stops near the Subject Property. The closest stop for both busses presently is located at the
intersection of Nine Mile and Creighton Roads. GRTC’s Route 7, Seven Pines, travels along Nine Mile
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 13
Road, providing service to Seventh and Broad Streets in downtown Richmond and also to employment
and shopping at White Oak Village. The Route 7 bus does not operate on Saturday or Sunday, however.
The Route 45, Jefferson bus travels along Nine Mile Road east to North 28th Street, and along North 28th
and North 30th Streets, depending on direction, serving Bon Secours Hospital and Richmond’s downtown
via Broad Street. Route 45 has service on weekends.
Shopping and Services
Shopping options in areas near the Subject Property are limited to small retail establishments, including
convenience stores, restaurants and carry‐outs, and service establishments. There is a small pharmacy
located at Bon Secours Hospital, but the nearest chain pharmacy in the PMA is in Shockoe Bottom. Food
stores are small, and there is no full‐line supermarket nearby. As indicated previously, local officials and
representatives of Bon Secours are working to attract a new grocery to a location near the intersection
of North 25th Street and Nine Mile Road (Map Number 4).
Apparel stores are almost nonexistent in the East End PMA. The major exception is the Family Dollar
Store (Map Number 5). The East End has a number of service providers, including social, educational,
legal, and medical services, and offices of government organizations. There are numerous churches in
the area; virtually all denominations are represented. The locations of a few of the churches, including
Church Hill’s historic St. John’s Church, are shown on Map 6.
The nearest major concentration of retail establishments and restaurants is at White Oak Village, which
is located in Henrico County near the intersection of I‐64 and South Laburnum Avenue less than three
miles from the Subject Property. Major retailers include Target, JC Penney, Lowe’s, Sam’s Club,
Michael’s, PetSmart, and Martin’s Food Market and Pharmacy. There are numerous smaller retail stores
offering apparel. White Oak Village includes a number of restaurants; other smaller shopping centers
with additional retailers and restaurants are located nearby along South Laburnum Avenue. There is bus
service to White Oak Village from a bus stop near the Subject Property.
During July 2014, Walmart announced the development of a new supercenter in Henrico County on Nine
Mile Road just east of the intersection with Laburnum Avenue. The new Walmart Center will replace an
outdated shopping center located about two miles from the Subject Property, or four bus stops away
according to a local official. Current plans are for an opening during 2016.
Medical Services
Residents who will live at the Subject Property will be within a few blocks of Bon Secours Hospital, which
is located at the intersection of Nine Mile Road and North 28th Street (Map Number 3). The Hospital,
which has been recognized for the quality of its emergency services, has 104 beds and is licensed for 110
beds. Current services at the hospital include emergency services, general surgery, obstetrics and
gynecology services (but babies are not delivered at the hospital), infusion and cancer services, and
behavioral health. There is an adjacent medical office building with medical services and the above‐
referenced pharmacy. As indicated previously in connection with revitalization activity along Nine Mile
Road, a proposed expansion by Bon Secours will add additional services in new buildings to be
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 14
constructed on Nine Mile Road. In addition to medical office space, the addition will include community
space with a walk‐in clinic and a Center for Healthy Communities.
In addition to the services available at Bon Secours, medical and dental services also are available at
clinics located on North 25th Street west of R Street and about 0.7 to one mile from the Subject Property.
Included are two medical clinics and also a dialysis center.
Schools
Based on school zones for the 2014/2015 school year, children living in residential units constructed at
the Old Armstrong High School site would attend George Mason Elementary School (Map Number 15),
Martin Luther King, Jr. Middle School (Map Number 22), and Armstrong High School (Map Number 23).
Since residents of the Subject Property will be 62 years old and older and the residential units primarily
have only one bedroom, issues related to school quality, which is below average, are not likely to be a
major consideration for prospective residents.
Crime and Safety
The Subject Property is located within the Richmond Police Department’s First Precinct, which is
headquartered at the intersection of North 25th and Q Streets in Church Hill North (Map Number 10).
Police Department Crime Incident reports show an issue with crime in the precinct; data compiled from
FBI records by Neighborhood Scout show similar results.
Reports for crime in the First Precinct that are compiled by Department’s Crime Incident Center indicate
there were declines during 2014, continuing an ongoing pattern of decline since 2011. The trend in the
number of homicides, robberies, and assaults has been downward during this time period, and the drop
during the 2014 was more pronounced. Year‐to‐date data for 2015 show an ongoing downward trend in
crime incidents for virtually all crime types. The notable exception is homicides, which have increased in
the First Precinct from seven during all of 2014 to 12 during the first ten months of 2015.
Neighborhood Scout data for neighborhoods near the Subject Property, include rankings on a crime
index and the number of violent and property crimes per 1,000 population, based on FBI data for 2013.
The data are presented in Table 3; final FBI data for 2014 are expected to be released during November
2015.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 15
TABLE 3: VIOLENT PROPERTY CRIMES PER 1,000 POPULATION
Neighborhood Crime Index* Violent Property
E. Richmond Road/Oakwood Avenue 24 9.82 37.65
N. 23rd Street/T Street 5 17.33 76.23
Fairfield Ave/Creighton Road 4 32.35 64.70
Church Hill** 29 9.89 32.15
City of Richmond 6.3 43.88
Commonwealth of Virginia 1.96 20.66
*The Crime Index is on a scale from 1 to 100 where 100 is the safest. **Church Hill boundaries are different from the City's delineation and include the area from N. 31st St. to S St., and Carrington, N. 22nd, Cedar, and N Streets. Note: Information was obtained during October 2015. Final FBI data for 2014 are expected to be available during November 2015. Source: Neighborhoodscout.com
The First Precinct’s trend in crime reduction is a positive factor. However, the Neighborhood Scout crime
reports for the neighborhood surrounding the Subject Property, which is called East Richmond
Road/Oakwood Avenue and other nearby neighborhoods indicate additional attention to crime and
safety is important. While there may be some lag in the data between the two sources, the
neighborhoods in Table 3 receive low scores on the crime index, which measures neighborhoods in the
East End PMA on a scale of 100. Further, all have higher rates of violent crime than the City of Richmond
overall.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 16
C. EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMY
The most recent Federal Reserve Beige Book, which is dated September 2, 2015, reported that the
economy in the Fifth District had “grown moderately” since the July 15, 2015 report. The Fifth District,
which is headquartered in Richmond, covers multiple states: Virginia, Maryland, North and South
Carolina, the District of Columbia, and part of West Virginia. The report noted that residential mortgage
demand had increased slightly in the region, and commercial lending was higher in Virginia. Credit
standards remained generally unchanged. Housing market activity in the Fifth District grew at a modest
pace; home prices were stable to slightly higher. Multifamily leasing and construction remained strong.
For the City of Richmond, total employment during the first quarter 2015, as reported in the October 21,
2015 Labor Market Information (LMI) Report was 147,138. The unemployment rate in the City for all of
calendar year 2014 was 6.1 percent, which was higher than the 5.2 percent rate during the same year in
the Commonwealth of Virginia. For August 2015, the unemployment rate was 5.4 percent. The average
weekly wage in the City for all industries during the first quarter 2015 was $1,205. Variation by industry
is significant, however, ranging from a low of $344 per week for the Accommodations and Food Services
industry to $3,194 for Managers of Companies and Enterprises.
Employment by Industry Sector
Data on employment by industry sector in the delineated PMA are available through Esri, which
provides 2014 Dun & Bradstreet data for the delineated East End PMA and also for the City of
Richmond.
It should be noted that total employment by industry (147,138) in the LMI Report on October 21, 2015
for the first quarter of 2015 is lower than reported by Dun & Bradstreet. Moreover, employment by
industry generally is lower, as well. The Dun & Bradstreet data indicate total employment in the City of
180,938, or higher than reported in the LMI report. The difference may be because the LMI data are
based on the number of employees covered by Unemployment Insurance as reported by establishments
to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This difference, along with differences in timing, exclusions, and
possibly different definitions probably account for the lower employment by industry reported by LMI.
For the PMA during 2015, Dun & Bradstreet reported 7,775 jobs. Sectors representing the highest
employment include Accommodation and Food Services (1,104 employees), Public Administration
(1,085 employees), Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (1,007 employees), Retail Trade (997
employees), Other Services, except Public Administration (642 employees), Educational Services (606
employees), and Health Care and Social Assistance (610 employees). Employment in the PMA was lower
than expected in the Health Care and Social Assistance sector, given the presence of Bon Secours and
other health care providers Table 4 (following page) presents employment data for all sectors in the
PMA and the City of Richmond.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 17
TABLE 4: PMA EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRIAL SECTOR, 2015
Industry (NAICS Codes)
PMA City of Richmond
Number Percent Number Percent
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 0 0.0% 37 0.0%
Mining 0 0.0% 77 0.0%
Utilities 29 0.4% 6,892 3.8%
Construction 240 3.1% 10,122 5.6%
Manufacturing 143 1.8% 13,472 7.4%
Wholesale Trade 83 1.1% 4,947 2.7%
Retail Trade 997 12.8% 12,438 6.9%
Transportation & Warehousing 191 2.5% 5,795 3.2%
Information 60 0.8% 3,949 2.2%
Finance & Insurance 121 1.6% 7,403 4.1%
Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 404 5.2% 4,205 2.3%
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 1,007 13.0% 13,517 7.5%
Management of Companies & Enterprises 11 0.1% 173 0.1%
Administrative & Support & Waste Management 242 3.1% 3,752 2.1%
Educational Services 606 7.8% 11,517 6.4%
Health Care & Social Assistance 610 7.8% 38,417 21.2%
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 160 2.1% 3,167 1.8%
Accommodation & Food Services 1,104 14.2% 11,799 6.5%
Other Services (except Public Administration) 642 8.3% 8,808 4.9%
Public Administration 1,085 14.0% 19,147 10.6%
Unclassified Establishments 40 0.5% 1,304 0.7%
Totals 7,775 100.0% 180,938 100.0%
Sources: Esri, Infogroup, Inc., 2015; RES
Historical Unemployment
Annual data on unemployment in the City of Richmond show a steady downward trend from a high of
9.6 percent during the 2008 Great Recession. Table 5 presents unemployment data for the City from
2003 through 2014, in comparison with data for the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States.
Reports by economists, most recently the Chair of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond in a January
2015 speech, have noted that Virginia fared better than most of the country during the Great Recession.
However, the data show that unemployment in Richmond during all years has been much higher than in
the Commonwealth overall.
As shown in Table 5, monthly unemployment in the City during the time frame from September 2014
through August 2015 varied from a high of 6.0 percent during September 2014 and also in June 2015, to
5.3 percent during December 2014. For September 2015 the Virginia Employment Commission reported
that a disproportionate share of the insured unemployed, 69.3 percent, were African‐American.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 18
TABLE 5: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BY YEAR, 2004‐2014
Year City of Richmond Virginia United States
2004 5.8% 3.8% 5.5%
2005 5.4% 3.6% 5.1%
2006 4.7% 3.1% 4.6%
2007 4.4% 3.0% 4.6%
2008 5.8% 3.9% 5.8%
2009 9.6% 6.7% 9.3%
2010 9.5% 7.1% 9.6%
2011 8.5% 6.6% 8.9%
2012 7.5% 6.0% 8.1%
2013 6.8% 5.7% 7.4%
2014 6.1% 5.2% 6.2%
Sources: Virginia Employment Commission, LMI Report updated on October 21, 2015; Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)
Major Employers
The Virginia Employment Commission’s LMI report for the City of Richmond listed the top employers in
the City of Richmond during the first quarter 2015, but without information on the number of
employees in the City. The top five employers listed were Virginia Commonwealth University, MCV
Hospital, Richmond City Public Schools, City of Richmond, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Data for the Richmond Region (the City of Richmond and Counties of Chesterfield, Hanover, and
Henrico) on private sector employment show a broad mix of company types among the top private
employers. The Greater Richmond Partnership lists the top 50 private employers in Greater Richmond
as compiled by the Richmond Times‐Dispatch during May 2015. Table 6 on the following page presents
the top 20 employers in the Richmond Region and the number of employees in the Richmond region.
In addition to the listing of private employers, the number of public employees in the City of Richmond
is significant, as would be expected based on the listing of the City’s largest employers and for the city
that is home to the State’s Capital. Data for 2013 compiled by the Virginia Economic Development
Partnership reported that the City of Richmond had a total of 39,642 public sector employees including
5,124 federal government, 23,767 Commonwealth of Virginia, and 10,751 local and public school
employees.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 19
TABLE 6: TOP PRIVATE EMPLOYERS IN GREATER RICHMOND*
Rank Company Type Number of Employees
1 Capital One Financial Corp. Credit Cards 11,491
2 VCU Health System Health Care 9,054
3 HCA Inc. Health Care 7,325
4 Bon Secours Richmond Health Care 6,852
5 Walmart Retail 5,526
6 Dominion Resources Inc. Energy 5,317
7 Sun Trust Banks Inc. Banking 4,010
8 Food Lion Grocery Stores 3,966
9 Altria Group, Inc. Cigarettes, Wine 3,900
10 Amazon.com Online retail 3,300
11 Wells Fargo Banking 2,912
12 DuPont Chemicals/Fibers 2,834
13 Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Health Insurance 2,777
14 Bank of America Banking 2,500
15 UPS Package Distribution 2,426
16 The Kroger Co. Grocery Stores 2,172
17 Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Reserve Bank 1,875
18 Verizon Communications Telecommunications 1,735
19 University of Richmond Private University 1,658
20 Markel Corporation Insurance 1,481
*Includes the City of Richmond and Counties of Chesterfield, Hanover, and Henrico.
Sources: Greater Richmond Partnership; Richmond Times‐Dispatch, May 2015.
Employment Growth
The Virginia Employment Commission provides data on employment in the City of Richmond and the
Richmond MSA updated to mid‐year 2014. Table 7 provides data.
TABLE 7: EMPLOYMENT IN THE CITY AND THE RICHMOND MSA, 2004‐2014
City of Richmond Richmond MSA
Year Total Jobs Change Total Jobs Change
2004 158,370 577,325 2005 160,483 2,113 589,349 12,024 2006 161,667 1,184 598,520 9,171 2007 158,597 ‐3,070 607,042 8,522 2008 159,063 466 605,891 ‐1,151 2009 150,777 ‐8,286 580,666 ‐25,225 2010 148,083 ‐2,694 575,471 ‐5,195 2011 149,540 1,457 582,975 7,504 2012 148,410 ‐1,130 593,314 10,339 2013 147,607 ‐803 590,406 ‐2,908 2014 148,477 870 597,267 6,861
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW); RES
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 20
During 2004 and 2005, there was good job growth in both the City of Richmond and the broader
Richmond MSA. Commencing in 2006 in the City and 2009 in the MSA, there were job losses as the
Great Recession took hold and advanced in severity. For both areas, job losses were the most severe
during 2009 and were also sizeable during 2010. Job gains in both areas commenced during 2011 and
there was growth overall from 2011 through 2014, albeit not at pre‐Recession levels especially in the
City.
The Virginia Employment Commission has developed employment projections for 2022 for the City of
Richmond. The projections are positive, with a forecast of 73,038 additional jobs (13.36 percent) in all
industries during the time frame from 2012 to 2022. Selected sectors with employment growth include:
Health Care and Social Assistance (+21,046); Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (+9,386);
Construction (+7,240); Educational Services (+6,896); Accommodation and Food Services (+5,242); Retail
Trade (+4,686); and Other Services (except Public Administration (+3,002). Short term projections for
the period from 2014 to 2016 indicate near term growth in these sectors, as well. Short term growth is
also projected in the Manufacturing sector.
The growth projections show further strengthening of the City’s “Eds and Meds” sectors; the presence
of Bon Secours Hospital and other medical service providers in the PMA may enhance the
competitiveness of the area for additional growth in the Health Care and Social Assistance sectors. Also
relevant is the employment growth in the Retail Trade sector, which may indicate the potential to
attract additional retailers to locations in the PMA. Since retail follows residential development, the
population growth projected in the PMA during the next five years, which is described in the following
section of this report, could result in additional patrons for retail establishments in the East End.
There is one dismal note in the information compiled by the Virginia Employment Commission. The
report’s Education Profile reports educational attainment data from the 2009‐13 American Community
Survey (ACS). The data for the population 18 years and older in the City of Richmond show 28,925
people (20.3 percent) have educational attainment below the high school graduate level, including
10,908 people with less than an eighth grade education. A detailed breakdown indicates that 11.7
percent of the population age 18 to 24 does not have a high school diploma. By race/ethnicity, 25.6
percent of African‐Americans and 55.8 percent of Hispanics have not completed high school. While job
growth is a positive factor, it will be critical to address the issue of educational attainment so that all of
the City’s residents can share in the growth.
Typical Wages by Occupation
The web site PayScale.com reports that the average salary in the City of Richmond during October 2015
was $57,597, based on a survey of 7,872 salaries. While less comprehensive, this average exceeds the
annual median wage reported by the Bureau of labor Statistics (BLS) during May 2014 for the Richmond
MSA. The BLS report provides detailed wages for occupational groups in Richmond, including median
and average hourly wages and annual mean wage. Table 8 presents 2014 data for major occupational
groups, including the location quotient as an indication of the relative concentration of the occupation
in the metropolitan area. In addition, the median hourly wage and the mean annual wage are provided.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 21
TABLE 8: OCCUPATIONAL WAGE ESTIMATES, RICHMOND METROPOLITAN AREA, 2014
Location Quotient
Median Hourly Wage
Annual Mean Wage
All Occupations 1.00 $17.61 $47,060
Management Occupations 0.87 $49.64 $117,990
Business & Financial Occupations 1.40 $32.09 $71,790
Computer & Mathematical Occupations 1.19 $38.34 $81,160
Architecture & Engineering Occupations 0.81 $35.33 $77,260
Life, Physical, & Social Science Occupations 0.99 $26.62 $63,110
Community & Social Service Occupations 1.16 $20.43 $44,290
Legal Occupations 1.30 $37.32 $99,050
Education, Training & Library Occupations 0.92 $22.11 $46,660
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, & Media Occs. 0.94 $21.72 $52,750
Healthcare Practitioners & Technical Occupations 1.09 $28.17 $70,470
Healthcare Support Occupations 0.82 $12.36 $27,830
Protective Service Occupations 1.19 $18.08 $40,380
Food Preparation & Serving Related Occupations 0.89 $9.28 $21,520
Building & Grounds Cleaning & Maintenance Occs. 1.00 $10.61 $24,040
Personal Care & Service Occupations 1.15 $9.23 $23,890
Sales & Related Occupations 1.02 $12.86 $41,180
Office & Administrative Support Occupations 1.05 $15.82 $35,250
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 0.35 $13.99 $31,840
Construction & Extraction Occupations 1.04 $18.08 $40,570
Installation, Maintenance & Repair Occupations 1.04 $21.14 $46,620
Production Occupations 0.70 $15.66 $37,450
Transportation & Material Moving Occupations 0.92 $14.07 $32,560
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2014 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Richmond, VA.
Commuting Patterns for Workers
Inflow/outflow data available in the LEHD
database show commuting patterns for
workers employed in the City of Richmond,
those living and working in the City, and
Richmond workers commuting to locations
outside of the City. Map 7 shows 2013 data
on employment inflow/outflow in the City of
Richmond for all employees, the most
recent year for which the data are available.
As the map shows, the outflow for all
workers living in Richmond but working
outside of the City was 54,442 during 2013,
while a total of 12,625 workers living
outside of the City were commuting to jobs
located within the City. On a net basis, the
MAP 7: INFLOW/OUTFLOW JOB COUNTS (ALL JOBS)CITY OF RICHMOND, 2013
Source: U.S. Census Bureau LEHD On the Map Data System; RES
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 22
number of in‐commuters exceeded the number of out‐commuters by 68,183, or more of a differential
than existed during 2011. Reversing the trend and attracting more commuters to live in the City would
be a key way to increase housing demand. During 2013, only 34,963 workers both had jobs and lived in
the City of Richmond.
During 2013, the number of workers with jobs in City of Richmond but living in Henrico County exceeded
the number who were living and working in the City. As shown in Table 9, 22.5 percent of City of
Richmond workers were living in Henrico County while 22.2 percent were living in Richmond. Other
counties having large numbers of workers commuting to the City were Chesterfield County (33,809) and
Hanover County (9,201). Differentials likely to influence the willingness of workers living in Henrico
County to move to Richmond are likely to be the City’s school system and the City’s higher tax rate for
real estate.
TABLE 9: CITY OF RICHMOND JOB COUNTS, 2013
Count Share
All Counties 157,588 100.0%
Henrico County, VA 35,448 22.5%
Richmond City, VA 34,963 22.2%
Chesterfield County, VA 33,809 21.5%
Hanover County, VA 9,201 5.8%
Fairfax County, VA 2,165 1.4%
Powhatan County, VA 1,963 1.2%
Virginia Beach city, VA 1,865 1.2%
Goochland County, VA 1,596 1.0%
Prince William County, VA 1,491 0.9%
New Kent County, VA 1,351 0.9%
All Other Locations 33,736 21.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau LEHD On the Map Data System; RES
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 23
D. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Population and Households
Table 10 presents population and household data for the East End PMA from the U.S. Bureau of the
Census, together with estimates for 2015 and projections for 2020. The data were compiled by Nielsen
(formerly Claritas), an on‐line supplier of demographic data. Data for the City of Richmond are also
provided for comparison purposes.
TABLE 10: POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS
Primary
Market Area City of
Richmond
Population 2000 Census 27,731 197,635 2010 Census 27,378 204,214 2015 Estimate 29,559 216,671 2020 Projection 31,601 229,274
Percent Change 2000‐2010 ‐1.3% 3.3% Percent Change 2010‐2015 8.0% 6.1% Percent Change 2015‐2020 6.9% 5.8%
Avg. Annual Percent Change 2000‐2010 ‐0.1% 0.3% Avg. Annual Percent Change 2010‐2015 1.5% 1.2% Avg. Annual Percent Change 2015‐2020 1.3% 1.1%
Households 2000 Census 10,486 84,553 2010 Census 11,250 87,151 2015 Estimate 12,447 92,814 2020 Projection 13,495 98,481
Percent Change 2000‐2010 7.3% 3.1% Percent Change 2010‐2015 10.6% 6.5% Percent Change 2015‐2020 8.4% 6.1%
Avg. Annual Percent Change 2000‐2010 0.7% 0.3% Avg. Annual Percent Change 2010‐2015 2.0% 1.3% Avg. Annual Percent Change 2015‐2020 1.6% 1.2%
Average Household Size 2000 Census 2.46 2.21 2010 Census N/A N/A 2015 Estimate 2.24 2.19 2020 Projection 2.21 2.19 Sources: US Census Bureau, Nielsen, RES
Although the population of the PMA decreased marginally from 2000 to 2010, 2015 estimates by
Nielsen indicate the population has since surpassed its 2000 count. In contrast, the population of the
City has increased steadily since 2000, as have the number of households in both the PMA and the City.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 24
Continued population and household growth is projected through 2020 in both the PMA and the City.
Population and household growth from 2010 to 2020 is projected to occur at a faster rate in the PMA
than in the City. From 2010 to 2015, Nielsen estimates that the PMA population increased by 8.0
percent, and the number of households increased 10.6 percent. In both the PMA and in the City,
household growth has generally outpaced population growth, which is a result of declines in the average
household size indicated in Table 10.
Characteristics of the Population
Table 11 provides summary data addressing the age, racial, and educational attainment characteristics
of the population in the PMA and the City of Richmond.
TABLE 11: SELECTED POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Primary
Market Area City of
Richmond
2015 Population by Age ‐ Percent Under 5 years 7.4% 6.4%5 to 9 years 7.2% 5.9%10 to 14 years 6.0% 4.9%15 to 17 years 3.1% 2.9%18 to 20 years 3.4% 6.0%21 to 24 Years 6.1% 7.8%25 to 34 Years 21.7% 18.7%35 to 44 Years 12.4% 12.0%45 to 54 Years 11.8% 11.6%55 to 64 Years 11.3% 11.6%65 to 74 Years 5.6% 6.9%75 to 84 Years 2.8% 3.4%85+ Years 1.1% 1.9%Median Age in 2015 (in Years) 32.8 33.6
2015 Population by Race/Ethnicity ‐ PercentWhite Alone 24.2% 42.0%African American Alone 71.1% 48.9%Asian and Pacific Islander Alone 1.5% 2.4%Some Other Race 0.8% 4.1%Two or More Races 2.4% 2.6%Hispanic* 2.1% 6.6%
2015 Population by Educational Attainment ‐ Percent**Less than 9th Grade 7.8% 7.6%Some High School, No Diploma 14.9% 10.9%High School Graduate 24.6% 22.8%Some College, No Degree 18.7% 18.6%Associate's Degree 6.2% 5.7%Bachelor's Degree 18.5% 21.1%Master's Degree 5.4% 9.0%Professional Degree 3.3% 3.1%Doctorate Degree 0.6% 1.3% *Hispanics are included in the above population by race percentages. **Statistics are for population 25+ years. Sources: US Census Bureau, Nielsen, RES
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 25
The age distribution of the PMA’s population differs somewhat from that of the City as a whole. In 2015,
an estimated 9.5 percent of the PMA population is 65 years old and older; for the City, the percentage is
12.2 percent. However, for the age cohort 55 to 64, the percentages are similar, 11.3 percent in the
PMA and 11.6 percent in Richmond. The PMA has a higher percentage of population age 25 to 34 than
the City, 21.7 percent and 18.7 percent, respectively, which is consistent with reports from Realtors that
young professionals are purchasing homes in the PMA. The larger percentages of younger people in the
PMA are reflected in the 2015 median age, which is 32.8 years old.
The PMA has a higher concentration of African‐Americans than the City. Over 71 percent of the 2015
PMA population is estimated to be African‐American. Overall, the PMA is relatively less racially and
ethnically diverse than the City.
The PMA also has a higher percentage of adults 25 years and older who did not complete high school
(22.7 percent in the PMA versus 18.4 percent in the City). Of the PMA’s adults, 49.5 percent have a high
school diploma or have attended some college and/or obtained an Associate’s Degree; for the City, a
similar percentage of adults, 47.1 have this level of educational attainment. In the PMA 27.8 percent of
adults has a Bachelor, Graduate, or Professional Degree; the percentage for the City is much higher, 34.4
percent.
Households by Household Size – All Households
Information about household sizes in the East End PMA is an important indicator of the sizes of housing
units that are needed. Table 12 presents the information for the PMA and also for the City of Richmond.
The data indicate strong demand for housing units having one and two bedrooms to accommodate
households with one and two persons, as well as some three person households. In the PMA 68.1
percent of all households either are one person or two person households; in the City of Richmond
overall, the percentage is even higher, 69.8 percent. It is worth noting that demand also is evident for an
increment of three‐bedroom units for which the average household size is 4.5 persons. In the PMA, 13.0
percent of households have four or five persons.
TABLE 12: HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF PERSONS, 2015 ESTIMATES
PMA City of Richmond
Number Percent Number Percent
1 Person 4,893 39.3% 35,379 38.1%
2 Person 3,580 28.8% 29,431 31.7%
3 Person 1,904 15.3% 13,642 14.7%
4 Person 1,076 8.6% 8,044 8.7%
5 Person 548 4.4% 3,675 4.0%
6 Person 241 1.9% 1,564 1.7%
7+ Person 205 1.6% 1,079 1.2%
Total Households 12,447 100.0% 92,814 100.0%
Sources: Nielsen, Inc.; RES
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 26
Households by Household Size – Senior Households
As would be expected, senior renter households include large percentages of one and two person
households. The percentages are higher for households 62 and older than for households with a
householder 55 and older. RES purchased special tabulations of PMA households by income, size,
tenure, and age from Ribbon Demographics. The tabulations, which are based on data compiled by
Nielsen, Inc., include estimates for 2015 of the number of renter households by the number of persons
in the household. These so‐called “HISTA tabulations” (Households by Income, Size, Tenure, and Age)
provide household sizes for various age cohorts. Table 13 presents 2015 estimates for renter households
with householders 55 and older and 62 and older by number of persons. The vast majority of renter
households with householders 55 and older (83.4 percent) include only one or two persons. The
percentage is even higher, 84.8 percent, for households 62 and older. Clearly, the bedroom mix
proposed for the Subject Property is appropriate for a senior rental property.
TABLE 13: PMA RENTER HOUSEHOLDS 55+ AND 62+ BY NUMBER OF PERSONS,
2015 ESTIMATES
Households 55+ Households 62+
Number Percent Number Percent
1 Person 1,352 66.8% 837 71.7%
2 Person 336 16.6% 153 13.1%
3 Person 152 7.5% 95 8.1%
4 Person 88 4.3% 52 4.5%
5+ Person 96 4.7% 30 2.6%
Total Households 2,024 100.0% 1,167 100.0%
Sources: Nielsen, Inc.; RES
PMA Households by Tenure
As shown in Table 14, the estimated 2015 percentage of vacant housing units in the PMA is high, 15.1
percent, and far higher than in the City of Richmond.
TABLE 14: OCCUPANCY AND OWNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS IN THE PMA AND RICHMOND, 2015
PMA City of Richmond
Number Percent Number Percent
2015 Housing Unit
Occupied Units 12,447 84.7% 92,814 89.1%
Owner Occupied 3,885 26.5% 39,613 38.0%
Renter Occupied 8,562 58.3% 53,201 51.1%
Vacant Units 2,241 15.3% 11,327 10.9%
Total Housing Units 14,688 104,141
Median Age, Owner Households 56.8 55.9
Median Age, Renter Households 37.8 38.2
Sources: Nielsen; RES
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 27
The PMA’s housing stock is largely renter‐occupied. During 2015, Nielsen estimates that 58.3 percent of
the occupied housing units were renter‐occupied. The PMA’s renter householders are younger than
owner householders; the median age is estimated to be 37.8. In contrast, owner householders in the
PMA have a median age estimated to be 56.8 years in 2015, or older than the median of 55.9 in the City.
This older median age is an indication that many households living in owner‐occupied units have aged in
place.
Estimates by Nielsen of the year owner‐occupied households moved into their homes are a further
indication that owners have been aging in place. For 2015, Nielsen has estimated that 40.4 percent of
PMA households living in owner‐occupied housing units moved to their homes before 1990, or at least
25 years ago.
PMA Households by Income
Table 15 presents estimates by Nielsen of household income during 2015 in the PMA and the City of
Richmond. The table also includes 2020 projections of median and average household income compared
with data in the 2000 Census (the 2010 Census did not include data on household income).
TABLE 15: 2015 HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME
PMA City of Richmond Income Band Number Percent Number Percent
Under $15,000 3,789 30.4% 20,171 21.7% $15,000 ‐ $24,999 1,495 12.0% 11,637 12.5% $25,000 ‐ $34,999 1,297 10.4% 11,092 12.0% $35,000 ‐ $49,999 1,757 14.1% 13,893 15.0% $50,000 ‐ $74,999 1,949 15.7% 15,061 16.2% $75,000 ‐ $99,999 987 7.9% 8,328 9.0% $100,000 ‐ $124,999 434 3.5% 4,453 4.8% $125,000 ‐ $149,999 314 2.5% 2,395 2.6% $150,000 ‐ $199,999 210 1.7% 2,696 2.9% $200,000 ‐ $249,999 85 0.7% 968 1.0% $250,000 ‐ $499,999 105 0.8% 1,501 1.6% $500,000 and over 25 0.2% 619 0.7%
Median Household Income2000 Census $21,104 $31,7142015 Estimate $32,244 $38,7862020 Projection $33,166 $39,502
Average Household Income2000 Census $29,236 $46,2362015 Estimate $45,807 $56,9292020 Projection $47,011 $58,140
Note: Percentages may not add due to rounding. Sources: US Census Bureau; Nielsen; RES
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 28
The 2015 estimates indicate that 30.4 percent of PMA households had incomes less than $15,000, as
opposed to 21.7 percent of all Richmond households. The result is significantly lower median and
average household incomes in the PMA during 1015.
However, the household income data also show that the PMA has households with a mix of incomes,
albeit at lower percentages than in the City of Richmond. Over half of PMA households (57.5 percent)
are estimated to have annual household incomes above $25,000; 33.0 percent of households are
estimated to have a household income greater than $50,000 per year. Percentages of higher income
households in the City are higher, again reflecting the higher median incomes. In Richmond, 65.7
percent of households have incomes estimated to be greater than $25,000 annually, but the same
percentage, 33.0 percent, have annual incomes of $50,000 and higher. In general, the distribution of
households by income is more even in the City overall than in the PMA, largely because the City has a
lower percentage of households estimated to have incomes below $15,000.
PMA Senior Households 62+ by Income and Tenure
RES used the HISTA special tabulations of households by income, size, tenure, and age from Ribbon
Demographics to examine the number of elderly households with householder 62 and older by income
and tenure. Table 16 presents estimates for 2015 and projections for 2020.
TABLE 16: PMA HOUSEHOLDS 62+ BY INCOME BAND AND TENURE
Renter Households Owner Households Total Households
Income Band 2015 2020 Change 2015 2020 Change 2015 2020 Change
$0 ‐ $10,000 374 459 85 153 183 30 527 642 115
$10,000 ‐ $20,000 361 443 82 379 421 42 740 864 124
$20,000 ‐ $30,000 119 155 36 197 235 38 316 390 74
$30,000 ‐ $40,000 113 148 35 274 334 60 387 482 95
$40,000 ‐ $50,000 50 54 4 122 158 36 172 212 40
$50,000 ‐ $60,000 42 50 8 128 161 33 170 211 41
$60,000 ‐ $75,000 31 44 13 70 93 23 101 137 36
$75,000 ‐ $100,000 36 52 16 86 104 18 122 156 34
$100,000 ‐ $125,000 12 19 7 35 54 19 47 73 26
$125,000 ‐ $150,000 15 16 1 21 33 12 36 49 13
$150,000 ‐ $200,000 5 9 4 7 6 ‐1 12 15 3
$200,000 and over 9 14 5 9 10 1 18 24 6
Totals 1,167 1,463 296 1,481 1,792 311 2,648 3,255 607
Sources: Nielsen, Inc.; Ribbon Demographics; RES
Consistent with the 2015 income estimates presented in Table 15 for PMA households in all age cohorts,
the tabulations of PMA renter households 62+ show high percentages have extremely low incomes.
During 2015, 32.0 percent of PMA renter households had annual incomes estimated to be below
$10,000, and an additional 30.9 percent of households were estimated to have incomes between
$10,000 and $20,000. The percentages of renter households 62+ in these two lowest income bands are
expected to change only marginally from 2015 to 2020. However, the number of households is
projected to increase by 167, which represents 56.4 percent of the projected household growth during
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 29
the five‐year period. Therefore, demand for elderly housing for extremely low‐income renter
households is projected to increase. Some of the change may be the result of inflation. The change does
not appear to be related to changing tenure patterns, however. The number of owner households in the
PMA also is projected to increase by 2020, albeit at a slower pace for extremely low‐income owner
households.
The VHDA definition of elderly is 65 and older while Ribbon Demographics uses the HUD age cohorts of
55+ and 62+ for the special HISTA tabulations; therefore, adjustments to the 65+ definition have been
made where needed by assuming even distributions of households within age cohorts and income
bands.
Residential Building Permits
Table 17 provides annual residential building permit data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau and
available through HUD for the City of Richmond as a whole from 2000 through 2014. From 2005 through
2008, the total number of permitted units declined steadily and remained low during 2009. Since 2009,
the total number of permits has fluctuated, but there was a 13‐year peak in 2013 resulting from the
large number of permits issued for units in five or more family (multifamily) structures. Commencing
after 2005 and continuing until 2011, the number of single‐family permits declined from a level of 525 in
2005 to only 92 permits in 2011. During the time frame since 2011, single‐family permits generally have
moved upward, to a 2014 level of 182 permits. Despite the gains, the number of single‐family permits
has remained far below the 2005 peak. Further, permits for residential buildings in the City overall
during 2014 were far lower than during 2013 because of the decline in the number of units permitted in
multifamily structures. Preliminary data for 2015 through August indicate a similar number of single‐
family permits during 2015, but a further decline in permits for multifamily units.
TABLE 17: PERMITS FOR NEW PRIVATELY‐OWNED RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Year Single‐Family Two‐Family Three‐ and Four‐Family
Five or More Family Total
2000 170 24 76 0 2702001 179 2 3 99 2832002 161 8 35 312 5162003 279 6 68 142 4952004 319 8 0 71 3982005 525 0 3 226 7542006 483 14 18 214 7292007 356 6 0 202 5642008 253 4 0 101 3582009 139 2 0 220 3612010 126 24 0 457 6072011 92 6 3 242 3432012 119 102 0 619 8402013 106 28 4 711 8492014 182 38 0 331 551
Note: Counts are by number of units, not buildings. Sources: US Census Bureau; RES
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 30
Demographic Trends
Analysis of demographic data for the East End PMA show several trends that are relevant
considerations.
The population and number of households in the PMA are growing. There has been population
and household growth since 2010. Additional projected growth will add to demand for the new
rental units proposed at the Old Armstrong High School site, including demand for units at the
Subject Property for households 62 and older. Between 2015 and 2020, Nielsen is projecting a
total gain of 1,048 households in the PMA, including 607 renter and owner households 62 years
old and older. The age and income tabulations are included in Appendix A for reference.
The PMA has a high percentage of very poor households. The income data presented in Tables
15 and 16 show that the PMA is home to large numbers of very poor households, including
households 62 and older. As shown in Table 15, the PMA percentage of households in all age
cohorts with incomes under $15,000 is far higher than for the City of Richmond. The disparity in
projections of 2020 median income in both areas indicates the PMA will continue to lag the City
because of the high percentage of households in this lowest income band.
Special tabulations of households by income and tenure confirm the high percentage of very
poor renter households 62 and older and living in the PMA. While the units at the Subject
Property are to be a relocation resource for households 62+ who are now living at Creighton
Court, there is ample additional demand for the 45 proposed units. The addition of these units
will address a small increment of the PMA demand for elderly renters; the availability of the RAD
income‐based subsidies for these units is very important because a high percentage of these
households are too poor to qualify for LIHTC‐only units.
The PMA has a high percentage of households 62 years old and older who are living in owner‐
occupied housing units. For 2015 the HISTA estimates for the PMA show that a high percentage
of households 62 and older, 2,086 households, are one and two person households. Of these
households, 52.5 percent are estimated to be living in owner‐occupied units while 47.5 of
households are renters. Growth is projected by 2020 for both owners and renters in households
with one or two persons. However, the percentage of households living in owner‐occupied
housing units is projected to decline while the percentage of renter households is projected to
increase. One reason may be that some owners will sell their homes and move to rental
housing.
PMA (and Richmond) Households are small in size. Consistent with the above, the analyses of
households by number of persons shows, clearly, that the majority of all PMA households are
small, having one or two persons. An estimated 84.8 percent of the PMA’s renter households
62+ were one or two person households. This trend is not expected to change during the next
five years.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 31
E. COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT
RES has compiled information about the rental housing stock in the region, City of Richmond, and the
delineated PMA to reach conclusions about the competitive environment, the performance of rental
housing, and housing market conditions that will influence the performance of the Subject Property. We
have surveyed a sample of market‐rate properties in the PMA, focusing on newer mid‐rise elevator
structures. While it was possible to identify this type of property in the PMA, virtually all are located in
the western portion in and near Shockoe Bottom, Shockoe Valley, Tobacco Row, and Richmond’s Central
Business District. Two exceptions in the PMA are rental properties that do not have elevators: The Villas
of Oakwood, a renovated complex offering one, two, and three bedroom units; and The Lofts at
Beckstoffers Mill, all of which are one‐bedroom units. Because of its proximity and its one‐bedroom
units, RES has included this property within the sample.
Consistent with VHDA guidelines, all LIHTC properties in the PMA are included in this analysis in a
separate section. However, family properties are not considered to be competitive with the senior
housing units at the Subject Property
Housing Stock in the Region and PMA
Data available from REIS, a firm that compiles information about the performance of apartments in U.S.
markets, indicates a vacancy rate of 4.3 percent at the end of the third quarter 2015. The REIS data,
which are for market‐rate apartments in the Richmond metropolitan area, show a decline from the
same quarter during 2014. The current quarter rent of $880 reported for market‐rate properties
represents a two percent increase from the third quarter of 2014. A year‐end 2014 report by REIS for
the Airport Submarket, which includes the PMA for the Subject Property, provided a vacancy rate of 5.6
percent for the quarter ending December 31, 2014 and a 5.6 percent annualized vacancy rate for 2014.
The REIS third quarter 2015 report for the submarket is not yet available. Data compiled by another
firm, Real Data, during August 2015 placed the vacancy rate in the region at a higher level, 6.8 percent,
which was attributed to the large number of units added to the region’s supply during the preceding 18
months.
Additions to the PMA Housing Stock
Several firms have developed estimates of additions to the multifamily housing market in the Richmond
area and the City. Real Data reported during August 2015 that an additional 4,811 units were proposed
in the Richmond metropolitan area. Of these, about 40 percent, or 1,925 new units, are reported to be
planned in the Central Submarket, which is the area of the City located north of the James River. This
submarket, which is larger than the PMA for the Subject Property, includes downtown Richmond and
areas northwest of Interstate 195.
The most recent REIS construction report, which is for the end of the second quarter 2015, presents
more conservative estimates of multifamily properties under construction, planned, and proposed that
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 32
are located within the PMA for the Subject Property. Only one project with 76 units is listed as under
construction on North 19th Street in Shockoe Bottom. One additional rental project in Shockoe Bottom
with 140 units is planned; another development with 71 units also is planned, but is listed as a
condominium. Proposed developments listed by REIS include the Old Armstrong High School
development with a total of 300 units and a 160‐unit apartment development near East Grace and
North 20th Streets.
Recent press articles report on a proposed 285‐unit apartment development at the Cary Street Bus
Terminal for which community meetings recently have been held. Excluding Old Armstrong High School,
these additional multifamily properties would add a total of 732 additional residential units to the PMA
inventory, including the proposed condominium development. In relation to the existing inventory in
the PMA, which is estimated to total of 14,688 housing units, the identified additional multifamily units
represents five percent of the current stock.
There are legitimate concerns about the likelihood of overbuilding in Richmond urban and suburban
markets, which would bring longer absorption periods, more limited rent increases, and possible rent
concessions. However, the majority of the additional proposed multifamily will be luxury developments
and not affordable for elderly households with very low incomes who will comprise demand for the 45
units at the Subject Property. Therefore, the market‐rate residential developments that are under
construction, planned, and proposed in the PMA are not expected to compete with the Subject
Property.
Housing Units and Vacancy in the PMA
As presented previously in Table 14, Nielsen has estimated a total of 14,688 housing units in the PMA
during 2015, of which 84.7 percent are occupied and 15.3 percent are vacant, which is a higher vacancy
rate than the estimate of 10.9 percent for the City of Richmond during 2015. The Nielsen 2015 estimate
of total PMA housing units represents an increase of 1,202 units from the total of 13,486 units reported
in the 2010 Census. The higher number of residential units is consistent with the above reports of
additions to the multifamily inventory in the PMA.
The 2010 Census reported a PMA vacancy rate of 16.6 percent and included a breakdown indicating
issues with the condition of vacant units. Of the vacant units, 730 were classified as “other vacant” and
were not being offered for‐sale or for‐rent. This classification usually means that the units are not likely
to be habitable housing units. During 2010, units in this classification represented 5.4 percent of the
PMA’s housing units.
Comparable Market‐Rate Properties
Table 18 provides information from the RES survey of comparable market‐rate properties. Table 19 then
presents details about amenities and apartment features in the properties, and Map 8 shows the
locations of the properties in the PMA. Photographs of the properties also are provided.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 33
TABLE 18: SURVEY OF SELECTED COMPARABLE MARKET‐RATE RENTAL APARTMENT BUILDINGSYear # of Included
Project Name / Address Occupancy Built Units Configuration Costs
Lava Lofts 100.0% 2013 53 1‐BR, 1‐BA 580 ‐ 782 $925 ‐ $1,025 $1.59 ‐ $1.77 Basic Cable
310 N. 33rd St. 4 Stories 2‐BR, 1‐BA Internet
Richmond, VA 23223 Trash
855‐969‐3331
Contact: Kimberly Pitts
Old Stone Row 93.8% 2011 96 1‐BR, 1‐BA 562 ‐ 594 $1,033 ‐ $1,103 $1.84 ‐ $1.86 All Util ities
2005 E. Franklin Street 6 2BR avail 4 Stories 2‐BR, 2‐BA 831 ‐ 954 $1,399 ‐ $1,599 Basic Cable
Richmond, VA 23223 Has 21 Internet
Office: 2010 E. Main Street VHDA
804.495‐2181 Units
Contact: Lucia Zahringer, Legend
Terrace 202 96.6% 2014 58 1‐BR, 1‐BA
202 N. 20th Street Vacant: 4 Stories 2‐BR, 2BA All Util ities,
Richmond, VA 23223 1 1BR 3‐BR, 2BA Basic Cable,
804.495‐2181 1 2BR Internet
Contact: Lucia Zahringer, Legend
Trolley Commons 2.7% 2011 74 1‐BR, 1‐BA All Util ities,
2020 E. Main Street Vacant: 4 Stories 2‐BR, 2BA Baic Internet,
Richmond, VA 23223 1 1BR Direct TV
804‐440‐7368 1 2BR
Contact: Lucia Zahringer, Legend
Cedar Broad Apartments 96.1% 2011 204 1‐BR, 1‐BA 538 ‐ 574 $809 ‐ $1,077 $1.50 ‐ $1.88 Basic Cable,
1820 E. Broad St. Vacant: 2‐BR, 2 & 2.5‐BA 756 ‐ 835 $1,133 ‐ $1,388 $1.50 ‐ $1.66 Internet, Sewer &
Richmond, VA 23223 4 1BR 3‐BR, 2.5‐BA 1,064 ‐ 1,073 $1,509 ‐ $1,599 $1.42 ‐ $1.49 Trash,
877‐873‐6707 2 2BR iPod Dock Sta.
Contact: Jordan 2 3BR
Lofts and Upper Lofts at Canal Walk 98.1% 3 Phases: 310 Studio, 1‐BA 388 ‐ 700 $866 ‐ $1,721 $2.23 ‐ $2.46 All Util ities,
10 S. 20th Street 2003 1‐BR, 1‐BA Loft 560 ‐ 850 $1,070 ‐ $1,780 $1.91 $2.09 High Speed
Richmond, VA 23223 2005 !‐BR, 1‐BA 535 ‐ 750 $988 ‐ $2,406 $1.85 $3.21 Internet, Cable
804‐643‐5638 2008 2‐BR. 2BA 970 ‐ 1,041 $1,666 ‐ $2,639 $1.72 $2.54 with HBO
Contact: Jazmyn Beachan 2‐BR. 2BA
Cameron Kinney (at River Lofts 88.2% All Buildings 196 1‐BR, 1‐BA 700 ‐ 1,261 $837 ‐ $1,682 $1.20 ‐ $1.33 Cold Water
at Tobacco Row) 1991 2‐BR, 2‐BA 884 ‐ 1,080 $947 ‐ $2,077 $1.07 ‐ $1.92 Sewer & Trash
2400 E. Cary St. to 720 in 3‐BR, 2‐BA 1396 ‐ 1620
Richmond, VA 23223 2010 all Bldgs
804‐495‐4096
Contact: Alexis
2001 East 97.3% 2011 75 Studia, 1‐BA 520 ‐ 580 $775 ‐ $1,080 $1.49 ‐ $1.86 High Speed
2001 East Broad St. Has 1‐BR, 1‐BA 650 ‐ 768 $865 ‐ $1,150 $1.33 ‐ $1.50 Internet,
Richmond, VA 23223 VHDA 2‐BR, 2‐BA 800 ‐ 1,050 $960 ‐ $1,675 $1.20 $1.60 Sewer & Trash
804‐313‐6635 Units
Contact: Lisa
American Tobacco Center 94.8% 2006 153 1‐BR, 1‐BA 400 ‐ 844 $878 ‐ $1,268 $2.20 ‐ $1.50 Basic Cable
2001 E. Grace St. to 2‐BR, 2‐BA 800 ‐ 1,238 $1,206 ‐ $2,031 $1.51 ‐ $1.64 Internet
Richmond, VA 23223 2008 3‐BR, 2‐BA 1,100 ‐ 1,317 $1,571 ‐ $2,031 $1.43 ‐ $1.54 Trash
804‐377‐9900
Contact: Ben Ferry
Shockoe Valley View Apts. Lease Up 2014 151 1‐BR, 1‐BA 544 ‐ 586 $859 ‐ $1,029 $1.58 ‐ $1.76 Basic Cable
1904 Cedar St. 10 units 2‐BR, 2‐BA 849 ‐ 892 $1,179 ‐ $1,359 $1.39 ‐ $1.52 Internet
Richmond, VA 23223 remained Trash
804‐977‐0797 9/2015 Leasing pace ‐
Contact: New person in Leasing 93.4% About 9 units/mo
Nearby East End Propery ‐ Not an Elevator Building
The Lofts at Beckstoffers Mill 100.0% 2011 22 1‐BR, 1‐BA 746 ‐ 900 $850 ‐ $950 $1.14 ‐ $0.94 Sewer & Trash
1207 N. 28th St. Has High Speed
Richmond, VA 23223 11 Internet
804‐354‐9455 Work‐
Contact: Greta Harris force
Information only provided for two vacant units
557 $1,125 $2.02
1,009 $1,499 $1.49
N/A ‐ None N/A
Source: Interviews conducted by RES during February, September, and October 2015.
Available
Asking
Square Feet Rent Rent / Sq. Ft.
860 $1,350 $1.57
Market‐Rate Rents
1,300 N/A
1,045
$1.68
652
903
$1,209
$1,529
$1.85
$1.69
Information only provided for two vacant units
N/A
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 34
TABLE 19: SUMMARY OF AMENITIES AND APARTMENT FEATURES IN SELECTED MARKET‐RATE RENTAL PROPERTIES TABLE 21: SUMMARY OF AMENITIES AND APARTMENT FEATURES IN SELECTED MARKET RATE RENTAL PROPERTIES
Property Amenities /
Apartment Features Lava Lofts Old Stone Row Terrace 202 Trolley Commons Cedar Broad
Lofts and Upper Lofts at
Canal Walk
Cameron‐Kinney
(River Lofts at Tobacco
Row) 2001 East
American Tobacco
Center
Shockoe Valley
View Apts.
The Lofts at
Beckstoffers Mill
Management RVA ApartmentsLegend Property
Group
Legend Property
Group
Legend Property
GroupMatrix Main Street Realty Forest City Bonaventure Pegasus Residential Genesis Properties
Better Housing
Coalition
Property Amenities
Property Type 4 Story Mid‐Rise 4 Story Mid‐Rise 4 Story Mid‐Rise 4 Story Mid‐Rise 4 Story Mid‐Rise 4 Story Mid‐Rises, 7 Story 4 StoryMid‐Rise Mid‐Rise Mid‐Rise Mid‐Rise Lofts /former Factory
Parking Surface, Reserved Wait l ist for Garage Garage parking Garage parking Surface or Garage Free surface, Garage Surface or Covered Garage Surface or Garage Gated Surface Surface or Garage
Monthly Parking Costs $85/Mo for Reserved Additional Fee $75/Mo. $50/Mo $85 or $100 $100 for garage $35‐$120 $70 or $100 $45 Included
Concierge / Doorman x
Fitness Center X X X X X Cardio, strength X
Swimming Pool Heated Outdoor Outdoor Rooftop w/Sundeck Outdoor
Resident Lounge X X /Whirlpool X X X X
Business Center X X x X X
Extra Storage $50/Month X x X
Play Area
Outdoor Open Space Rooftop Deck X X X Roof Deck BBQ/Picnic BBQ/Picnic, Courtyard X X X X
On‐Site Management X X X x X X X X X X
On‐Site Maintenance X X X x X X X X X X
Special Amenities Restaurant, Dog Wash Terrace w/Firepit Breakfast/Coffee Breakfast/Coffee Exposed brick, beams, Theater, Boardroom Cyber Café, Cyber Café, Bike Storage, Community Garden,
& Grill Concierge Concierge Pet Run Roof Deck Coffee Bar Dog Park Green Development
Roof Tan Fac, Social Events
Concessions Offered None None None None Waiving None 1 mo. free on 1 yr lease None Reduced Application One month free on NoneSecurity Deposit No app or amenity fee Fee free but ended.
Apartment Features
Heat Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric NAV
Stove Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric
Hot Water Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric NAV
Dishwasher X X X X X X X X X X X
Garbage Disposal X X X x X X X X X X X
Automatic Ice Maker X X X X X Newer Units Only X X X NAV
Washer Dryer X X X X X X X X X X
Microwave X X X x X X x X X X X
Air Conditioning Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central
Hi Speed Internet X X X X X X X x X X X
Private Balconies Some Units X X Some Units Some Units X Some Units X Some Units Some Patios
Mini Blinds X X Blinds X X X X X NAV
Flooring Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood HW & Carpet Hardwood HW or Carpet HW & Carpet Concrete or HW Finished Concrete
Kitchen Counters Granite Granite Granite Granite Granite Granite Granite in Newer Units Granite Granite Granite Granite
Kitchen Floor Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Hardwood Ceramic or Vinyl Hardwood Ceramic Concrete or HW Concrete
Bathroom Floor Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic or Vinyl Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic NAV
Bathtub Surround One‐Piece Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic One‐Piece Ceramic Ceramic Ceramic One‐Piece One‐Piece NAV
Pets Dogs & Cats Dogs & Cats Dogs & Cats Dogs & Cats Cats Only; 2 Limit Dogs & Cats, 2 Limit Dogs & Cats Cats & Small Dogs Cats & Small Dogs Dogs & Cats
Pet Fee $300 Fee $200, Max of 2 $200, Max of 2 $200, Max of 2 $300; $200 more if 2nd $350 $250 Fee per pet $350 $250 Fee No Fee
Pet Rent $25/Month None None None $10/Month $25/Month per pet $25/Month per pet $10/Month $20/Month
Source: Interviews conducted by RES during February, September, and October 2015.
Shared Fitness Center ‐ Shockoe Valley Heights Bldgs.
Shared Outdoor‐Shockoe Valley Heights Bldgs.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 35
MAP 8: LOCATION OF COMPARABLE MARKET‐RATE PROPERTIES IN THE PMA
Lava Lofts Old Stone Row Terrace 202
Trolley Commons Cedar Broad Apartments 2001 East
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 36
The variation in rental housing within the PMA is
apparent from the listed properties. To the extent
possible, RES has surveyed smaller properties that
are comparable and that have elevators and fewer
than five stories because the Subject Property is a
smaller three‐story elevator building. Similarly,
properties with one‐bedroom and two‐bedroom
units were a focus. As noted previously, most of the
properties are concentrated in the western part of
the PMA because the majority of new development
projects – both new construction and conversions –
have been occurring in this portion of the PMA.
Development in Shockoe Bottom, Tobacco Row, and
Church Hill has continued because these
neighborhoods are attractive places to live.
Redevelopment is, however, pushing from these
neighborhoods into Union Hill, Chimborazo, and to a
lesser extent, Church Hill North.
Where information about occupancy was provided
by management or available through third party
sources, most of the properties had occupancy rates
above 94 percent. Two properties, Lava Lofts and
Beckstoffer’s Mill, reported no vacant units; Terrace 202 and Trolley Commons each had two units
available. No information was available for Cameron‐Kinney, which is one of the properties at River Lofts
at Tobacco Row. However, River Lofts at Tobacco Row had numerous units available in the property
overall, which has a total of 720 units. The higher vacancies at this complex probably are the reason for
incentives being offered complex‐wide during October 2015. There is one month’s free rent and the
application and amenities fee are being waived. While the buildings are very attractive and the units are
Lofts and Upper Lofts at Canal Walk
Cameron Kinney (River Lofts at Tobacco Row)
Shockoe Valley View Apartments
American Tobacco Center
Beckstoffe’rs Mill
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 37
large, this is an older complex and it does not have some of the features of newer rentals. For example,
washers/dryers are not provided in units at Cameron‐Kinney, and it is the only property surveyed that
does not offer these appliances. In addition, none of the other surveyed properties had an activities fee.
Rents for one‐bedroom units ranged from a low of $0.96 per square foot at The Lofts at Beckstoffer’s
Mill to a high of $3.21 per square foot at the top of the rent range at Lofts and Upper Lofts at Canal
Walk. Rents at the latter property include all utilities, cable, and Internet. The most representative rent
range for the properties surveyed is from about $1.50 to $1.86 per square foot for a one‐bedroom, one‐
bath unit and about $1.50 to $1.66 per square foot for a two‐bedroom, two‐bath unit. With the
exception of Cameron‐Kinney and other properties at River Lofts at Tobacco Row, all of the properties
surveyed were either developed or renovated more recently than 2010.
Only a handful of properties were offering concessions, despite analysts’ concerns about overbuilding in
the broader Richmond market. Concessions at two properties were small. Cedar Broad is offering
reduced a security deposit with approved credit and American Tobacco Center is offering a reduced
application fee. Shockoe Valley View continues to offer one month free; River Lofts at Tobacco Road is
offering the aforementioned concessions that seem likely to continue beyond October 2015.
A somewhat surprising utility‐related finding was the number of rental complexes that were including
high speed Internet in the rent. In addition, eight properties also included at least basic cable service in
the rent. One property added HBO; another had Direct TV.
Rents at four properties – those managed by Legend Properties (Old Stone Row, Terrace 202, and
Trolley Commons) and Lofts and Upper Lofts at Canal Walk managed by Main Street Realty – include
cable, Internet, and all other utilities in the rent. Both companies market this as a major convenience
for the resident and have higher per square foot rents because the utilities are included. Since
occupancy is very high at virtually all of the complexes, this strategy seems to be successful. In addition
to the four properties that include all utilities in the rent, one additional property surveyed (Cameron‐
Kinney) includes cold water in the rent. Beckstoffer’s Mill assesses a water charge of $25 per month per
unit. All of the surveyed properties include sewer and trash collection in the base rent.
Amenities vary depending on the property, although only one lacks a fitness facility. The collection of
buildings managed by Legend Properties, collectively called Shockoe Valley Heights, shares a 24‐hour
fitness facility that has cardio and a strength training center. Tobacco Row offers the most amenities of
the properties surveyed: however, this property is the only one with a one‐time $250 amenity fee. Some
properties offer package acceptance, but none has a doorman or concierge service.
Interior features and finishes at the surveyed properties are standard for today’s multifamily rental
properties. The older, renovated properties have exposed brick walls, beams, and high ceilings adding to
their curb appeal. Most of the properties have hardwood floors, stainless appliances, and granite
countertops, although only the newer properties offer automatic ice makers. Most had community
spaces – a community room, resident lounge, and outdoor space. Most had outdoor pools with Wi‐Fi
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 38
and a deck. One complex has a heated pool with whirlpool. Several properties offer coffee bars and/or
cyber cafes. Other community amenities are pet‐oriented, including a dog wash, pet run, and pet area.
While most properties accept cats and dogs, most limit residents to two pets. Some properties limit the
maximum pet weight; others restrict some breeds.
Affordable Housing
RES surveyed all affordable housing properties in the East End PMA, consistent with VHDA guidelines. A
total of four LIHTC properties in the PMA for seniors 55+ and elderly 62+ were surveyed. One additional
property located just outside of the PMA also was surveyed to ascertain whether the PMA should be
expanded to include it. RES also gathered information on ten affordable LIHTC general occupancy
properties, all of which are located in the PMA. Eight of the properties are in service; two have not yet
started construction. Table 20 provides information about the properties and Map 9 shows their
locations. Photographs also are provided.
RES is of the opinion that development of the 45 rental units at the Subject Property for households 62
and older will have no impact on existing, competitive, LIHTC properties in the PMA, based on analyses
that have been completed. All of the operating affordable housing properties surveyed have very high
occupancy and many properties have extensive waiting lists, especially those with rents based on 30
percent of income. In addition to high occupancy at affordable properties that are privately owned,
officials of RRHA reported having opened their waiting list for two days and receiving 25,000
applications. RRHA now has a waiting list of 10,000 and will maintain the list at that level. Based on this
information, ample demand for additional affordable housing in the PMA, and additional new affordable
units will have no impact on existing LIHTC properties.
Affordable Senior Properties in the PMA
RES surveyed the five affordable senior LIHTC properties located in the PMA and one property, Carter
Woods, located outside of the PMA. Two of the properties, Bacon Retirement Community and Bowler
Retirement Community, are former schools that have been converted to senior housing. Both properties
have units at 50 and 60 percent AMI. They have no additional project‐based subsidies. Bacon had at
least one vacant unit during September 2015; Bowler was reported to be fully leased.
Church Hill House and Fairmount House have separate addresses, but both are managed by the same
company from offices at Fairmount House. Both were built in 1985 and rehabilitated in 2005. The unit
mix includes studio and one‐bedroom units, all with Section 8 Project‐Based subsidies. Because of these
subsidies, households pay monthly rents that are based on 30 percent of income. Fairmount House has
a mix of studio and one‐bedroom units, along with one two‐bedroom market‐rate unit. Residents pay
their own electric bills. Church Hill House has a mix of studios and one‐bedroom units. Rents include all
utilities. Both properties are fully occupied; management maintains an 18‐month waiting list.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 39
TABLE 20: SURVEY OF PMA AFFORDABLE SENIOR RENTAL PROPERTIES
Waiting Year # of Included Subsidy /
Project Name Occupancy List Built Units Configuration Costs Program Amenities
Bacon Retirement Community 98.3% Yes‐ N/A 58 Total Units All Util ities LIHTC (55+) Elevator building
815 N 35th Street Not long Converted 57 1‐Br, 1BA Included 30 units @ laundry
Richmond, VA 23223 School 1 2‐BR, 1BA 50%
804‐644‐5607 28@ 60%
Contact: Cheryl Chamberlayne
Bowler Retirement Community 100.0% Yes‐ N/A 63 1‐BR 433 & 691 All Util ities LIHTC Elevator building
608 N 26th Street No details Converted Included 13 units @ laundryRichmond, VA 23223 School 50%
804‐644‐5607 50 @ 60%
Contact: Cheryl Chamberlayne
Church Hill House 100.0% 18 Mos. 1985 154 Total Units All Util ities LIHTC (62+)
2400 Burton Street Renovated 35 0‐BR, 1BA Included Section 8
Richmond, VA 23223 2005 119 1‐BR, 1‐BA Project‐Based
804‐344‐3260 50% AMI
Contact: Beth Miller, Manager
Fairmount House 100.0% 18 Mos. 1985 143 Total Units Tenants pay LIHTC (62+)
1501 N 21st Street Renovated 40 0‐BR, 1‐BA Electric Section 8
Richmond, VA 23223 2005 102 1‐BR, 1‐BA Project‐Based
804‐344‐3260 1 2‐BR, 1BA 50% AMI
Contact: Robin Miller, Manager
Somanath Senior Apartments 100.0% Yes 2013 39 Total Units All Util ities LIHTC (55+)
1208 N 28th Street 1‐BR, 1‐BA Included 50% AMI
Richmond, VA 23223 2‐BR, 2‐BA Maximum
804‐643‐1956
Contact:
Carter Woods (Phase I & II)* 100.0% Yes 2003 & 152 Total Units Cold Water LIHTC (62+)
301 Dabbs House Road 2005 102 1‐BR, 1‐BA Sewer & Trash 60% AMI
Richmond, VA 23223 6 1‐BR, Den
804‐222‐4395 44 2‐BR, 2‐BA
Contact: Bobbie Fields, Sr. Mgr.
Square
Feet Rent
Gas heat & hot water,
electric stove, CAC,
disposal860
636
N/A
760
$693
839 $832
$710
All tenants
pay 30% of
income for
Tenants pay
30% of
income for
Gas heat & hot water,
electric stove, CAC,
disposal
636
N/A $670
552
$800N/A
506
CAC, on‐site laundry
facility, dishwasher,
microwave
CAC, disposal, dishwasher,
l ibrary, business center,
exercise room, garden
patio, veranda, laundry
rooms and lounges on each
N/A
860
1,823 Market‐Rate
*Carter Woods i s outs ide of the PMA in Henrico County.Source: RES interviews with property managers conducted during September 2015, supplemented with information on VA Hous ing Search.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 40
MAP 9: LOCATION OF PMA AFFORDABLE SENIOR RENTAL PROPERTIES
Bowler Retirement Community
Church Hill House Fairmount House
Bacon Retirement Community Carter Woods
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 41
A fifth senior LIHTC property in the PMA is Somanath
Senior Apartments, which provides units for seniors
55 and older and with incomes below 50 percent
AMI. As is discussed below, this property is
considered to be the most comparable to the Subject
Property.
Located outside of the PMA, the sixth property,
Carter Woods I and II, is about three‐fourths mile
east of the city limits and located just off of Nine
Mile Road. As described below, this property is
considered to be the second most comparable senior
property to the Subject Property, albeit not located within the PMA. Because of its proximity to the
Subject Property and its attractiveness, RES inquired during interviews, including an interview with the
property manager, about whether residents of the East End were applying for units at Carter Woods.
The respondents noted that seniors living in the East End generally would not move to Carter Woods.
The notable exception has been “a few” East End seniors with family living in nearby areas of Henrico
County that are convenient to Carter Woods. Otherwise, seniors living in the PMA do not apply at Carter
Woods and, therefore, the delineation of the PMA for the Subject Property was limited to the City’s East
End. However, RES is of the opinion that Carter Woods is a very comparable property to the Subject
Property. It is a newer property, having been constructed during 2003 and 2005, and it is a three‐story
elevator structure. Occupancy is by elderly households 62 years old and older as proposed at the Subject
Property. Amenities are extensive, including a lobby and a community room, an outdoor patio and deck,
and a resident lounges and laundry rooms on each floor of the building.
Affordable Non‐Elderly Properties in the PMA
Table 21 on the following page presents information for the ten affordable properties for general
occupancy that are located in the PMA. Map 10 shows their locations, and photographs are provided.
RES surveyed the eight operating properties with LIHTCs and we included one additional property in the
survey, George Mason Square, which is a Section 8 property with the same management as Ashley Oaks
Apartments.
Two of the general occupancy properties, Jackson Ward and Tobacco Landing, have the same address.
Management reported 100 percent occupancy, but the total number of affordable units was reported to
be 62, a lower number than indicated on the list for both properties. The two properties have been
combined in Table 21.
Somanath Senior Apartments
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 42
TABLE 21: SURVEY OF PMA AFFORDABLE GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL PROPERTIES
Waiting Year # of Included Subsidy /
Project Name Occupancy List Built Units Configuration Costs Program Amenities
Ashe Gardens N/A N/A Not 40 Total Units N/A LIHTC LIHTC allocstion approved
2618 Whitcomb Street Built 28 2‐BR, 1.5‐BA 7 units @ 2014. Proposed amenities:
Richmond, VA 23223 12 3‐BR, 2.0‐BA 40% AMI range, refrigerator, disposal,
540‐382‐2002 Ext. 3312 33 @ 50% dishwasher,W/D hook‐ups,
Contact: Chris Newman CAC
Ashley Oaks Apartments 97.0% RAP wait 1976 250 2‐BR, 1‐BA $533 ‐ $800 Cold Water LIHTC
1402 Jennie Scher Road list closed 3‐BR, 1‐BA $578 ‐ $719 Sewer Section 236
Richmond, VA 23231 Wait l ist not 3‐BR, 1.5‐BA $597 ‐ $728 & Trash RAP
804‐222‐8776 required for 4‐BR, 1.5‐BA $661 ‐ $844
Contact: Property Manager Section 236
George Mason Square 95.0% No 1976 26 Total Units Cold Water Section 236
1402 Jennie Scher Road See Above 12 2‐BR, 1‐BA $469 ‐ $593 Sewer RAP
Richmond, VA 23231 14 3‐BR, 1.5‐BA $499 ‐ $634 & Trash
804‐222‐8776
Contact: Property Manager
Church Hil l North, Phase 1 N/A N/A Planned 60 Total Units Sewer Mixed‐Income CAC, range, dishwasher,
1611 North 31st Street 2016 8 1‐BR, 1BA 645 ‐ 670 & Trash 50 LIHTC ‐ 40%, disposal, in‐unit washer/dryer,
Richmond, VA 23223 Constr. 33 2‐BR, 1&1.5 BA 895 ‐ 950 $895 ‐ $915 50% & 60%; carpet/wood floor, blinds
202‐552‐2511 Start 19 3BR, 2&2.5 BA 1,260 ‐ 1,365 10 Market‐Rate Earthcraft Platinum
Contact: Colleen Bonnicklewis
Jefferson Mews 100.0% 4 Renovated 56 Total Units Cold Water LIHTC
600 Jefferson Avenue families 2014 1‐BR, 1‐BA Sewer HOME
Richmond, VA 23223 2‐BR, 1‐ 2.5‐BA & Trash
804‐643‐1956 3‐BR, 1.5‐BA
Contact: Lymbrina
Jefferson Townhouses 100.0% 6‐7 Renovated 218 1‐BR, 1‐BA Basic Cable, LIHTC
1951 Venable Street families 2008 2‐BR, 1‐BA $700 ‐ $710 Internet 60% AMI
Richmond, VA 23223 3‐BR, 1‐BA Sewer
877‐316‐7019 4‐BR, 2BA Trash
Contact: Carmelo
Market Slip 100.0% None NAV 30 Total Units Electric, LIHTC
2 S. 17th Street 23 1‐BR, 1‐BA $709 ‐ $850 Hot & Cold 60% AMI
Richmond, VA 23219 7 2‐BR, 2‐BA $950 ‐ ###### Water,
804‐649‐9900 Sewer, Trash
Contact: Property Manager Internet
CAC, controlled access,
garage parking, elevator,
package receiving,
dishwasher, disposal,
washer/dryer in unit
638
848
Varies $900
620 $610 CAC, gated community,
washer/dryer in unit,
microwave, dishwasher,
disposal, hardwood flooring,
patio, alarm system
770
920 $820
1,175 $940
LIHTC Rents
$509
$696
Security system, carpet,
washer/dryer hook‐ups,
porches/yard
Varies $673
Varies $812
NAV CAC, playground, laundry on‐
site, dishwasher, disposal,
mini‐blinds
NAV
NAV
NAV
CAC, dishwasher
944
1,074
N/A
880
1,072
Square Feet Rent
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 43
TABLE 21: SURVEY OF PMA AFFORDABLE GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL PROPERTIES CONTINUED
Waiting Year # of Included Subsidy /
Project Name Occupancy List Built Units Configuration Costs Program Amenities
Mallard Greens Townhouses 96.0% None Renovated 192 2‐BR, 1‐BA Cold Water LIHTC
2852 Fairfield Avenue 2009 Sewer 60% AMI
Richmond, VA 23223 & Trash
804‐225‐1828
Contact: Alexis
Oliver Crossing 99.0% 2‐3 years 1967 222 Total Units Gas, Water LIHTC
1329 Coalter Street 32 1‐BR, 1‐BA Section 8
Richmond, VA 23219 134 2‐BR, 1‐BA 741 ‐ 927
804‐643‐3959 56 3‐BR, 1‐BA
Contact: Property Manager
Tobacco Landing/Jackson Wa 96.8% Yes 1996 62 Total Units Electric, LIHTC
2701 E. Main Street 2 2BR 53 1‐BR, 1‐BA Hot & Cold 60% AMI
Richmond, VA 23223 Vac in Nov. 9 2‐BR, 2‐BA $950 ‐ $995 Water,
804‐649‐9900 Sewer, Trash
Contact: Lafonda Internet
825
Source: RES interviews with property managers conducted during September 2015, supplemented with information on VA Hous ing Search.
All tenants
pay 30% of
income for
Window A/C, community
room, playground, one‐site
laundry, surface parking
567
937
Window A/C, on‐site
laundry, elevator,
dishwasher, disposal, garage
parking
662 $850
1,000 $669 CAC, hardwood flooring,
dishwasher, extra storage, on‐
site laundry, playground,
community/fitness center,
business center
Square Feet Rent
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 44
MAP 10: LOCATION OF PMA AFFORDABLE GENERAL OCCUPANCY RENTAL PROPERTIES
Number of Affordable Units and Vacant Units
For the affordable senior properties surveyed, reports by property managers and information supplied
by VHDA indicate a total of 609 units. Only one unit was vacant, or an extremely low vacancy rate, below
one‐tenth of one percent. The number of units at affordable properties in the PMA for general
occupancy totals 1,056 units excluding the two LIHTC properties not yet built (Ashe Gardens and Church
Ashley Oaks ApartmentsMallard Greens Jefferson Mews
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 45
Hill North Phase 1) and RRHA’s public housing units. Of the
total, property managers reported 21 vacant units, or a
vacancy rate of 1.9 percent for general occupancy
affordable housing in the PMA, also a very low vacancy
percentage.
Waiting Lists for Affordable Units
Information about wait lists for affordable properties for
seniors and general occupancy varied. With the exception
of Fairfield House and Church Hill House that have project‐
based Section 8 subsidies and a waiting list of 18 months,
managers of senior properties reported that they have
waiting lists but provided no details. One property
reported just starting a waiting list. Three of the general
occupancy properties that are 100 percent occupied
reported that they do not have waiting lists. Two
properties would not provide information. One general
occupancy property, Oliver Crossing has Section 8 Project
Based subsidies and LIHTCs and reported a wait of two to
three years for a unit.
Additions to the PMA’s Affordable Housing Supply
As indicated previously, two additional LIHTC properties have been approved, both of which are for
general occupancy. Ashe Gardens, which received an LIHTC allocation during 2014, is a 40‐unit project in
four buildings to be constructed on a 1.8‐acre site at Whitcomb and Anniston Streets. No construction
start date has been announced. The second approved project is Phase 1 of the Church Hill North
redevelopment at the Old Armstrong High School site. There will be a total of 60 mixed‐income rental
units including 10 market‐rate units. Construction is scheduled to commence during the first quarter of
2016.
Evaluation of the Subject Property; Most Comparable Properties
The Subject Property is a relatively small elderly rental development to be constructed near the City’s
eastern border with Henrico County. While the location is somewhat distant from areas of the PMA now
seeing major revitalization and new development, the size and scale of the Old Armstrong High School
site and plans for the development of a large new residential neighborhood are advantages. The Subject
Property is expected to be one component of this proposed large‐scale development. Proximity to Bon
Secours Hospital is a positive; if it moves forward, the proposed new supermarket will add a long‐
missing asset to the East End.
Properties that are the most comparable to the Subject Property include two affordable senior
properties and one market‐rate property. The two affordable senior properties are Somanath Senior
Jefferson Townhouses
Oliver Crossing
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 46
Apartments and Carter Hall; the market‐rate apartment complex is the new Shockoe Valley View
Apartments.
Somanath Senior Apartments is the most comparable to the Subject Property based on its size,
location, building type, and income targeting. Its age targeting differs; seniors 55 and older are
accepted. Completed in 2013, there are a total of 39 units, including 32 in a three‐story mid‐rise
elevator structure. As proposed for the Subject Property, the building is very energy efficient
and has Energy Star appliances. Amenities include a community room with kitchenette, a
rooftop veranda, laundry, and off‐street parking. Somanath does not have additional project‐
based subsidies. It is 100 percent occupied; residents either are from the East End PMA or they
have ties to the area.
Carter Woods Phases I and II are located in Henrico County about three‐fourths mile east of the
PMA. As such, the property is within one mile of the Subject Property. It is larger than the
Subject Property; combined, Carter Woods has a total of 152 one‐ and two‐bedroom units
including six one‐bedroom units with dens. It is a newer property, having been constructed
during 2003 and 2005. Like the Subject Property, it is a three‐story elevator structure with
occupancy by elderly households 62 years old and older. Unlike the Subject Property, Carter
Woods does not have additional unit‐based subsidies. The building has energy features and
extensive on‐site amenities and resident services. The manager noted that 46 of the units are
occupied by the original tenants. Residents generally are not from the East End PMA, unless
they have family living in nearby areas of Henrico County and have relocated to be nearby.
Shockoe Valley View Apartments is a community of 151 new market‐rate apartments in Union
Hill, which is undergoing revitalization. Completed during 2014, the property’s absorption pace
was reported to be about nine units per month from the time leasing commenced during May
2014 to September 2015. During September, only 10 units were vacant, or an occupancy of 93.4
percent. The property was constructed on a site that formerly was part of the Jefferson
Townhouses affordable project. Like the neighborhood near the Subject Property, housing near
Shockoe Valley View is a mix of affordable and market‐rate units and older units in need of
renovation or replacement. Also similar to the Subject Property, Shockoe Valley View only has
one‐ and two‐bedroom units. However, this is an upscale four‐story elevator property with
extensive features and amenities. While it is within walking distance of Shockoe Valley, it is
separated by topography and is not very close to other concentrations of multifamily properties
and commercial establishments catering to young professionals. As such, it is a more
appropriate comparable, albeit still far more upscale than the Subject Property and having
market‐rate rents far higher than a new development at Old Armstrong School can command in
today’s market. Rents for one‐bedroom units ($859 to $1,029) and also for two‐bedroom, two
bath units ($1,179 to $1,359) are in line with those in Shockoe Valley on a per square foot basis
when adjustments are made for utilities included in the rent. The property is offering a month’s
free rent as an incentive.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 47
Rental Market Size
RES identified a total of 3,044 units in potentially comparable market‐rate properties in the PMA. All of
the properties in the inventory are Class A properties that are newer, recently renovated, or managed
and maintained well on an ongoing basis. Many of these properties are included in Table 15 above.
There also are smaller multifamily properties in the PMA, primarily older, Class C properties that are not
comparables for the Subject Property. Estimates in the 2009 to 2013 ACS for PMA units by structure
type indicate there were 2,129 units in multifamily structures with five to 19 units. Based on fieldwork
by RES, most of these are units in small rental properties; interviews indicate that a sizeable percentage
of the units are occupied by households with Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) from RRHA.
RES identified a total of 1,755 affordable rental units in 15 PMA properties for seniors and general
occupancy, including 90 LIHTC units in two properties to be built. All of the properties have more than
20 units and are in addition to the units in small multifamily structures.
A very significant portion of the PMA rental inventory is in four very large RRHA public housing
properties. The four are Creighton Court (503 units), Whitcomb Court (491 units), Fairfield Court (445
units), and Mosby Court (455 units). Combined, these properties have 1,894 housing units, all of which
had average annual household incomes below $9,500 at mid‐year 2014. RRHA’s properties stay
occupied and the agency is now maintaining a waiting list with 10,000 families. RRHA also has a total of
3,363 Housing Choice Vouchers that are in use; an earlier estimate by RES was that 288 of these HCBs
were being used to rent housing units in the PMA.
Based on the above counts, RES estimates that about 33.4 percent of the PMA housing stock for elderly
and non‐elderly renter households is in modern, well‐maintained market‐rate rental complexes, 23.4
percent is in small multifamily rental structures, and 22.4 percent is in affordable housing with LIHTCs,
Project‐Based Section 8, HCVs, and other project‐related assistance. Units in the PMA’s four public
housing projects are estimated to be 20.8 percent of the rental housing stock.
Summary of Vacancy Rates in the Market by Population Served
As shown in Table 15, most of the PMA market‐rate properties surveyed by RES had vacancy rates below
six percent. The affordable properties, including all completed PMA LIHTC properties, including
properties for seniors and general occupancy, had a vacancy rate of 2.0 percent based on interviews
indicating a total of 21 vacant units. Based on the limited information available for the PMA’s small
multifamily properties, RES cannot estimate a vacancy rate. A review of listings of properties for‐rent
indicates that there are units available for‐rent, but not an overwhelming number. The final component
is public housing, which serves extremely low‐income households. Based on the very long waiting list
used to fill units that become vacant, it is reasonable to assume that these units are fully occupied. The
conclusion, therefore, is that affordable housing vacancies are extremely low overall, and they are even
lower for properties with rents based on 30 percent of income. Even for market‐rate properties in the
PMA, vacancy rates still are relatively low when measured against benchmarks such as a five percent
vacancy to account for turn‐over and a seven percent vacancy rate typically assumed by lenders.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 48
Impact on the Existing Rental Housing Stock
Based on the above extremely low vacancy rates in affordable housing and information supplied during
numerous interviews conducted by RES in Richmond, development of the Subject Property will have no
impact on the existing rental housing stock, including LIHTC properties in the PMA. The Subject Property
is intended to be a relocation resource for elderly households currently living in Creighton Court, which
is to be demolished. As such, the 45 units that are proposed will not be an addition to the total housing
stock in the PMA, nor to the PMA’s affordable housing stock.
RES asked an official of the City of Richmond about the potential impact of the units at the Subject
Property on the existing rental housing stock. The response was that no impact is anticipated. An official
of RRHA provided a similar response regarding public housing.
Availability and Cost of Other Affordable Housing Options
Much of the housing stock in portions of the PMA located north and east of M Street is very affordable,
including both rental and for‐sale housing. However, revitalization increasingly is moving from the
western portion of the PMA into this area, and rents and sales prices are escalating as a result. As
additional revitalization occurs, prices will continue to increase. Available homes at the low end of the
price range typically are older residential units that have not been maintained well and have not been
renovated. An example is a home on North 30th Street in Church Hill North that sold for $20,000 during
2014. Homes located along North 31st Street near the Subject Property have sold recently at prices
ranging from $45,000 to $50,000 and even lower for bank foreclosures. However, Trulia reports that the
median sales price in Church Hill North during the time frame from July to October 2015 was $158,475,
which is beyond the reach of low‐income households, especially with today’s more stringent lending
requirements.
RES is of the opinion, therefore, that the availability and cost of other affordable housing options are
limited by high occupancy rates, housing cost and housing condition. Housing costs are very likely to
escalate further as revitalization and redevelopment continue.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 49
F. ANALYSIS/CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of Income Levels of Potential Tenants
The Subject Property will serve elderly households 62 years old and older with incomes at, and below 60
percent AMI. The 45 units at the Subject Property will be replacement housing units for families living at
Creighton Court. All will have RAD subsidies from RRHA; therefore, all households will pay 30 percent of
income for rent and utilities.
Income Range Calculation
Consistent with VHDA guidance, the calculation of the minimum rent for elderly households is based on
a payment of 40 percent of gross income for housing costs. Project‐based subsidies such as RAD and
Section 8 cannot be considered in the calculation. The maximum rent is based on the income targeting
of units at the proposed development. At the Subject Property, the income limit will be 60 percent AMI
for all units. The determination of the maximum income is based on the largest unit size, which is a two‐
bedroom unit at the Subject Property. Consistent with the NCHMA Model Standards, the maximum
household size for a senior property is two persons. The following presents the calculation of the income
range.
Bedroom Configuration of 60 percent AMI units: 1BR and 2BR
Applicable 2015 income limits are based on 60 percent AMI in Richmond City:
One Person: $31,200
Two Person: $35,640
Maximum gross rents at the Subject Property based on RAD:
One Bedroom: $708
Two Bedroom: $806
Minimum income calculation: 40 percent of income based on an assumed tenant gross rent of
$708, the maximum RAD gross rent during 2015 for a one‐bedroom unit. The minimum income
would be $21,240.
Maximum income calculation: Income limit for a two person household with income at 60
percent AMI, occupying a 2BR unit = $35,640
Applicable Income Range: $21,240 to $29,700
Calculation of Net Demand and Capture Rates
Consistent with VHDA instructions, Table 22 on the following page presents the net demand and capture
rate calculations for the Subject Property.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 50
TABLE 22: NET DEMAND
Income Restrictions Up to 50%
(min. income to max. income)
New Rental Households 34
(+)
Existing Households ‐ Overburdened 41
(+)
Existing Households ‐ Substandard Housing 13
(+)
Elderly Households ‐ Likely to Convert to Rental Housing
11
(+)
Existing Qualifying Tenants ‐ to Remain After Renovation
0
TOTAL DEMAND 99(‐)
Supply (includes directly comparable vacant units completed or in pipeline in PMA)
1
NET DEMAND 98
PROPOSED UNITS 45
CAPTURE RATE 45.9%
ABSORPTION PERIOD 3 months
Sources: ACS 2009‐2013; 2010 Census; Ribbon Demographics; Nielsen; information compiled by RES during property surveys.
The following describes the sources of information used in Table 22 and the assumptions made.
New Renter Households ‐ For the calculation of the increase in the number of age‐ and income‐
eligible households in the PMA, RES used the HISTA household income tabulations for renters
during 2015 and 2020, which are presented in Table 14. Since the special tabulations are for
households 62+ and the VHDA definition of elderly is 65+, we used Nielsen household age by
income tabulations to adjust for the age difference, assuming an even distribution of elderly
renters within applicable income bands. We then adjusted the income band to account for the
applicable income range at the Subject Property, $21,240 to $35,640, again assuming an even
distribution of renter households within the $30,000 to $40,000 income band. Based on these
procedures, the projected growth of elderly households 65+ from 2015 to 2020 is estimated to
be 34 additional renter households.
Existing Households Overburdened ‐ For the PMA the 2009‐13 ACS estimated a total of 7,352
households renting housing units and paying rent. Of these households, 3,064 (41.7 percent)
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 51
were estimated to be paying gross rent of 35 percent or more of household income. The 2010
Census reported a total of 721 households with householder 65+ living in owned housing units
in the PMA, or 6.5 percent of all households. An estimate of all overburdened households 65+
can be developed by assuming an even age distribution of overburdened households in the PMA
and applying the 6.5 percent 65+, which results in an estimate of 199 existing households 65+
who are overburdened. A next adjustment is needed to estimate income‐eligible households
65+ by applying the percentage of total households 65+ (20.6 percent) who are income‐eligible.
The result is an estimate of approximately 41 existing PMA households 65+ who are estimated
to be overburdened.
Existing Households – Substandard Housing ‐ Estimates of PMA housing units lacking complete
plumbing and/or complete kitchens – or both – also are provided in the 2009‐13 ACS. Also
addressed is the extent of overcrowded housing, for which the definition is more than 1.5
persons per room in a housing unit. The problems with substandard housing are estimated to be
most severe for households in the lowest income bands and will affect both owners and renters.
The PMA percentages of units with these problems are estimated to be very low. An estimated
161 PMA housing units lack complete plumbing facilities, and 183 housing units lack complete
kitchens. Combined, these problems affect 344 units in the PMA, or only 2.99 percent of the
housing units. In addition, the ACS estimates that 57 PMA housing units were overcrowded. The
sum of housing units with these problems is 401 substandard and overcrowded units in the
PMA. The 2010 Census reported that 16.1 percent of PMA housing units were occupied by
householders 65+. We have assumed an even distribution of substandard housing, which results
in an estimate of 65 units occupied by all households 65+ and either substandard or
overcrowded. The above percentage of income‐eligible households 65+ (20.6 percent) can be
applied to the total for all households, which results in an estimate of 13 households 65+ living
in substandard housing.
Elderly Households Likely to Convert to Rental Housing – A 2013 report by the Joint Center for
Housing Studies of Harvard University entitled America’s Rental Housing, Evolving Markets and
Needs, addresses the movement of households 65 and older from owner‐occupied to rental
units, and the significance of the trend in the United States. While acknowledging the difficulty
of estimating the demand that is generated by tenure shifts of older Americans, the report
notes (page 14):
“The changing age structure of the population and the growing racial/ethnic diversity of Americans will alter the face of rental demand over the next decade. With the aging of the baby boomers, the number of renters over age 65 will increase by 2.2 million nationwide and account for roughly half of renter household growth.”
Since there are many different factors associated with a decision to sell a home and become a
renter, it is difficult to estimate the effect within the delineated PMA. The 2010 Census
reported a total of 1,091 PMA householders 65 and older. Of these, 511 were 65 to 74, 405
were 75 to 84, and 175 were 85 and older. Interviews with managers of senior properties
indicated that elderly owners are moving to affordable rental housing in the PMA; a City of
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 52
Richmond official who lives in the area confirmed that demand for units at the Subject Property
likely would include owners selling their homes. One limitation cited was the shortage of
affordable rental housing for the elderly in the East End PMA.
A related consideration is household size. The HISTA tabulations for 2015 estimate that 39.8
percent of households 62+ have one person, an indication that a large percentage of seniors can
be expected to have challenges with owning and maintaining a home. Based on the ten‐year
trend described by the Joint Center and the PMA data analyzed by RES, a conservative estimate
is that about five percent of households 65+ in all income bands are likely to be interested
transitioning to rental housing, or 55 households. The number of income‐eligible households
(20.6 percent) is estimated to be 11 households.
It is important to emphasize that all of the units at the Subject Property will have 15 year RAD subsidies
allocated to RRHA by HUD; therefore, households will pay gross rents that are based on 30 percent of
income. VHDA’s Net Demand Methodology does not consider the effect of RAD in expanding the
number of income‐eligible households in the PMA even though RAD has a longer term than other
Section 8 subsidies. The RAD subsidy will enable households with extremely low incomes – far lower
than for LIHTC‐only units – to live at the Subject Property. When these additional households are
counted, there is a large increase in the estimate of Net Demand, from the estimate of 98 households
indicated in Table 22, to an estimated 289 households. The capture rate for the 45 units based on this
higher Net Demand estimate is 15.6 percent of PMA households 65 and older.
Moreover, all of the units at the Subject Property will be a relocation resource for senior households
currently living at Creighton Court. The relatively brief absorption pace reflects this special circumstance,
as well as the effect of having a larger pool of potential residents as a result of the RAD subsidies. RES
anticipates a larger pool of applicants, including households too poor to afford LIHTC‐only affordable
units and a process whereby households moving from Creighton Court will be selected and screened
before residential units become available. Housing authorities in other cities that have relocated public
housing residents from an older property to a new one have completed all moves within a time frame of
less than one month, which could occur in Richmond. Therefore, the three‐month absorption period is
conservative when these factors are considered.
Market Penetration
To calculate overall market penetration for the LIHTC units at the Subject Property, RES first estimated
the existing senior housing inventory in the PMA for households with incomes up to 60 percent AMI. RES
did not include Carter Woods in the calculation; management indicated very low interest by residents of
the East End PMA in applying for Carter Woods units. Properties with Project‐Based Section 8 units were
not included in the calculation. Further adjustments were made for two properties for seniors 55 and
older and to account for VHDA’s definition of elderly as 65+. With these adjustments, the PMA inventory
is estimated to be 111 units for household 65+ and incomes up to 60 percent AMI. RES then estimated
the total number of income‐eligible elderly households 65+, based on the 2015 income limits and a
minimum rent for elderly households based on 40 percent of income. As reported above, the applicable
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 53
income range is $21,240 to $35,640. An estimated 174 income‐eligible renter households have incomes
within this range. The result is a penetration rate 63.8 percent of PMA households 65+ and with incomes
from $21,240 to $35,640.
It is again important to note that the number of income‐eligible households reflects only households
within the narrow LIHTC band and does not include households with lower incomes who will be able to
live at the Subject Property because of the RAD assistance that has been allocated. Using Nielsen 2015
estimates of households 65+ by age and income, and making adjustments for renter households with
only one or two persons, the estimate of income‐eligible PMA households 65+ is 711 households. When
the RAD subsidies are considered, the penetration rate is 15.6 percent.
The absorption and penetration rate calculations for the Subject Property that include the RAD subsidies
are consistent with the performance of the supply of affordable senior housing in the market and the
fact that RES identified only one vacant senior unit during September 2015.
Market Rent and Achievable Rent
RES has analyzed rents in the market for comparable properties. Based on the analysis, the following
market rents are indicated and are compared with achievable rents at the Subject Property:
Indicated Market Rent
Achievable Rent (less Utility Allowance)
Subject Property Rent/Income Targeting(less Utility Allowance)
One Bedroom ‐ $860 One Bedroom ‐ $700 One Bedroom ‐ $640 RAD Rents Two Bedroom ‐ $1,100 Two Bedroom ‐ $760 Two Bedroom ‐ $715 RAD Rents
The indicated market rent is based on the rents for market‐rate properties presented in Table 18 with
adjustments by the market analysts for differences in utility configuration and to account for variations
in location, features and amenities, unit size, and age of the property. Achievable rents assume that the
RAD restriction is not applicable and that the restriction is only LIHTC rent limits at 60 percent AMI. The
achievable rents shown are higher than the RAD rents, but lower than the maximum LIHTC rents at 60
percent AMI, which are $767.50 for a one‐bedroom unit and $911 for a two‐bedroom unit excluding
allowances for tenant‐paid utilities. The above achievable rents of $700 and $760, less Utility Allowances
are based on affordable rents being achieved at comparable senior properties with adjustments for
utility configuration and to account for variations in location, features, and amenities. RES is of the
opinion that rents higher than the maximums reflected in the RAD allocation can be achieved at the
Subject Property if there are issues with the availability of the RAD subsidies. Moreover, if
redevelopment at the Old Armstrong High School site proceeds as planned, achievable rents could be
even higher.
Risks
Two risks could adversely affect the market potential of the Subject Property, as follows:
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 54
1. A reversal of the economic and employment growth that is a factor driving household growth
and housing demand would have an adverse effect on plans for the redevelopment of the Old
Armstrong High School site overall, leaving the Subject Property as one component in a to‐be‐
completed redevelopment effort.
2. While crime remains an issue in the East End PMA, the recent downward trend has helped to
enhance the image of the area. A reversal of this trend would affect the long‐term viability of
redevelopment plans.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 55
G. LOCAL PERSPECTIVE OF RENTAL HOUSING MARKET AND HOUSING ALTERNATIVES
Interviews with Local Officials
During the course of our work in Richmond’s East End PMA, RES has met with local officials and has
conducted telephone interviews to discuss various issues including the current status of development
projects, the availability of City funding for specific projects and activities, and permit data and
information. During September 2015 RES interviewed the Interim Director, Economic/Community
Development, to inquire, formally, about support for the Phase 1B development at the Old Armstrong
High School property. The response was strong support for the proposed senior development.
Interviews with Local Housing Authority Officials
RES interviewed the Interim Executive Director, TK Somanath and Marcia Davis at RRHA during
September 2015. RRHA confirmed their involvement with the redevelopment of the Old Armstrong High
School and the Subject Property and their ongoing support. The Interim Executive Director also arranged
a tour of two senior properties for members of the development team, Somanath and Carter Woods,
because they are very good examples of best practices in the development of housing for seniors. RRHA
also confirmed the availability of the RAD subsidies for the Subject Property and provided the utility
allowances to be used for the market analysis. Finally, RRHA provided information about the public
housing waiting list, which offers strong evidence of the demand for affordable housing in Richmond.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 56
H. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
Limitations of the Engagement
The following paragraphs describe the terms and conditions under which Real Estate Strategies, Inc. has
completed this market study. If there are any questions, please call us.
This market study has not ascertained the legal and regulatory requirements applicable to the proposed
project. The information contained herein is based on estimates, assumptions and other information
developed from research of the market, our knowledge of the industry and other factors, including
certain information provided by representatives of The Community Builders, Inc. and the development
team, as well as local officials. The sources of information and bases of the estimates and assumptions
are stated in this market study. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated
events and circumstances may occur; therefore, actual results will vary from those described, and the
variations may be material.
Further, we have neither evaluated management’s effectiveness, nor are we responsible for future
marketing efforts and other management actions upon which actual results will depend. This market
study is intended for the information of The Community Builders, Inc. and for submission to VHDA,
investors, and lenders in support of financing for the proposed development. Otherwise, neither our
market study nor any references to Real Estate Strategies, Inc., may be included or quoted in any
offering circular or registration statement, prospectus, sales brochure, or other agreement or document
without our prior written permission. We will not be responsible for updating this market study to
account for events and circumstances occurring after the effect date of this report.
Qualifications of RES
Real Estate Strategies, Inc./RES Advisors (RES) is a women‐owned business that established offices
during March 1995 to provide advisory services in real estate and economic development. Building on
the expertise of its professionals and their significant experience in the real estate industry, the Firm
specializes in engagements involving market and financial issues affecting proposed and existing real
estate projects. Other specialties include engagements in economic development and reuse planning,
fiscal impact analysis, and public/private deal structuring. In our residential market analysis specialty,
principals of RES have completed engagements for the following clients:
McCormack Baron Salazar – Market analysis for the Pittsburgh Larimer Choice Implementation
Grant received during July 2014; market analyses for three phases of the HOPE VI‐funded Bedford
Hill redevelopment in Pittsburgh; market analyses for the Liberty Park family redevelopment and
the Lou Mason senior housing development also in Pittsburgh, PA.
Beacon/Corcoran Jennison Partners – Market analyses in connection with the phased
redevelopment of an 80‐acre former public housing site located adjacent to the University of
Pittsburgh campus in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 57
The Community Builders, Inc. – Market analyses for the conversion of the Lord Stirling School in
New Brunswick, NJ to mixed‐income senior housing; market analyses for residential developments
in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, McKees Rocks, and Moon Township, PA.
City of Wilmington, DE – Residential market analysis for the City and all neighborhoods in the City;
assistance with an Empowerment Zone application.
Federation Housing – Market analysis in connection with a tax credit application for a senior
housing development in Philadelphia.
The DePaul Group – Market analysis for a proposed luxury townhouse development in near
Roosevelt Park in South Philadelphia.
The Finch Group – Market analysis for the redevelopment of Longwood Gardens to create Arbor
Park Village in Cleveland, Ohio; market analysis a luxury residential reuse of the historic Park Lane
Villa building, also in Cleveland.
Fannie Mae – Analysis of the market for a proposed mixed‐use development with an upscale rental
housing component in the Stamford, Connecticut Central Business District; analysis of a proposed
housing joint venture with the University of Pennsylvania.
The following are brief resumes of principals of Real Estate Strategies, Inc.:
Margaret Sowell, CRE, President of RES has many years of direct experience in market research and
financial analysis of residential, commercial, and industrial real estate. Ms. Sowell established the Firm after
gaining more than 25 years of experience in real estate and economic development as a government
official, private developer, and advisor to public agencies and private companies. She worked with the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development for fifteen years and was involved in the development and
administration of numerous housing and community development programs. Ms. Sowell's experience as a
private developer was as Vice President for Development with a Wilmington, Delaware full‐service real
estate company.
A real estate consultant since 1986, Ms. Sowell served as Director of Real Estate Advisory Services in
Philadelphia office of Coopers & Lybrand (now PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P.) from 1991 through 1994.
While at Coopers & Lybrand, Ms. Sowell worked on analyses of residential developments, including market‐
rate and affordable housing projects and mixed‐use developments. Ms. Sowell is a member of The Urban
Land Institute, and she served on the ULI Board of Trustees from 1995 to 1998. She has been a technical
reviewer of three ULI publications, and she co‐authored the 1997 ULI publication, Developing Infill Housing
in Inner City Neighborhoods. She served as market analyst on three ULI Neighborhood Advisory Panels, and
she has chaired two additional panels. She holds the designation Counselor of Real Estate. Ms. Sowell is a
graduate of the University of Florida.
Elizabeth M. Beckett, CRE, Senior Vice President of Real Estate Strategies, Inc., has more than 25 years of
real estate market and financial analysis experience, including five years of association with the real estate
advisory services practices of major national accounting and consulting firms. Ms. Beckett has also served
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 58
on the professional staff of the County Executive of New Castle County, Delaware performing housing and
community development assignments and community outreach.
Ms. Beckett has prepared housing market analyses for residential developments in Philadelphia, Allegheny
County, Chester County, and Montgomery County, PA; Wilmington, Delaware; and New Brunswick, South
Amboy and Harrison New Jersey. She previously was a Senior Associate in the Coopers & Lybrand Real
Estate Advisory Services practice, where her assignments included serving as an Asset Manager on a RTC
portfolio with 204 properties in 22 states. Ms. Beckett holds an undergraduate degree from Haverford
College and a Masters of Governmental Administration from the University of Pennsylvania. She is a
member of the Philadelphia Chapter of Commercial Real Estate Women (CREW) and a founding member
and current Chair of the National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA) of the National Housing and
Rehabilitation Association.
Stephen L. Kazanjian, Project Manager, has more than 30 years of experience in the real estate industry.
He has been CEO of a Philadelphia community development corporation, a consultant in the real estate
practices of two national accounting firms, and a commercial real estate lender at two major banking
institutions. As the CEO of Greater Germantown Housing Development Corporation, he successfully
developed a portfolio of residential and commercial properties. As a Vice President at Mellon Bank
Corporation, Mr. Kazanjian established and managed the Philadelphia Division of the Retail Bank Real
Estate Group, a division that originates, underwrites documents, approves, and monitors real estate
loans between $250,000 and $4.0 million. Mr. Kazanjian also began his career as a lender, serving as a
credit analyst and account representative for Fidelity Bank, where he was responsible for a $175.0
million real estate portfolio. He was a real estate consultant at Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P. (now
PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P.) and at Laventhol & Horwath, where he conducted real market and
financial analyses for public and private sector clients. Mr. Kazanjian holds a Bachelor of Arts in
Economics from the University of Pennsylvania.
Deborah L. Brett, AICP, Project Manager, has extensive experience with residential real estate, including
assignments conducted as an independent consultant since September 1991, as well as engagements
she directed during her prior 18‐year association with Real Estate Research Corporation. Ms. Brett has
completed numerous engagements involving affordable housing market analysis and evaluation for
public and private sector clients. For private developers, she analyzed age/income‐qualified demand for
proposed 150+ unit project on Chicago’s Northwest side and prepared market analyses for proposed tax
credit projects in Camden, Lindenwold, and Lawrence, New Jersey.
A full member of The Urban Land Institute (ULI), Ms. Brett co‐authored a textbook, Real Estate Market
Analysis, A Case Study Approach. She has written a number of articles on housing affordability, infill
development, retail market analysis, and demographic analysis and trends for professional and trade
journals.
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES, INC. Rental Housing Market Analysis | 59
Certifications
I affirm the following:
1. I have made a physical inspection of the site and market area. The last date of inspection by RES
was September 18, 2015, which is the date shown on the cover of this market study.
2. The appropriate information has been used in the comprehensive evaluation of the need and
demand for the proposed rental units.
3. To the best of my knowledge the market can support the demand shown in this study. I
understand that any misrepresentation in this statement may result in the denial of
participation in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program in Virginia as administered by
VHDA.
4. Neither I nor anyone at my firm has any interest in the proposed development or a relationship
with the ownership entity.
5. Neither I nor anyone at my firm nor anyone acting on behalf of my firm in connection with the
preparation of this report has communicated to others that my firm is representing VHDA or in
any way acting for, at the request of, or on behalf of VHDA.
6. Compensation for my services is not contingent upon this development receiving a LIHTC
reservation or allocation.
October 29, 2015 Market Analyst Date
APPENDIX HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER TABULATIONS HISTA TABULATIONS
ABI
Pop-Facts: Household Income by Age of Householder 2015
RICHMOND EAST END, Tract (see appendix for geographies), Total
Age 25 - 34Age 15 - 24 Age 35 - 44 Age 75 - 84 Age 85+Age 45 - 54 Age 55 - 64 Age 65 - 742000 Census Age/Income
2.63%7.92%11.64%12.25%16.21%20.64%20.71%8.00%
2751,219 8291,2831,6982,1622,169838
% of Total Households
Household Totals
64.73%54.76%44.22%34.84%29.39%27.52%37.85%67.06%4.35%11.09%13.16%10.92%12.19%14.53%20.05%13.72%
562 821 595 499 447 539 454 178Income Less than $15,000 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
17.09%19.54%16.41%13.09%16.43%23.08%17.43%16.35%2.51%8.66%10.70%8.98%14.92%26.68%20.21%7.33%
137 378 499 279 168 200 162 47Income $15,000 - $24,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
8.73%12.18%10.34%17.07%12.19%17.67%19.36%5.97%1.57%6.61%8.24%14.32%13.54%24.98%27.47%3.27%
50 420 382 207 219 126 101 24Income $25,000 - $34,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
6.18%7.72%14.93%14.50%13.43%14.25%9.82%9.55%1.33%5.01%14.24%14.55%17.84%24.10%16.67%6.26%
80 213 308 228 186 182 64 17Income $35,000 - $49,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
1.45%2.17%9.84%10.99%17.73%13.78%8.90%1.07%0.37%1.66%11.07%13.01%27.77%27.49%17.80%0.83%
9 193 298 301 141 120 18 4Income $50,000 - $74,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
1.45%3.02%0.90%4.91%5.89%1.30%3.96%0.00%1.26%7.89%3.47%19.87%31.55%8.83%27.13%0.00%
0 86 28 100 63 11 25 4Income $75,000 - $99,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
0.00%0.00%1.07%2.34%1.83%1.06%2.07%0.00%0.00%0.00%9.15%21.13%21.83%16.20%31.69%0.00%
0 45 23 31 30 13 0 0Income $100,000 - $124,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
0.36%0.60%1.15%0.31%1.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%2.44%12.20%34.15%9.76%41.46%0.00%0.00%0.00%
0 0 0 17 4 14 5 1Income $125,000 - $149,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
0.00%0.00%0.00%1.40%1.18%0.37%0.41%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%32.73%36.36%14.55%16.36%0.00%
0 9 8 20 18 0 0 0Income $150,000 - $199,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
0.00%0.00%1.15%0.55%0.94%0.97%0.18%0.00%0.00%0.00%22.58%11.29%25.81%33.87%6.45%0.00%
0 4 21 16 7 14 0 0Income $200,000 or more % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
Median Household Income $14,999$14,999$18,525$26,210$28,430$24,739$21,971$14,999
Nielsen Solution Center 1 800 866 6511
© 2014 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved.
Project Code: TCB
Prepared For: Community Builders
1 5OfPage Prepared By: M.SowellMon Dec 15, 2014Prepared On:
ABI
Pop-Facts: Household Income by Age of Householder 2015
RICHMOND EAST END, Tract (see appendix for geographies), Total
Age 25 - 34Age 15 - 24 Age 35 - 44 Age 75 - 84 Age 85+Age 45 - 54 Age 55 - 64 Age 65 - 742015 Estimate Age/Income
2.15%5.22%9.29%16.46%15.09%15.72%28.41%7.66%
2671,156 6502,0491,8781,9573,536954
% of Total Households
Household Totals
60.67%46.00%34.95%27.92%23.80%22.99%24.75%60.80%4.28%7.89%10.66%15.10%11.80%11.88%23.09%15.31%
580 875 450 447 572 404 299 162Income Less than $15,000 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
17.98%19.08%14.53%12.15%10.33%10.22%11.06%12.68%3.21%8.29%11.24%16.66%12.98%13.38%26.15%8.09%
121 391 200 194 249 168 124 48Income $15,000 - $24,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
8.61%15.69%15.05%11.86%11.77%9.20%9.45%2.10%1.77%7.86%13.42%18.74%17.04%13.88%25.75%1.54%
20 334 180 221 243 174 102 23Income $25,000 - $34,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
6.74%10.62%13.58%13.08%12.51%16.30%17.22%8.60%1.02%3.93%8.94%15.25%13.38%18.16%34.66%4.67%
82 609 319 235 268 157 69 18Income $35,000 - $49,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
3.75%5.38%11.85%15.86%17.52%17.99%19.12%8.91%0.51%1.80%7.03%16.68%16.88%18.06%34.68%4.36%
85 676 352 329 325 137 35 10Income $50,000 - $74,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
1.12%1.38%4.76%10.00%11.87%8.99%8.09%3.14%0.30%0.91%5.57%20.77%22.59%17.83%28.98%3.04%
30 286 176 223 205 55 9 3Income $75,000 - $99,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
0.00%1.08%2.60%2.68%3.35%5.57%4.41%1.47%0.00%1.61%6.91%12.67%14.52%25.12%35.94%3.23%
14 156 109 63 55 30 7 0Income $100,000 - $124,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
0.37%0.46%2.08%1.81%2.34%3.99%3.59%0.00%0.32%0.96%7.64%11.78%14.01%24.84%40.45%0.00%
0 127 78 44 37 24 3 1Income $125,000 - $149,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
0.37%0.15%0.00%2.44%3.46%1.79%1.02%2.31%0.48%0.48%0.00%23.81%30.95%16.67%17.14%10.48%
22 36 35 65 50 0 1 1Income $150,000 - $199,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
0.37%0.15%0.61%2.20%3.04%2.96%1.30%0.00%0.47%0.47%3.26%20.93%26.51%26.98%21.40%0.00%
0 46 58 57 45 7 1 1Income $200,000 or more % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
Median Household Income $14,999$17,097$25,345$33,374$39,915$41,983$39,138$14,999
Nielsen Solution Center 1 800 866 6511
© 2014 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved.
Project Code: TCB
Prepared For: Community Builders
2 5OfPage Prepared By: M.SowellMon Dec 15, 2014Prepared On:
ABI
Pop-Facts: Household Income by Age of Householder 2015
RICHMOND EAST END, Tract (see appendix for geographies), Total
Age 25 - 34Age 15 - 24 Age 35 - 44 Age 75 - 84 Age 85+Age 45 - 54 Age 55 - 64 Age 65 - 742020 Projection Age/Income
1.85%5.61%12.23%15.62%13.38%17.93%28.07%5.32%
2491,651 7572,1081,8052,4193,788718
% of Total Households
Household Totals
59.44%44.78%34.46%27.37%23.10%22.94%24.84%64.90%3.69%8.45%14.18%14.38%10.39%13.83%23.45%11.62%
466 941 555 417 577 569 339 148Income Less than $15,000 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
17.27%19.29%14.54%12.19%10.03%9.88%10.96%10.72%2.69%9.14%15.02%16.08%11.33%14.96%25.97%4.82%
77 415 239 181 257 240 146 43Income $15,000 - $24,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
8.43%15.98%14.29%11.53%11.30%8.64%9.11%1.95%1.51%8.69%16.94%17.44%14.64%15.00%24.77%1.01%
14 345 209 204 243 236 121 21Income $25,000 - $34,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
7.63%9.78%14.11%13.05%11.80%16.83%17.87%6.96%0.98%3.80%11.96%14.12%10.93%20.89%34.75%2.57%
50 677 407 213 275 233 74 19Income $35,000 - $49,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
3.61%6.47%11.87%15.89%17.67%17.65%18.56%7.24%0.43%2.34%9.38%16.03%15.26%20.43%33.64%2.49%
52 703 427 319 335 196 49 9Income $50,000 - $74,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
1.61%1.72%4.97%10.15%12.24%9.22%7.81%3.34%0.37%1.21%7.61%19.87%20.52%20.71%27.48%2.23%
24 296 223 221 214 82 13 4Income $75,000 - $99,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
0.00%1.19%3.15%2.85%3.71%6.37%5.04%1.53%0.00%1.65%9.56%11.03%12.32%28.31%35.11%2.02%
11 191 154 67 60 52 9 0Income $100,000 - $124,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
1.20%0.40%2.00%2.04%2.94%3.68%3.41%0.14%0.85%0.85%9.32%12.15%14.97%25.14%36.44%0.28%
1 129 89 53 43 33 3 3Income $125,000 - $149,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
0.40%0.00%0.06%2.61%3.77%1.74%1.08%3.06%0.43%0.00%0.43%23.91%29.57%18.26%17.83%9.57%
22 41 42 68 55 1 0 1Income $150,000 - $199,999 % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
0.40%0.40%0.55%2.32%3.43%3.06%1.32%0.14%0.40%1.20%3.61%19.68%24.90%29.72%20.08%0.40%
1 50 74 62 49 9 3 1Income $200,000 or more % Across Age Ranges % Within Age Range
Median Household Income $14,999$17,705$25,699$34,053$42,077$42,611$39,276$14,999
Nielsen Solution Center 1 800 866 6511
© 2014 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved.
Project Code: TCB
Prepared For: Community Builders
3 5OfPage Prepared By: M.SowellMon Dec 15, 2014Prepared On:
ABI
Pop-Facts: Household Income by Age of Householder 2015
Due to the calculation method some median values are assigned pre-determined amounts rather than calculated amounts. Median HH Inc values less than $15,000 are displayed as
$14,999; Median HH Inc values more than $200,000 are displayed as $200,001.
Nielsen Solution Center 1 800 866 6511
© 2014 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved.
Project Code: TCB
Prepared For: Community Builders
4 5OfPage Prepared By: M.SowellMon Dec 15, 2014Prepared On:
ABI
Pop-Facts: Household Income by Age of Householder 2015
Appendix: Area Listing
Area Name: RICHMOND EAST END
Type: List - Tract Reporting Detail: Aggregate Reporting Level: Tract
Geography NameGeography CodeGeography NameGeography Code
51760020100 51760-020100 51760020200 51760-020200
51760020300 51760-020300 51760020400 51760-020400
51760020500 51760-020500 51760020600 51760-020600
51760020700 51760-020700 51760020800 51760-020800
51760020900 51760-020900 51760021000 51760-021000
51760021100 51760-021100 51760021200 51760-021200
Project Information:
1
974519205Order Number:
Site:
Nielsen Solution Center 1 800 866 6511
© 2014 The Nielsen Company. All rights reserved.
Project Code: TCB
Prepared For: Community Builders
5 5OfPage Prepared By: M.SowellMon Dec 15, 2014Prepared On:
HISTA 2.2 Summary Data© 2015 All rights reserved Nielsen Claritas
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 543 380 349 166 200 1,638$10,000-20,000 324 344 251 168 111 1,198$20,000-30,000 220 113 156 52 106 647$30,000-40,000 236 102 76 134 35 583$40,000-50,000 393 99 45 34 83 654$50,000-60,000 344 177 50 8 22 601$60,000-75,000 18 193 60 25 25 321
$75,000-100,000 97 264 71 36 10 478$100,000-125,000 92 18 32 10 14 166$125,000-150,000 6 100 4 3 2 115$150,000-200,000 0 41 1 3 3 48
$200,000+ 70 4 9 4 2 89
Total 2,343 1,835 1,104 643 613 6,538
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 447 70 11 19 24 571$10,000-20,000 382 80 54 5 10 531$20,000-30,000 187 42 18 30 10 287$30,000-40,000 89 34 18 9 10 160$40,000-50,000 58 18 17 8 5 106$50,000-60,000 51 15 11 1 5 83$60,000-75,000 44 47 7 6 2 106
$75,000-100,000 40 19 10 6 19 94$100,000-125,000 15 6 1 0 2 24$125,000-150,000 21 4 0 2 4 31$150,000-200,000 9 0 2 0 3 14
$200,000+ 9 1 3 2 2 17
Total 1,352 336 152 88 96 2,024
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 319 46 5 2 2 374$10,000-20,000 263 43 47 3 5 361$20,000-30,000 67 24 8 20 0 119$30,000-40,000 76 13 10 7 7 113$40,000-50,000 29 6 6 7 2 50$50,000-60,000 27 4 8 1 2 42$60,000-75,000 12 11 2 4 2 31
$75,000-100,000 18 2 5 5 6 36$100,000-125,000 7 3 1 0 1 12$125,000-150,000 11 1 0 2 1 15$150,000-200,000 3 0 1 0 1 5
$200,000+ 5 0 2 1 1 9
Total 837 153 95 52 30 1,167
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 990 450 360 185 224 2,209$10,000-20,000 706 424 305 173 121 1,729$20,000-30,000 407 155 174 82 116 934$30,000-40,000 325 136 94 143 45 743$40,000-50,000 451 117 62 42 88 760$50,000-60,000 395 192 61 9 27 684$60,000-75,000 62 240 67 31 27 427
$75,000-100,000 137 283 81 42 29 572$100,000-125,000 107 24 33 10 16 190$125,000-150,000 27 104 4 5 6 146$150,000-200,000 9 41 3 3 6 62
$200,000+ 79 5 12 6 4 106
Total 3,695 2,171 1,256 731 709 8,562
All Age Groups
Year 2015 Estimates
Aged 55+ Years
Year 2015 Estimates
Renter Households
Aged 62+ Years
Year 2015 Estimates
Renter Households
Renter Households
www.ribbondata.com
Richmond, VA PMA
Renter Households
Age 15 to 54 Years
Year 2015 Estimates
HISTA 2.2 Summary Data© 2015 All rights reserved Nielsen Claritas
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 44 18 6 8 1 77$10,000-20,000 4 19 5 7 1 36$20,000-30,000 39 10 5 13 4 71$30,000-40,000 71 17 15 5 4 112$40,000-50,000 66 130 30 8 8 242$50,000-60,000 62 79 34 8 31 214$60,000-75,000 40 93 95 27 51 306
$75,000-100,000 40 104 49 33 11 237$100,000-125,000 29 66 22 43 16 176$125,000-150,000 33 29 68 4 0 134$150,000-200,000 4 70 15 20 1 110
$200,000+ 11 30 10 14 7 72
Total 443 665 354 190 135 1,787
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 112 56 23 8 17 216$10,000-20,000 259 103 41 18 9 430$20,000-30,000 94 81 34 11 21 241$30,000-40,000 108 136 63 26 24 357$40,000-50,000 51 79 14 20 17 181$50,000-60,000 41 77 38 11 10 177$60,000-75,000 27 39 33 14 28 141
$75,000-100,000 34 73 22 32 17 178$100,000-125,000 12 32 14 9 1 68$125,000-150,000 6 18 7 1 2 34$150,000-200,000 3 29 3 1 2 38
$200,000+ 8 21 2 4 2 37
Total 755 744 294 155 150 2,098
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 87 39 14 7 6 153$10,000-20,000 222 93 40 17 7 379$20,000-30,000 73 61 32 10 21 197$30,000-40,000 84 100 45 25 20 274$40,000-50,000 33 56 14 9 10 122$50,000-60,000 35 59 23 6 5 128$60,000-75,000 20 26 18 4 2 70
$75,000-100,000 21 39 14 9 3 86$100,000-125,000 4 19 9 2 1 35$125,000-150,000 6 9 4 0 2 21$150,000-200,000 1 2 2 0 2 7
$200,000+ 3 4 0 1 1 9
Total 589 507 215 90 80 1,481
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 156 74 29 16 18 293$10,000-20,000 263 122 46 25 10 466$20,000-30,000 133 91 39 24 25 312$30,000-40,000 179 153 78 31 28 469$40,000-50,000 117 209 44 28 25 423$50,000-60,000 103 156 72 19 41 391$60,000-75,000 67 132 128 41 79 447
$75,000-100,000 74 177 71 65 28 415$100,000-125,000 41 98 36 52 17 244$125,000-150,000 39 47 75 5 2 168$150,000-200,000 7 99 18 21 3 148
$200,000+ 19 51 12 18 9 109
Total 1,198 1,409 648 345 285 3,885
All Age Groups
Year 2015 Estimates
Aged 55+ Years
Year 2015 Estimates
Owner Households
Aged 62+ Years
Year 2015 Estimates
Owner Households
Owner Households
www.ribbondata.com
Richmond, VA PMA
Owner Households
Age 15 to 54 Years
Year 2015 Estimates
HISTA 2.2 Summary Data© 2015 All rights reserved Nielsen Claritas
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 556 402 350 163 205 1,676$10,000-20,000 331 351 235 172 117 1,206$20,000-30,000 244 113 172 36 111 676$30,000-40,000 246 110 78 156 44 634$40,000-50,000 439 131 49 41 83 743$50,000-60,000 353 187 47 9 18 614$60,000-75,000 17 220 59 26 17 339
$75,000-100,000 106 322 81 40 14 563$100,000-125,000 102 19 79 4 6 210$125,000-150,000 14 97 5 6 9 131$150,000-200,000 0 51 2 1 3 57
$200,000+ 78 13 21 3 1 116
Total 2,486 2,016 1,178 657 628 6,965
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 540 71 6 21 34 672$10,000-20,000 445 85 72 7 6 615$20,000-30,000 216 55 12 37 10 330$30,000-40,000 117 36 20 15 5 193$40,000-50,000 71 12 12 7 7 109$50,000-60,000 55 23 11 2 5 96$60,000-75,000 49 49 10 10 4 122
$75,000-100,000 49 25 11 4 20 109$100,000-125,000 20 4 0 5 4 33$125,000-150,000 23 3 0 2 3 31$150,000-200,000 11 4 3 0 3 21
$200,000+ 15 1 3 1 1 21
Total 1,611 368 160 111 102 2,352
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 405 46 1 3 4 459$10,000-20,000 319 53 66 4 1 443$20,000-30,000 86 35 4 27 3 155$30,000-40,000 102 17 15 13 1 148$40,000-50,000 38 4 3 6 3 54$50,000-60,000 30 8 8 2 2 50$60,000-75,000 13 15 4 9 3 44
$75,000-100,000 28 8 6 4 6 52$100,000-125,000 13 0 0 5 1 19$125,000-150,000 14 0 0 1 1 16$150,000-200,000 4 2 3 0 0 9
$200,000+ 10 0 3 1 0 14
Total 1,062 188 113 75 25 1,463
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 1,096 473 356 184 239 2,348$10,000-20,000 776 436 307 179 123 1,821$20,000-30,000 460 168 184 73 121 1,006$30,000-40,000 363 146 98 171 49 827$40,000-50,000 510 143 61 48 90 852$50,000-60,000 408 210 58 11 23 710$60,000-75,000 66 269 69 36 21 461
$75,000-100,000 155 347 92 44 34 672$100,000-125,000 122 23 79 9 10 243$125,000-150,000 37 100 5 8 12 162$150,000-200,000 11 55 5 1 6 78
$200,000+ 93 14 24 4 2 137
Total 4,097 2,384 1,338 768 730 9,317
All Age Groups
Year 2020 Projections
Aged 55+ Years
Year 2020 Projections
Renter Households
Aged 62+ Years
Year 2020 Projections
Renter Households
Renter Households
www.ribbondata.com
Richmond, VA PMA
Renter Households
Age 15 to 54 Years
Year 2020 Projections
HISTA 2.2 Summary Data© 2015 All rights reserved Nielsen Claritas
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 42 13 5 8 1 69$10,000-20,000 6 16 7 7 1 37$20,000-30,000 33 4 4 10 2 53$30,000-40,000 57 7 5 3 0 72$40,000-50,000 66 144 21 11 2 244$50,000-60,000 78 68 33 4 31 214$60,000-75,000 32 105 89 29 79 334
$75,000-100,000 34 81 49 31 6 201$100,000-125,000 38 73 21 51 30 213$125,000-150,000 33 28 79 1 0 141$150,000-200,000 1 73 13 25 4 116
$200,000+ 8 32 11 12 8 71
Total 428 644 337 192 164 1,765
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 131 52 23 11 16 233$10,000-20,000 283 119 49 13 7 471$20,000-30,000 104 84 52 19 17 276$30,000-40,000 126 171 72 24 25 418$40,000-50,000 58 101 19 34 12 224$50,000-60,000 55 88 33 13 10 199$60,000-75,000 45 42 42 13 30 172
$75,000-100,000 40 81 30 33 20 204$100,000-125,000 19 35 22 11 1 88$125,000-150,000 10 24 12 5 0 51$150,000-200,000 3 30 1 1 1 36
$200,000+ 7 23 5 4 2 41
Total 881 850 360 181 141 2,413
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 107 40 21 9 6 183$10,000-20,000 251 106 46 12 6 421$20,000-30,000 86 64 51 18 16 235$30,000-40,000 105 128 56 23 22 334$40,000-50,000 41 77 17 17 6 158$50,000-60,000 49 77 22 6 7 161$60,000-75,000 33 24 29 2 5 93
$75,000-100,000 25 50 20 6 3 104$100,000-125,000 11 25 17 1 0 54$125,000-150,000 9 13 9 2 0 33$150,000-200,000 1 4 0 0 1 6
$200,000+ 2 4 2 0 2 10
Total 720 612 290 96 74 1,792
1‐Person 2‐Person 3‐Person 4‐Person 5+‐Person
Household Household Household Household Household Total
$0-10,000 173 65 28 19 17 302$10,000-20,000 289 135 56 20 8 508$20,000-30,000 137 88 56 29 19 329$30,000-40,000 183 178 77 27 25 490$40,000-50,000 124 245 40 45 14 468$50,000-60,000 133 156 66 17 41 413$60,000-75,000 77 147 131 42 109 506
$75,000-100,000 74 162 79 64 26 405$100,000-125,000 57 108 43 62 31 301$125,000-150,000 43 52 91 6 0 192$150,000-200,000 4 103 14 26 5 152
$200,000+ 15 55 16 16 10 112
Total 1,309 1,494 697 373 305 4,178
Owner Households
www.ribbondata.com
Richmond, VA PMA
Owner Households
Age 15 to 54 Years
Year 2020 Projections
All Age Groups
Year 2020 Projections
Aged 55+ Years
Year 2020 Projections
Owner Households
Aged 62+ Years
Year 2020 Projections
Owner Households