Age matters a lot when it comes to predicting where someone lives. Looking at residential location patterns by age might help us predict future housing demand in different types of metros. A lot has been written about how Millennials are choosing to live in different places than earlier generations did and that Baby Boomers are downsizing and urbanizing at unprecedented rates. While few write about Gen X’ers—my cohort and the forgotten stepchild of demographics—it is important to understand their residential location patterns, too, if we want to understand the whole housing market.

Using microdata from the 2016 American Community Survey (ACS), I looked at the residential location patterns of three generations of residents in the Washington DC metropolitan area: Millennials (age 19 to 35 in 2016), Gen X’ers (age 36 to 51), and Baby Boomers (age 52 to 70). For each metro area, the share of Millennials, Gen X’ers and Baby Boomers in each area (defined by the Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Areas, or PUMAs) was compared to each generation’s share in the overall metro area population. Generation “hot spots” are identified as places where there is a relative high concentration of a particular generation. (Note: I used PUMAs instead of Census tracts because of sample size considerations.)

There are an estimated 6.7 million residents of the Washington DC metropolitan area, as defined in the ACS microdata. About a quarter of the region’s residents (23.8%) are Millennials, 22.7% are Gen X’ers, and 21.8% are Baby Boomers. (The rest of the population is made up by children age 18 and under and seniors over age 70.)

Not surprisingly, the hot spots for Millennials are in the District of Columbia, Arlington and Alexandria, along with the College Park area in Prince George’s County. However, there are also concentrations of Millennials in perhaps unexpected places around the DC region, including Manassas, some parts of Prince George’s County, Germantown and northeast Loudoun County (e.g. Sterling). Some of these younger adults in suburban neighborhoods may be living in their parents’ homes but others are part of the group of young adult residents that have sought out more affordable housing in the region.

Because Millennials span the age range from 19 (i.e. many still in school) to 35 (i.e. many married with or without children), it is helpful to look separately at Younger Millennials (age 19 to 26) and Older Millennials (age 27 to 35). In the Washington DC region, Younger Millennials tend to be more concentrated in the District, as well as in communities where colleges are located (e.g. University of Maryland, George Mason University, University of Mary Washington).

Hot spots of Older Millennials include South Arlington, Alexandria, and northwest DC, but also include neighbors in more suburban jurisdictions, including northwest Prince George’s County, Springfield, Annandale and the southeastern portion of Fairfax County; and the Sterling area in Loudoun County.

Gen X’ers are more likely to live in the suburbs than are either younger or older Millennials. Relative to their share in the overall population, Gen X’ers are relatively highly concentrated in the Ashburn and Leesburg areas of Loudoun County and in southeastern Montgomery County, including Takoma Park. To a lesser extent, there are concentrations of Gen X’er hot spots in the close-in areas of Alexandria and south Arlington, as well as in Prince William County (e.g. Dale City), and the Centreville and Reston areas of Fairfax County.

Finally, compared to Millennials and Gen X’ers, Baby Boomers in the DC region tend to be more likely to live in Montgomery County, as well as in areas further from the region’s center. Hot spots for Baby Boomers include Bethesda and Potomac, as well as eastern Montgomery County. To a lesser extent, there are concentrations of Baby Boomers in the northern and western sections of Montgomery County, parts of Frederick County; Bowie, Laurel and Oxon Hill in Prince George’s County; McLean and Vienna in Fairfax County, the Laurel area of Prince George’s County; and in the further out Northern Virginia suburbs around Fredericksburg.

The patterns of residential locations by generation generally conform with expectations about housing needs and preferences, with Millennials more likely to live in the city where there are more apartments, Gen X’ers in the inner suburbs where there are more townhouses and smaller housing options, and Boomers in the more distant suburbs where there are larger single-family homes.

The data on older Millennials may be instructive in thinking about where Millennials might live as they get older. Concentrations of older Millennials—those age 27 to 35—include some suburban neighborhoods where homeownership might be more attainable.

Future blogs will explore in more detail the housing and residential location choices of Millennials, Gen X’ers and Baby Boomers in the DC region and in other parts of the country. If you’re looking for data for your community, we’d be happy to help – please reach out!

I was part of a panel series in Charlottesville, Virginia earlier this month that was part of the annual Tom Tom Founders Festival that is held each year in Charlottesville and was focused on housing issues in high-cost small cities. The housing panels brought together housing planners, developers, advocates and others from communities all around the country to share best practices and to contribute to the on-going discussion in Charlottesville about housing affordability and economic and racial inequality.

After moderating a panel with local government staff from Park City, Utah; Boulder, Colorado; and Pasadena, California, I learned some new approaches for local housing solutions:

The panelists from these cities all shared ways in which their communities were trying to address rising affordability challenges. Boulder is in the process of increasing its inclusionary zoningrequirement, from 20 to 25 percent, with the idea of setting aside a share of units for “workforce housing” or for households with slightly higher incomes. That 25 percent requirement would make it one of the highest inclusionary requirements in the countryand it sounded like there was still an open question about what impact it might have on the overall housing market. So I wondered if—and how—communities should do a more formal analysis of potential impacts when adopting or modifying inclusionary zoning programs?

In Park City, the government owns a half dozen units that they set aside specifically for new employees relocating to Park City for a public sector job, or who find themselves in a transition period (e.g. divorce). They also offer housing assistance to public employees who want to live in the community. Other places have considered housing options for new teachers and other public sector employees, but is there a role for private-sector employersto partner with developers or municipalities to build or support housing—even temporary housing—for new employees?

Finally, in Pasadena, they are re-writing their Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinancein response to recent legislative action at the state level. ADUs can be a part of the housing affordability solution but generally there is no guarantee that ADUs will be occupied by people facing the greatest challenges. In Pasadena, the city is offering incentives in the form of fee reductions to homeowners who build ADUs if they are willing to become a Section 8 landlord. Is this a good way to expand options for voucher holders? How else can we increase the number of units available to individuals and families who use a housing choice voucher?

While the policy discussion was really interesting, what was more eye-opening was the general atmosphere at the event, and the tension between people who might be called “elitists” or “outsiders” and long-time Charlottesville residents. Part of the tension stemmed from the incident a year ago when Charlottesville was the site of neo Nazi rallies and opened up a frank—and sometimes contentious—discussion about race relations in the city.

Additional tension at the Tom Tom event was just the simple recognition that no local community likes outsiders to tell it how to do things. Addressing that particular aversion is part of our on-going work with communities, which is why we always try to make communication—listening, gathering information, understanding a wide range of points of view—and partnering with local groups a key part of our consulting work.

Please contact me at lisa@lisasturtevant.com or 703-598-1220 if you’d like to know more about our approach to working with local communities—small and large!—on housing issues.

Since the passage of the Fair Housing Act, overt discrimination in housing market transactions based on race has declined significantly. However, fifty years out from the adoption of the Fair Housing Act, the nation’s long history of both explicit and implicit racial bias means that there remain persistent inequalities in access to housing in high-quality neighborhoods with good access to employment options, transportation and high-performing schools, and the vast majority of communities around the country remain highly racially segregated.

Since the passage of the Fair Housing Act, overt discrimination in housing market transactions based on race has declined significantly. However, fifty years out from the adoption of the Fair Housing Act, the nation’s long history of both explicit and implicit racial bias means that there remain persistent inequalities in access to housing in high-quality neighborhoods with good access to employment options, transportation and high-performing schools, and the vast majority of communities around the country remain highly racially segregated.

The passage of the Fair Housing Act built on and expanded the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and expressly banned many of the public and private actions that had evolved over decades primarily to deny African Americans access to housing. In addition, the Fair Housing Act specifies that “[a]ll executive departments and agencies shall administer their programs and activities relating to housing and urban development…in a manner affirmatively to further” fair housing opportunities. As such, the Fair Housing Act was written not only to right the wrongs of decades of explicit discrimination, but also to actively promote ways to open up housing options and neighborhoods to those who had been denied access in the past.

Local communities—cities, counties, towns and other municipalities—are at the front lines of righting past wrongs and opening up housing options, not only to benefit those that have been historically underserved, but also to build strong communities and economies. As redlining and racial restrictive covenants limited housing options of African Americans in earlier decades, local zoning and other policies continue to play a role in dictating where racial minorities—and particularly African Americans and Hispanics—can live.

Zoning is the regulatory tool local communities use to dictate the type, amount and locations of development activity. Exclusionary zoning policies, including requirements for large lot sizes and large unit sizes, make it difficult for lower-income residents to live in certain communities. These types of zoning regulations, in essence, limit the development of smaller and less expensive housing in many communities, and therefore exclude lower-income households, including minority households.

As redlining and racial restrictive covenants limited housing options of African Americans in earlier decades, local zoning continues to play a role in dictating where racial minorities—and particularly African Americans and Hispanics—can live.

If we are truly to achieve fair housing for all, local municipalities need to be make changes to their land use and zoning to allow for the development of more diverse housing, including housing to meet the needs of lower-income and minority individuals and families. Even as the federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing policy sits in limbo under the current administration, localities across the country are looking for ways to use the tools at their disposal—namely, zoning and other local regulations—to find ways to promote fair housing. There are legitimate obstacles—and some less than legitimate challenges—to making the necessary changes. Housing planning needs to be accomplished in concert with transportation, land use, and schools planning. Incentives to build lower-cost housing must reflect both the housing needs and the housing market conditions of the local community. And just as important as specific zoning, land use or financial strategies, local municipalities must pay attention to how the need for particular policy changes are communicated to the broader community to educate and build broad consensus and to attempt to head off NIMBYism that can derail even the best intended local housing plans.

At Lisa Sturtevant and Associates, our mission is to work collaboratively with cities, counties and towns that seek to build inclusive communities through commonsense land use planning and housing policy designed to support housing that is affordable and appropriate to individuals and families from all backgrounds. Local communities have the power to fulfil the promise of the Fair Housing Act and to ensure that every individual and family in America can live in stable and affordable housing in a neighborhood connected to opportunity.

If you have questions about ways to promote fair housing in your community, please reach out to us!