HomeMy WebLinkAboutH_1975_HousingHousing
AN INVENTORY OF PROBLEMS AND NEEDS
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
Housing
AN INVENTORY OF PROBLEMS AND NEEDS
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
The preparation of this report was financed
in part through a Comprehensive Planning
grant from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development as administered by the
Maryland Department of State Planning.
HOUSING: AN INVENTORY
OF PROBLEMS AND NEEDS
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND
THE WASHINGTON COUNTY
BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Martin L. Snook, President
W. Keller Nigh, Vice President
R. Lee Downey
William J. Dwyer
Burton R. Hoffman
PLANNING STAFF
THE WASHINGTON COUNTY
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
Donald R. Frush, Chairman
William E. Dorsey, Vice Chairman
W. Keller Nigh, Ex -Officio
John C. Herbst
Paul W. Hoffman
David W. Sowers, Jr.
Barbara B. Whitcomb
*Project Planner - Ronald L. Shives
*Executive Director - Barry A. Teach
*Planning Director - Alan R. Musselman
Assistant Planner - Robert B. Garver
Assistant Planner - James B. Witherspoon
Assistant Planner - Thomas E. Van Dyke
Executive Secretary - Marion L. Snyder
*Secretary - Verna M. Brown
*Clerk Typist - Denise A. Coley
*Clerk Typist - Susan G. Hancock
Draftsman - Bonnie V. Lewis
*Draftsman - Jeanette Kaufmann
*participants
-ii-
e
L
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Maps
L
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title Page - ii
Table of Contents - iv
List of Tables vi
List of Maps - vii
Introduction and Summary - 1
Housing Demand - 5
Population Characteristics -
8
Household Characteristics -
17
Employment and Income Characteristics -
25
Housing Attitudes and Preferences -
33
Social Area Analysis -
41
Area Settlement Patterns -
47
Housing Demand -- Projections -
48
Housing Supply -
51
Critical Requirements -
53
Secondary Housing Considerations -
57
Overcrowding and Overextension -
60
Vacancies -
65
Poverty Housing Considerations -
69
Housing Needs - 74
-iv-
e
-v-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(con't)
Page
Housing Obstacles
-
79
House Financing
-
80
Household Budget
for Housing -
80
Home Mortgage Conditions
-
84
Land Costs
-
85
Public Facility
Considerations -
86
Building Costs
-
87
Site Development
Costs -
87
Bibliography
-
90
Abstract
-
92
-v-
I
L
i
L
L
L
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Population Growth Rates -
7
Birth, Death, Fertility Rate -
10
Population Growth and Migration -
13
Household Growth and Migration -
18
Household Characteristics -
19
Importance of Housing Types -
39
Household/Housing Progression -
40
Social Area Analysis -
43
Social Area Analysis: Composite Descriptions -
46
Washington County: Expected Change -
50
Washington County: Critical Requirements -
54,
55,
56
Secondary Housing Considerations -
58,
59
Overcrowded and Overextended Washington County
Occupied Housing Units -
61,
62,
63
Vacancy Requirement -
66,
67,
68
Below the Poverty Level -
70,
71,
72
Housing Needs by Sector -
76
County Total - 2000 Needs Projections -
77,
78
Housing Finance Obstacles -
81
Construction Cost Variables -
83
Housing Supply Activity -
89
-vi-
LIST OF MAPS
Map
Follows Page
Washington County Election Districts, Planning
Sectors - 50
Units Lacking Critical Requirements - 53
Overcrowding - 59
Overextension - 63
Poverty and Housing - 69
Introduction and Summary
l
INTRODUCTION
This report
is an inventory of housing related
problems
and
needs in
Washington
County, Maryland. It
represents a substantial research
effort of
and
is partly
derived
from reports prepared by Urban Research and Development Corporation. This final version
of the report was prepared by the staff of the Washington County Planning and Zoning
Commission. It's purpose is:
- to identify and analyze the factors which are influencing
the supply and the demand of housing in Washington County
- to document current issues and problems
- to determine present needs and anticipate future needs for
housing
The report is areawide in scope in that it attempts to identify geographically,
areas of the County with specified housing problems. This approach was limited somewhat
by the fact that an "on-site" survey was not conducted. However, the data extracted from
the 5th Count Summary Tapes published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census facilitated the
identification of problem areas by election district.
-2-
SUMMARY
The basic findings of the report are summarized below:
1. Declining birth rates, increased longevity especially
among females, and Washington County's propensity to attract
middle -age persons and families have combined to produce an
aging population, and will probably continue to do so. Increased
efforts will be needed in the future to expand the availability
of housing for the elderly.
2. Indications are that the number of female -headed families
will increase in the future. The provision of housing for
this household type will also become an important considera-
tion.
3. In 1970 13.3 percent of all County housing units lacked
either complete plumbing or built in heating systems.
4. 5.5 percent of all occupied housing units were overcrowded,
containing more than 1.01 persons per room.
5. 11.7 percent of all occupied housing units were overextended
6. 16.1 percent of all families and unrelated individuals were
below the poverty level.
7. The western and southern areas of the County had high per-
centages of poverty impaction and high percentages of all housing
units backing critical requirements.
8. The decline in the number of available low down payment mortgage
may serve to exclude elderly, female -headed and low income house-
holds from obtaining adequate housing.
-3-
9. The costs of using traditional building techniques continues to
rise. Innovative building techniques should be encouraged and pro-
moted by public actions.
10. Public policy currently encourages single family unattached
dwellings. Efforts should be increased to encourage a broader variety
of housing types.
11. In the past, advance planning of public utilities has not been
as effective as it should in encouraging sound, community develop-
ment patterns, including the provision of services to areas for higher
density and lower cost housing.
-4-
0
Housing Demand
I
L
r°
L
HOUSING DEMAND - EXISTING
THE SETTING FOR HOUSING IN WASHINGTON COUNTY
Washington County's historical growth rate has paralleled national, state and
regional patterns. This trend is particularly significant as related to social and
economic events just prior to and following World War II.
Counties adjacent to Washington County, however, have exhibited combined growth
patterns which are not similar to the County or the larger national, state and regional
areas. In some adjacent counties, combined population totals and rates of increase were
constant and modest up to 1950, followed by rapid increases in population. Factors which
are unique to the adjacent counties' relationship to urban growth potential in the eastern
United States corridor have probably accounted for the concentrated growth 'explosions' in
these areas.
1
Washington County is on the geographic fringe of the eastern U.S. urban influ-
ence area; a secondary belt to the main growth corridor. Consequently, the County can
.expect to have growth tendencies typical of contiguous counties such as Franklin, Frederick,
Adams, Jefferson, and Loudoun, rather than trends typical of the mountain counties of
Allegany, Bedford, Berkeley, Fulton or Morgan. Herein lies Washington County's unique }
social and economic potential. A location close to an existing urban center does not have
i
POPULATION GROWTH RATES
POPULATION GROWTH RATES BY DECADES: Contiguous Counties: 1900-1970
L
POPULATION GROWTH RATES BY DECADE: Contiguous Regions: 1900-1970
L
Pennsylvania
Marvland
West
Virginia
Virginia
DecadesBe
and
u tan
ran
in A ams
egany
Washington
Frederick
rganBerkeley
Jefferson
Lou oun
Total
1900/10
-1.5
-2.2
8.9
-0.5
16.2
9.9
1.5
7.6
13.0
-0.3
-3:6
5.7
1910/20
-1.5
-0.9
4.2
0.7
12.1
20.3
0.3
6.5
11.6
-1.1
-2.8
5.8
1920/30
-2.5
-4.0
4.4
7.4
13.1
10.4
3.6
0.6
14.2
0.3
-3.5
6.1
1930/40
9.4
15.6
6.7
6.2
9.7
4.5
5.3
4.0
3.5
6.2
2.2
6.6
1940/50
-0.1
-2.7
9.4
12.1
3.2
14.6
8.7
-5.3
4.6
2.5
4.2
6.9
1950/60
4.1
2.0
16.1
17.4
-6.0
15.6
15.5
1.2
11.3
8.6
16.1
9.8
1960/70
-0.1
1.9
14.6
9.9
-0.1
13.8
18.1
2.0
7.6
14.0
51.3
11.7
Source:
Table 5:
U.S.
Bureau
of the Census
Note: for composition
of regions. see
note, table
1
L
POPULATION GROWTH RATES BY DECADE: Contiguous Regions: 1900-1970
L
Decades
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Western
Frederick
West Vir-
Virginia
Total
Washington
Region Six
Region Seven
Maryland
Maryland
ginia Re-
Reqion
County
L
Region
Reqion
Bion Nine
One
1900/10
10.2
32.9
13.4
1.5
7.1
5.7
15.4
9.9
1910/20
6.1
15.5
13.0
0.3
6.4
-5.9
8.3
20.3
r
1920/30
10.5
2.7
10.4
3.6
7.3
10.7
7.7
10.4
V
1930/40
7.6
4.5
7.7
5.3
4.4
41.4
9.0
4.5
1940/50
12.8
-1.7
6.8
8.7
2.4
82.9
14.3
14.6
1950/60
17.0
-2.4
3.2
15.5
9.0
75.9
19.7
15.6
1960/70
12.9
-3.8
6.9
18.1
8.8
48.8
17.2
13.8
Source:
Table 3: U.S.
Bureau of the
Census
Note: for composition
of regions. see
note, table
1
-7-
as much effect on a particular county's growth potential as the regional economic influences
which develop based on major transportation connections of importance to those urban centers.
Washington County possesses unique potential as a new regional economic center. A number
of regional market-oriented industries have announced locations in the Williamsport -Hager-
stown area since 1970.
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Age Factors - An increase in the age level of the County's population is apparent,
particularly since the 1940's. The County has a lower percentage of its population in the
ages 0-4 and in the teens, 10-19. There has been a progressively increasing proportion of
county population in the middle ages (45 to 64) and the elderly age groups. This age struc-
ture is similar to the nation's age structure, though the County has a larger percentage in
the older age groups than the nation.
Neither the County or nation posses pyramidal age forms, a form created by a
population's traditional tendency to have progressively more children than is necessary
I
to replace preceding generations. Rather, the county and nation have a bell -jar popula-
tion age form with distinct bulges and depressions in certain age groups. These fluctua-
tions were caused by special socio-economic conditions associated with the depression and with
World War II. They are permanent features, however, of the county and nation. Combined
no
}
with aging tendencies, these age characteristics will have significant impacts on future
social and economic complexions in the near future.
Extended life expectancies in recent years have been the prime factor affecting
an increasing age tendency in the nation and county. Death rate reductions have been most
dramatic in infants and the elderly, with females expecting to live approximately 7.5 years
longer than males, according to 1970 figures.
Increased longevity, particularly for females, will have profound impacts on
the County in the near future, as the elderly continue to represent a greater relative
percent of the total population. The needs of the elderly, such as unique transportation,
housing, recreation and welfare services and facilities, will not only increase absolutely
but will also become higher in priority compared to the total needs of the population.
Because the County has a relatively large percent of present and potential elderly groups
than many comparable areas, the needs and impacts of the aging will be considerable.
A series of population projections developed in 1968 by the U.S. Bureau of
Census were used to determine the social implications of a stable or declining national
population, particularly the effects a fluctuating_ age form will have on lifestyle and
culture in the near future. The youth culture of the 1960's for example, reflected the
disproportionate concentration of a large percent of the population in youth ages with
youthful outlooks. The culture of the late 1970's and early 1980's, however, will exhibit
BIRTH, DEATH, FERTILITY RATES
BIRTH RATES PER 1,000 POPULATION
UNITED STATES, MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, 1910-1972
Rate Per 1,000
United States and Washington Countv,
1940-1970
C
Population
United
1935
Washington Countv
(Selected Years)
States
Maryland
Washington County
1910
30.1
RATE PER 1,000 WOMEN
1915
29.5
1945
85.9
1920
27.7
0.438
0.540
1925
25.1
25-34 years old
1.389
1930
21.3
2.138
118.7
1935
18.7
2.113
2.468
1940
19.4
17.6
18.4
1945
20.4
20.4
19.8
1950
24.1
23.7
21.4
1955
25.0
2S.3
23.0
1960
23.7
24.8
20.7
1961
23.4
24.4
21.0
1962
22.4
23.2
21.1
1963
21.7
23.2
21.0
196'21.0
2.573
22.9
20-7
1965
19.4
21.0
18.6
1966
18.4
20.0
18.3
1967
17.8
18.9
17.8
1968
17.5
18.1
16.7
1969
17.7
17.9
16.7
1970
18.2
17.6
16.7
1971
17.3
108.5
95.6
1972
70.0
14.6•
Estimated
101.1
87.0
72.7
Sources:
United States: Table 62 et.al. Statistical Abstract of the D.S., 1972,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration
Wa Land and Wuh[a tam Councr- Tables 16, Annual Vital Statistics Report,
ryta tate o.. Harydand Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,
Center for Health Statistics.
CHILDREN EVER BORN:
United States and Washington Countv,
1940-1970
C
Population
United States
1935
Washington Countv
(Selected Years)
1940
1950
1960
1970
1960 1970
RATE PER 1,000 WOMEN
1915
13.2
1945
85.9
15-24 years old
0.289
0.438
0.540
0.360
11.7
25-34 years old
1.389
1.646
2.236
2.138
118.7
26-44 years old
2.306
2.113
2.468
2.956
2.686
Total 15-44
1.235
1.395
1.746
1.619
10.6
RATE PEROME
1,000 WN
9.6
9.5
10.4
1955
9.3
EVER MARRIED
10.2
1960
9.5
9.0
10.6
15-24 years old
0.903
0.993
1.304
0.995
1.294
25-34 years old
1.709
1.854
2.447
2.374
2.222
35-44 years old
2.573
2.302
2.627
3.132
2.483 2.816
Total 15-44
1.899
1.859
2.314
2.360
2.162
Source: U.S. Bureau
of the Census
8.4
9.8
1968
X10
DEATH RATES PER 1,000 POPULATION
UNITED STATES, MARYLAND AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, 1910-1970
Rate Per 1,000
Estimated
8
C
Population
United
1935
77.2
(Selected Years)
States
Maryland
Washington County
1910
14.7
1915
13.2
1945
85.9
1920
13.0
1925
11.7
1930
11.3
1955
118.7
1935
10.9
1940
10.8
11.9
11.3
1945
10.6
10.7
10.6
1950
9.6
9.5
10.4
1955
9.3
8.9
10.2
1960
9.5
9.0
10.6
1961
9.3
6.7
10.2
1962
9.58.'
9.8
1963
9.6
9.0
10.7
1964
9.46.6
92.1
9.7
1965
9.4
B.S
10.3
1966
9.5
8.8
10.2
1967
9.4
8.4
9.8
1968
9.7
8.6
9.8
1969
9.5
8.4
9.5
19709.4
91.2
8.3
9.3
1971
9.3
108.5
95.6
1972
70.0
2005
Sources:
101.1
87.0
72.7
United States: Table 62, et.al. Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1972,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration
I sad and 1,n 10" Coun' Table 18, 11 Vital Statistic Report,
Nary land 1.91tate a7 wryand Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,
Center for Health SxaFis:ics.
PROUECTEB FERTILITY RATES: UNITED STATES,
1935-2020
Annual Births
Per 1,000 Women
Age 15-44
Estimated
8
C
D
E
1935
77.2
^
1940
79.9
1945
85.9
1950
106.1
1955
118.7
1960
119.1
1965
97,3
1970
88.0
1971
82.6
1972
1975
105.3
98.7
92.1
85.2
1980
115.3
104.9
94.5
83.6
1985
114.1
102.7
91.3
79.3
1990
104.4
93.9
83.3
72.2
1995
102.2
91.2
80.4
69.0
2000
108.5
95.6
83.0
70.0
2005
115.3
101.1
87.0
72.7
2010
115.1
101.2
87.4
73.2
2015
108.7
96.2
83.7
70.7
2020
105.9
93.8
81.8
69.3
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Re-
ports, Series P-25, Nos. 465 and 470, re: Statistical Ab-
stract of the U.S., 1972
tr.
a more adult or mature outlook. This effect is very apparent in Washington County, given
the County's predominance of middle to older age groups.
The County's age form has housing and other physical development repercussions
The 1960's youth boom caused a large construction emphasis on family-oriented housing;
then schools; then apartments; etc. This trend was followed by let -downs when the youth
age group which followed was much smaller. The 1970-1980 emphasis will reflect require-
ments of somewhat older population such as the elderly, the surviving adults of a middle-
aged family and young single adults.
Birth Factors - The birth rate (the number of births per 1000 population) has
been falling in the nation and in Washington County since 1965. Women are electing -to
have fewer children than in the past for reasons other than those based on natural, pol-
itical or economic circumstances.
The declining birth rate is more pronounced in Washington County than in com-
Lparable areas because the County has attracted fewer potential mothers in the age group
of 25 to 34 years. Also, women are choosing to have fewer children, in smaller families,
at earlier times in their lives than ever before. In fact, in 1972 the average family
in the nation had only about 2.025 children; that is well below population replacement
requirements, or a zero population growth rate.
-11-
The declining birth rate does not mean that population growth will level -off
immediately. Some growth will still occur until children born under the high fertility
rates in the early 1960's are absorbed into child-bearing ages, in the early 1980's. In
addition, there will possibly be some continued growth if life expectancies are further
extended.
A falling birth rate will have profound and sometimes surprising impacts on
the County because lifestyles and economies have traditionally been predicated on con-
tinued population growth by births.
Migration and Growth Factors - The most dramatic impacts on the future of
housing in Washington County involve distribution of a stable or declining population
between rural and urban areas and from urban areas to urban areas. For example, the
County may need a large influx of people to balance its economic activities between
base and supporting or nonbase industries. A stable national population however, will
be area -bound and thus will be increasingly difficult to attract to the County. This
could limit what has traditionally been the development potential associated with rapid
urbanization. As a result, the County may attract a migrant population during its
formative growth stages (into the 1980's) for base -industry activities, but be unable
to attract a migrant population (middle 1980's) in its later development stages suffici-
ent to achieve balanced and stable service activities.
-12-
POPULATION GROWTH AND MIGRATION
EFFECTIVE MIGRATION: United States and Washington County
Washington
Residence in 1965 of County 1970 1970 Rural Rural 1960
DODUlation 5 years and over Number Percent Total Urban Nonfarm Farm Total
Nonmovers same house) 53,835 56.6 ed.0 51_1 53.8 /Z.5 49.9
Movers (different house) 41,347 43.4 47.0 48.7 46.2 27.5 50.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
All movers
nner-area migration (diffe-
rent house, same county.) 25,192 66.2 55.7 55.6 55.0 63.6 61.5
In -migration (different 38.5
house, different county,
state or abroad) 12,890 33.8 44.3 44.4 45.0 36.4 38.5
Total 38,082 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Resident area population
Nonmove rs
53,835 68,1 69.4 68.1 70.2 82.4 62.6
Inner -area migrants 25,192 31.9 30.6 31.9 29.8 17.6 37.4
Total 79,027 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Effective migration
Resident area population 19,027 86.0 80.5 79.7` 80.4 90.8 81.0
In -migrants 12,890 14.0 19.5 20.3 19.6 9.2 19.0
Total 91,917 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
In -migrant sorries
Different County, same state 4,478 34.7 45.5 42.1 55.2 63.3 45.7
Different state 7,653 59.4 46.7 48.6 41.3 33.8 47.6
Abroad 759 5.9 7.8 9.3 3.5 2.9 6.7
Total 12,890 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: U.S. bureau of Census, 1970
COMPONENT RATES OF POPULATION GROWTH: United States, Washington County Decades,
1920-1970
Rates Per
1,000 Population
of Base Year 1920-1929 1930-1939 1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969
Washinaton County
Birth Rate 23.3 23.5 20.5
Death Rate 11.3 10.8 11.8
Rate of 12.0 12.7 8.7
natural
Increase
Net Growth 10.4 4.5 14.6 15.6 13.8
Rate
Net Migration 2.6 2.9 5.1
Rate
United States
Birth Rate 21.1 17.3 22.2 24.5 19.8
Death Rate 12.0 11.0 10.3 9.5 9.5
Rate of 9.1 6.3 11.9 15.0 10.3
Natural
Increase
Net Growth 16.1 7.2 14.5 18.9 13.3
Rate
Net Migration 7.0 0.9 2.6 3.9 3.0
Rate
Source: Washington Count : Birth and death rates derived from tables 15 and 17,
Annual Vita Stag isticseport, Maryland 1970; State of Maryland Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene, Center for Health Statistics. Rate of Natural increase=
birth rate minus death rate. Net growth rate from U.S. Bureau of Census. Net
Miaration rate = net growth rate minus rate of natural increase.
United States: Tables 8 and 62, et, al., Statistical Abstract of the United States.
972, U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration.
AGE FORMS BY INDICATOR AGE GROUPS:
U.S. AND WASHINGTON COUNTY, 1930-1970
Age Groups in Percent
Washington County
0-4 5-19
20-24
25-44
45-64
6S•
Total
1930
9.6 30.3
8.4
27.3
18.2
6.2
100.0
1940
8.0 27.5
8.7
28.9
19.5
7.4
100.0
1950
10.2 23.6
7.8
29.7
19.7
8.8
100.0
1960
10.2 27.1
5.9
26.9
20.5
9.4
100.0
1970
8.3 28.2
8.1
24.1
21.5
9.8
100.0
United States
1930
9.3 29.5
8.9
29.4
17.5
5.4
100.0
1940
8.0 26.4
8.8
30.1
19.9
6.8
100.0
1950
10.8 23.1
7.6
29.8
20.5
8.2
100.0
1960
11.3 27.2
6.0
26.2
20.1
9.2
100.0
1970
8.4 29.5
8.1
23.6
20.5
9.9
100.0
Source: United States
Census of Population,
1970. Washington
County:
1930-1960:
Plan for the
County,
19 70 : 1970: U.S. Census
of Population,
Maryland.
-13-
The County future growth potential will be determined mainly by net in -migra-
tion. Net in -migration into the County during the 1960's for example, offset a declin-
ing birth rate enough to create an overall population increase. Past annual migration
patterns, however, have been sporadic with sudden deficits or surpluses within adjacent
time periods. These migration shifts had no particular effect on the County's overall
growth pattern because of the higher birth rates of the 1950's; but such shifts could
have a dramatic effect in the near future, given lower birth rates.
The overall net migrant pattern for Washington County shows that it is an
area which is attractive to middle-aged families, the elderly and single or widowed
women, but unattractive to young husband -wife families, and widows and widowers of
specific ages. In terms of mobility, the County has attracted middle and elderly age
group in -migrants who normally have the least propensity to move. Conversely, young
adults, who are generally very mobile, have not been attracted. Some unique County
characteristics, such as employment opportunities, recreational features and other en-
vironmental attributes have probably created this pattern.
The analysis in this study shows that people in the County had a relatively
low propensity to move. Of all people who did move, however, County residents were
more likely to move to a different house within the County than to leave the area. This
was true of almost two-thirds of all people who moved. About one-third of all County
-14-
residents changed houses between 1965 and 1970, a percentage which reflects a high
housing market turnover.
Age groups least likely to migrate out of the County are middle-aged adults
with children age 5 to 17,and the elderly. Since these age groups are presently very
prevalent in the County's age form, and have been attracted into the County during the
1960's, the County has accumulated a relatively stable resident population base. These
age groups, however, are most likely to change their residence through moving from one
place to another within the County. Given the propensity for these age groups to change
housing at a relatively high annual rate, it is likely that the County will always have
a high turnover housing market regardless of its future growth potentials.
In -migration propensities are likely to have the most impact on the County's
net growth and the nature of the housing market. The most mobile in -migration age
groups, age 20 to 29, are affected by housing adjustments associated with inner -area
migration (i.e., changing family status from independence to marriage to family forma-
tion) and the traditional employment opportunities associated with in -migration. If the
20 to 29 age groups are retained or attracted to the County in the future, their housing
demands would be proportionately greater than their absolute numbers, particularly since
the County market has not been oriented to this age group in the past.
-15-
If the County does not attract the 20 to 29 age group, the County's net
growth during the late 1970's and early 1980's is likely to be moderate. If the
County retains and attracts this age group, the County's net growth could be drama-
tic not only from the increases implied by a high or potentially high net in -migra-
tion of these age groups, but also from the concentrated birth patterns now typical
of women at these ages.
The difference is crucial for the County's future, since these two possi-
bilities imply distinctly different future populations for the County; numerically,
socially and economically. This will have a profound effect on the housing market.
The most dramatic component of County growth is not population increase and/
or stabilization from natural causes, but the selective impact of migration into the
County.
National data were used in this study to determine the magnitude and scope
of expected migrations or shifts in the national population. The magnitude, nature
and likely extent of migration in the County is realistically discernible only on a
national scale.
The national projections of the U. S. Commission on Population Growth and the
American Future, were extended to the year 2000, based on migration trends from 1940
-16-
to 1970 with added weight on the 1960 to 1970 decade. The results of these analyses
represent likely population migrations by specific metropolitan area.
The analysis indicates that approximately 40 percent of the entire national
population will reside within the confine of one super urban region extending from Chi-
cago to New York, then to Maine and south to the edge of North Carolina.
This super region will probably include Washington County and the contiguous
Counties of Franklin, Adams, Frederick, Loudoun, Jefferson, and Berkeley hecause of
the excellent transportation linkages with existing urban centers.
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
General Characteristics - The gross determinant of Washington County's housing
demand is the absolute change in the number of households which occurs on an annual basis.
The age form of the population is the common factor relating population growth to house-
hold growth, since age is a predictor of household and housing propensities; independence,
marriage, family formation and family dissolution. Consequently, changes in population
growth are not directly related to household growth and housing demand. Alterations in the
County age form, particularly changes affected by selective migration and trends in
marriage and divorce patterns, could direct the County's housing market along lines similar
to national trends, but of more variable magnitude.
-17-
HOUSEHOLD GROWTH AND MARITAL STATU§
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH: United States and Washington
County, 1900-1970
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
MARITAL STATUS BY SEX: United States and Washington County, 1970
United States Washington Countv
Male Female Total Kale Female Total
Single 28.6 22.4 25.4 26.5 19.1 22.7
Married 64.2 59.0 61.5 66.0 62.6 64.2
Other 7.2 18.6 13.1 7.5 18.3 13.1
Separated (1.5) (2.3) (1.9) (1.8) (2.1) (2.0)
Widowed (2.9) (12.4j (7.8) (3.2) (12.8) (8.2)
Divorced (2.8) (3.9) (3.4) (2.5) (3.4) (2.9)
Total 100.0 100.0 1DO.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Mote: Percent of all persons 14 years and older
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970: General Social
and Economic Characteristics, State of Maryland and U.S.
Summary.
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH RATES: United States and Washinaton Countv,
1900-1970
United States
Washington
County
Countv
Population
Households
Population Household
1900
75,994,000
15,964,000
45,133
26.8
1910
91,972,000
20,256,000
49,617
20.2
1920
105,711,000
24,352,000
59,694
22.8
1930
122,775,000
29,905,000
fi5,882
16.8
1940
131,669,000
34,949,000
68,838
17,697
1950
150,697,000
42,857,000
78,886
22,396
1960
178,464,000
53,021,000
91,219
17,200
1970
203,212,000
62,874,000
103,829
32,566
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census
MARITAL STATUS BY SEX: United States and Washington County, 1970
United States Washington Countv
Male Female Total Kale Female Total
Single 28.6 22.4 25.4 26.5 19.1 22.7
Married 64.2 59.0 61.5 66.0 62.6 64.2
Other 7.2 18.6 13.1 7.5 18.3 13.1
Separated (1.5) (2.3) (1.9) (1.8) (2.1) (2.0)
Widowed (2.9) (12.4j (7.8) (3.2) (12.8) (8.2)
Divorced (2.8) (3.9) (3.4) (2.5) (3.4) (2.9)
Total 100.0 100.0 1DO.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Mote: Percent of all persons 14 years and older
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970: General Social
and Economic Characteristics, State of Maryland and U.S.
Summary.
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD GROWTH RATES: United States and Washinaton Countv,
1900-1970
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 40
HOUSEHOLD GROWTH BY MARITAL TYPE: United States and Washington County. 1950-1971
United
States
Washington
Countv
Primary
Population
Households
Population
Households
1900-1910
21.0
26.8
9.9
Fani ly
1910-1920
14.9
20.2
20.3
34,075
1920-1930
16.1
22.8
10.4
1955
1930-1940
7.2
16.8
4:5
6,142
1940-1950
14.5
22.6
14.6
26.5
1950-1960
18.4
23.7
15.6
27.5
1960-1970
11.4
18.5
13.8
19.7
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 40
HOUSEHOLD GROWTH BY MARITAL TYPE: United States and Washington County. 1950-1971
HOUSEHOLD GROWTH RATES BY MARITAL TYPE: United States and Washington County, 1950-1970
Husban&
Total
Male Head
Female Head
Primary
Wife Family
Other Family
Other Family
Other Family
Individual
UNITED
STATES (000)
Fani ly
Family
Family
1950
34,075
4,763
1,169
3,594
4,716
1955
36,251
5,481
1,328
4,153
6,142
1960
39,254
5,650
1,228
4,422
7,895
1965
41,588
6,132
1,168
4,964
9,531
1967
42,489
6,302
1,785
5,117
10,054
1968
43,267
6,467
1,194
5,273
10,710
1969
43,818
6.598
1,217
5,381
11,389
1970
44,408
6,702
1,209
5,493
11,765
1971
44,704
7,119
1,250
5,869
12,551
WASHINGTON COUNTY
1960
20,747
2,930
na
n&5,817
1970
23,684
3,214
726
2,488
5,668
Source:
United States:
Statistical Abstract of the U.S.
1972, U.S. Department of
Commerce. Social and Economic Statistic Administration. Washington County:
Bureau of
Census
HOUSEHOLD GROWTH RATES BY MARITAL TYPE: United States and Washington County, 1950-1970
Source: Table 63 at. al
i
Husband-
Total
Hale Head
Female
Primary
Wife
Other
Other
Head Other
Individual
Family
Fani ly
Family
Family
UNITED STATES
1950-1955
6.3
15.1
13.6
15.5
30.2
1955-1960
8.2
3.1
-7.6
6.4
28.5
1960-1965
5.9
'B.5
-4.9
12.2
20.7
1965-1970
6.7
9.3
3.5
10.6
23.0
1950-1960
15.2
18.6
5.0
23.0
67.4
1960-1970
13.1
18.6
-1.5
24.2
49.0
WASHINGTON COUNTY
1960-1970
14.2
9.7
na
na
-2.6
Source: Table 63 at. al
i
L
t
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
PERCENT 65 AND OLDER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE: United States
and Washington County, 1970
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY MARITAL TYPE; United States and Washington
County, 1970-1971
Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Total
UNITED STATES
1970 All Families 7.2 21.0 21.1 (37.7) 13.1 100.0
1971 Husband -Wife 7.2 21.0 21.1 21.2 16.5 13.1 100.0
Families
Male Head 6.0 11.0 16.6 24.2 17.6 24.6 100.0
Only Families
Female Head 7.9 18.8 20.1 21.4 14.8 17.0 100.0
Only Families
All Families 7.2 20.5 20.9 21.3 16.3 13.8 100.0
WASHINGTON COUNTY
1970 All Families 6.8 17.3 19.4 (37.8) 18.7 100.0
Source: United States: Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 1972, U.S. Department of
Commerce. Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Washington County: U.S.
Bureau of the Census, General Population Characteristics.
FgUSEHOLD COMPOSITION BY MARITAL TYPE: United States and Washington County, 1950-1971
UnitedStates Washington Company
Total Population
9.9
9.8
All Households
19.3
18.7
All Families
13.8
11.9
Husband -wife
13.1
na
family
1950
Male Head
24.6
na
Only Family
10.9
21.8
Female Head
17.0
25.2
Only Family
2.8
8.6
Primary Individuals
42.9
45.5
Male
na
32.8
Female
na
51.8
Source: United States: Statistical Abstract
of the U.S.
1972, U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and
Economics'
Statistics Administration. Washington County:
Bureau of
the Census, General
Population Characteristics, 1970.
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY MARITAL TYPE; United States and Washington
County, 1970-1971
Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Total
UNITED STATES
1970 All Families 7.2 21.0 21.1 (37.7) 13.1 100.0
1971 Husband -Wife 7.2 21.0 21.1 21.2 16.5 13.1 100.0
Families
Male Head 6.0 11.0 16.6 24.2 17.6 24.6 100.0
Only Families
Female Head 7.9 18.8 20.1 21.4 14.8 17.0 100.0
Only Families
All Families 7.2 20.5 20.9 21.3 16.3 13.8 100.0
WASHINGTON COUNTY
1970 All Families 6.8 17.3 19.4 (37.8) 18.7 100.0
Source: United States: Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 1972, U.S. Department of
Commerce. Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Washington County: U.S.
Bureau of the Census, General Population Characteristics.
FgUSEHOLD COMPOSITION BY MARITAL TYPE: United States and Washington County, 1950-1971
Source: Table 63 et. al.
-19-
Husband-
Wife
Family
Total
Other
Family
Male Head
Other
Family
Female
Head Other
Family
Primary
Individual
Total All
Non -Husband -
Wife Family
TOTAL
UNITED
STATES
1950
78.2
10.9
2.7
8.2
10.9
21.8
100.0
1955
75.7
11.4
2.8
8.6
12.9
24.3
100.0
1960
74.3
10.7
2.3
8.4
15.0
25.7
100.0
1965
72.6
10.7
2.0
8.7
16.7
27.4
100.0
1967
72.2
10.7
2.0
8.7
17.1
27.8
100.0
1968
71.5
10.7
2.0
8.7
17.8
28.5
100.0
1969
70.8
10.7
2.0
8.7
18.5
29.2
100.0
1970
70.6
10.6
1.9
8.7
18.8
29.4
100.0
1971
69.4
11.1
1.9
9.2
19.5
30.6
100.0
WASHINGTON COUNTY
1960
70.3
9.9
na
na
19.8
29.7
100.0
1970
72.7
9.9
2.2
7.7
17.4
27.3
100.0
Source: Table 63 et. al.
-19-
The next changing pattern in household growth will occur in the late 1970's.
There will be more maturing adults, causing more households to be in demand, particularly
if the net increase in population comes from outside the County.
The population/household relationship can also be expressed in terms of per-
sons per household and persons per family. The historical decline in the number of
persons per household has been affected by the dissolution of the traditional patriar-
chal family, the falling birth rate and extended life expectancies. The average number
of persons per household in the County is lower than the nation mainly because the County
has a larger number and percentage of elderly widowed persons. Conversely, the average
number of persons per family in the County was lower than the nation in 1970, due to
the County's lower birth rate, but showed an increase over the 1960 County average due
to the selective net in -migration of middle-aged families and the net out -migration of
young adult families. The County's future ratio of persons per household and persons
per family are likely to continue declining.
Marital Status - In addition to age form, the most basic variables determining
population to household conversions are marriage and divorce patterns. Specific changes
in marriage and divorce patterns may alter the population to household factor for any
given specific age or sex; they may also change the composition of household types re-
quiring housing. There is an obvious difference, for example, in the housing requirements
-20-
fL
L
and capabilities between a single individual, a married couple and a divorced or widowed
Lindividual with children.
The percent of married women was higher in 1970 than at any other time in
the nation's history, indicating that a greater percent of the total population has
chosen to marry than in the past. Also, the percent of divorced women has increased,
indicating that a greater opportunity to marry has also likely caused a greater net
i
possibility of divorce.
The percent of all widows steadily decreased to 1960, then increased. Ex-
tended life expectancies for both men and women probably accounted for the initial
decrease, but will likely cause higher percentages of widows among adult females in
the future.
While marriage appears to have become more popular, recent trends indicate
that the percent of women marrying has changed dramatically over the last decade.
Women maturing into marriage ages since 1960 are not marrying at the same rate typical
of the post-war period; a smaller percentage of all eligible women are deciding to marry.
It is likely that the number and percentage of people choosing to marry will
continue to decline in the future.
f
L
-21-
Marriage probability is not identical for men and women, and will likely
continue that way. There is generally a greater percentage of single men than women,
particularly in the younger ages. Also, there is a larger percentage of married men
than women. These marital probabilities are affected by differential birth rates and
life expectancies.
The differential marital status evident between the sexes is likely to have
a higher impact on the housing market in the future than in the past. This will be
true particularly for specialized housing types, such as apartments.
The difference between the median age of men and women at first marriage is
a major factor in the housing market, particularly when the effect of difference in
median marriage ages are combined with differences in life expectancy between the sexes.
An average woman in 1970, for example, could expect to outlive a male counterpart by
approximately 7.5 years. Under present marriage patterns, however, her spouse is appro-
ximately 2.4 years older to begin with, consequently, she can expect to live 9.9 years
longer than her spouse when marriage and life differentials are combined. Consequently,
in market terms, the specialized types of housing being built for older age groups will
not only be predominantly occupied by widowed women, but women who can expect to live
in a widowed state for a longer period of time.
-22-
The length of a marriage is a direct factor of divorce incidence probabilities.
Curiously, the longer a marriage has endured, the greater likelihood the marriage will
be disolved by divorce. The impact divorce has had on marriage as an institution and
as a creator of new household types is most evident when the median of a typical marriage
duration is compared with the average number of children involved at the time of marriage
dissolution. The shortest typical marriage duration was in 1950, approximately 5.3 years,
due likely to the personal and social adjustments required caused by World War II. A
typical marriage survived longer in the middle 1960's,approximately 7.2 years, but appeared
to be less stable in recent times (6.9 years in 1969). The number of children involved
in a marriage dissolution increased significantly until 1968. However, it is now declining
and will continue to do so because of a declining birth rate.
The differential sex patterns in divorce and remarriage are thereby likel-y to
create an increasing number of divorced females and female -headed families with children.
When combined with differential life expectancies and the effect of different median age
L at marriage, the female -oriented household is likely to be a very significant housing
market factor in the future.
Housing Implications - The traditional husband -wife family was still the largest
single household type in the County in 1970 (approximately 72.7 percent). All other
-23-
i
L
l
-24-
non -husband -wife family households combined, however, had higher relative growth rates
by type and constituted an increasingly greater percentage of all household types com-
bined than the traditional husband -wife family. This trend has not been as typical of
the County as the nation during recent decades because of selective County out-imgration
1
trends for the age group 20 to 29.
The County is also likely to acquire even more female -oriented households
particularly since the County continues to attract a disproportionately large percentage
of middle-aged and elderly husband -wife families as it has in the past.
J
The differential age forms of the various household types underscore some
The husband -wife family, for
basic differences to be expected in the housing market.
example, will likely demand housing units typical of the needs of the 25-54 age groups,
since these age groups contain the primary concentrations of this type. Conversely, the
male -headed family is likely to demand housing units which meet needs of older children
and/or aged male adults, since the male heading a male -headed family tends to be older.
The female -headed family, however, is likely to demand units typical of both
of the above; units for younger children living with divorced/or separated mothers
and units for older children and/or aged adults, since female headed families are con-
centrated on the extreme ends of the age scale.
l
-24-
EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME CHARACTERISTICS
Population/Employment Relationships - The effects of a declining fertility
rate are most apparent when population and employment relationships are expressed as
a ratio of the working to the nonworking (or dependent) population. This ratio has
been declining and will continue to decline in the future under the assumption of zero
population growth as working adults represent a greater proportion of the population.
A significantly different relationship will occur between employment and growth. An
absolute increase in employment opportunities will generate a decreasing scale of net
population growth under the declining dependency ratio.
Factors other than simple fertility have affected and will affect employment
growth, particularly when growth rates between population and employment are compared.
One such factor is the impact of extended life expectancies. Extended life expectancies,
particularly for males, have actually increased the labor force as males maturing into
employable ages are being added, rather than this group replacing present older age
workers.
Labor force Participation - A potentially more significant factor, however, is
the actual percentage of eligible adults who choose to participate in the labor force.
Eligible adults (over 16 years old) are electing to find employment opportinities more
-25-
than ever before, despite increased life expectancies and educational/vocational re-
quirements.
The highest labor force participation rates are common for ages associated with
family support (i.e. middle ages 35 to 44), but have been decreasing for older age groups.
Conversely, rates have been increasing in the County for younger aged adults, particularly
females. This indicates a desire and/or necessity for earlier economic independence, and
increased employment capabilities of these age groups.
The rise in labor participation rates for young adults in the County, however,
has not kept pace with the rates of comparable areas in Maryland. This indicates that
one reason for the large out -migration of these age groups from the County may be for
job opportunities, particularly those of the type associated with younger aged adults.
Participation rates for women in general reflect birth propensities, i.e.
females choose to work in increasing numbers up to the age range of 25 to 34 when most
births are concentrated and children are most dependent on mother -care. Increasingly,
however, women are remaining in or returning to the labor force in the ages following.
This indicates that either declining fertility rates and/or smaller families have permitted
career opportunities in conjunction with family relationships, or that women are choosing
to have careers without such relationships.
-26-
Overall female labor force participation rates, however, do not show what
may be the real reason for increasing female work propensities; family support. Female
labor force participation rates have been increasing generally, but not for single
and divorced or widowed women as much as for married women. The trend is even more
apparent by marital status and presence or absence of children. The greatest partici-
pation rate increases have been for married women with a husband present and with child-
ren under the age of six. Consequently desires for career opportunities may not be as
much a motivating factor as the simple income requirements, in raising a family. The
simple effects of such increases in female employment probabilities is most apparent
in the composition of the female labor force. In 1970, almost two-thirds of the female
labor force was composed of married women with husbands present in the family.
The two -working member household will continue to increase in the future and
could cause a number of significant effects on the dependency ration and income associa-
tions between households types as well. The working wife, in a husband -wife household
where both work, dramatically alters the income of the family and its housing require-
ments.
-27-
Employment - In this study, employment totals by industry and individual indus-
tries' composition of total employment in the County were compared with various comparable
areas in Maryland. The results of this comparison provide a summary description of the
type of economic situation prevailing in the County in the 1970's, and provide a glimpse
of the type of economic structure the County is likely to exhibit in the future.
The ultimate character of the County's economic structure is not as important
however, as the dynamics involved in creating that structure, particularly the number
of employees required per industry and the resultant population growth. The County's
economic transition in this regard is a more accurate indicator of its population growth
and housing needs than natural reproduction trends.
There are two different -types of industries: basic and nonbasic. Basic indus-
tries provide the local area's reason for being, since basic industries (agriculture,
mining, construction, manufacturing and transportation) supply the goods and services
demanded in a national economy. Non -basic or support industries (utilities, wholesale
and retail trade, finance, personal services, health, education, government, etc.) pro-
vide the sustaining goods and services necessary to support the population associated with
basic industries. Consequently, the two types are related though their future growth
must necessarily be projected in different ways. Base industry growth depends on the
national market's demand for its products, while nonbase industry growth is related to
the local growth of nonbase industry itself, as the local economy reaches higher levels
-28-
L
f
L
of development.
r Earlier in our history, base industries centered on agriculture or mining
1 activities. In turn, these resources provided the materials necessary for manufac-
turing to develop. With manufacturing came the construction and transportation in-
dustries. In turn, these base -industry plants and the population they concentrated
Jaround them required supporting goods and services. Increasingly, the support activ-
ities began to generate their own population, which in turn had to be supported, until
utlimately there was more employment in the support industries than in the base in-
L
dustries.
Income - As a general index of well-being, this study considers median income
from all sources: social security, pensions, investment, inheritance, etc. This type
of median income for all persons has risen significantly in the nation and County, through
disparities are apparent between the sexes and between the County and nation. Median
income for males in the County did not keep pace with the nation during the 1960's; a
gain of only 18.3 percent as compared with a national gain of 63.4 percent. Lower oc-
cupation earnings in the County, for professional -technical occupations in particular,
and lower participation rates for young males in the County, as well as an increasing
percentage of all males in retirement in the County as compared with the nation, are
-29-
probable causes. Median female income, while considerably less than male median
income, has been increasing more rapidly nationwide. Female median income increased
more rapidly in the County during the 1960's than in the nation. A higher percent-
age of females in the County were in the labor force, particularly in white-collar
occupations.
The distribution of income among families in the nation and County since
1950 has been moving upward. That is, a single concentration is evident each year
in a single income bracket, and this concentration keeps moving upward to higher in-
come brackets. This progressive pattern of family income distribution in the County
is slightly below the national average.
This study has compared the occupational income structure of the nation
with that existing in the County. In many respects, the County follows the national
pattern. However, median earnings of both males and females were lower in 1970 than
in comparable areas of Maryland. By specific occupation and sex, County earnings
were well -below all other areas for male professional and managerial positions and
for female clerical positions. Both occupations will be important in meeting the
area's eventual development needs. Earnings of nearly all other occupations in the
County were equal to or only slightly below comparable Maryland areas.
-30-
The most significant factor affecting family income is the sex of the family
head and the income contribution of a working wife. The income of female -headed fam-
ilies is usually in the lower ranges, while male -headed families tend to have higher in-
come. In husband -wife families, when both work, the wife's earnings are relatively margi-
nal. However, her contribution does have a significant impact on peak earnings ages,
shifting this peak age from 35-44 when the husband only works to 45-54. National fig-
ures for 1959 and 1969 show that the income of a husband -wife family over 65 where both
worked was almost double that of a husband -wife family where only the husband worked.
There is a real motivation for wives to work in their late years. The net result is
the creation of three distinct family income distributions:
(1) Female -headed
family
or elderly husband -wife
family where
the male only
works --
low income to middle
income.
(2) Male -headed family or husband -wife family where the
husband only works -- middle income.
(3) Husband -wife family where both work -- tends to be higher income.
Although these differences do not in themselves indicate different housing
needs, they have a significant impact on housing demand.
-31-
The young and the elderly in all family types -- whether male - or female -
headed, or husband -wife -- obviously need different housing than all family types in
the middle ages where children are present. The young and elderly are prospects for
mobile homes, apartments, condominiums, etc. -- units designed primarily for adults.
The middle-aged family with children requires more space, private rooms apart from
children, outdoor recreation areas, access to schools, etc.
The income disparities evident among family types with children indicate
that three types of housing are required: (1) a low-cost housing unit for female -
headed families; (2) a middle-income unit with similar characteristics for middle-
income male -headed families and husband -wife families where the husband alone works;
and (3) an upper-income unit with the same general characteristics for upper-income
husband -wife families where both work. Such flexibility is not presently being pro-
vided in the housing market.
Poverty in the County is obviously closely related to the planning of
future housing programs. About 14.3 percent of all households in the County were
in the poverty level in 1970 and thus ill -housed. Of these 42.7 percent were in-
dividuals mostly female; and 31.6 percent were female -headed families. Poverty is
thus an acute and almost exclusive problem of the elderly and females in the County.
This pattern is also true of the nation as a whole. To a large extent poverty
-32-
is caused by unequal pay for females and by the fact that many of the elderly must
depend entirely on limited social security benefits or fixed income.
HOUSING ATTITUDES AND PREFERENCES
A housing attitude and preference survey was not undertaken for Washington
County because of time and financial limitations. However, the consulting firm of Urban
Research and Development Corporation provided the Planning Commission with the results
of such a survey conducted in Berks County, Pennsylvania. Although almost triple the
size of Washington County in terms of total population, Berks County's population like
that of Washington County, was nearly equally proportioned in terms of urban, suburban,
and rural areas. For this reason, it is contended that the survey results have utility
as applied to Washington County, and are presented below.
1. Specific preferences were found for different household types.
Each age -household type had its own unique rank -order criteria
from which to make a housing and area selection. The survey in-
dicated that some factors are more critically important than
others in the housing market -- price, type, general environment,
mobility, and schools. The order of importance obviously depends
on the age and household type.
-33-
2. The remaining criteria -- size (number of bedrooms, etc.), peo-
ple in the neighborhood, access to shopping, furnishings, age
of housing unit, access to recreation -- are of relative signi-
finance. That is, these characteristics may affect a household's
selection between housing units but will probably not determine
which location or type of unit is considered most critical. For
example, the husband -wife family of age 30-34 is least flexible
about type, size, school, and general environment. The husband -
wife family over 65, however, is most flexible on price, type,
school, size, and general environment, but least flexible on peo-
ple in the neighborhood (preference for people of their age).
Female -headed families and females living alone consider public
transportation more important than other household types. Single
young adults are more interested in living near other single young
adults than in most other criteria for housing preference.
3. The willingness of the elderly and the single young adults to
make compromises on most criteria in order to live near their
peers may make them more receptive to housing innovations than
all other types. For example, these two types are major cus-
tomers for mobile homes.
-34-
r
L
a. Young Adult (ages 18-24) -- He or she leaves the
family
to establish
4. Most households will compromise physical criteria to live in the
Ltirely
"right" social area. In the future, the middle-aged husband -wife
family may be willing to adjust its cost or type expectations to
depending on
fit new housing realities, as long as they are provided in suburban
Lvice.
settings with good schools, ample open space, et al. In other words,
Association
they may be willing to give up the detached single-family housing
unit, with its increasingly expensive personal and community cost,
commuting
other important factors considered equal.
LAge
of
structure, shopping,
5. Generally, a cycle exists in which individuals and households mature
and, thus, change their housing requirements:
a. Young Adult (ages 18-24) -- He or she leaves the
ant.
-35-
family
to establish
an independent residence, en -
Ltirely
depending on
job, school, or military ser-
Lvice.
Association
with peers, low cost, environ-
ment, and
commuting
distance are critical factors.
LAge
of
structure, shopping,
size, layout or furn-
ishings
of housing
unit and schools are unimport-
ant.
-35-
b. Family Starter (age 25-29 primarily) -- Space needs
are small at first, but expand. Price, single-family
unit, environment, and schools are important. Other
factors are less important.
c. Middle Family (age 30-34) -- Space needs increase; also,
the need for outdoor recreation. Association with peer
group is important. Price, single-family unit, environ-
ment and schools are important. This household type has
been the base for the housing market. Most families of
this type, faced with rising costs, will probably be wil-
ling to buy a single-family attached or clustered unit in
a planned unit development as long as that unit is in a
suburban 'social' setting.
d. Empty -nester (age 45-64) -- Space needs decrease, parti-
cularly the need for outdoor space. Interest in associa-
ting with peer group increases. Though still concerned
with price and type, the empty -nester is more discriminating
than the middle family as to general location, commuting
costs and general setting. This type tends to move out of
suburban single-family units into condominiums and town-
house -garden apartments.
-36-
e. Elderly family (over 65) -- More concerned with ease
of running a home than environment, and interested in
sociability. Price is still important, but so is park-
ing and public transportation. Size is not important.
f. Elderly survivors (primarily females over 65) -- Price,
transportation, access to shopping are increasingly im-
portant. Access to health care and welfare services very
important.
g. Other Households (for example, childless families,
middle-aged bachelors) -- tend to jump across parti-
cular stages rather than progress through the cycle.
The study of Washington County, thus far, housing has provided a social analysis,
an order of housing preferences by household type, and a model or framework exnressinq
_ the changing naeds of people over time.
The principal planning and housing market implications of this study can be
expressed as follows:
1. The basic factors affecting housing preference are more social
(peer group) than physical (type of house, setting, etc.);
-37-
2. The creation of social areas which strongly influence housing
preference causes generalized needs which government and the
market should provide;
3. It is economically impossible for the community to meet every group's
needs in every neighborhood; therefore, neighborhoods will specialize;
the community will help create neighborhoods that are balanced in an
income and racial sense but not in an age and household type sense;
this will create area -bound, specialized housing markets; specific
physical characteristics will not be as important as social factors
and housing innovations should be able to meet personal and community
needs to a higher degree under sound area policies than has been assumed.
4. The solution to County and City problems lies, therefore, in using
planning and zoning to encourage social -area housing marketing pro-
grams and new types of housing.
r
IMPORTANCE OF HOUSEHOLD TYPES
RANK ORDER IMPORTANCE OF HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE
Order of Primary Indi
Impor- H u s b a n d W i f e iithar Fa mOn!-ppaerso
to
senet Under o- Male
Pub lis
Trans -
setting District District District rural Trans- setting ' Setting rural Setting
RELATIVE DEGREE OF LOST OR LEAST IMPORTANCE
ASSIGNED RANK ORDER CRITERIA
BETWEEN HOUSEHOLD TYPES
Household Type with Highest Household With Lowest Percent
Percent of Most Importance Of Most Importance
Criteria (i -e.. Least Nepotia61e1 (i_e., Most Neaotia6lel
1 P.ri ce _ Fcma to Other Family (WSJ _ Nusband-Wife Family Over BS (SBS}
ype - urban.- WITe'Fa.lFy ]d Pfu5band-11ieiam—iTy �er�dx [3Sii
175%)
nerd Husband -1011t, Faaly - Husband -x; a amt y B• I
is
17 Atte 9f.Un 4L
FrSea le Other Family ?2217
Husain Pr1ft
r i
S3 Public
Female Pri ztary lrnit Yldua.l
Zb-al
Nes band W1 xe Family 25- B
Family
I ill
7r n r Ion
age
Plop a in
People in
No.
No,-
Lotatien to
ScNdd1
Public Trans-
Public Trans-
No.
_
People
15 R"reatlonal
NWSWnd.Wife Famf y lander 25
91
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
Bathrooms
Bathroom
Shopping
District
portation
portation
Bedrooms
in Neige,
Provided
(15%)
Source: Urban Research
and Development Corporation
byrm4pd
10 p ! in
Cres-
No.
people
5chno
No.
No,
" a
5chpe
Location
No.
Neighborhood
tlonal
Bathrooms
in Neigh-
District
Bath rock
Bedrooms
in Ne1gN-
District
to Work
Bath -
facilities
barh,00d
borhood
rum
crew-
Ne.
Age
Lacs Lion
Age
Locat on
Age
Location
No.
Lace-
.
tional
SPKIAl
to shopping
to Shopping
to Shopping
Bathrooms
tion to
.Facilities
Use Room
S11001M
t.
o,
rlaMAge
ocAt on
,
c W
roeAve
Bathroom
Bathrooms
tfdedt
sped al
to Work
Bathroom
District
Bathrooms
Ois trio
�-
facilltles
Use Roods
No,
Lecatlon
ge
Locat "
Pup ie
ureil sn-
ge
RD'
tree-
Wit is
Special
to Shopping
to SRop0ng
Trans-
Ings
Bathroom
tional
Trans -
Use Room
portation
Facilities
portatial
IV - lurnlsn-
no.
Location
Kecrea-
No.
No.
No.
No.
Age
Furnish-
No. Spe-
ings
Special
Use Rooms
to Shopping
tlonal
Facilities
Special
Special
Special
Special
ings
tial Use
is Public
Furnish-
Public
Furnish-
Use Rums
Furnish-
Use Rooms
School
Use Rnmic
Furnish-
Uc Rn_
Furnish-
Furnish-
Recrea-
Rooms
Recrea-
Trans-
ings
Trans-
ings
Ings
District
ings
ings
ings
tional
tional
pCrtJ lido
ria ti on
Facilities
Facilities
T$—iauzwn
is
PuglTIc
trio-
re A-
ecrn-
etrea-
urni;F.
to Shopping
Trans-
ings
Trans-
tional
tional
tlonal
tional
Spe-ial
Special
ings
_
vortat_i on
portation
Facilities
Facilities
Faciltties
Facilities
Use Rooms
Use Rooms
Source: Urban Research
and Development Corporation
RELATIVE DEGREE OF LOST OR LEAST IMPORTANCE
ASSIGNED RANK ORDER CRITERIA
BETWEEN HOUSEHOLD TYPES
Household Type with Highest Household With Lowest Percent
Percent of Most Importance Of Most Importance
Criteria (i -e.. Least Nepotia61e1 (i_e., Most Neaotia6lel
1 P.ri ce _ Fcma to Other Family (WSJ _ Nusband-Wife Family Over BS (SBS}
ype - urban.- WITe'Fa.lFy ]d Pfu5band-11ieiam—iTy �er�dx [3Sii
175%)
nerd Husband -1011t, Faaly - Husband -x; a amt y B• I
is
17 Atte 9f.Un 4L
FrSea le Other Family ?2217
Husain Pr1ft
i2Sl
S3 Public
Female Pri ztary lrnit Yldua.l
Zb-al
Nes band W1 xe Family 25- B
Family
I ill
7r n r Ion
Ali
1a No, spec;al
Husband -Wife Family 35,-44
Husband -Wife ami y Drer
i
P
tis
15 R"reatlonal
NWSWnd.Wife Famf y lander 25
91
Female Primary Individual
( 5%)
Face l itl es
f
iB Furnishings
Wusband-Wife Fano ly 4"4
n
Huy d�a Family
Provided
(15%)
Source: Urban Research
and Development Corporation
-39-
SCHEMATIC 1 HOUSEHOLD/HOUSING PROGRESSION
suburbs
MIOOLE FAMILIES � EMPTY NESTORS
uran-
suburban YOUNG �AOu>rT8 urban -
edge/ suburban
edge
D D
FAMILY STARTERS TME ELOERLY
urban
* husband -wife family with child propensities
SCHEMATIC 2
HOUSEHOLD / HOUSING PROGRESSION
FAMILIES EMPTY NESTORS
DD
FAMILY 13TARTER8 DEHF-1 TME ELDERLY
other families, childless couples, perenially single and
general nonhusband-wife progressions
-40-
SOCIAL AREA ANALYSIS
A social area analysis was conducted to determine the locational tendencies of
specific migrants, age groups, marital groups and household types. This analysis was con-
cerned with each MCD's special attractions in order to determine composite social area
attractions and the effect such attractions, planned or unplanned, have on the County's
housing market.
Mobility - The first variable was mobility. MCD's with the most stable popu-
lations included some of the most rural and some of the most urban areas; some of those
areas were growing fastest and some areas were the slowest growing.
Hancock, Clear Spring, Boonsboro, Keedysville, Rohrersville, Sandy Hook and
Downsville, some of the most rural and least Qrowth-prone areas, had relatively high
concentrations of non -movers. Eonvsersely, Maugansville, Halfway, Fountain Head and Smiths -
burg also had relatively high percentages of non -movers, yet they are some of the most
urban and growth -evident areas. The differences in growth are probably due to differ-
ences between the ages and types of households.
Regarding movers, in -migrants (coming from outside the County) have a differ-
ent pattern from inner -area migrants (moving within the County). In -migrants seem likely
to settle along the I-81 and I-70 corridors because these areas have ready access to the
larger region and contain most subdivision developments where housing units are readily
-41-
SOCIAL AREA ANALYSIS
SOCIAL AREA ANALYSIS: Comparison of Mobility by MCO
Against Total County
Place of Residence all persons
5 Years and Over in 1965 Nonmovers Inner Area Migrants Total
1 Sharpsburg + 0.19 + 0.27 1.32 0.00
2 Williamsport - 0.30 * 0.58 + 0.09 0.00
3 Hagerstown - 0.83 + 3.32 - 3.00 0.00
4 Clear Spring + 0.60 - 0.63 - 1.25 0.00
5 Hancock + 0.57 - 0.97 - 0.53 0.00
6 Boonsboro+
0.50
- 0.46
- 1.19
0.00
7 Smithsburg
+ 0.53
- 0:94
- 0.37
0.00
8 Rohersville
+ 0.28
- 0.52
- 0.13
0.00
9 Leitersburg
- 0.28
+ 0.50
+ 0.21
0.00
10 Funkstown
- 0.26
+ 1.66
- 2.16
0.00
11 SandyHook
+ 0.55
- 0.96
- 0.39
0.00
12 Fairplay
- 1.76
- 1.95
+11.14
0.00
13 Morgansville
+ 0.27
+ 0.44
- 1.97
0.00
14 Ringgold
- 1.36
- 2.98
+11.52
0.00
15 Indian Creek
+ 0.18
+ 0.07
- 0.91
0.00
76 Beaver Creek
+ 0.26
- 0.57
+ 0.02
0.00
17 Hagerstown
- 0.61
+ 1.20
+ 0.19
0.00
18 Chewsville
- 0.39
+ 0.94
- 0.17
0.00
19 Keedysville
+ 0.15
- 0.06
- 0.47
0.00
20 Downsville
+ 0.20
- 0.06
- 0.69
0.00
21 Hagerstown
- 0.03
* 0.15
- 0.15
0.00
22 Hagerstown
- 0.08
+ 1.63
- 2.86
O.DO
23 Wilson
+ 0.13
+ 0.16
- 0.84
O.DO
24 Cedar Lawn
+ 0.08
- 0.02
0.33
0.00
25 Hagerstown
+ 0,86
+ 1.18
- 5.89
0.00
26 Halfway
+0.51
- 0.66
- 0.83
0.00
27 Fountain Head
+ 0.06
- 1.30
+ 2.29
0.00
Total
+ 0.02
0.00
+ 0.01
0.00
Note: Percentages may not add due to rounding
Source: U. S. Bureau of Census, 5th County by MCO
SOCIAL AREA ANALYSIS:
Comparison of Household
Type by MCD
- 0.65
+ 0.21
+ 0.34
+ 0.47
Against Total County
- 0.98
+ 1.37
0.00
0.00
2 Williamsport
+ 0.05
+ 0,05
* 0.23
- 1.04
Subtotal
All Male
All Fe-
Primary
+.2.88
0.00
All Families
Head
male Head
Individual
Total
Sharpsburg
+ 0.09
• 0.09
• 0-16
- 0.46
0.00
2 Will iamsp0 rt
+ 0.10
0.17
-.0.66
- 0.47
0.00
3 Hagerstown
- 1.26
- 1.96
• 6.70
+ 5.97
0.00
4 Clear Spring
- 0.03
+ 0.01
0.39+
0.13
0.00
5 Hancock
- 0.11
- 0.19
•'0.7,1
+ 0.52
0.00
5 Boonsboro
+ 0,08
+ 0.17
-. 0.76
- 0,40
0.00
-7 Smithsburg
+0:
+ 0.31
- 0.90
- 0.95
0.00
8 Rohersville
+ 0.13
+0
- 0.21
- 0.60
0.00
Leitersburg
+ 0.11
+ 0.29
- 1.fi1
- 0.52
0.00
10 Funkstown
+ 0.43
+ 0.55
- 0.fi6
- 2.08
0.00
11 Sandy Hook
+ 0.08
+ 0,12
- 0.33
- 0.34
0.00
i2 Fai rp Pay
+ 0.10
+ 0.16
- 0.49
- 0.47
0.00
E3 Morgansville
+ 0.35
+ 0.51
- 1.17
- 1.69
0.00
14 Ringgold
+ 0.48
+ 0.58
- 0.55
- 2.23
0.00
15 Indian Creek
+ 0.13
+ 0.21
- 0.67
- 0.65
0.00
16 Beaver Creek
• 0.01
+ 0,14
- 1.26
- 0.07
0.00
l7 Hagerstown
- 0.47
- 0.99
• 4.60
+ 2.21
0.00
18 Chewsville
0.38
+ 0.52
_ 1.01
- 1.61
0.00
19 Keedysville
• 0.07
+ 0,04
0.28
- 0.29
0.00
20 Dow nsville
• 0.01
+ 0.08
- 0.67
- O.D7
0.00
21 Hagerstown
- 0.22
- 0.16
- 0.75
+ 7.03
0.00
22 Hagerstown
- 1.23
- 1.52
+ 1,60
5.83
0.00
23 Nilson
+ 0,28
+ 0.37
- 0.64
_ 1.37
. 0.00
24 Cedar Lawn
+ 0.03
•0.05
- 0.19
- 0.17
0.00
25 Hagerstown
- 0.84
- 1.43
+ 4.90
+ 3,94
0.00
26 Halfway
+ 0.64
• 0:94
- 2.36
- 3.02
0.00
27 Fountain Head
+ 0.43
• 0.75
- 2.66
- 2.04
0.00
Total - 0.04 - 0.05 - 0.03 - 0.01 0.00
Note: Percentages may not add due to rounding
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 5th Count by MCD
SOCIAL AREA ANALYSIS: Comparison of Age Group by MCD Against Total County
0 . S- E-17 1844 25.34 35-44 45-64 65 + 101141
1 Sharpsburg
+ 0.61
+ 0.36
- 0.65
+ 0.21
+ 0.34
+ 0.47
- 0.18
0.21
- 0.98
+ 1.37
0.00
0.00
2 Williamsport
+ 0.05
+ 0,05
* 0.23
- 1.04
- 1.30
+ 0.93
= 0.41
- 0.76
- 1.16
-
+ 0.34
+.2.88
0.00
3 Hagerstown
4 Clear Spring
+ 0.19
+ 0.14
- 0.56
• 0-25
- 0.17
- 0.05
+ 0.12
0.00
5 Hancock
+ 0.51
+ 0.10
- 0.14
- 0.13
- 0.11
- 0.08
- 0.17
0.00
6 Boonsboro
- 0.31-
0.15
- 0.36
+ 0.25
+ 0.49
+ 0.18
- 0.16
0.00
7 Smithsburg
- 0.05
+ 0.40
- 0.57
+ 0.41
+ 0,41
0.04
- 0.24
- 0.08
- 0.65
+ 0.65
0.00
0.00
8 Rohers ville
9 Leitersburg
- 0.49
- 0.12
+ 0.22
+ 0.15
0.0
- 0.13
- 0.38
- 0.21
-
+ 0.09
+ 0.48
- 0.95
0.00
10 Funkstown
+ 0.08
- 0.08
- 1.01
+ 0.13
+ 0.69
+ 0.08
+ 0.09
0.00
11 Sandy Hoak
- 0.18
+ 0.37
- 0+46
- 0.11
+ 0.32
- 0.06
- 0.22
0.00
12 Fairplay
- 1.00
- 0.72
+10,88
- 0.23
- 1.86
- 2.26
- 2.61
0.00
13 Xor,ans ville
+ 0.27
+ 0.53
. 0.62
- 0.11
- 0.11
+ 0.03
1.97
- 0.60
2.41
0.00
0.00
14 Ringgold
+ 0.58
+ 0,26
3.37
• 1.70
- 0.41
-
-
- 0.70
15 Indian Creek
+ 0.17
+ 0.25
- 0.22
+ 0.06
+ 0.23
- 0.18
- 0.43
0.00
16 Beaver Creek
- 0.70
+ 0.25
- 0.35
- 0.14
+ 0.35
- 0.09
+ 0.50
0.00
17 Hagerstown
+ 0.68
- 0.42
- 0.12
+ 0.12
- 0.74
+ 0.14
0.49
+ 0.84
1.04
0.00
0.00
18 Chewsville
+ 0.41
+ 0.65
- 1.61
+ 1.29
0.30
+ 0.3fi
- 0.01
-
- 0,19
-
+ 0.17
0.00
19 Keedysville
+ 0.21
+ 0.26
- 0.18
-
+ 4.43
- 0.93
- 0.29
0.00
20 Downsville
- 0.01
- 0.16
- 0.02
+ 0.05
+ 0.02
+ 0.19
- 0.04
0_00
21 Hagerstown
- 1.16
0.98
1.38
- 1.42
0.17
- 1.13
- 0.17
- 0.25
- 0.67
+1.50
+ O.6O
t 3.65
0,00
22 Hagerstown
23 Wilson
+ 0.47
+ 0.64
-
+ 0.48
-
- 0.88
0.41
- 0.07
- 0.38
= 0.37
0.00
24 Cedar Lawn
+ 0.07
+ 0.20
- 0.18
+ 0.15
0.50
+ 0.05
0.75
- 0.20
+ 0.90
- 0.11
+ 0.41
0.00
0.DO
25 Hagerstown
26 Halfway
+ 0.32
- 0.64
- 0.39
+ 0.01
- 0.23
- 2.21
-
+ 0.93
-
+ 1.07
+ 0.90
- 1.15
O.DO
27 Fountain Head
- 0.63
+ D.
- 1.76
- 1.37
+ 1.43
+ 1,35
- 1.33
O.DO
Total 0.00 0.00 + 0.03 + 0.01 - 0.03 + 0.03 + 0.03 0.00
Note: Percentages way not add due to rounding
Source: U. S. Bureau of Census, Sth Count by MCD
SOCIAL AREA ANALYSIS: INCOME AND RACE,
was hington County by MCD, 1970
Total 8822
-42-
SOCIAL AREA ANALYSIS:
Median
Household
Percent
Intone
HQmnhttr
T Sharpsburg
8153
0.4
Williamsport
8245
0.6
3 Hagerstown
7097
1.4
4 ClearSpring
8028
0.2
S Hancock
6841
1.3
6 Boonsboro
8955
0.1
7 Smithsburg9174
+ 2.87
0.0
8 Rohe rsville
7101
0.0
9 Leiters burg
11106
0.7
10 Funkstown
10388
0.5
11 Sandy Hook
7803
2.3
12 Fairplay
9123
33.6
13 Morgansville
B543
0.0
14 Ringgold
9667
7. .2
15 Indian Creek
7696
0.0
16 Beaver Creek
8741
0.2
17 Hagerstown
6980
1.3
18 Chewsville
9627
0.3
19 Keedysville
6138
0.2
20 Downsville
7068
9.5
21 Hagerstown
12502
1.3
22 Hagerstown
6832
0,7
23 Wilson
8293
0.2
24 Cedar Lawn
94480.0
0.00
25 Hagerstown
7076
15.4
26 Halfway
10472
0.1
27 Fountain Head
13744
0.6
Total 8822
-42-
SOCIAL AREA ANALYSIS:
Comparison of Marital Status by MCD
Against Total
County
All persons 14 +
Divorced/
Never
Now
Years of Age
Widowed
Separated
Married
!tarried
Total
1Sharpsburg
- 0.01
- 0.28
- 0.18
+ 0,08
0.00
2 Williamsport
+ 2.87
- 2.36
- 0.33
- 0.05
0.00
3 Hagerstown
+ 3.85
+ 5.66
- 0.01
- 0.89
0.00
4 Clear Spring
+ 0.41
- 0.56
- 0.32
+ 0.10
0.00
5 Hancock
+ 0.59
+ 1.65
- 0,23
- 0.11
0.00
6 Boonsboro
- 0.95
. 0.87
- 0.34
+ 0.30
0.00
1 Sm h,
- 0.16
- 1.05
- 0.63
+ 0.33
0.00
8 Ra he rs ville
* 0.14
- 1.42
+ 0.29
- 0.02
0.00
9 Leitersburg
- 0.90
. 1.88
+ 0.32
+ 0.15
0.00
10 Funkstown
- 0.90
- 1.22
- 1.30
+ 0..67
0.00
it Sandy Hook
- 0.33
+ 0.42
+ 0.05
- 0.01
0.00
12 Fairplay
2.73
0.78
+ 6,07
1.80
0.00
13 Morgansville
- 1.25
- 1.9 .7
- 0.09
-+ 0.33
0.00
14 Ringgold
_ 1.75
- 2.79
+ 1.49
- 0.11
0.00
15 Indian Creek
- 1.01
- 0.70
+ 0.20
• 0.11
0.00
16 Beaver Creek
+ 0.85
- 0.86
- 0.12
• 0,01
0.00
17 Hagerstown
+ 0.09
+ 4,47.
+ 0.02
- 0.36
0.00
18 Ch ewsville
- 1.84
- 1.38
- 0.70
• 0.58
D.00
19 Keedysville
+ 0,13
+0.30
- 0.08
D.0
0.00
20 Downsville
- C.30
+ 0.05
- 0.20
- 0.10
0.00
21 Hagerstown
+ 2.41
- 0.66
- 1.06
+ 0.14
0.00
22 Hagerstown
+ 2.38
+ 4.43
- 0.93
- 0.29
0.00
23 Wilson
- 0.91
- 0.73
- 0.31
+ 0.28
0.00
24 Cedar Lawn
- 0.10
- 0.43
+ 0.11
0.0
0.00
25 Hagerstown
+ 2.20
+ 8.59
+ 0.66
- 1.15
0.00
26 Halfway
- 1.13
- 2.57
- .1.76
+ 0.96
0.00
27 Fountain Head
- 1.65
- 3.03
• 0.64
+ 0.66
0.00
Total
0.00
+ 0.03
- 0.02
+ 0.01
0.00
Mote: Percentages may not add due to rounding
Source: U. S. Bureau of Census, 5t- Count by MCD
H
iL
L
available. Inner -area migrants, on the other hand, seem to settle in some of the cor-
Lridor areas and in some of the less accessible areas as well. It is likely that inner -
area migrants have more time to make a selection, including the option to custom build.
Heavy inner -area migration is also occurring within the older urban areas
in response to the availability of certain types of housing there. The most urban
Lsections of Hagerstown are thus assuming a specialized fundtion within the housing
market.
f Acme - The second variable was age. The elderly are concentrated within the
L more rural MCD's and also within the original concentric fringe around Hagerstown. These
Lareas are no longer attractive to middle-aged families or young adults.
Young adults and family starters (ages 18-24 and 25-34) tend to concentrate
Lin Fairplay, South Hagerstown, Chewsville and Ringgold. Their desires are likely to be
of special importance to the County's future development, in view of the increase pro-
jected for these age groups. It is conceivable these age groups will create distinct
settlements rather than follow the corridor patterns emerging along I-81 and I-70 where
Lmiddle-aged families settle.
Marital Status and Household Type - The next variable was marital status which
followed much the same pattern. The widowed, for example, are concentrated in rural areas.
-43-
But it is evident some widows are moving from rural areas into central Hagerstown. Married
persons are primarily concentrated within the suburban areas and the I-81, I-70 and Franklin -
Adams corridors. Divorced and separated persons are almost wholly concentrated within the
most urban sections of Hagerstown or small outlying towns. Single individuals follow the
same pattern as the separated and divorced.
The household type variable confirms the pattern. The male -headed household
(usually a husband -wife family) is typical of rural areas and the corridors. Female -
headed families and individuals concentrate in urban areas. This confirms the specialized
function which older urban centers are assuming. It also indicates a boom in the corridor
areas caused by in -migrating husband -wife families who will tend to locate in the low-
density suburban development. The County (excluding parts of the County within town and city
jurisdictions) will be presented with a large demand for husband -wife family housing which
has been associated with single-family units requiring extensive sewer, road, school con-
struction and development costs. The cost could be more than the County can afford, if
these household types are housed under present patterns and in the absence of public controls.
Hagerstown and some towns face an enormous demand for housing for female -headed
families and individuals mostly elderly. This will tend to entail transit, health care
facilities, day care activities, parks and recreational facilities rather than sewer, water,
roads, or schools.
-44-
l
1
n
l
7
l
l
L
L
L
L
L
L
Income - The income variable was also studied. It suggests that a "peer group"
attraction may be developing where husband -wife families have a greater desire to live
near husband -wife families, singles near other singles, the elderly with other elderly,
and so on, than their desire to live near people in the same income bracket. Income can
obviously affect areas in which some low or high income households locate, but income in
itself does not define the underlying social objectives and types of areas in which these
households desire to live.
If the "social peer group" rationale is true, it has serious implications for
policies oriented to providing area income and racial "balances". Each type of household
has specialized needs. A "balanced" neighborhood, in an age -household sense, is a dilution
and not an improvement in the opportunities and standards of living which can be provided
neighborhood residents individually or as a whole. This does not mean some sort of "balance"
cannot exist on the basis of income or racial character. The social area analysis indicates
that an income -race "balance" exists now to a certain extent and can be readily effected if
the "balance" is made in terms of age -household type peer groups.
If age and household type are common indicators of area -wide social patterns,
then age and household status should also correlate with other housing market variables
of a more specific nature -- price, type, size, layout and the like, which can be affected
by public policies.
-45-
SOCIAL AREA ANALYSIS: COMPOSITE DESCRIPTIONS
Contained rural community
balanced household types
of low to moderate income
Specialized urban area
providing for widowed,
divorced and single
households of all ages
and all incomes
Specialized rural
community affected
by military installations
sizable non-white young
adults of low to moderate
income
Area affected by inner -area
migrant, husband -wife household
Younger age suburb
affected by economics
in Franklin - Adams
Counties
Prime corridor
of in -migrant
wife families
areas
husband -
Older rural belt of
older age to elderly
husband -wife families,
low income
Contained rural community
of all household types,
sizable non-white, low to
middle incomes
-46-
SOCIAL AREA ANALYSIS: Composite Description
1 Sharpsburg Rural nonfarm of middle income, hus-
band -wife family character
2 Willi amepurt Area of, older growth, sizable widow
concentration with older husband -
wife families
3 Hagerstown Urban area ahsorbing more widows,
divorced and single adults in non -
husband -rife households
4 Clear Spring Rural nonfarm area with older to
elderly husband -wife families of
middle income
5 Hancock Rural,balanced community of lw
income but all household types --
moderate to low grow
th6 Boonsboro Prime ry rural nonfarm with husband -
wife family of middle Income
7 Smithsburg Area affected by suburban corridor --
husband -wife family of middle income
8 Rohersville Area affected by corridor and con-
centric growth, older husband -wife
family of middle income
9 Leitersburg Affected by inner -area migrant, hus-
band -wife family of middle to upper
income
10 Funkstwn Affected bycorridor and concentric
influences -- older to elderly hus-
band -wife family of middle income
11 Sandy Hook Contained rural area with most
household types and some nonwhites,
low to middle income
12 Fairplay Affected by military installation,
high concentration of nonwhite,
young adults of low to middle income
13 Morgansville Affected by inner -area migrants,
husband -wife family of older to
elderly ages, middle income
14 Ringgold Affected by Franklin -Adams counties,
family starters and middle families
of middle income
15 Indian Creek Rural nonfarm, iddle income husband -
wife families with some elderly
16 Beaver Creek Rural nonfarm, older to elderly
husband -wife family with some widows
In middle in cam
17 Hagerstown SPecialized urban *tea attracting
divorced and young adult of low to
middle inwme
18 Chewsville Affected by concentric and corridor,
primarily middle income husband -wife
family
19 Keedysville Rural community with high concentra-
tions of low income elderly, widowed
and divorced households
20 Dwmsville Generally rural, nonfarm area with
sizable nonwhite, husband -wife family
of low to middle income
21 Hagerstown Specialized urban area of middle to
upper income elderly, widows and
single adults
22 Hagerstown Specialized urban area of low in-
come husband -wife and elderly house-
holds
23 Wilson Area affected by inner -area migrants,
middle income husband -wife families
24 Cedar Lawn Area affected by concentric influ-
ences, middle income husband -wife
families
25 Hagerstown Specialized urban area of older and
widowed, low to moderate income
households
26 Halfway Prins corridor area of middle to
upper income husband -wife families
27 Fountain Head Prime corridor area of middle to
upper income husband -wife families
AREA SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
Previous Growth Patterns - The following is a review of past County growth
patterns. The growth is analyzed by election districts (MCD's) for the 1950-1960 and
1960-1970 decades.
In the 1950-1960 period, most growth (69.9 percent) was concentrated in the
five MCD's immediately adjacent to the City of Hagerstown. This concentric growth
Lprobably took place because of water, sewer, schools, employment centers, road systems,
and other services. On the other hand, some of the inner-city Hagerstown MCD's lost
Lpopulation. Three MCD's with sizable urban centers of their own, outside the Hagerstown
metropolitan area, also gained population.
In the 1960-1970 decade, the growth pattern was different. It centered on
a corridor extending north south on I-81 and north east through Chewsville to Smiths -
burg and Ringgold. A regional growth orientation was more evident in the 1960's due
to improved regional highways. The inner-city continued to lose population, though not
in the same MCD's as in the 1950's.
LThe influence of larger areas and regional highway influences are thus com-
plete with development of the I-70 and I-81 system, and will thus tend to direct County
Lgrowth into corridor patterns in the future.
-47-
HOUSING DEMAND - PROJECTION
It is imperative, when considering future housing needs and requirements to have
a projection, a "best guess" of the levels of population that are expected. Both total numbers
and areal distribution projections are essential in providing the necessary background with
which to view tomorrow's housing circumstances. In terms of total numbers, it is expected
that Washington County County's population by the year 2000 will rise to some 154,000 persons.
This figure is based upon the projections developed by the staff of the Washington County
Planning and Zoning Commission late in 1974.
This number of 154,000 persons will represent a 49% increase over the enumerated
1970 figure. On a decade by decade basis the greatest percentage increase is expected to
occur during 1980-1990 period with a rise of 15.6%.
It is expected that Washington County's growth to the year 2000 will tend to con-
tinue the corridor growth pattern established in 1960 to 1970, only somewhat less so. In
addition to the influence of the Interstate Highway Corridor, there will also tend to be
a "filling in effect" in those areas North and East of Interstate 70 and 81, respectively.
Generally the Chewsville, Funkstown and Halfway Election Districts, will attract the greatest
amount of the County's 1970 to 2000 growth. Maugansville, Fountain Head, and Ringgold
Districts will receive secondary amounts.
390
Expected Household Changes - In 1970 Washington County had a persons per house-
hold ratio of 3.2. This is identical with the Nation as a whole. As pointed out in a
previous section of this report, historically, this ratio has been declining. Both the
United States and Washington County have experienced a decline in this ratio since 1940
Lof approximately 0.2 persons per household per decade. Carried forth at this same rate
to the year 2000, Washington County's expected ratio then would be 2.6 persons per house -
L hold.
LThe discussions in previous sections of this report suggest that that the per-
sons per household ratio may decline even further. However, for the purposes of an estimate
Lthe 2.6 will suffice and will be used in a later section of the report to determine ex-
pected housing need.
L
L
L
f -49-
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and Population - trends, characteristics, projections
for Washington County, Maryland 1975 by the Washington County Planning and Zoning
Commission
-50-
WASHINGTON
COUNTY: EXPECTED CHANGE
as a Porportion
of the Total
County Population
'A'
'B1
Total
Expected
Election
%
Total County
Expected
County
Change
District
1970 Population
Population
2000 Population
Population
(B -A)
1
2054
2.0
2295
1.5
-0.5
2
4057
3.9
4987
3.2
-0.7
4
2071
2.0
2311
1.5
-0.5
5
3583
3.5
4183
2.7
-0.8
6
3384
3.3
4221
27
-0.6
7
3454
3.3
4171
2.7
-0.6
8
1571
1.5
1786
1.2
-0.3
9
2267
2.2
3240
2.1
-0.1
10
4761
4.6
9460
6.1
+1.5
11
1415
1.3
1568
1.0
-0.3
12
3393
3.3
5169
3.4
+0.1
13
4107
4.0
6486
4.2
+0.2
14
4481
4.3
7398
4.8
+0.5
15
1595
1.5
1883
1.2
-0.3
16
2182
2.1
3280
2.1
-
18
5126
4.9
15246
9.9
+5.0
19
1011
1.0
1209
0.8
-0.2
20
1383
1.3
1911
1.2
-0.1
23
2589
2.5
3937
2.6
+0.1
24
827
0.8
1935
1.3
+0.5
26
7346
7.1
12923
8.4
+1.3
27
5310
5.1
8697
5.6
+0.4
Hagerstown
35862
34.5
45915
29.8
-4.7
TOTAL
103829
100.0
154219
100.0
48.5
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and Population - trends, characteristics, projections
for Washington County, Maryland 1975 by the Washington County Planning and Zoning
Commission
-50-
WASHINGTON COUNTY
ELECTION DISTRICTS
PLANNING SECTORS
0 2 t
Scale I i I I I
Z5}3T- 1R
74 �2 1
3 17
2 10 t
16
20
14
19
1 � 1
1
27
9
13
''
Z5}3T- 1R
74 �2 1
3 17
2 10 t
16
20
14
19
1 � 1
Housing Supply
HOUSING SUPPLY
The adequacy of the supply of housing units which are available to the various
County households is influenced by many factors. Inherent is the consideration of a
given housing unit's ability to meet a prospective household's space, location and fin-
ancial needs as well as satisfying minimum levels of health and convenience requirements.
The scope of this Report did not permit an "on site" survey of the physical
condition or the convenience facilities existant in the individual housing units of the
County, at this time. However, such a survey is programmed to be conducted within a
year of the publication of this report.
In lieu such a survey, this study concentrated its analysis on the information
provided by the 1970 Census of Housing. The various variables tabulated by the Bureau
of Census can be utilized to evaluate the degree to which County households are adequ-
ately housed.
The use of the Census data, although incredibly informative, does not supplant
the need for an actual "in the field" survey. The information gained in such a survey
would serve to complement Census data.
-52-
Critical Requirements - Of the housing related variables enumerated in the 1970
Census of Housing, those considered most critical in terms of adequate housing are: units
lacking complete plumbing or units lacking built-in heating systems. It is considered
critical for a housing unit to have complete plumbing and a built-in heating system to be
considered adequate, as a minimum standard.
In 1970 13.3% of all County housing units were inadequate under this standard.
Most of these units were concentrated in the older build-up areas of the County. The
accompanying Tables and Map show by election district the percent of all housing units
which lack the above critical requirements. The darkest patterns delineate those elec-
tion districts containing the highest percentages of critically inadequate housing units.
The Sandy Hook, Indian Springs and Downsville districts are shown as having more than 49%
of all housing units which are inadequate. The districts of Rohrersville and Sharpsburg
had between 27.1% and 49.0% of all housing units rated as inadequate.
Overall the highest ratios of inadequate housing tend to be in the western
most and southern most areas of the County. Conversely, the lowest percentages are lo-
cated in the Metropolitan area, and Eastern areas of the County.
-53-
WASHINGTON COUNTY
ELECTION DISTRICTS
PLANNING SECTORS
UNITS LACKING CRITICAL REQUIREMENTS
BY PROPORTION OF
TOTAL HOUSING UNITS
12.0
12.1 -250
25.1 -37.0
37.1-49.0
' 49.1 SOURCE U.S. CENSUS "qqw 0 1 2 3 4
F/FTH COUNT
SUMMARY TAPES SCALE
Planning Sector I
WASHINGTON COUNTY
CRITICAL HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Housing Units Units Lacking Critical Requirements
Election District
Occupied
Vacant
Total
Occupied
%
Vacant
%
Total
8.1
Williamsport
2
1211
53
1264
321
26.5
24
45.2
345
27.3
Leitersburg
9
641
37
678
79
12.3
5
13.7
84
12.4
Funkstown
10
1551
24
1575
111
7.2
4
16.6
115
7.3
Maugansville
13
1199
41
1240
149
12.4
20
48.8
169
13.6
Chewsville
18
1594
51
1645
178
11.1
5
9.8
183
11.1
Cedar Lawn
24
253
9
262
24
9.5
0
0
24
9.2
Halfway
26
2340
59
2399
36
1.5
10
16.9
46
1.9
Fountain Head
27
1660
41
1701
36
2.2
0
0
36
2.1
Subtotal-
10449
315
10764
934
8.9
68
21.6
100?
9.3
3
3344
179
3523
242
1.3
44
2.4.6
286
8.1
17
1965
156
2121
132
6.7
15
9.6
157
7.4
City of
21
2140
84
2224
4
0.2
0
0
4
0.2
22
2255
174
2399
143
6.3
18
10.3
161
6.6
Hagerstown
25
3106
191
3297
458
14.7
81
42.4
539
16.3
Subtotal
TOTAL
12780 784 13504 979 7.7 158 20.2 1137 8.4
23229 1099 24328 1913 8.2 226 20.6 2139 8.8
* Critical Requirements are defined in this study as built in
heating systems and complete plumbing facilities.
-54-
Planning Sector II
WASHINGTON COUNTY
CRITICAL HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Housing Units Units Lacking Critical Reguirements
Election District Occupied Vacant Total Occupied % Vacant % Total
Sharpsburg
1
635
90
725
242
38
55
61.1
297
40.9
Boonsboro
6
1093
45
1138
149
13.6
21
46.6
170
14.9
Fairplay
12
538
28
566
125
23.2
14
50.0
139
24.6
Beaver Creek
16
615
36
651
106
17.2
24
66.6
130
20.0
Keedysville
19
273
35
308
96
35.2
27
77.1
123
39.9
Downsville
20
398
13
411
202
50.7
8
61.5
210
52.4
TOTAL 3552 247 3799 920 25.9 149 60.3 1069 28.1
Planning Sector III
Rohrersville 8
459
54
.513
171
37.3
42
77.7
213
42.3
Sandy Hook 11
396
47
443
245
61.9
30
63.8
275
62.1
TOTAL
2099
129
TOTAL
855
101
956
416
48.7
72
71.3
488
51.0
Planning Sector IV
Smithsburg 7
1049
53
1102
182
17.3
17
32.1
199 18.1
Ringgold 14
1050
76
1126
104
9.9
27
25.5
131 11.6
TOTAL
2099
129
2228
286
27.2
44
24.1
14.8
-55-
WASHINGTON COUNTY
CRITICAL HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Planning Sector V
TOTAL 1913 94 2007 512 26.8 60 63.8 572 28.5
Planning Sector VI
Hancock 5 1143 85 1228 305 26.7 37 43.5 342 27.9
County Total
All Sectors 32827 1758 34585 4252 13.3 588
Source: Bureau of Census, unpublished 5th Count Data
-56-
33.4 4940 15.0
Housing
Units
Units Lacking
Critical
Requirements
Election District
Occupied Vacant
Total
Occupied %
Vacant
%
Total
%
Clear Spring 4
660
14
674
144 21.8
0
0
144
21.4
Indian Spring 15
512
51
563
251 29.0
41
80.4
292
51.9
Wilson 23
741
29
770
117 15.8
19
65.5
136
17.7
TOTAL 1913 94 2007 512 26.8 60 63.8 572 28.5
Planning Sector VI
Hancock 5 1143 85 1228 305 26.7 37 43.5 342 27.9
County Total
All Sectors 32827 1758 34585 4252 13.3 588
Source: Bureau of Census, unpublished 5th Count Data
-56-
33.4 4940 15.0
Secondary Housinq Considerations - In 1970 nearly 46 percent of all housing
units in the County lacked public sewer, 28.0 percent lacked a public or central water
supply, and 10.8 percent lacked an efficient heating system. These variables represent
three of the six listed on the accompanying tables; they are considered secondary mea-
sures of a housing units adequacy. It is not considered critical for a unit to have
public sewer, public water, efficient heat, etc., but it is desirable. Units served
with public sewer are qenerally considered to be less of an environmental risk to the
community as a whole than a unit served with an individual disposal system. Units
served with public water are deemed to be less prone to water born health hazards than
units served with individual water supplies. Units with an efficient heating system tend
to be less prone to fire hazards.
As the County continues to grow and as densities increase, these secondary
housing considerations will assume an ever increasing part in the determination of
whether a housing unit is considered adequate.
-57-
SECONDARY HOUSING CONSIDERATION
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Hagerstown I I II III IV V VI County
(Less Total All
City) Sectors
econdary Kequirements
Public Sewer
125
7206
7331
3000
829
1419
1891
575
15045
Public Water
14
2872
2886
2492
850
855
1584
488
9690
Complete Kitchen
263
286
549
328
136
107
173
97
0
1390
33
Direct Access
15
1538
11
846
26
2384
0
558
0
116
0
70
7
433
170
3731
Efficient Heat
111
86
197
67
23
18
111
26
442
Efficient Cooking Fuel
787
287
1074
247
101
129
94
85
1730
Number of Occupied Units 12810 14055 23265 3552 855 2099 1913 1143 32827
Vacant Units Lacking
Secondary Requirements
Public Sewer
6
214
220
207
101
115
72
94
68
31
31
768
533
Public Water
0
115
107
115
233
152
79
95
42
34
52
49
489
Complete Kitchen
226
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Direct Access
Efficient Heat
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Efficient Cooking Fuel
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Number Vacant
787
287
1074
247
101
129
94
85
1730
n
Public Sewer
131
7420
7551
3207
930
1534
1985
606
15813
Public Water
14
2987
3001
2646
945
927
1652
519
9690
Complete Kitchen
489
393
782
407
178
141
225
146
1879
Direct Access
15
1538
11
846
26
2384
0
558
0
116
0
70
7
433
0
170
33
3731
Efficient Heat
Efficient Cooking Fuel
111
86
197
67
23
18
111
26
422
All Housing Units 1359T 10742 24339 3799 956 2228 2007 1228 34557
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, unpublished 5th Count Data
-58-
SECONDARY HOUSING CONSIDERATIONS
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Hagerstown I I II III IV V VI County
(Less Total All
city) Sectors
Percent of Occupied Units
74.6
20.5
83.8
100
89.1
100
36.5
44.4
0.1
Lacking Secondary
10.7
61.5
94:0
55.8
72.3
36.5
30.8
28.7
37.3
Requriements
32.0
41.6
26.4
55.3
51.6
28.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
Public Sewer
1.0
68.9
31.5
84.5
97.0
67.6
98.8
50.3
45.8
Public Water
0.1
27.5
12.4
70.2
99.4
40.7
82.8
42.7
29.5
Complete Kitchen
2.1
2.7
2.4
9.2
15.9
5.1
9.0
8.5
4.2
Direct Access
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
0.4
0
0
0.1
Efficient Heat
12.0
8.1
10.2
15.7
13.6
3.3
22.6
14.9
11.4
Efficient Cooking Fuel
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.9
2.7
0.9
5.8
2.3
1.3
Percent of Vacant Units
Lackinq Secondary
Requirements
Public Sewer
Public Water
Complete Kitchen
Direct Access
Efficient Heat
Efficient Cooking Fuel
Percent of All Housin
Units Lacking Secondary
Requirements
Public Sewer
Public Water
Complete Kitchen
Direct Access
Efficient Heat
Efficient Cooking Fuel
0.8
74.6
20.5
83.8
100
89.1
100
36.5
44.4
0.1
40.1
10.7
61.5
94:0
55.8
72.3
36.5
30.8
28.7
37.3
21.7
32.0
41.6
26.4
55.3
51.6
28.3
1.0
69.0
31.0
84.0
97.3
68.9
98.9
49.3
45.8
0.1
27.8
12.3
69.6
98.8
41.6
82.3
42.3
28.0
3.6
3.7
3.2
10.7
18.6
6.3
11.2
11.9
5.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0.3
0
0
11.3
7.9
9.8
14.7
12.1
3.1
21.6
13.8
10.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.7
2.4
0.8
5.5
2.1
1.2
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, unpublished 5th Count Data
-59-
OVERCROWDING
AREAS HAVING 7.5%or MOREof ALL
OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS
WHICH ARE OVERCROWDED''*
0 2 4
scale miles
Overcrowding and Overextension - There are 32,827 occupied housing units in
the County; 5.5 percent are overcrowded; that is, the units house more than 1.01 persons
per room. Most of the overcrowded units are located within the fringe areas of Hager-
stown, within some of the older towns, and within some specific corridor areas. It is
likely that many are in the first single-family subdivisions built after World War II.
It is evident that low-income families have preferred single-family units to the space
available in older row houses or have not been able to afford newer single-family units
of sufficient size. The location of most overcrowding, however, indicated that social
area preferences have played a large role in determining housing selections.
Most of the overcrowded units are occupied by husband -wife families. Thus,
space was important for these families, second only to school district, housing type,
and physical setting. These families could have chosen older, more spacious and rela-
tively inexpensive row houses within central urban areas. The problem, therefore, is
not a shortage of larger -sized units but is the inability of low-income families to find
units with suitable space in the lcoation they desire. One solution may be to provide
units in the suburbs which provide space. For example, a low-income husband -wife family
with children may be willing to give up a 2 -bedroom single-family unit in preference for
a 4 -bedroom townhouse in the same suburban area.
OVERCROWDED AND OVEREXTENDED WASKINGTON COUNTY
OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS
Occupied Units Overcrowded Overextended
Portion Portion
Distribution Distribution of Distribution of
District District
Less
Sector I City
Williamsport
2
3.7
4.5
6.8
2.8
8.8
Leitersburg
9
2.0
0.8
2.3
1.0
5.6
Funkstown
10
4.7
3.7
4.4
3.7
9.1
Maugansville
13
3.7
4.1
6.3
3.6
11.4
Chewsville
18
4.9
5.1
5.8
5.8
13.7
Cedar Lawn
24
0.8
1.0
7.5
0.8
11.9
Halfway
26
7.1
3.9
3.3
7.1
11.4
Fountain Head
27
4.9
2.5
2.7
5.6
12.6
Subtotal 31.8 25.6 4.5 30.4 11.0
City 10.2
9.1
4.9
11.7
13.2
6.0
4.3
4.0
8.8
16.8
of 6.5
3.3
2.8
6.0
10.7
6.9
6.6
5.4
11.4
19.0
Hagerstown 9.5
11.1
6.5
13.4
16.2
Subtotal
sy•1
34.4
4.9
51.3
15.1
Sector Total
70.9
60.0
4.7
81.7
13.2
-61-
OVERCROWDED AND OVEREXTENDED WASHINGTON COUNTY
OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS
Occupied Units Overcrowded Overextended
Portion Portion
Distribution Distribution of Distribution of
District District
Sector II
Sharpsburg
1
1.9
2.3
6.5
0.5
3.0
Boonsboro
6
3.3
2.1
3.5
2.2
7.5
Fairplay
12
1.6
3.0
10.2
1.9
13.0
Beaver Creek
16
1.9
3.0
8.9
2.1
12.7
Keedysville
19
0.8
1.4
9.5
0.8
11.0
Downsville
20
1.2
1.0
4.5
0.2
2.3
Sector Total 10.7 12.8 6.6 7.7 8.1
Sector III
Rohrersville 8 1.4 1.9 7.4 0.9 7.0
Sandy Hook 11 1.2 2.2 10.0 0.5 5.1
Sector Total 2.6 4.1 17.4 1.4 12.1
Sector IV
Smithsburg 7 3.2 1.7 3.0 2.6 9.2
Ringgold 14 3.2 6.7 11.5 2.0 7.3
Sector Total 6.4 8.4 7.2 4.6 4.9
-62-
Sector V
Clear Spring
Indian Spring
Wilson
OVERCROWDED AND OVEREXTENDED WASHINGTON COUNTY
OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS
Occupied Units Overcrowded Overextended
Portion Portion
Distribution Distributed of Distribution of
District District
4 2.0 3.1
15 1.6 2.9
23 2.3 4.4
8.5 1.3 7.3
10.2 0.7 5.5
10.8 1.8 9.0
Sector Total 5.9 10.4 9.8 3.8 7.5
Sector VI
Hancock 5 3.5
4.4
7.1 2.6
Sector Total 3.5 4.4 7.1 2.6 8.7
The various distributional percentages may
not add to 100% because of rounding
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, unpublished Fifth
County Summary Data, and a Technical Report
on Housing for Washington County by Urban
Research and Development Corp. 1974.
-63-
TENSION
HOUSING
OVEREXTENDED
OCCUPIED
�2 •
scale wiles
Another household condition of concern is that of overextension. Although
individual circumstances vary widely, a unit which is worth more than three times a
household's annual income (or costs more than 35 percent of monthly income for rent)
is considered to be too expensive in relation to income. About 11.7 percent of the
County households are over-extended by this standard.
The majority of all households which have overextended in a housing purchase
are within the suburban corridors described earlier in the report. Probably, many of
these are elderly husband -wife households, trapped in a unit too expensive for them to
maintain. These households might be persuaded to move to condominiums and cooperatives --
private, nonprofit and public -- in urban areas with suitable services. This would free
a considerable number of units for families better able to maintain them.
Many middle-income younger families in the suburban corridor have also over-
extended. They could be customers for less expensive units, if provided within the sub-
urban areas they prefer. Market solutions to overcrowding and overextending, however,
will depend on revisions to existing public policies. For example, existing public
policy tends to encourage only single-family unattached units. This causes middle-income
families to overextend themselves. The results of this study -- the rank order criteria,
the social area analysis, overcrowding -overextension -- indicates that the development of
-64-
marital considerations and services is the real essence of the housing market and should
be reflected in planning and development objectives. Public codes should be revised to
achieve and reinforce such social considerations. The physical aspects of these public
codes should be reworked to provide effective social housing solutions.
Inappropriate public policies also produce overextended renters. Practically
all overextended renters are located within the central areas of Hagerstown in the lowest
income households, composed mainly of elderly widows. There is a short supply of suitably -
priced rental units within these central areas.
Vacancies - The analysis of data on vacancies is another useful way of evalu-
ating the present stock of housing in Washington County. In 1970, 2.7 percent of County
units were available for sale or rent, an acceptable ratio, although somewhat low for a
fast-growing area.
Vacancy rates by MCD varied considerably, for quite different reasons. The
highest rates were in Hagerstown MCD's 17 and 22, which are in transition from a husband -
wife suburban character into an elderly and individual household character.
-65-
VACANCY REQUIREMENT
All Suitable Suitable Total Deficit % Deficit Plus 30% Effective % Effective
Households Occupied Vacant Effective of Total Effective Deficit Deficit of
Stock Stock Suitable Households Vacancy Total House -
Stock Requirement holds
Sector I Less City
Williamsport
2
1188
890
29
919
-269
-22.6
36
-305
-25.7
Leitersburg
9
663
562
32
594
- 69
-10.4
20
- 89
-13.4
Funkstown
10
1556
1440
20
1460
- 96
- 6.2
47
-143
- 9.2
Maugansville
13
1187
1050
21
1071
-116
-10.0
36
-152
-12.8
Chewsville
18
1572
1416
46
1462
-110
- 7.0
47
-157
-10.0
Cedar Lawn
24
248
229
9
238
- 10
- 4.0
7
- 17
- 6.9
Halfway
26
2343
2304
49
2353
+ 10
+ 0.4
70
- 60
- 2.6
Fountain Head
27
1666
1630
41
1671
+ 5
+ 0.3
50
- 45
- 2.7
Subtotal 10423 9521 247 9768 -655 6.3 313 968 9.3
City
3344
3102
135
3237
-107
- 3.2
100
-207
- 6.2
1965
1833
144
1977
+ 12
+ 0.6
59
- 47
- 2.4
of
2140
2136
84
2220
+ 80
+ 3.7
64
+ 16
+ 0.7
2255
2112
156
2268
+ 13
+ 0.6
68
- 55
- 2.4
Hagerstown
2106
2648
110
2758
-348
-11.2
93
-441
-14.2
Subtotal 12810 11831 629 21460 -350 2.7 -364 -734 5.7
Sector Tota 23233 21352 876 22228 -I005 4.3 -097 -1702 7.3
Source: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census, unpublished 5th Count data, and a
Technical Report - HOUSING - Washington County by Urban Research and Develop-
ment Corp. 1974.
-66-
VACANCY REQUIREMENT
All Suitable Suitable Total Deficit % Deficit Plus 30% Effective % Effective
Households Occupied Vacant Effective of Total Effective Deficit Deficit of
Stock Stock Suitable Households Vacancy Total House -
Stock Requirement holds
Sector II
Sharpsburg
1
634
393
35
428
-206
-32.5
19
-225
-35.5
Boonsboro
6
1077
944
24
968
-109
-10.1
32
-141
-13.1
Fairplay
12
504
413
14
427
- 77
-15.3
15
- 92
-18.3
Beaver Creek
16
610
509
12
521
- 89
-14.6
18
-107
-17.5
Keedysville
19
289
177
8
185
-104
-36.0
9
-113
-39.1
Downsville
20
325
196
5
201
-124
-38.2
10
-134
-41.2
Sector Total
3439
2632
98
2730
-709
20.6
-10'
-812
23.6
Sector III
Rohrersville 8
437
288
12
300
-137
-31.4
13
-150
-34.3
Sandy Hook 11
401
151
17
168
-233
-58.1
12
-245
-61.1
Sector Total
838
439
29
468
-370
44.2
25
-395
47.1
Ce +- T11
Smithsburg 7
1045
867
36
903
-142
-13.6
31
-173
-16.6
Ringgold 14
1047
946
49
995
- 52
- 5.0
31
- 83
- 7.9
Sector Total
2092
1813
85
1898
-194
9.3
62
256
12.2
Source: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census, unpublished 5th Count data, and a
Technical Report - HOUSING - Washington County by Urban Research and Develop-
ment Corp. 1974.
-67-
VACANCY REQUIREMENT
Sector VI
Hancock 5 1131 838 48 886 -245 21.7 34 -279 -24.7
Sector Total _11-31 838 48 886 -245 21.7 34 -279 -24.7
County Total 32566 28475 1170 29645 -2921 - 9.0 -976 3897 -12.0
Source: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census, unpublished 5th Count data, and a
Technical Report - HOUSING - Washington County by Urban Research and Develop-
ment Corp. 1974.
-68-
All
Suitable
Suitable
Total
Deficit
% Deficit
Plus 30%
Effective
% Effective
Households
Occupied
Vacant
Effective
of Total
Effective
Deficit
Deficit of
Stock
Stock
Suitable
Households
Vacancy
Total House -
Stock
Requirement
holds
Sector V
Clear Spring
4 632
516
14
530
-102
-16.1
19
-121
-19.1
Indian Springs
15 470
261
10
271
-199
-42.3
14
-213
-45.3
Wilson
23 731
624
10
634
- 97
-13.3
22
-119
-16.3
Sector Total
1833
1401
34
1435
-398
21.7
55
-453
24.7
Sector VI
Hancock 5 1131 838 48 886 -245 21.7 34 -279 -24.7
Sector Total _11-31 838 48 886 -245 21.7 34 -279 -24.7
County Total 32566 28475 1170 29645 -2921 - 9.0 -976 3897 -12.0
Source: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census, unpublished 5th Count data, and a
Technical Report - HOUSING - Washington County by Urban Research and Develop-
ment Corp. 1974.
-68-
Very low vacancy rates were evident in the most suburban growth corridors, pro-
bably because of high demand from in -migrants. This indicates that the supply may not be
enough for people coming from outside the County. Very low vacancy rates were also evi-
dent in most rural areas; evidence of low demand and possible entrapment of residents
of these areas.
Poverty Housing Considerations - The variable of poverty status as defined by
the U.S. Bureau of the Census accounts only for a household's most basic need - food.
Other basic needs such as shelter, clothing, health care and the like are not included.
Hence, the Census Poverty definition and statistics is too low to indicate the number of
households which are inadequately housed and undernourished.
But even using this definition, in 1970 Washington County had 16.1 percent of
all families and unrelated individuals living under the poverty level. Broken out sep-
arately, 9.4 percent of all families were considered below the poverty level. The figure
was 38.4 percent for unrelated individuals.
Those areas of the County having a high degree of poverty impaction (a high per-
centage of all families and unrelated individuals living below poverty levels) are the
western most portion of the County - Hancock, Indian Springs, and Clear Spring - the south-
eastern portion - Keedysville, Rohrersville, and Sandy Hook - and the central urban areas
of Hagerstown. It is interesting to note that the western rural areas and southern rural
.•
Poverty
Housing
Having 20% or More of All
Unrelated Individuals
Below the
Areas Having 20% or Mi
Housing Units Lacking
Critical Requirements
o z
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MARYLAND scale Imiles
BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL
-70-
FAMILIES
UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 14+ ALL FAMILIES AND UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS 14+
Total
Number
% Below
Share of
Total
Number
% Below
Share of
Total
Number
% Below
Share of
Below
Poverty
County
Below
Poverty
County
Below
Poverty
County
Poverty
Level
Below
Poverty
Level
Below
Poverty
Level
Below
Level
Poverty
Level
Poverty
Level
Poverty
Level
Level
Level
Sector I
Williamsport.,
-,2
1001
90
9.0
3.5
229
98
42.8
3.2
1230
188
53
15.3
8.2
3.3
0.9
Leitersbarg!.<,
9
555
20
3.6
0.8
1.8
90
236
33
116
36.7
49.2
1.1
3.8
645
1671
162
9.7
2.9
Funkstown
Maugansville
10
13
1435
1068
46
119
3.2
11.1
4.7
130
73
56.2
2.4
1198
192
16.0
3.4
Chewsville
18
1428
83
5.8
3.3
237
135
57.0
4.4
1665
218
26
13.1
10.0
3.9
0.5
Cedar Lawn
24
220
11
5.0
2.7
0.4
2.2
40
284
15
107
37.5
37.7
0.5
3.5
260
2394
163
6.8
2.9
Halfway
Fountain Head
26'
27
2110
1491
56
80
5.4
3.0
223
53
23.8
1.4
1714
133
7.8
2.6
Subtotal
9308
505
5.4
19.7
1469
630
42.8
20.3
10777
1135
10.5
20.4
City
3
2434
328
13.5
12.9
2161
417
33.1
13.6
3695
745
444
20.2
21.4
13.3
7.9
17
1494
196
13.1
7.7
585
515
248
92
42.4
17.9
8.1
3.0
2079
2220
124
5.6
2.2
of
21
22
1705
1539
32
172
1.9
11.2
1.3
6.8
846
345
40.8
11.2
2385
517
21.7
9.2
Hagerstown _
25
2325
264
11.4
10.4
1042
530
50.9
17.3
3367
794
23.6
14.1
Subtotal
9497
992
1 u.4
-
4
1 0 32
3.
9. 1
4 5.7
18x05
1497
8.0
58.8
5718
2262
29.5
73.3
24523
3759
_.3
6
Total
Source: Adapted from
U.S. Bureau
of
the Census unpublished
5th Count
Data
and
a Technical
Report
- HOUSING for Washington
County by
Urban
Research and Development Corp.
1974
-70-
BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL
Sector III
Rohrersville 8 414 106 25.6 4.2 74 58 78.4 1.9 488 164 33.6 2.9
Sandy Hook 11 346 77 22.3 3.0 55 30 54.5 1.0 401 107 26.7 1.9
`ctal 760 183 24.1 7.2 129 - �-5 4.5
Source: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census unpublished 5th Count Data
and a Techical Report - HOUSING for Washin ton County by Urban
Research and Development Corp. 1974.
-71-
FAMILIES
UNRELATED
INDIVIDUALS
14+ ALL
FAMILIES AND UNRELATED
INDIVIDUALS 14+
Total
Number
% Below
Share of
Total
Number
% Below
Share of
Total
Number
% Below
Share of
Below
Poverty
County
Below
Poverty
County
Below
Poverty
County
Poverty
Level
Below
Poverty
Level
Below
Poverty
Level
Below
Level
Poverty
Level
Poverty
Level
Poverty
Level
Level
Level
Sector II
`
Sharpsburg
.1
542
49
9.0
1.9
115
71
61.7
2.3
657
120
18.3
2.1
Boonsboro
6
922
85
9.2
3.3
215
71
33.0
2.3
1137
156
13.7
2.8
Fairplay
12
471
41
8.7
1.6
88
45
51.1
1.5
559
86
15.4
1.5
Beaver Creek16
515
60
11.7
2.4
166
91
54.8
3".0
681
151
22.2
2.7
Keedysville
19
243
76
31.3
3.0
43
33
76.7
1.1
286
109
38.1
1.9
Do.insville
20
269
29
10.8
1.1
56
13
23.2
0.4
325
42
12.9
0.7
Total
2962
340
11.r
13.3
683
324
47.4
10.6
3645
664
18.2
11.7
Sector III
Rohrersville 8 414 106 25.6 4.2 74 58 78.4 1.9 488 164 33.6 2.9
Sandy Hook 11 346 77 22.3 3.0 55 30 54.5 1.0 401 107 26.7 1.9
`ctal 760 183 24.1 7.2 129 - �-5 4.5
Source: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census unpublished 5th Count Data
and a Techical Report - HOUSING for Washin ton County by Urban
Research and Development Corp. 1974.
-71-
BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL
FAMILIES
UNRELATED
INDIVIDUALS
14+ ALL
FAMILIES AND UNRELATED
INDIVIDUALS 14+
Total Number % Below
Share of
Total Number
% Below
Share of
Total Number % Below
Share of
Below Poverty
County
Below
Poverty
County
Below Poverty
County
Poverty Level
Below
Poverty
Level
Below
Poverty Level
Below
Level
Poverty
Level
62
Poverty
Level
Poverty
482
Level
23.9
2.0
Level
699
Level
Sector IV
Smithsburg 7 909 93 10.2 3.7 165 56 33.9 1.8 1074 149 13.9 2.7
Ringgold 14 977 112 11.5 4.4 727 20 2.8 0.7 1704 132 7.7 2.4
Total 1886 205 10.9 8.1 892 76 8.5 2.5 2778 381 13.7 5.1
Sector V
Clear Spring 4
517
42
8.1
1.7
139
94
67.6
3.1
656
136
20.7
2.4
Indian Spring15
420
65
15.5
2.6
62
50
80.6
1.6
482
115
23.9
2.0
Wilson 23
699
61
8.7
2.4
78
42
53.8
1.4
777
103
13.3
1.8
Total
1636
168
10.7
6.7
279
186
66.7
6.1
1915
354
18.5
8.2
Sector VI
Hancock 5 930 151 16.2 5.9 285 134 47.0 4.4 1215 285 23.5 5.1
Total 930 151 16.2 5.9 285 134 47.0 4.4 1215 285 23.5 5.1
County 26979 2544 9.4 100 7986 3070 38.4 100 34965 5714 16.3 100
Total
Source: Adapted from U.S. Bureau of the Census unpublished 5th Count Data
and a Technical Report - HOUSING for Washington County by Urban
Research and Development Corp. 1974.
-72-
areas also have high percentages of housing units lacking critical reuqirements. This
indicatds that the problem is not only that the County has areas of high poverty impac-
tion in terms of an adequate food supply, but also that many of these low income families
and individuals are inadequately housed.
It is apparent that while the urban area (MCD's in Hagerstown) have a high
proportion of persons below poverty levels, they appear to be reasonably well housed,
at least considering the critical requirement standard.
Age, mobility, and household type data presented in°previous sections of the
report indicate that the central urban area has received rather significant increases
in the number of divorced, widowed, and elderly females. This tends to indicate that
the central portion of Hagerstown is assuming a specialized function in terms of pro-
viding adequate housing to these groups.
-73-
Housing Needs
NEEDS BY PLANNING SECTOR
The following table provides a description of the housing needs apparent by
planning sector. Needs by sector are based on existing housing conditions within the
MCD's in each sector, i.e. replacement, over -crowding, value overextension and the
like; as these needs were found from the analysis. The table can not be used to deter-
mine future housing program emphasis within each sector as such policies will depend
on the goals established in the updated land use and community facilities elements
of the County Plan, particularly locational emphasis of such elements, i.e. not where
such problems exist but where will they be solved.
The table does indicate the overall magnitude of certain housing problems
unique to each sector: replacement requirements for example are higher in planning
sector 3 (48.7 percent of existing occupied stock) than all other planning sectors
while value overextension is more of a problem in planning sector 1 (26.6 percent of all
households) than others. Each sector has unique housing problems and capabilities.
The planning sector definitions, however, also include MCD's with quite
different problems - i.e., the high percent of poverty in Hagerstown's central areas
verses the low percent poverty occurance in the surrounding suburban MCD's of planning
sector 1.
-75-
HOUSING NEEDS BY SECTOR
-76-
Total
Minimum
Value
Suitable
Vacancy
Vacancy
Planning
Occupied
Replacement
Index
Over-
Over
Poverty
VacancyRequirement
Requirement
Sector
MCD
Housing Units
(OCCuoied)(Vacant)
crowding_
extension
Index
(Minimum)
Percent
Numbers
i
2 Williamsport
1211
26.5
45.3
6.8
8.8
15.3
2.4
-25.7
- 305
3 Hagerstown
3344
7.2
24.6
4.9
13.2
20.2
4.0
- 6.2
- 207
9 Leitersburg
641
12.3
13.5
2.3
5.6
8.2
5.0
-13.4
- 89
10 Funkstown
1551
7.2
16.7
4.4
9.1
9.7
1.3
- 9.2
- 143
13 Mauymisville
1199
12.4
48.8
6.3
11.4
16.0
1.8
-12.8
- 152
17 Hagerstown
1965
6.7
9.4
4.0
16.8
21.4
7.3
- 2.4
- 47
18 Chewsville
1594
11.2
9.8
5.8
13.7
13.1
2.9
-10.0
- 157
21 Hagerstown
2140
0.2
0.0
2.8
10.6
5.6
3.9
+ 0.7
+ 16
22 Hagerstown
2255
6.3
10.3
5.4
19.0
21.7
6.9
- 2.4
- 55
24 Cedar Lawn
253
9.5
0.0
7.5
11.9
10.0
3.6
- 6.9
- 17
25 Hagerstown
3106
14.7
42.4
6.5
16.2
23.6
3.5
-14.2
- 441
26 Halfway
2340
1.5
16.9
3.0
11.4
6.8
2.1
- 2.6
- 60
27 Fountain Head
1666
2.2
0.0
2.7
12.6
7.8
2.5
- 2.7
- 45
SUBTOTAL
23,265
8.2
20.5
4.7
12.6
15.3
3.8
- 7.3
-1702
II
1 Sharpsburg
635
38.1
61.1
5.5
3.0
18.3
5.5
-35.5
- 225
6 Boonsboro
1093
13.6
46.7
3.5
7.5
13.7
2.2
-13.1
- 141
12 Fairplay
538
23.2
50.0
10.2
13.0
15.4
2.6
-18.3
- 92
16 Beaver Creek
615
17.2
66.7
8.9
12.7
22.2
2.0
-17.5
- 107
19 Keedysville
273
35.2
77.1
9.5
11.0
38.1
2.9
-39.1
- 113
20 Downsville
398
50.8
61.5
4.5
2.3
12.9
1.3
-41.2
- 134
SUBTOTAL
3552
25.9
60.3
6.6
8.1
18.2
2.8
-22.9
- 812
III
8 Rohersville
459
37.3
77.8
7.4
7.0
33.6
2.6
-34.3
- 150
11 Sandy Hook
396
61.9
63.8
10.1
5.1
26.7
4.3
-61.1
- 245
SUBTOTAL
855
48.7
71.3
8.7
6.1
30.5
3.4
-46.2
- 395
IV
7 Smithsburg
1049
17.3
32.1
3.0
9.2
13.9
3.4
-16.6
- 173
14 Ringgold
1050
9.9
35.5
11.5
7.3
7.7
4.7
- 7.9
- 83
SUBTOTAL
2099
13.6
34.1
7.2
8.2
10.1
4.0
-12.2
- 256
V
4 Clear Spring
660
21.8
0.0
8.5
7.3
20.7
2.2
-19.1
- 121
15 Indian Creek
512
49.0
80.4
10.2
5.5
23.9
2.0
-45.3
- 213
23 Wilson
741
15.8
65.5
10.8
9.0
13.3
1.3
-16.3
- 119
SUBTOTAL
1913
26.8
63.8
9.8
7.5
18.5
1.8
-23.7
- 453
VI
5 Hancock
1143
26.7
43.5
7.1
8.7
23.5
4.2
-24.7
- 279
SUBTOTAL
1143
26.7
43.5
7.1
8.7
23.5
4.2
-24.7
- 279
TOTAL
32,827
13.3
33.4
5.5
11.7
16.1
3.6
-12.0
-3897
-76-
County housing programs may not, therefore, be able to treat each sector on
an individual basis given the different problems and thus emphasis apparent on the MCD
level. Rather, the County may need to define broad County -Wide proposals which have
different planning sector implications when applied in practice. This will become
even more apparent as the County attempts to implement County -wide programs in conjunc-
tion with programs of the individual and dispersed Town jurisdictions.
-76-
COUNTY TOTAL
2000 NEEDS PROJECTIONS
-77-
2000
Average Annual
DEMAND
A. Total Population
154219
B. Persons Per Household by 2000
2.6
C. Total Expected Number of House-
holds Subject to Housing Re-
quirements (A=B = C)
59315
SUPPLY EXISTING STOCK
D. 1970 Housing Stock
34585
E. Less Units Lacking Critical
Requirements
4940
F. Net Suitable Housing Stock
(D-E=F)
29645
G. Effective Deficit Between 2000
Household and 1970 Suitable
Stock (C-F=G)
29670
989
H. Plus 3% Vacancy Residual
(3% x C = H)
1779
59.3
I TOTAL REQUIREMENT (G + H)
31449
1048
SUPPLY - MARKET TREND
J. Average Annual Housing Starts
1970-1972
884
K. Less Average Annual Demolitions
39
-77-
L. Effective Annual Housing Addition
to Stock (J -K = L) 845
M. ADDITIONAL ANNUAL REQUIREMENT TO MEET
PROJECTED GROWTH, REPLACE CRITICALLY
UNSUITABLE HOUSING AND PROVIDE THREE
PERCENT VACANCY RESIDUAL (I - L = M) 203
Note:
The average annual number of housing units added to the existing stock between
1970 and 1972 was 845. The above table suggests -that the number of units added
annually will have to rise by 203 to 1048 average annual units to meet projected
2000 A.D. Demand.
sm
Housing Obstacles
HOUSING OBSTACLES
House Financinq - A household's ability to convert income into purchasing power
in the housing market can be the most important factor determining whether or not housing
needs can be met. Financing is the key to obtaining housing purchasing power.
Financing involves personal decisions in a household's budget as well as home
mortgage conditions. Household budget is probably the most constant factor in determin-
ing home purchasing decisions.
Household Budgets for Housing - The tables depict three budgetary levels recom-
mended for a four -person family and a retired couple living in an urban area in 1970.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics recommends that budget expenses for housing be held between
20.5 and 24.5 percent of all budget costs for a family and 35.7 to 35.1 percent of all
budget costs for a retired couple.
Actual household budget capabilites may be even more extreme than shown, de-
pending on the present debt a household is carrying for financed items like appliances,
cars and personal loans. A household's maturity which determines school costs of children
medical expenses for older adults, insurance rates, etc. is another factor affecting housing,
budget capabilities.
.M
HOUSING FINANCE OBSTACLES
PRESENT CITY -COUNTY HOUSING MARKET CAPABILITIES
UNDER TH€ PROPOSED HOUSING BUDGETS
Number All
Households in 5
Monthly 1 Equals 2 Annual Income Percent All 6
Annual Housing Monthly Or Sales Value 3 Or Sales Va lue4 Ranges Households 1n
Income Budget Contract Per Typical Con- Per Farmers' Home City -County Annual Income
Ranges Capabilities Rental ventional Mortgage Administration 1970 Census Ranoes
$ 0- 1,999 S 0- 42 $ 0- 40 S 0- 3,600 $ 0- 3, BOO 4975 hshlds. 14.2% Average value of
2,000- 3,999 43- 83 41- 79 3,601- 7,100 3,801- 7,400 4386 12.5 used and new multi -
Average rent capability 4,000- 5,999 84-125 80-119 7,101-10,750 7,401.11,000 4490 12.8 family unit from
of new multifamily units 6,000- 7,999 126-167 120-159 10,751-14,400 11,001-14,500 5040 14.5 City-C00oty Statls-
15,000-24,999 313-521 297-495
Sources:
1equals 25% of monthlyrg oss income
2 - equals 95% of housing budget (1) for contract rent exclusive of utility costs
3 - based on housing budget of 14.73 of gross monthly income for retirement of principal and interest
(mortgage terms 25% down, 20 years, 84 % interest)
4 - based on monthly budget of 14.7% of gross monthly income for retirement of principal and
interest under example of Farmers' Home Administration policies (FmHA).
5 and 6 - U. S. Census, 1970, unpublished 5th count data; includes families and primary
1n4iv14u4l households.
Notes:
The table above illustrates three major implications: (1) the limited amount of income a household can actually
apply to housing costs if the proposed budgets in earlier tables are actually applied to the market; (2) the
actual effect current FmHA, FHA and VA policies have in the market; they do not increase value capabilities at
purchase; they merely allow a household to buy the same value in lieu of having down payment money; and (3) the
percent of all city -county households (based on 1970 incomes) who were effectively priced out of the new single
family housing market (89.2%), used or new multifamily sales housing market (67.6%) and new rental (average
monthly rental based on 1/100th of construction cost) market (67.6%) as of 1973 city -county market trends,
should city -county housing costs reflect national projections at least 75 to 953 of all city -county households
will be priced out of the market by the end of 1974 under current area housing market practices.
ESTIMATED COMPONENTS OF HOUSING COSTS
HOUSEHOLD BUDGET ITEMS
4 -Person Family in an Income Budget Range
Urban Area Lower Intermediate Higher
Total Budget ($) 7,061 10,933 15,971
Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0
Cost of Consumption (79.6) (76.7) (72.9)
Food 27.3 22.B 19.8
Housing 20.5 23.6 24.5
Transportation 6.8 8.4 7.5
Clothing & Personal
Care 11.6 10.5 10.5
Medical Care 8.2 5.3 3.8
Other Family Con-
sumption 5.2 6.1 6.8
Retired Couple
Percent of
Percent of
Budget Item
Housing Budget
Monthly Income
Debt Service
7,503
Percent
(Principal Interest
100.0
100.0
and Mortgage Ins.)
58.7
14.7
Hazard Insurance
2.3
016
Taxes & Assessments
13.3
3.3
Utilities/Service
14.8
3.7
Maintenance/Repairs
6.1
1.5
Miscellaneous
4.6
1.2
Total
100.0
25.0
HOUSEHOLD BUDGET ITEMS
4 -Person Family in an Income Budget Range
Urban Area Lower Intermediate Higher
Total Budget ($) 7,061 10,933 15,971
Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0
Cost of Consumption (79.6) (76.7) (72.9)
Food 27.3 22.B 19.8
Housing 20.5 23.6 24.5
Transportation 6.8 8.4 7.5
Clothing & Personal
Care 11.6 10.5 10.5
Medical Care 8.2 5.3 3.8
Other Family Con-
sumption 5.2 6.1 6.8
Retired Couple
7
15
5
Total Budget ($)
3,188
4,679
7,503
Percent
100.0
100.0
100.0
Cost of Consumption
(95.7)
(93.6)
(86.4)
Food29.1
10,880
26.5
20.7
Housing
35.1
35.7
35.1
Transportation
6.1
9.0
10.3
Clothing & Personal
8.1
8.8
8.2
Medical Care
11.7
8.0
5.1
Other
5.0
5.6
7.0.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Bulletins 1570-6; 1970
9ME
single family unit
from city -county
building permits 1973
SELECT MORTGAGE TERM COMPARISONS
Monthly Approx
Rate Tenn Dawn Payment Value
By Interest
7
15
5
100
11,600
Rate
71,,
15
5
100
11,240
8
15
5
100
10,880
8h
15
5
100
10,520
By Tenn
7
15
5
100
11,600
7
20
5
100
13,700
7
25
5
100
14,800
7
30
5
100
15,800
By Down
7
15
5
100
11,600
7
15
10
100
12,200
7
15
15
100
13,000
7
15
20
100
13,700
7
15
25
100
14,700
Extreme
Bk
15
25
100
13,300
Ranges
7
30
5
100
15,800
In addition, the tables do not account for the probable effects of inflation
or changing economic conditions in general. Food, transportation and medical costs are
increasing at a faster rate than housing costs, particularly in the past year. In 1970
when the budget example was prepared, however, there was little if any indication of the
resource shortages which would occur in 1972-1974 to cause food and gas price explosions;
nor is there any indication now of what limits, if any, can be placed on rising costs. It
is unlikely, however, that households will seek to increase their debt level above the 24.5
percent limit recommended with such price uncertainty in the soft commodity sector of the
economy.
The 25.0 percent housing budget estimate, in any event, is for all housing costs,
not only for mortgage payments. The tables list an approximate breakout of associated
housing costs typical of an urban family in 1972. Of the original 25.0 percent housing
budget, only 14.7 percent is actually available for debt service (principal and interest
payments). The remaining 10.3 percent budget must cover maintenance costs, taxes and util-
ity costs. Consequently, only 14.7 percent of a household's monthly income (take-home pay)
can actually be applied to an effective sales price. The percentage breakout illustrates
the minimal impact small increases in income have on house purchasing potential and the
adverse impact inflation and price increases in other goods have on housing budget flexi-
bility as well. Even the mildest of recessions can cause a -budget crunch in the housing
market.
IM
NUMBER OF YEARS REWIRED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING INNOVATIONS
Years required for
Ennar4tian -ecce a.vice-
resa ell sf construction
7e
(1) Snell rWf traction B
3 el ivola¢ tower crane 11
3 ;PN ttaedulii,
For Miuo�uttlo pwvjetts
(aJ 1011*1 pi4te eoaseruct"an 79
{S1 Cprtaln wall Tenstruetlw 13
{6 Total enargy Infta 114tiaas 17
T Prof tressed w;eeere to building coeomnents 17
IB Mrathering steel rar rxVe%#d ztrUCtura 2A
•-1 �trA egUG ftio - li ltL'71y'dl ' !A
r Ayernge rwnrasident14l }T.d years
Ites"44ntlal Construction IS
{ll Guaranteed a n -zed an1tg49e 22
2) "'bile hoae "it"
16
(31 Asphalt impregnated fiber sheathing 12
((4 Radial arm saw on site
dS FXA minimus standard codes 13
18
i61 toa6ination forced a r heat with air conditioning 2
(7) Preassembled window units 13
fra. wall assembly
vGr4ga T'de""' 17.D yedrz
Average period for acceptance 17.1 years
• Years between first commercial scale use and general acceptance as a standard.
state-of-the-art option or practice.
'--- The construction industry has responded to changing market requireetn s and shifting
econanic pressures by adapting a wide variety of technical and ens ti[utional rrmovations
Tne to Dle above recounts the nmaeber of years involved be the initial d®nstration
of 18 significant i vations and the acceptance of such ideas as standard practice
within the Industry and public policies
The innovations nor being demonstrated or to cane within the next five years will mvo-
lutionize the Dui 'ding indm6 try aM docmlm[ the need for flexible, perforaanQ oriented
t-� public codes. The -market can no longer afford the 'inonbator' lapse z noted above.
CONSTRUCTION COST VARIABLES
LAND UTILIZATION COMPARISON BY HOUSING TYPE
(Example of a density zoning allowing
100 total units on a 50 acre site)
Source: Urban Land Institute
The example illustrates how density zoning can allow clustering of different housing types
to achieve the same net site results using progressively smaller portions of the site to
reduce site improvement costs, create open space and/or trade-off poor soils or significant
social features.
VARIABLE EFFECT OF LAND AND DESIGN ON HOUSING COSTS
H o u S in a P r o d u c t
Detached Clustered
Lat end rksln varfat9 ons 51 Te FaaMi7 55 Te FamfT i PatioNouse
Example 1
1800 zf unit @ 510/sf building cos[i 16,000 $ 18,000 S 18,000 $ 18,000
Associated lot size ! 1 acre 60' lot 25' lot 60' 1pt
Associated land improvement cost
@ $I/sf $ 31,680 $ 7,500 $ 3,750 E 3,000
Total unit cost $ 49,660 $ 25,500 S 21,150 $a 21,000
Percent cost of unit in land 63.8% 29.41 17.2% 1.3%
Y Example 2
1 1600 sf unit @ $10/sf building cost $ 16,000 $016 ,000 E 16,000 $ 16,000
Associated lot size @ 1/2 acre 5' lot 20' lot 50' lot
Associated land and land improve-
ment cost @ $1/sf $ 15,640 E 6,250 E 3,000 $ 2.500
Total unit cost S 31,840 $ 22,250 $ 19,000 E 18,500
Percent cost of unit in land 49 1' 28.1% 15.8% 13.5%
Example 3
1400 sf unit @ 510/sf building cost $ 14,000 $ 14,000 E 14,000 $ 14,000
Associated lot size 75' lot 40' lot 16' lot 40' lot
Associated land and land improve-
�� ment cost @ $1/sf $11,250 E 5,000 $ 2,500 $ 2,000
Total unit cost $ 25,250 $ 19, D00 $ 16,500 $ 16,000
Percent unit cos in
T.d 44 fi% 26.3% 152% 12-5%
Source: UrbanLand Institute
Note: In reality land costs will not be the unifo nn $1/sf shown in the table. Urban land
required for higher density housing may reach this figure, but land typical of most 1 acre
>� single family will be much cheaper as ip is sited outside existing urban areas with little
in the way of public and thus costly improvements -- not necessarily because this should be
the tate, but it has been public policy to promote this effect in the past.
The table does show the effects of varying design and land costs on ultimate housing prices
Obviously, it is possible in all these examples to attain the same overall building space
5 at less cost when land is reduced in size and cost effect.
Another aspect not coveredin the table is the reverse contribution land has on structural
cost relationships. It is extremely unlikely a household would pay $31,680 for a one acre
lot to put $18,000 into a house. When land becomes this costly, a normal desire is to put
r the structure to a use which can justify or retum some of the investment in land. A
developer would be forced to put the land to better use than a single family unit if land
investment is to be productive; another reason why the land market does affect density
requirements in the central areas where land is more expensive.
-83-
t
A 25 YEAR EVOLUTION IN HOME BUILDING COST COMPONENTS:
AVERAGE COSTS OF A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNIT
P nt
Total
Average
Actual
Percent
$ 1,076
Site
Density
Amount
Site Coverage
Hpusin Type
Acrea
Of site used
Of Si te. Used
In Building.
Single family detached
Financitlg
489
2,053
3,580
112 acre lots
50 ac
2 du/ac
50.0 ac
100.0%
1/3 acre lots
50 ac
3 du/ac
33.3 ac
66,6%
1/4 acre lots
50 at
4 du/ac
25.0 ac
50.0%
6000 sq. ft. lots
50 ac
7 du/ac
14.3 ac
28.6%
Townhouses
50 at
14 du/ac
7.1 ac
14-2%
Patio houses
50 ac
20 du/ac
1.0 ac
10.0%
Garden apartments
50 ac
25 du/ac
4 0 ac
8.01
6 story apartments
50 ac
30 du/ac
3.3 ac
6.7%
12 story apartments
50 ac
60 du/ac
1.7 ac
3,4%
Source: Urban Land Institute
The example illustrates how density zoning can allow clustering of different housing types
to achieve the same net site results using progressively smaller portions of the site to
reduce site improvement costs, create open space and/or trade-off poor soils or significant
social features.
VARIABLE EFFECT OF LAND AND DESIGN ON HOUSING COSTS
H o u S in a P r o d u c t
Detached Clustered
Lat end rksln varfat9 ons 51 Te FaaMi7 55 Te FamfT i PatioNouse
Example 1
1800 zf unit @ 510/sf building cos[i 16,000 $ 18,000 S 18,000 $ 18,000
Associated lot size ! 1 acre 60' lot 25' lot 60' 1pt
Associated land improvement cost
@ $I/sf $ 31,680 $ 7,500 $ 3,750 E 3,000
Total unit cost $ 49,660 $ 25,500 S 21,150 $a 21,000
Percent cost of unit in land 63.8% 29.41 17.2% 1.3%
Y Example 2
1 1600 sf unit @ $10/sf building cost $ 16,000 $016 ,000 E 16,000 $ 16,000
Associated lot size @ 1/2 acre 5' lot 20' lot 50' lot
Associated land and land improve-
ment cost @ $1/sf $ 15,640 E 6,250 E 3,000 $ 2.500
Total unit cost S 31,840 $ 22,250 $ 19,000 E 18,500
Percent cost of unit in land 49 1' 28.1% 15.8% 13.5%
Example 3
1400 sf unit @ 510/sf building cost $ 14,000 $ 14,000 E 14,000 $ 14,000
Associated lot size 75' lot 40' lot 16' lot 40' lot
Associated land and land improve-
�� ment cost @ $1/sf $11,250 E 5,000 $ 2,500 $ 2,000
Total unit cost $ 25,250 $ 19, D00 $ 16,500 $ 16,000
Percent unit cos in
T.d 44 fi% 26.3% 152% 12-5%
Source: UrbanLand Institute
Note: In reality land costs will not be the unifo nn $1/sf shown in the table. Urban land
required for higher density housing may reach this figure, but land typical of most 1 acre
>� single family will be much cheaper as ip is sited outside existing urban areas with little
in the way of public and thus costly improvements -- not necessarily because this should be
the tate, but it has been public policy to promote this effect in the past.
The table does show the effects of varying design and land costs on ultimate housing prices
Obviously, it is possible in all these examples to attain the same overall building space
5 at less cost when land is reduced in size and cost effect.
Another aspect not coveredin the table is the reverse contribution land has on structural
cost relationships. It is extremely unlikely a household would pay $31,680 for a one acre
lot to put $18,000 into a house. When land becomes this costly, a normal desire is to put
r the structure to a use which can justify or retum some of the investment in land. A
developer would be forced to put the land to better use than a single family unit if land
investment is to be productive; another reason why the land market does affect density
requirements in the central areas where land is more expensive.
-83-
t
A 25 YEAR EVOLUTION IN HOME BUILDING COST COMPONENTS:
AVERAGE COSTS OF A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNIT
P nt
1949
1969
1974
Average Va l�ue
Land d improvements
an
$ 1,076
E 4,313
$ 8,950
Materials
3,521
7,803
11,450
On-site labor
3,227
3,696
5,380
Financitlg
489
2,053
3,580
Overhead d profit
1 467
2.66S.-
plus $3.50 per
Total
3 9,130
$ZU,br#d
S35.600
C itl of tlo�n
Id anl1111preV2Pea ii
lit
elf
25%
Materiell s
36
38
32
On-site labor
33
18
li
10
Financing
S
10
As shown, a buying household must have more cash than simple down payment. In
Tota d n raf it
-100�Ot
1.DO.O%
100.01.
Avera a lncr ase
-
400.8%
?07.5.
Lan do iapralw..s
-
221.6
146.7
Materials
On-site labor
-
114.5
145.6
Financing
-
419.8
174.4
ver d and pnflt
-
Ill 9
241.3
non,
1741
Ayeraae Annual Increase
15.0!
21.5E
land and ie"yTCveinentz
-
6.1
9.3
Materials
-
0.7'
9.1
On-site labor
-
16.0
14.9
Fi,iancing
-
f
Tota
Source: 1949 and 1969 -- the AFL-CIO Report
on Housing; 1974 -
National Association of Home
Builders.
The table illustrates which
housing components
are affecting recent
rises in the cost of housing
-- all of them,
though land and imp rove-
ments,financing and overhead
have contributed a larger
share in recent
years. The table indicates
the multiple nature
of housing costs and
the reason why housing solutions
must be developed and
applied in
multiple fashion.
AVERAGE SETTLEMENT COSTS OR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BUYING
oesu
Fee Ba is Eh le,
Notar, lee to swear si itaretin
S 4.00 S 4.00
car ing fee to put=Ftgagr permanent
a
in tour ou a
9_ -�
Service fab b ender to re are mort a e -
1« o bmf., ?00.00
ropertyapps lza tags.._ It 40 mortgage
a liwaLian
35.00 35.40
Title 343 rah to at"," clear t' [le to sell
75- 2 •DD
for first $5000
in value, plus
+% remaining
valueL
Title insurance to Protect leftdW
.40 I
plus $3.50 per
]COD of snlerice
Lpt surra 4o determine ro rt nes
t rc n here
r" n r a Y r n- 1
n r l <
Tax proration usua Y 3months in advance
of .11 real estate tax caelai tteen s
variable
ata
The above are average costs of settlement to a
buyer which must be paid at time
of sale in addition to a dawn payment. • The
example is based on a theoretical
sale of a $40,000 bouse with a $10,000 down payment.
As shown, a buying household must have more cash than simple down payment. In
addition, the above does not include costs of
moving or a finder's fee or lease
termination or sales of a previous residence.
The table documents why easy money mortgages with low down payment requirements
are so attractive in today's short money economy-
Home Mortgage Conditions - The real indicator of household buying capacity,
however, is the buying power its fixed amount budgeted for housing can exert in the
market. Depending on various combinations of interest rate, mortgage term, and re-
quired down -payment, a household can have purchasing power of anywhere from $11,600 to
$15,800 per $100 of funds available monthly for debt service. This does not reflect total
interest cost over the life of the mortgage. If a family has cash for a large down -
payment, it can save a great deal of interest. If not, it is going to pay much more over
the long run. A difference of even one percent in the level of mortgage rates is going
to make a substantial difference in the amount a family can pay for a house.
The volume of money available to the housing market may determine its future
more than any other variable. When annual dollar totals flowing into various facets of the
money market are compared, the amount of capital being provided to the residential housing
market has been decreasing in comparison to nonresidential investments.
In recent years, long-term mortgages have been available with low down pay-
ments. This situation is changing and will hurt elderly households, female -headed house-
holds, and elderly widows most of all; they are the types most likely to become dependent
on housing assistance. State and Local government will have to act more in the future
to assist these disadvantaged groups. The Federal government has placed a moratorium
on public, non-profit housing and housing -related programs. Previously, the Federal
L
government had, in effect, created a public housing and publically assisted industry district
from the private industry which itself had been strongly supported by the Federal Housing
Administration and the Veterans' Administration. Viable alternatives at all levels of govern-
ment should be provided to assure that reasonable financing can be provided to all households
types.
Land Costs -Lan,d costs have been increased mainly by public actions such as utility
extensions, highway improvements, zoning designations and the construction of public facilit-
ies. Consequently, the most direct way public actions can reduce the effects of high land
costs on housing costs is by encouraging the construction of higher density housing types
such as clustered or attached single family houses duplexes or fourplexes, townhouses, patio
houses, condominiums and apartments.
In fact, a selected rezoning of areas which can be provided abutting existing areas
with sewer service would not only divert the market into the construction of such units but
decrease the costs of public sewer extensions, provide service to a greater number of house-
holds and create desired land use patterns.
The restriction of single family units to on-site septic service of one acre
or more would thus require the single family unit to hear its true environmental costs.
This action would also reduce the excessive burden of providing general tax subsidies
to extend long and often under-utilized utility systems. Zoning and sewer policies,
public controls now available, could be redirected in any proportionate manner desired
to reduce rather than increase the effects of high land costs on total housing costs.
Public Facility Consideration - In virtually every instance, expansion of low
and moderately priced housing stock is contingent upon the availability of the facilities
necessary to sustain higher orders of development. The installation of water distribu-
tion lines, sewerage collection lines, and an adequate transportation system serve as a
magnet for the location of residential projects, industrial complexes, and the support-
ive commercial activities. Although the exact timing and magnitude of the development
forms will be determined in part by overall regional economic considerations, the fact
remains that extension of the utility service provides increased opportunites for all
types of developments, especially housing.
In the past the extension of water and sewer service was not predicated upon any
specific guidelines for assuring improved community growth; in fact, existant development
patterns governed the expansion of utilities. The problem has been that growth was per-
mitted to continue without the necessary facilities with a resultant adverse impact on
environmental quality and public health. The current circumstance is one of the utilities
(especially sewerage) having to "play catch up" with past growth. Advance planning of
utilities will effectively and efficiently provide services and thus encourage higher
densities and expanded opportunites for lower cost housing in the County.
:.
BUILDING COSTS
Labor and Materials
Labor and materials are the prime contributions to high building costs. The
high price of labor, in addition to inflation is brought about by the reliance on total
construction at the site, rather than the use of prefabricated housing techniques.
Based on a 1968 special study by the National Commission on Urban Probelms,
the average savings in building cost between a conventionally constructed housing unit
and a prefabricated unit is between 3.1 percent and 16.5 percent.
Materials are also contributors to high building costs. Both lumber and pet-
roleum products used in building are not produced locally and are subject to variable
transportation costs and market shortages.
SITE DEVELOPMENT COST
Many of the same problems besetting the actual construction of houses are also
prevalent fn the creation of physical improvements (streets, sewers, water lines, etc.)
on the site. The allowance of more flexible site design requirements in zoning and
subdivision controls can assist in creating quality developments at lower or more ef-
ficient site development costs due to minimizing grading requirements, shorter street
and utility lengths and slightly higher densities through clustering of houses and site and
Inc
soil trade-offs which clustering alleW&.
The single, biggest problem facing a developer is either the lack of public
concern for meeting housing needs through new supplies or the over -zealous resistance
from local officials and special interest groups.
The developer must provide an increasing array of proposals, evaluations and
projections of site and market potential before public acceptance. This is necessary
because it insures quality and forethought as to the project's feasibility and impact
on the public and the developer alike.
Most often, however, a large portion of the developer's time and cost lie
not in the specifics of the proposal, but in educating and informing the public and
planning commission members, in particular, of the need for innovations, the increased
quality they provide, the beneficial effects on the housing market in general and
existing market problems caused by their absence.
In addition, the developer must often attempt to interpret comprehensive plans
which are vague or do not reflect current market realities. This presents delays in
making his primary decisions on site, location, price, options, etc. Consequently a
considerable amount of time and money is needlessly absorbed in what should be the public
sector's responsibility. The result is quite obvious. Though the developer may spend
the time and money, he will ultimately get it back by increasing the price of housing.
-88-
HOUSING SUPPLY ACTIVITY
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED. NEN CONSTRUCTION;
CITY AND COUNTY TOTALS, 1969-1973
Single FamilyMulti-Family Mobile Hones
Nw er Total Value Val ue7Unit Number Total Value Value/Unit Number Total Value Value/Unit
1969
County 312 5,265,430 16,876 4 29,000 7,250
City 17 313,165 18,421 14 76,500 5,464
Total 329 5,578,595 16,956 18 105,500 5,861
1970
County 257 4,249,373 16,535 391 3,635,000 9,297
city 31 529,400 17,077 8 63,324 7,916
Total 288 4,778,773 16,593 399 3,698,324 9,269
1971
County 429 8,274,673 19,288 213 2,375,000 11,150
City 22 369,500 16,795
Total 451 8,644,173 19,167 213 2,375,000 11,150
1972
County 420 9,731,791 23,171 131 2,421,300 18,483 109 572,195 5,249
City 16 347,900 21,744 624 9,400,149 15,064
Total 436 10,079,691 23,119 755 11,821,419 15,658 109 572,195 5,249
Sources: County: County Assessors Office Form C-40, et. al.
City: Citizen's Advisory Co®ittee. Subcaimmittes on Mousing. Nagarsto a Planing Process
RES I DENNTTITAL SSUBDIVISLION ACTIVITY
WASHINGTONPCOU Y,I 19964-1973
1964 1965 1966 1967 1978 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
By Builder -
Developers`
Total Number of 1 15 13 4 7 20 20 16 25 38
Subdivisions
Total Number of 6 559 479 193 125 764 1,336 277 391 734
D.U.'S
Smallest Subdivi- - 5 4 8 10 4 1 1 1 1
Sion
Largest Subdivision 6 116 92 153 35 400 600 71 121 308
Average Number 6.0 37.3 36.8 48.3 17.9 38,2 66.8 17.3 15.6 19.3
of D.U.S. per
Subdivision
Percent of all 33.3 75.0 81.3 100.0 70.0 62.5 80.0 30.8 14.2 22.5
Subdivisions
Percent of all 37.5 95.6 85.1 100.0 76.7 91.2 99.1 84.5 66.4 81.0
D.U.S.
Source: 1964-1970: Plan for the County
1971-1973: Annual Reports, Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission
`Classed by a subdivision with a formal title to the development. Thus, this may include individual
Amer -speculators and exclude some major builders operating under private names.
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY
WASHINGTON COUNTY: 1964-1973
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
Total number of
subdivisions 3 20 16 4 10 32 25 52 176 169
Total number of
dwelling units 16 585 563 193 163 838 1.348 328 589 906
Smallest subdivi-
sions 4' 4 4 8 3 4 1 1 1 1
Largest subdivi-
sions 6 116 92 153 35 400 600 71 121 308
Average number of
dwelling units
per subdivision 5.3 29.3 35.2 4B.3 16.3 26.2 53.9 6.3 3.3 5.4
Source: 19454-1970: Plan for the County
1971-1973: Annual Reports, Washington County Planning 6 Zoning Commission
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY
BY TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT:
WASHINGTON COUNTY, 1964-1973
Numbers of D.U.S.
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970 1971
1972
1973
Single family
16
585
563
193
163
449
403
257
462
598
Townhouse
0
0
D
0
0
29
300
0
24
0
Apartments
0
0
0
0
0
360
45
71
121
308
Homes Mobile
0
0
0
0
0
0
600
0
328
0
0
Total
16
585
563
193
163
838
1.348
328
607
906
Percent
598
100.0
100.0
100.0
Average Lot Size
1.5
2.2
2.4
Single Family
100.0
100.0
1DO.0
100.9
100.0
53.5
29,9
78.4
76.1
66.0
Townhouse
--
--
--
--
--
3.5
22.3
0.0
4.0
0.0
Apartments
--
--
--
--
--
43.0
3.3
21.6
19.9
34.0
Mobile Homes
--
--
--
--
--
O.D
44.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Source: 1964-1968:
Plan for
the County
1969-1973:
Annual Reports, Washington
County Planning
and Zoning Commission
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ACTIVITY
BY LOT SIZE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, 1971-1973
Note: Excludes Multi-faadly Projects
Source: Annual Reports, Washington County Planning and Zoning commission
Numbers
Percent
Number of D.U.S. by Range
1971
1972
1973
1971
of Gross Lots Sizes
Under 0.3 Acre
80
3
16
31.1
0.7
2.7
D.3 - 0.5
2
82
190
85
139
0.8
44.0
17.4
40.3
14.2
23.2
0.6 - 1.0
113
8
50
58
3.1
10.6
9.7
1.1 - 1.5
1.6 - 2.0
9
18
25
3.5
3.8
4.2
2.1- 3.0
4
31
87
150
1.6
8.6
6.6
8.9
14.5
25.1
3.1 - 5.0
5.1+
22
19
42
55
38
7.3
11.7
6.4
Total O.U.S.
257
471
598
100.0
100.0
100.0
Average Lot Size
1.5
2.2
2.4
Note: Excludes Multi-faadly Projects
Source: Annual Reports, Washington County Planning and Zoning commission
L
L
Bibliography
1
L
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Technical Report - HOUSING -Washington County by Urban Research
and Development Corp. 1974
2. Washington Count Housing - Need, Analysis, Action Program
by Urban Research and Development Corp. 1974
3. The Appalachian Maryland Development Plan by Tri -County Council
for Western Maryland, 1974.
4. "The Fifth Count Summary Tapes" 1970. U.S. Bureau of the Census
5. Characteristics of Population - Maryland 1970 by the U.S. Bureau
of the Census
6. POPULATION: Trends, Characteristics, Projections by the Washing-
ton County Planning and Zoning Commission 1975.
-91-
ABSTRACT
The preparation of this report was financed in part through a comprehensive planning
grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, as administered by
the Maryland Department of State Planning.
Title: HOUSING- An Inventory of Problems and Needs
Author: Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission
Subject: Housing as a background study of the Comprehensive Plan
Date: July, 1975
Name of Planning Agency: Maryland Department of State Planning
Name of Local Agency: Washington County Planning and Zoning Commission
Source of Copies: Maryland Department of State Planning, State Office
Building; Washington County Planning and Zoning Com-
mission, 24 Summit Avenue, Hagerstown, Maryland; U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Regional
Office, Baltimore, Maryland
HUD Project No.: MD P-1013
Series Number:
Pages:
Abstract: This report is a background study for the eventual develop-
ment of a Housing Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
It is an inventory and analysis of population and socio-eco-
nomic variables as they affect the adequacy of Housing in the
County.
The housing market is treated as a basic economic operation
subject to supply and demand considerations.
It is the intent of this study to provide local decision
makers with an over view of the housing situation in the
County. Areas of housing problems are identified by elec-
tion districts. An attempt is made to present information
which can be readily understood by all county citizens.
-92-