New construction and rehabilitation of subsidized housing units are directly compared against the common objective of extending the useful life of the inventory. A model is developed and applied to the case of public housing in the United States of America. Results suggest that rehabilitation is not justified if costs exceed 5–10% of new construction costs. The article concludes with a discussion of limitations of the model and of prospects for further development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BradburyK, 1977, “Changes in urban housing supplies through conversion or retirement” DP-417-77, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
2.
ChungH C, 1973The Economics of Residential Rehabilitation: Social Life of Housing in Harlem (Praeger, New York)
3.
DildineL LMasseyF A, 1974, “A dynamic model of private incentive to housing maintenance”Southern Economic Journal40631–639
4.
FriedenB JSolomonA P, 1977The Nation's Housing: 1975–1985Joint Center for Urban Studies of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
5.
GleesonM E, 1981, “Estimating housing mortality”Journal of the American Planning Association47185–194
6.
HufbauerG CSevernB W, 1974, “The economic demolition of old buildings”Urban Studies11349–351
7.
KieferD, 1980, “Housing deterioration, housing codes and rent control”Urban Studies1753–62
8.
KristofF S, 1968, “Urban housing needs through the 1980's” RR-10, US National Commission on Urban Problems (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
9.
MargolisS, 1981, “Depreciation and maintenance of houses”Land Economics5791–105
10.
Minnesota State Planning Agency, 1976, “Minnesota housing needs, housing resources and housing distribution plans”Minnesota State Planning Agency, St Paul, MN
11.
NeedlemanL, 1965The Economics of Housing (Staples Press, London)
12.
SchaafA H, 1960, “Economic aspects of urban renewal: Theory, policy, and area analysis”Real Estate Research Program, University of California, Berkeley, CA
13.
SchaafA H, 1969, “Economic feasibility analysis for urban renewal housing rehabilitation”Journal of the American Institute of Planners35399–404
14.
SchussheimM JSmithA M, 1979, “Estimating the need for assisted housing production” paper prepared at the request of the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs; Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, Washington, DC
15.
StruykR J, 1980, “Public housing modernization program: An analysis of problems and prospects”Journal of Housing37492–496
16.
SweeneyJ L, 1974, “Housing unit maintenance and the mode of tenure”Journal of Economic Theory8111–138
17.
US Congressional Budget Office, 1979The Long-term Costs of Lower-income Housing Assistance
18.
US House of Representatives, 1981Department of Housing and Urban Development—Independent Agencies Appropriations for 1982, Part 6 Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, 97th Congress, 1st Session, April 28, 29 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
19.
US House of Representatives, 1982Department of Housing and Urban Development—Independent Agencies Appropriations for 1983, Part 6Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, 97th Congress, 2nd Session, May 5, 6 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
20.
US House of Representatives, 1983Department of Housing and Urban Development—Independent Agencies Appropriations for 1984, Part 7Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, 98th Congress, 1st Session, March 24, April 11, 12, 13 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
21.
US National Commission on Urban Problems, 1969Building the American City (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
