Interim


of HUD’s


U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

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

and Urban Development 
Visit PD&R’s Web Site 

www.huduser.org 

to find this report and others sponsored by


HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R).


Other services of HUD USER, PD&R’s Research Information Service, include listservs; 


special interest, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources);


access to public use databases; hotline 1-800-245-2691 for help accessing the information you need.

interim evaluation of HuD’s 

HomeownersHip Zone initiative 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Office of Policy Development and Research 

Prepared by: 

Exceed Corporation 

Joe Kirchner, Ph.D. 

Nancy Teed 

Jonathan Morancy 

Jeff Bennett 

with 

RTI International 

Bill Wheaton 

Sam H. Leaman 

David Chrest 

MARCH 2007

Acknowledgements 

This evaluation could not have been accomplished without the vision, 

support, and candor of the Homeownership Zone staffs and their partners in 

this initiative. Developers, builders, bankers, profit and non-profit partners, 

community representatives and, of course, the residents who live and work in 

these communities deserve our thanks. This report is dedicated to them. 

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government. 

Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

Contents

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................................v

Overview of the Homeownership Zone Demonstration Program.........................................................................v

Purpose of the Interim Evaluation........................................................................................................................vi

Interim Findings....................................................................................................................................................vi

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................1

Background............................................................................................................................................................1

Interim Evaluation: Overview................................................................................................................................2

The HOZ Sites.......................................................................................................................................................3

Homeownership Zone Requirements........................................................................................................................5

Round One.............................................................................................................................................................5

Notice of Funding Availability Selection Process..........................................................................................5

Requirements..................................................................................................................................................6

Round Two.............................................................................................................................................................8

Notice of Funding Availability Selection Process..........................................................................................8

Requirements..................................................................................................................................................9

New Urbanism Design.........................................................................................................................................10

Homeownership Zone Project Outcomes................................................................................................................13

Comparison of Round One and Round Two Proposals........................................................................................13

Additional Investment..........................................................................................................................................14

Progress................................................................................................................................................................14

Housing Units...............................................................................................................................................14

Mixed Income...............................................................................................................................................15

Diversity.......................................................................................................................................................15

Completion...................................................................................................................................................16

Creating the New Urban Community.....................................................................................................................23

Site Characteristics..............................................................................................................................................23

Design Guidelines................................................................................................................................................26

Blight Removal and Green Spaces.......................................................................................................................26

Neighborhood Amenities.....................................................................................................................................27

Economic Opportunity........................................................................................................................................28

Safety...................................................................................................................................................................28
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

ii

Lessons and Guidelines............................................................................................................................................33

The Plan...............................................................................................................................................................33

The HOZ Site.......................................................................................................................................................34

Leadership and Administration............................................................................................................................35

Partnerships..........................................................................................................................................................36

Community Participation.....................................................................................................................................37

Financing.............................................................................................................................................................38

Land Acquisition..................................................................................................................................................39

Resident Relocation.............................................................................................................................................40

Home Design and Construction...........................................................................................................................41

Environmental Considerations.............................................................................................................................42

Creating Demand.................................................................................................................................................42

Commercial Development...................................................................................................................................44

Concluding Observations.....................................................................................................................................45

Appendix A. Methodology......................................................................................................................................A-1

Appendix B. Geographic Information System Data............................................................................................B-1

Appendix C. Site Visit Protocol..............................................................................................................................C-1

Appendix D. Maps and Pictures............................................................................................................................D-1

Baltimore, Maryland: Sandtown-Winchester HOZ...........................................................................................D-2

Buffalo, New York: Willert Park HOZ...............................................................................................................D-6

Cleveland, Ohio: Villages of Central HOZ........................................................................................................D-8

Flint, Michigan: University Park HOZ............................................................................................................D-15

Indianapolis, Indiana: Fall Creek Place HOZ..................................................................................................D-17

Louisville, Kentucky: Park DuValle HOZ.......................................................................................................D-23

New York City, New York: Mount Morris HOZ..............................................................................................D-32

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Cecil B. Moore HOZ..........................................................................................D-37

Sacramento, California: Del Paso Nuevo HOZ...............................................................................................D-42

San Juan, Puerto Rico: Cantera Peninsula HOZ..............................................................................................D-48

Trenton, New Jersey: Canal Banks HOZ.........................................................................................................D-49

Appendix E. Homeownership Zone Contacts....................................................................................................... E-1
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

iii

List of Tables

Table 1. Homeownership Zone Funding and Units.....................................................................................................17

Table 2. Homeownership Zone Timeline....................................................................................................................17

Table 3. HUD Funding Commitments........................................................................................................................18

Table 4. Progress Toward Meeting Construction Goal................................................................................................19

Table 5. Progress Toward Meeting Low- and Moderate-Income Requirement..........................................................19

Table 6. Progress Toward Meeting Mixed-Income Goal.............................................................................................20

Table 7. Racial and Ethnic Diversity of Homebuyers.................................................................................................21

Table 8. Construction Progress...................................................................................................................................22

Table 9. Site Characteristics........................................................................................................................................29

Table 10. Blight Removal and Green Space Activities...............................................................................................29

Table 11. Neighborhood Amenities............................................................................................................................30

Table 12. Economic Opportunity................................................................................................................................31

Table 13. Safety...........................................................................................................................................................32

List of Figures

Figure 1. Total Funding Commitments by City..........................................................................................................18

Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

Executive Summary

Overview of the Homeownership Zone Demonstration Program

The Homeownership Zone (HOZ) demonstration program was launched in 1996 by the U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) as part of a national strategy to expand homeownership. The goal of the HOZ

demonstration was to do more than build new housing units. Rather, the HOZ Program was intended to test the idea

that a well-designed, large-scale, mixed-income homeownership housing development could transform a blighted

neighborhood into a stable, vibrant community where families would want to live.

HUD issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for two competitive HOZ funding rounds. For the first

round in 1996, HUD made $30 million in Economic Development Initiative grant funds available together with

companion Section 108 Loan Guarantees. HUD selected six HOZ proposals from 103 eligible applicants. For the

second round in 1997, HUD made $20 million in recaptured Nehemiah grant funds available. HUD selected another

six HOZ proposals from 67 eligible applicants. The following chart shows the 11 HOZ cities and the names of their

HOZ neighborhoods.

Homeownership Zones

ROUND ONE ROUND TWO

Baltimore, Maryland

Buffalo, New York

Cleveland, Ohio

Louisville, Kentucky

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Sacramento, California

Sandtown-Winchester

Willert Park Village

Villages of Central

Park DuValle

Cecil B. Moore

Del Paso Nuevo

Flint, Michigan

Indianapolis, Indiana

Long Beach, California*

New York City, New York 

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Trenton, New Jersey

University Park

Fall Creek Place

Mount Morris

Cantera Peninsula

Canal Banks

*Long Beach subsequently withdrew from the HOZ Program.

The winning HOZ proposals followed three general configuration patterns:

1. Compact—complete rebuilding or rehabilitation of an entire, contiguous target area.

2. Scattered—entire block or multiple block developments separated from each other by blocks of remaining

older units, within a contiguous area.

3. Infill—single units and small groups of units built or rehabilitated between preexisting units within a

contiguous area.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

vi

Every project was guided by a master plan and strategy inspired by “New Urbanism” design principles. Each plan

included the development of approximately 300 new homeownership units and other improvements, the creation

of local public-private partnerships, and the leverage of significant other investment. Each city committed to sell

at least 51 percent of the new homes to low- and moderate-income families. All cities proposed new construction.

Only six cities planned to rehabilitate existing houses as well. Several cities also undertook public housing

modernization or HOPE VI projects as part of their strategy to transform their HOZ neighborhoods.

The physical structure of the target areas and the availability of vacant land or buildings accounted for most of the

differences among the cities’ initial plans. These preexisting conditions influenced the degree to which specific New

Urbanism principles could be applied and the type of challenges that each city faced.

Purpose of the Interim Evaluation

This interim HOZ evaluation had three primary goals:

1. Collect baseline data for a final HOZ evaluation that will be undertaken at the completion of the

demonstration program.

2. Assess how well each city has been able to implement its approved HOZ proposal so far.

3. Identify best practices or guidelines that other communities can use to transform their deteriorated

neighborhoods by using mixed-income homeownership development.

Case studies were developed for each of the 11 active HOZ sites. Three basic techniques were used: (1) HOZ

Program document review; (2) in-person site visits at eight sites; and (3) social, economic, and geographic data

analysis. Data analysis methods included data extraction and synthesis; cross-case analysis; and geographic,

photographic, and economic analyses. Data were obtained from Census Bureau data sets, HOZ quarterly progress

reports, and other public sources.

Interim Findings

At the time of the data collection, most of the HOZ sites were still several years from completion. Therefore, much

of the information in this report, including quantitative statistics, is based on current data and does not reflect the

results of completed HOZ plans and strategies.

Nevertheless, the findings ofthisinterim evaluation already demonstrate that the HOZ approach has created significant,

positive changes in the target areas. The evaluation identified a number of lessons that have been learned. These

lessons can guide other communities that hope to use concentrated mixed-income homeownership development to

revitalize their deteriorated areas.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

vii

By the late 1990s, when the HOZ initiative was getting under way, moderate- and high-income households had

departed these inner-city neighborhoods. The HOZ sites had extremely low rates of homeownership, large tracts

of vacant or abandoned property, high crime rates, and poor reputations. Today, most of these neighborhoods have

become, or are becoming, vibrant homeowner communities. Several of the HOZ cities now have waiting lists for the

new homes that are being built.

This evaluation identified a number of factors that contributed to successful outcomes. For all of the HOZ cities,

the federal demonstration grant was the critical incentive that led to the creation of the HOZ target area and the

concentration of scarce resources within this area. Each city’s federal contractual obligation to complete its HOZ

strategy ensured that this commitment was maintained over many years despite unexpected delays or changes

in city administrations. The next most important factor was local political leadership. This leadership led to

sustained financial commitments to the project. The targeted approach convinced investors and homebuyers

that the neighborhood was changing for the better. Innovative marketing techniques helped tell the story. The

most successful HOZ cities designated HOZ administrators to coordinate the numerous activities and partners

and interface with other city agencies to solve problems. These cities also used one or more master builders or

developers and a “presales” approach that ensured that the production of homes matched the availability of qualified

buyers. Subsidized homeownership loans provided an additional incentive that attracted homebuyers. Some of the

successful areas benefited from strong regional economies and rising local real estate markets, as well.

The evaluation also identified a number of factors that prevented some cities from achieving their HOZ goals.

Unanticipated infrastructure, land acquisition, or environmental problems impeded progress and escalated costs.

The initial success of some HOZ sites resulted in rising real estate prices and difficulties in purchasing land

from private owners who no longer wished to sell. For the two least successful HOZ cities, larger citywide issues

severely affected their ability to implement their HOZ strategies. Both cities struggled with administrative and

financial capacity problems that impacted not only their HOZ initiatives but all of their HUD-funded community

development programs.

Most HOZ cities have achieved HUD’s expectations for visible improvement, local public-private partnerships,

and leveraging of funds. To date, more than $273 million in other funds have been invested in the HOZ sites for an

overall leverage ratio of 5:1. The HOZ strategies have blended the architectural styles of new buildings with the best

historic design features of the neighborhoods. Often, the new homes offer amenities that are comparable to those of

homes in alternative suburban areas. In some cases, new homebuyers have been able to select from several model

home designs and choose from among optional fixtures or finishes. The more advanced HOZ sites are beginning

to evidence spillover effects resulting in increased private investment in adjacent areas and the revitalization of

nearby commercial areas. Most of the HOZ sites have received positive local press coverage. Several HOZ sites

have received national recognition and awards from the National Building Museum (Louisville), American Planning

Association (Indianapolis), Urban Land Institute (Indianapolis), and the National Association of Home Builders

(New York City and Trenton).
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

viii

The HOZ cities have been able to achieve to varying degrees the goal of developing mixed-income neighborhoods.

For most HOZ cities, the percentage of home sales to low-income homebuyers ranges from 51 percent (the minimum requirement) to 86 percent. The other homebuyers generally fall in the 80-percent to 120-percent of median

income range—the target range for “workforce” housing. Four HOZ cities are exceptions to this pattern. Louisville

successfully used purchase incentives to attract higher income homeowners. This approach resulted in the most economically mixed HOZ neighborhood. Two cities (Baltimore, and San Juan) sold all of their homes to low-income

families. Baltimore used federal HOME Program funds, which require all assisted units to be purchased by lowincome families. San Juan sold all homes to existing low-income residents. New homebuyers in most of the HOZ

sites reflect the racial and ethnic characteristics of the original neighborhoods. Although most HOZ sites have some

mix of incomes, only the Indianapolis, New York City, and Sacramento HOZ sites are racially or ethnically mixed.

None of the HOZ cities met HUD’s expectations about the speed with which they would start construction and

complete their HOZ strategies. HUD’s Round One HOZ NOFA anticipated that HOZ projects could begin in 60

days or less after approval, and the Round Two HOZ NOFA specified a “rapid turnaround.” These timeframes

proved to be extremely optimistic, given the challenges faced by each of the HOZ cities: the extent of the initial

deterioration and abandonment of the HOZ target areas; the associated problems with obtaining financing, acquiring

land, rebuilding infrastructure, and changing public perceptions of the neighborhood; the scale of the HOZ initiative

(averaging 300 new units); and the difficulty of identifying, counseling, and qualifying homebuyers, especially lowincome, first-time homebuyers. Furthermore, a significant amount of time was needed to lay the groundwork for

construction. Despite these challenges, after development reached a critical mass, perceptions changed, financing

became easier, and sales increased. On average, it took almost 4 years before the first houses were constructed and

6 years to reach the 50-house mark. When this report was prepared, it was taking another 3 to 6 years before all

new homebuyer units could be built and sold. The first HOZ cities are now reaching completion. New York City,

Indianapolis, and Baltimore have all finished their last houses and were ready to close out their grants in 2006.

Perhaps the most important policy lesson learned from this study is that transforming a severely distressed

neighborhood into a successful homeownership community takes time, but it can be done with sufficient patience,

commitment, vision, and concentration of resources.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report



Introduction

This section discusses the history of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s)

Homeownership Zone (HOZ) demonstration program, the purpose of this evaluation, and the methodology used to

develop the 11 HOZ case studies.

Background

In 1995, HUD launched a public-private initiative to increase homeownership in America for underserved

populations. Homeownership benefits families, communities, and the country by creating civic stakeholders,

providing a stable living environment, and building household wealth—but not all groups share equally in these

benefits. Today, the President continues to challenge HUD and HUD’s partners to close the homeownership gap,

expand minority homeownership, and assist first-time homebuyers.

In June 1996, HUD completed a survey of cities throughout the country that had undertaken large-scale

homeownership projects. This survey, New American Neighborhoods: Building Homeownership Zones to Revitalize 

Our Nation’s Communities, concluded that homeownership development is a well-tested formula for urban

revitalization. The HOZ demonstration program grew out of this survey and was part of HUD’s commitment to

achieve the national homeownership goal. The HOZ initiative was designed to test the concept that large-scale,

mixed-income homeownership can drive economic revitalization by transforming a blighted neighborhood into a

stable, attractive community where families want to live.

On July 16, 1996, HUD issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) that solicited proposals for undertaking

large-scale, mixed-income homeownership projects that would reclaim deteriorated urban areas and serve as a

catalyst for private investment, business creation, and neighborhood revitalization.

On September 9, 1996, HUD established a set-aside of up to $30 million in Economic Development Initiative

funds to be used as HOZ seed-money grants to lower the cost of development and stimulate investment. Applicants

were encouraged to follow “New Urbanist” design principles by providing for defined neighborhood boundaries, a

pedestrian-friendly environment, compatible uses, a mix of housing types, historic designs, and access to jobs and

mass transit. More than 100 applicants submitted proposals. On April 8, 1997, HUD announced the selection of

the first six HOZ proposals. The winning proposals were submitted by Baltimore, Maryland; Buffalo, New York;

Cleveland, Ohio; Louisville, Kentucky; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Sacramento, California.

On July 7, 1997, HUD issued a second NOFA announcing another HOZ funding round. HUD made $20 million

in recaptured Nehemiah funds available. Nearly 70 applicants submitted proposals. On March 27, 1998, HUD

announced the selection of the second set of six HOZ proposals. The winning proposals were submitted by Flint,

Michigan; Indianapolis, Indiana; Long Beach, California; New York City, New York; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and

Trenton, New Jersey. Long Beach subsequently withdrew from the program.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

At the time that this report was prepared, no additional HOZ funds had been made available. The HOZ initiative

remains a HUD demonstration program. Since the program’s inception, HUD has been tracking the performance

of the 11 active HOZ projects. Each quarter, the HOZ cities submit reports providing statistics and narrative

information on major accomplishments and delays. These reports highlight the successes, innovations, and best

practices for each of the HOZ sites.

HUD has organized two HOZ workshops to bring the HOZ participants together to share ideas, discuss techniques,

and address problems. The first workshop, held in May 2002, focused on design issues, neighborhood creation,

homebuyer financing, working with homebuyers, managing for change, and sustaining and growing the zone. The

second workshop, held in October 2003, was cosponsored with the Main Street Center of the National Trust for

Historic Preservation. This workshop focused on comprehensive neighborhood revitalization techniques, including

strategies for developing commercial activity in the HOZ sites. Experts in relevant fields participated on panels and

served as information resources at both workshops.

Interim Evaluation: Overview

This interim evaluation is part of HUD’s ongoing assessment of the lessons learned from the HOZ demonstration

cities. This evaluation was conducted approximately 8 years after the approval of the first HOZ projects. At the time

of this evaluation, which took place in 2004 and early 2005, only the HOZ sites in Baltimore, Indianapolis, and New

York City were near completion. One HOZ city, Long Beach, had withdrawn from the program.

Homeownership Zones

ROUND ONE ROUND TWO

Baltimore, Maryland

Buffalo, New York

Cleveland, Ohio

Louisville, Kentucky

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Sacramento, California

Sandtown-Winchester

Willert Park Village

Villages of Central

Park DuValle

Cecil B. Moore

Del Paso Nuevo

Flint, Michigan

Indianapolis, Indiana

Long Beach, California*

New York City, New York 

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Trenton, New Jersey

University Park

Fall Creek Place

Mount Morris

Cantera Peninsula

Canal Banks

*Long Beach subsequently withdrew from the HOZ Program.

Altogether, the 12 approved HOZ cities proposed the creation of 3,660 new homeownership units and the leverage

of substantial funds. Cleveland and Louisville combined their HOZ projects with HOPE VI projects. Trenton

combined its HOZ effort with its brownfields cleanup initiatives. A number of the HOZ cities chose HOZ sites that

were within their Empowerment Zones or Enterprise Community areas. The following chart shows the 11 HOZ

cities and the names of their HOZ neighborhoods.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report



The evaluation had three primary goals:

1. Collect baseline data for a final HOZ evaluation that will be undertaken at the completion of the

demonstration program.

2. Assess how well each HOZ city has been able to implement its approved HOZ proposal so far.

3. Identify best practices or guidelines that other communities can use to transform their deteriorated

neighborhoods by using mixed-income homeownership development.

Research began with a review of the HOZ grant proposals and the quarterly reports that track the progress of each

site. The evaluation used a case study approach consisting of document review; social, economic, and geographic

data analysis; and site visits. The research team undertook the following steps:

• Review grant applications and quarterly reports for all 11 active sites.

• Identify criteria for selecting sites for indepth case studies.

• Conduct in-person site visits at the eight most developed sites, with three sites visited for 3 days each for

indepth case studies and five sites visited for 2 days. (See Appendix A, Methodology, for a discussion of site

visit selection.)

• Produce visual records through mapping and photographs of the eight most developed sites with an emphasis

on the three indepth case study sites.

• Collect baseline data for a final HOZ evaluation that will be undertaken at the completion of the demonstration

program. (See Appendix B, GIS Data, for a list of data that were acquired.)

• Compare preexisting conditions, program implementation, and progress across sites.

• Develop case studies to document how each grantee has progressed.

• Assess how well each grantee has been able to implement its approved HOZ proposal so far.

• Identify best practices or guidelines that other communities can use to transform their deteriorated

neighborhoods by using mixed-income homeownership development.

The HOZ Sites 

Appendix D contains maps, pictures, and interim statistics for the 11 active HOZ sites. Readers wishing to learn

more about a particular HOZ site should contact the city’s HOZ coordinator. Appendix E provides a list of HOZ

contacts. The map on the next page shows the HOZ sites and the type of case study review that was undertaken for

each site.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report



Flint 

University Park Cleveland

Villages of Central

Buffalo 

Willert Park

New York 

Mount Morris

Trenton 

Canal Banks

Philadelphia 

Louisville Cecil B. Moore

Park DuValle

Indianapolis

Fall Creek Place

Baltimore

Sandtown-Winchester Square

San Juan

Cantera Peninsula

RTI International Exceed Corporation

Sacramento

Del Paso Nuevo

In-Depth Case Studies

Case Studies

Less intensive Case Studies

Status
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report



Homeownership Zone Requirements

This section describes the Homeownership Zone (HOZ) selection process and the requirements that apply to

each funding round. This section also describes the New Urbanism design principles that the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) intended each HOZ city to use.

Round One

Notice of Funding Availability Selection Process

The source of funding for the first HOZ round (Round One) is HUD Economic Development Initiative (EDI)

funds. EDI funds are available under Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,

as amended, and are governed by the regulations at 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 570. The July 16,

1996, Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) solicited proposals for traditional economic development projects as

well as proposals to implement the HOZ demonstration program. The September 9, 1996, Federal Register notice

established a set-aside of up to $30 million in EDI grant funds for HOZ proposals.

The NOFA required that each HOZ site be a contiguous, geographically defined area that is primarily residential

in character and in which HOZ activities could make a measurable, visible improvement. Eligible applicants were

Community Development Block Grant entitlement units of general local government and nonentitlement units of

general local government that were eligible to receive Section 108 Loan Guarantees. HUD made clear that HOZ

proposals should consist of at least 300 new single-family homes unless applicants could demonstrate how visible

improvement could be achieved with fewer units.

In its Round One Homeownership Zone: Application Guide, HUD summarized the elements that the most

competitive HOZ application proposals were expected to display:

• Provide for significant new single-family (1-to-4 unit) homeownership opportunities (an application

that includes at least 300 new single family homes will be presumed to meet this standard; others

may demonstrate how a smaller number of units will suffice to create visible change and revitalize the

neighborhood).

• Result in measurable, visible improvement in the neighborhood.

• Provide for a mix of income levels.

• Leverage significant public and private resources.

• Establish extensive partnerships with business, lending institutions, real estate professionals, builders,

educational institutions, religious entities, and/or other private or nonprofit organizations.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

• Provide opportunities for participation by community residents, including opportunities for

homeownership.

• Include the development of housing opportunities as part of a comprehensive, coordinated approach to the

overall revitalization of the neighborhood.

• Show streamlined local processes to ensure rapid construction and program implementation.

• Begin development within 60 days of grant approval.

• Establish clear benchmarks for measuring performance.

• Use innovative construction techniques and land use planning to reduce the cost of housing construction

and minimize regulatory barriers.

• Take advantage of the most recent advances in urban housing design to create a sense of neighborhood and

community throughout the overall plan for the area.

The July 16, 1996, NOFA established rating criteria and a ranking system that HUD used to select the six Round

One HOZ proposals. HUD awarded points to individual proposals based on how well the proposal met each of the

seven criteria identified in part II C of the NOFA. The highest score a proposal could receive was 160 points. The

rating criteria were the following:

• Distress level in the neighborhood and in the jurisdiction—20 points.

• Extent of need for EDI assistance to financially support the Section 108 loan and project—10 points.

• Extent to which the proposal leverages other nonfederal public and private resources—15 points.

• Quality of the plan—60 points.

• Capacity or potential capacity of the public entity to successfully carry out the plan—15 points.

• Use of a comprehensive and coordinated approach—20 points.

• Innovation and creativity—20 points.

Each HOZ application was also awarded 10 bonus points for being a qualified HOZ proposal. HUD then ranked the

proposals based on the points assigned. The top-ranked proposals were awarded HOZ EDI grants until all of the $30

million reserved for HOZ proposals were allocated.

Requirements

To receive a HOZ EDI grant, each approved HOZ grantee was required to apply for and receive a companion

Section 108 Loan Guarantee. EDI funds must be used to complement and enhance the Section 108 Loan Guarantee
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report



Program. Regulations governing the Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program are found at 24 CFR Parts 570.700

through 710. The approval process for the Section 108 Loan Guarantee, which required the pledge of additional

security, delayed the start of most of the Round One HOZ projects.

The Round One HOZ EDI grant and Section 108 Loan Guarantee funds can be spent on one or more of the activities identified by the regulations in 24 CFR 570.703. These activities include land acquisition, rehabilitation of real

property; payment of interest on Section 108 Loan Guarantees; relocation; clearance; demolition; site preparation;

payment of costs associated with private-sector financing of the Section 108 debt obligations; economic development activities; Section 108 debt service reserve; acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of public facilities and

improvements; and related-activity soft costs. New housing construction and homebuyer downpayment assistance

can only be funded through a HUD-approved community-based development organization (CBDO) that is undertaking these activities as part of a community economic development project. No grant or loan funds can be used

for program administration. These limits presented special challenges for the Round One HOZ cities.

Activities funded with the HOZ EDI grant or Section 108 Loan Guarantee funds are required to meet the National

Objective criteria of 24 CFR 570.208. Activities carried out in a HUD-approved Neighborhood Revitalization

Strategy Area can be treated as a single structure for the purposes of meeting the low- and moderate-income

National Objective. This means that 51 percent or more (instead of 100 percent) of the units assisted with the grant

or loan funds, can be occupied by low- and moderate-income households. This provision corresponds to the NOFA

requirement that HOZ grantees create mixed-income neighborhoods where a minimum of 51 percent of the new

homebuyers are low income. Consequently, all of the Round One HOZ cities requested and received approval of

their HOZ sites as Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas.

Activities funded with the HOZ EDI grant or Section 108 Loan Guarantee funds must comply with the Davis-Bacon

Act prevailing wage requirements, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requirements, Uniform Relocation

Act requirements, lead-based paint removal requirements, and handicapped accessibility requirements. The

administrative requirements of the applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars also apply.

Because of the congressional appropriation language, each HOZ EDI grant had to be entirely withdrawn and

expended for approved uses by September 30, 2003. This deadline presented a challenge for several HOZ cities.

One HOZ city, Buffalo, failed to meet this deadline and nearly one-third of its grant was deobligated.

All program income generated by activities funded with the HOZ EDI grant or Section 108 Loan Guarantee must be

used in accordance with Section 6d of the HOZ EDI grant agreement. In most cases, the program income must be

deposited into the Section 108 Loan Guarantee repayment account. In some cases, program income can be used for

additional HOZ activities.

Section 5 of the HOZ EDI grant agreement incorporates, by reference, the HUD-approved HOZ proposal. Any

major modification to the approved proposal requires prior HUD approval. Any modification that substantially
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report



affects the basis for the original proposal rating can jeopardize the continued funding of the HOZ project. Therefore,

all modifications have been consistent with the original HUD-approved HOZ strategy and design.

Round Two

Notice of Funding Availability Selection Process

The source of funding for the second HOZ round (Round Two) is recaptured Nehemiah Program funds as

authorized by Section 205 of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and

Independent Appropriations Act of 1997. The July 7, 1997, Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) solicited

proposals to implement additional HOZ demonstration projects. This NOFA made $10 million available. The

November 21, 1997, Federal Register notice increased available funding to $20 million.

The Round Two NOFA required that each HOZ site be a contiguous, geographically defined area that is primarily

residential in character and in which the new homeownership opportunities and expanded housing choice, together

with physical, social, and economic development activities, make a substantial, visible improvement within the

community. Eligible applicants included any unit of general local government as defined by Section 102(a)(1)

of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. These eligible applicants included any city, county,

town, township, parish, village, or other general-purpose political subdivision of a state, but excluded states. For

major urban areas, HUD presumed that applications would propose at least 300 new single-family units. Smaller

communities could propose fewer units if visible improvement could be demonstrated.

According to the NOFA, competitive HOZ proposals would contain the following elements:

• Visible improvement—provide for a significant number of new homeownership opportunities that will make

a visible improvement in a concentrated area and stimulate additional investment in the area.

• New Urbanism—incorporate the basic principles of New Urbanist design.

• Additional investment—use the HOZ grants to leverage other support for the project.

• Partnerships and initiatives—establish extensive partnerships with the private and nonprofit sectors.

• Comprehensive neighborhood revitalization—demonstrate how the HOZ will contribute to the overall

improvement of the entire area.

• Rapid turnaround—demonstrate the ability to begin significant construction projects promptly upon final

HUD approval of the HOZ proposal.

• Affirmatively further fair housing—address how the applicant will affirmatively further fair housing.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report



The six Round Two HOZ proposals were selected based on rating criteria and a ranking system that were identified

in the July 7, 1997, NOFA. HUD awarded points to individual proposals based on how well the proposal met each

of the five criteria identified in Part I J of the NOFA. The highest score a proposal could receive was 122 points. The

criteria were the following:

• Quality of the HOZ—55 points (up to 12 points for affirmatively furthering fair housing).

• Distress level in the neighborhood—10 points (plus 2 additional points for HOZ areas that are located fully

within a federally designated Enterprise Community area or Empowerment Zone).

• Financial soundness—25 points.

• Leveraging of other resources—15 points.

• Capacity to successfully carry out the plan—15 points.

HUD then ranked the proposals based on the points assigned. The top-ranked proposals were awarded HOZ grants

until all of the $20 million reserved for HOZ proposals was allocated.

Requirements

The Round Two HOZ grants do not have the same limits and restrictions that apply to the Round One HOZ EDI

grants. Round Two cities are not required to apply for companion Section 108 Loan Guarantees. Since there are

no federal regulations that determine the eligible uses of Round Two HOZ grant funds, the Round Two cities can

spend their grant funds on any of the activities identified in Section I F of the July 7, 1997 NOFA. These activities

include acquisition, new housing construction, housing rehabilitation, site preparation, direct financial assistance to

homebuyers, homeownership counseling and homebuyer education, relocation assistance, community information,

marketing activities, and project-related soft costs. Therefore, unlike the Round One HOZ grantees, Round Two

HOZ grantees can undertake new housing construction and direct homebuyer assistance without establishing a

community-based development organization (CBDO). Round Two grantees can also use up to 5 percent of their

grants for reasonable administrative costs. The HUD Secretary can approve the funding of additional housingrelated activities that are found to be essential to the success of the HOZ.

Activities funded with Round Two grants are not required to meet National Objectives. The NOFA, however,

requires that a minimum of 51 percent of the homebuyers assisted with HOZ funds must have household incomes

that do not exceed 80 percent of the minimum income for the area, as determined by HUD.

Activities funded with the HOZ grant must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

requirements, Uniform Relocation Act requirements, lead-based paint removal requirements, and handicapped

accessibility requirements. The administrative requirements of the applicable Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) circulars also apply.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

10

Unlike in Round One, the Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements do not apply to Round Two HOZ

participants and there is no mandatory expenditure deadline for HOZ grant funds.

All program income generated by activities funded with the HOZ grant must be used in accordance with Section

VII of the HOZ grant agreement. This section requires that program income be used for other affordable housing or

community development activities, as defined by the HOZ grantee.

Section II of the HOZ grant agreement incorporates, by reference, the HUD-approved HOZ proposal. Any major

modification to the approved proposal requires prior HUD approval. Any modification that substantially affects

the basis for the original proposal rating can jeopardize the continued funding of the HOZ project. Therefore, all

modifications have been consistent with the original HUD-approved HOZ strategy and design.

New Urbanism Design

“New Urbanism” is an urban design movement that began in the early 1990s. New Urbanism combines features of

traditional community planning with new ways of organizing neighborhood development. The principles of New

Urbanism were developed by the Congress for New Urbanism (CNU). CNU is a nonprofit organization that works

to promote New Urbanism design and share best practices.

Both Round One and Round Two HOZ NOFAs encouraged applicants to submit proposals that were consistent with

New Urbanism design principles. The Round One NOFA stated that proposals should strive to incorporate several

basic principles of New Urbanism. Applicants were rated on their use of recent advances in urban housing design to

create a sense of neighborhood and community under Rating Factor 4, Quality of the Plan. The Round Two NOFA

described the basic principles of New Urbanism under Section E, Characteristics of a Successful Homeownership

Zone. Applicants were rated on how well their proposals incorporated New Urbanism design principles under

Rating Factor 1, Quality of the Homeownership Zone.

HUD collaborated with CNU’s inner-city task force to produce the Principles for Designing and Planning 

Homeownership Zones guide that was published in July 1996. This guide identifies 12 principles that communities

should strive to incorporate into their HOZ proposals. These principles are the following:

1. The neighborhood, not individual projects, should be the essential unit of development. Neighborhoods should

be compact, pedestrian friendly, and mixed use and should form identifiable areas to encourage citizens to take

responsibility for maintenance and evolution of their neighborhood.

2. Many activities of daily living should occur within walking distance to enable independence for those who do

not drive, especially elderly and young residents. An interconnected network of streets should be designed to

encourage walking, reduce the number and length of automobile trips, and conserve energy.

3. Within neighborhoods, a broad range of housing types and price levels should bring people of diverse ages,
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

11

races, and incomes into daily interaction in order to strengthen the personal and civic bonds essential to

authentic community.

4. Appropriate building densities and land uses should be located within walking distance of transit stops to

promote public transportation as a viable alternative to automobile travel.

5. Concentrations of civic, institutional, recreational, and commercial activity should be embedded in

neighborhoods rather than isolated in remote, single-use complexes. A range of parks from tot lots and village

greens to ballfields and community gardens should be distributed within neighborhoods.

6. Architecture and landscape design should define streets and public spaces as areas of shared use.

7. Individual architectural projects should be seamlessly linked to their surroundings, regardless of any differences

in the projects’ architectural styles.

8. The design of streets and buildings should reinforce safe environments but not at the expense of accessibility

and openness.

9. Development should adequately accommodate automobiles but should do so in ways that respect pedestrians

and the configuration of public space.

10. Streets and squares should be safe, comfortable, and interesting to pedestrians. Properly configured, they

should encourage walking, help neighbors get to know each other, and encourage residents to protect their

communities.

11. Architecture and landscape design should grow from local climate, topography, history, and building practice.

All buildings should provide their inhabitants with a clear sense of location, weather, and time. Designs should

incorporate natural methods of heating and cooling.

12. The continuity and evolution of urban society should be affirmed through the preservation and renewal of

historic buildings, districts, and landscapes.

Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

13

Homeownership Zone Project Outcomes

This section reviews the progress that each Homeownership Zone (HOZ) city has made in achieving the HOZ goals

and objectives that were approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As of early

2006, a majority of the HOZ sites were still under way. Only the HOZ sites in Baltimore, Indianapolis, and New

York City were near completion when this research was undertaken in 2004 and early 2005. Therefore, much of the

information and observations contained in this report, including quantitative data, represent interim conclusions. A

final evaluation of the success of the HOZ approach is still several years away.

Most of the data that appear in the exhibits in this section are drawn from the quarterly progress reports that each

HOZ city submits to HUD. The quarterly report period is indicated by asterisks as follows: * January through

March 2004, ** April through June 2004, *** July through September 2004, and **** October through December

2004. The latest progress report for Buffalo is October through December 2002.

Although not all of the HOZ cities have achieved their goals, this interim evaluation demonstrates that the HOZ

approach has resulted in significant, positive changes in most of the target areas. At the time that this report was

prepared, all of the cities that were nearing completion of their HOZ programs considered the initiative to be a

success.

The Indianapolis HOZ most closely reflects the original HOZ concept and has received national awards for

the transformation of its HOZ site. The New York City HOZ demonstrates how homeownership housing can

be successfully developed in a high-cost, densely built environment. The Louisville HOZ shows how the HOZ

approach can be combined with HOPE VI development to integrate public housing rental units with middle-income

homeownership housing in a totally rebuilt neighborhood. The Trenton HOZ shows how infill homeownership

housing can be used to stabilize an area. Each of these HOZ cities has valuable lessons to offer. However, as with

any demonstration, lessons can be learned from both the most successful and the least successful HOZ cities.

Comparison of Round One and Round Two Proposals

Table 1 at the end of this section identifies the 12 original HOZ sites, the amount of HOZ funds the cities received,

the original number of proposed new homeownership units, and the number of new homeownership units currently

proposed (based on HUD-approved amendments).

Table 2 shows the approval date, contract execution date, and current target completion date for each of the 11

active HOZ sites.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

14

Additional Investment

HUD intended the HOZ grant to act as an incentive to encourage other public, private, and nonprofit partners to

participate in the development of the HOZ site. A key indicator of successful HOZ development is the ability to

form these partnerships and leverage HUD’s HOZ grant funds.

As of the spring of 2005, more than $273 million in other funds had been invested in the HOZ sites. This is a

leverage ratio of 5:1 overall and 3.5:1 excluding other HUD funds. The amount of funds that HOZ cities were able

to leverage ranged from a high of $50.2 million for New York City to a low of $3.8 million for San Juan, as shown

in Figure 1 at the end of this section. HUD was the largest source of public funding. As shown in Table 3, in addition

to the HOZ grant, sources of HUD funding included the Section 108 Loan Guarantee, Community Development

Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME), and Economic Development Initiative programs. HUD

provided 46 percent of the total funding committed to the 11 HOZ sites. The HOZ grant accounted for 32 percent

of this HUD funding. The funding amounts and distributions shown in Figure 1 and Table 3 are based on each

city’s quarterly progress reports and therefore are not strictly comparable across the 11 sites. These inconsistencies

occurred for several reasons. Different HOZ sites were further along in their construction efforts, had spent

different proportions of their total funding, used different accounting or reporting methods, and used different fund

categories. Although the tables provide some indication of the type and scale of funding across sites, the final HOZ

evaluation will need to examine accounting methods to assess actual leverage. Of particular importance will be how

sites classified downpayment assistance and how they measured in-kind investments. For example, New York City

credited the value of city-owned land in its leverage reports.

Progress 

Housing Units

Table 4, at the end of this section, indicates the success of the 11 HOZ cities in achieving their housing goals, based

on the available quarterly progress report data at the end of 2004. These data show a wide range of completion
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

15

rates in comparison to each city’s goals—from 90 percent for New York City and 87 percent for Indianapolis

to 15 percent for San Juan. Interviews with city staff in early 2005 indicated that many cities had exceeded the

numbers reflected in Table 4. New York City had completed its HOZ construction by winter 2004, Indianapolis had

completed its HOZ construction by spring 2005 and Baltimore had completed its HOZ construction by winter 2005.

All HOZ cities planned to build new houses in their HOZ sites, but only six planned to rehabilitate existing houses

as well. These differing approaches reflect either a lack of houses suitable for rehabilitation (because the site had

been razed beforehand or because vacant sites were selected in the first place) or a decision to allocate scarce resources to building new houses. Representatives from all cities that undertook rehabilitation discussed the high

costs of renovating houses. Baltimore was the only HOZ city to attain high completion levels for rehabilitated houses.

Mixed Income 

HUD intended that the HOZ sites would become mixed-income communities that offered a range of housing

choices and prices. The HOZ demonstration requires that at least 51 percent of new homebuyers be low- and

moderate-income households. Most HOZ cities are doing well in meeting this low-income requirement. Table 5 at

the end of this section shows the percentage of homes that have been sold to low- and moderate-income homebuyers

compared with the percentage proposed in each city’s approved HOZ proposal. As of spring 2005, Flint and Buffalo

were failing to meet this 51-percent requirement. Both cities had significant citywide administrative issues that have

severely affected the implementation of their HOZ proposals.

Cities have had varying degrees of success in achieving the goal of developing mixed-income neighborhoods. Table

6 shows each city’s progress in achieving the mixed-income goal. Baltimore and San Juan have sold 100 percent of

their homes to low- and moderate-income homebuyers. Baltimore is using federal HOME program funds to assist

the new buyers. The HOME program requires that each assisted homebuyer be low-income. In San Juan, the new

homes are being sold to existing area residents who have very low incomes.

Four cities have achieved the mixed-income goal. Louisville used a unique approach. The city targeted its initial

sales efforts to higher income homebuyers and offered soft second mortgages as incentives that declined over time

as the market improved. The Indianapolis HOZ site benefited from its proximity to the city’s downtown area. The

New York City and Sacramento sites have benefited from pent-up demand in tight real estate markets.

Diversity

The racial and ethnic composition of the new homebuyers in most of the HOZ sites reflects that of the pre-HOZ

neighborhoods. Although most of the HOZ sites have some mix of incomes, only three HOZ sites (Indianapolis,

New York City, and Sacramento) are racially or ethnically mixed. Table 7 at the end of this section shows the racial

and ethnic mix of homebuyers in each HOZ site.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

16

Completion

HUD intended that the HOZ sites would be developed in a relatively short time period. Both the Round One and

Round Two Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) required applicants to submit timelines and benchmarks. Each

applicant’s rating score reflected how quickly the applicant proposed to start and complete its construction activities.

The Round One NOFA specified a goal of beginning development within 60 days or less after HUD approval. The

Round Two NOFA specified a goal of “rapid turnaround” after the grant was awarded.

Each HOZ city’s ability to achieve its HOZ goals within the established timeframe was determined by the nature

and extent of the challenges the city experienced. Quarterly reports, discussions with program staff, and site visits

revealed that most projects encountered significant difficulties in getting started. No HOZ city was able to achieve

its original timeline or the NOFA goal of a quick start.

Round One cities took an average of 2 years after grant approval to execute their HOZ grant agreements because of

the requirements that applied to the companion Section 108 Loan Guarantee approvals. Round Two cities averaged

6 months between grant approval and contract execution.

The HOZ cities varied widely in the pace of home construction. It took between 2 and 7 years before a HOZ city

completed construction on its first house. Louisville, Philadelphia, Buffalo, New York City, and Flint were the first

cities to start construction. Except for Philadelphia, these cities also reached the 50-house mark the quickest within

five quarters. Nevertheless, the speed with which the first house was built did not determine the speed with which

the rest of the houses were completed. Although Baltimore and Indianapolis did not start construction quickly, they

were among the first HOZ cities to complete all of their houses. Flint and Buffalo had early starts, but both HOZ

cities had serious difficulties in completing their HOZ units and meeting the 51-percent low- and moderate-income

requirement. San Juan had one of the slowest starts but reached the 50-house mark during the same quarter in which

it started construction. However, after the 50-house mark, the pace of construction slowed considerably.

The variations in construction progress reflect each city’s different development approaches and the difficulties

encountered, including the ability to acquire land and clear title, the availability of financing, the extent of site and

infrastructure challenges, the relocation workload, the capacity of nonprofit sponsors and designated builders, the

capacity of city staff, the scale of each construction phase, and the sales rate. Table 8 delineates the progress of each

of the HOZ cities in meeting its construction goals.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

17

Table 1. Homeownership Zone Funding and Units

SITE GRANT ($) SECTION 108 ($) TOTAL ($)

ORIGINAL 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS 

REVISED 

NUMBER OF 

UNITS

Round One

Baltimore 5,240,000 6,700,000 11,940,000 322 236

Buffalo 5,000,000 7,675,000 12,675,000 344 344

Cleveland 4,643,965 12,000,000 16,643,965 465 465

Louisville 4,600,000 5,000,000 9,600,000 300 300

Philadelphia 5,520,000 18,000,000 23,520,000 296 296

Sacramento 5,000,000 5,455,000 10,455,000 300 300

Round One Total $30,003,965 $54,830,000 $84,833,965 2,027 1,941

Round Two

Flint 2,013,000 0 2,013,000 309 319

Indianapolis 4,057,500 0 4,057,500 269 300

Long Beach* 1,900,000 0 1,900,000 381 0

New York City 4,654,500 0 4,654,500 120 121

San Juan 3,500,000 0 3,500,000 304 277

Trenton 3,875,000 0 3,875,000 250 287

Round Two Total $20,000,000 $0 $20,000,000 1,633 1,304

Total, Rounds One and Two $50,003,965 $54,830,000 $104,833,965 3,660 3,245

*Long Beach subsequently withdrew from the HOZ Program.

Table 2. Homeownership Zone Timeline

*Long Beach subsequently withdrew from the HOZ Program.

SITE HOZ APPROVAL 

DATE

CONTRACT 

EXECUTION 

DATE

SECTION 108 

APPROVAL 

DATE

TARGET 

COMPLETION 

DATE

Round One

Baltimore 4/8/97 8/4/00 8/8/01 3/30/06

Buffalo 4/8/97 5/1/98 6/19/98 12/31/08

Cleveland 4/8/97 8/4/00 2/2/01 11/30/07

Louisville 4/8/97 10/13/98 10/13/98 4/30/08

Philadelphia 4/8/97 8/14/98 7/15/98 3/31/08

Sacramento 4/8/97 9/3/98 9/3/98 7/31/08

Round Two

Flint 3/27/98 8/3/98 NA Unknown

Indianapolis 3/27/98 8/19/98 NA 12/31/05

Long Beach* 3/27/98 NA NA NA

New York City 3/27/98 9/24/98 NA 7/31/05

San Juan 3/27/98 7/17/98 NA Unknown

Trenton 3/27/98 7/8/98 NA 12/31/08
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

18

* Data as of January–March 2004 HOZ report.

** Data as of April–June 2004 HOZ report.

*** Data as of July–September 2004 HOZ report.

**** Data as of October–December 2004 HOZ report.

Source: Quarterly progress report each HOZ city submitted to HUD

Table 3. HUD Funding Commitments

CDBG = Community Development Block Grant; EDI = Economic Development Initiative; HOME = HOME Program funds; HOZ = 

Homeownership Zone.

* Data as of January–March 2004 HOZ report.

** Data as of April–June 2004 HOZ report.

*** Data as of July–September 2004 HOZ report.

  Data as of October–December 2004 HOZ report.

Source: Quarterly progress report each HOZ city submitted to HUD

CITY HOZ GRANT 

($)

SECTION 108 

($)

CDBG 

($)

HOME 

($)

SPECIAL EDI 

($)

TOTAL HUD 

FUNDING

Baltimore **  5,240,000 6,700,000 360,000 1,495,006 0 $13,795,006

Buffalo 5,000,000 7,675,000 1,200,000 0 0 $13,875,000

Cleveland *** 4,643,965 12,000,000 922,500 1,000,000 0 $18,566,465

Flint * 2,013,000 NA 2,400,964 3,019,774 0 $7,433,738

Indianapolis *** 4,057,500 NA 5,760,025 2,959,000 349,230 $13,125,755

Louisville   4,600,000 5,000,000 14,170,000 0 0 $23,770,000

New York City ** * 4,654,500 NA 0 0 0 $4,654,500

Philadelphia *** 5,520,000 18,000,000 4,122,215 1,636,000 0 $29,278,215

Sacramento *** 5,000,000 5,455,000 0 0 0 $10,455,000

San Juan ** 3,500,000 NA 300,000 3,499,740 0 $7,299,740

Trenton *** 3,875,000 1,855,748 $5,730,748

Total $48,103,965 $54,830,000 $29,235,704 $15,465,268 $349,230 $147,984,667

Figure 1. Total Funding Commitments by City
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

19

Table 4. Progress Toward Meeting Construction Goal

* Data as of January–March 2004 HOZ report.

** Data as of April–June 2004 HOZ report.

*** Data as of July–September 2004 HOZ report.

  Data as of October–December 2004 HOZ report.

Source: Quarterly progress report each HOZ city submitted to HUD

CITY

TOTAL NEW HOUSES REHABILITATED HOUSES

GOAL 

(UNITS)

COMPLETED 

(UNITS)

PERCENTAGE OF 

GOAL

GOAL 

(UNITS)

COMPLETED 

(UNITS)

PERCENTAGE OF 

GOAL 

GOAL 

(UNITS)

COMPLETED 

(UNITS)

PERCENTAGE OF 

GOAL

Baltimore **  236 102 43 200 66 33 36 36 100

Buffalo 344 125 36 344 125 36 0 0 NA

Cleveland *** 465 154 33 420 153 36 45 1 2

Flint * 319 80 25 269 69 26 50 11 22

Indianapolis *** 300 261 87 253 224 89 47 37 79

Louisville   300 186 62 300 186 62 0 0 NA

New York City ** * 121 109 90 121 109 90 0 0 NA

Philadelphia *** 296 142 48 225 105 47 71 37 52

Sacramento *** 300 77 26 300 77 26 0 0 NA

San Juan ** 277 62 22 277 62 22 0 0 NA

Trenton *** 287 148 52 174 125 72 113 23 21

Table 5. Progress Toward Meeting Low- and Moderate-Income Requirement

* Data as of January–March 2004 HOZ report.

** Data as of April–June 2004 HOZ report.

*** Data as of July–September 2004 HOZ report.

  Data as of October–December 2004 HOZ report.

Source: Quarterly progress report each HOZ city submitted to HUD

CITY

ALL HOZ UNITS NUMBER OF UNITS SOLD TO 

LOW-MOD INCOME BUYERS

PERCENTAGE OF UNITS SOLD 

TO LOW-MOD INCOME BUYERS

BUILT SOLD PROPOSED SOLD PROPOSED SOLD

Baltimore **  102 116 212 116 100 100

Buffalo 125 125 175 47 51 38

Cleveland *** 154 169 237 122 53 72

Flint * 79 66 215 3 60 5

Indianapolis *** 261 259 153 129 70 50

Louisville   186 186 153 96 51 52

New York City ** * 101 121 64 64 51 53

Philadelphia *** 142 126 151 90 51 71

Sacramento *** 77 77 153 40 51 52

San Juan ** 62 50 403 50 70 100

Trenton *** 148 143 146 123 63 86
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

20

Table 6. Progress Toward Meeting Mixed-Income Goal

AMI = area median income.

* Data as of January–March 2004 HOZ report.

** Data as of April–June 2004 HOZ report.

*** Data as of July–September 2004 HOZ report.

  Data as of October–December 2004 HOZ report.

Source: Quarterly progress report each HOZ city submitted to HUD

CITY NUMBER OF 

UNITS SOLD

HOMEBUYER INCOME PERCENTAGE OF 

UNITS SOLD TO 

BUYERS WITH 

MORE THAN 80% 

OF AMI

80% OF AMI 80% TO 120% OF 

AMI

MORE THAN 

120% OF AMI

Baltimore **  116 116 0 0 0

Buffalo 125 47 74 4 62

Cleveland *** 169 122 41 6 28

Flint * 66 3 63 0 95

Indianapolis *** 259 129 128 2 50

Louisville   186 96 42 48 48

New York City ** * 121 64 57 0 47

Philadelphia *** 126 90 36 0 29

Sacramento *** 77 40 30 7 48

San Juan ** 50 50 0 0 0

Trenton *** 143 123 20 0 14
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

21

 Table 7. Racial and Ethnic Diversity of Homebuyers

AMI = area median income.

1 = White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

2 = Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as “Haitian” or “Negro” can be 

used in addition to “Black” or “African American.”

3 = Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent, including, for 

example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

4 = American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central 

America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.

5 = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other 

Pacific Islands.

6 = Other multiracial group.

H = Hispanic or Latino. A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless 

of race. The term “Spanish origin” can be used in addition to “Hispanic” or “Latino.” Note: This category may include people also reporting 

under categories 1 through 5. 

* Data as of January–March 2004 HOZ report; ** Data as of April–June 2004 HOZ report; *** Data as of July–September 2004 HOZ report;   

Data as of October–December 2004 HOZ report.

Source: Quarterly progress report each HOZ city submitted to HUD

CITY

NUMBER 

OF UNITS 

SOLD

HOMEBUYERS’ RACIAL AND ETHNIC MAKEUP

1 2 3 4 5 6 H

Baltimore **  116 116

Below 80% AMI 116 116

Above 80% AMI 0

Buffalo 125 4 110 1 2 8

Below 80% AMI 47 2 39 2 4

Above 80% AMI 78 2 71 1 4

Cleveland *** 169 169

Below 80% AMI 122 122

Above 80% AMI 47 47

Flint * 66 1 65

Below 80% AMI 3 3

Above 80% AMI 63 1 62

Indianapolis *** 259 201 51 4 3 10*

Below 80% AMI 129 88 39 1 6

Above 80% AMI 130 113 12 3 4

Louisville **** 186 186

Below 80% AMI 96 96

Above 80% AMI 90 90

New York City *** 121 2 66 7 6 40

Below 80% AMI 64 34 6 4 20

Above 80% AMI 57 2 32 1 2 20

Philadelphia *** 126 125 1

Below 80% AMI 90 89 1

Above 80% AMI 36 36

Sacramento *** 77 31 15 27 1 3 17*

Below 80% AMI 40 13 7 18 1 1 7

Above 80% AMI 37 18 8 9 2 10

San Juan ** 50 50

Below 80% AMI 50 50

Above 80% AMI 0

Trenton *** 143 2 130 10 1 10*

Below 80% AMI 123 2 111 9 1 9

Above 80% AMI 20 19 1 1
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

22

* Buffalo and San Juan reported the construction of their 1st and their 50th houses in the same quarter.Table 8. Construction Progress
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

23

Round One Acres Square Miles Round Two Acres Square Miles

Baltimore ** 311 .48 Flint * 265 .41

Buffalo 580 .91 Indianapolis *** 189 .30

Cleveland *** 363 .57 New York City *** 184 .29

Louisville   191 .30 San Juan **  290 .45

Philadelphia *** 64 .10 Trenton *** 213 .33

Sacramento *** 163 .26

* Data as of January–March 2004 HOZ report.

** Data as of April–June 2004 HOZ report.

*** Data as of July–September 2004 HOZ report.

**** Data as of October–December 2004 HOZ report.

Source: Quarterly progress report each HOZ city submitted to HUD

No noticeable relationship among the size of the city, the size of the HOZ site, and the HOZ configuration pattern

existed; instead, preexisting physical conditions determined the configuration of each HOZ. Only cities that had

large tracts of vacant available land through prior urban renewal acquisition (New York City), public housing

demolition (Louisville), or extreme deterioration and abandonment (Indianapolis) undertook a compact HOZ

approach. All of the HOZ cities were reluctant to undertake significant relocation to achieve compact sites. The

HOZ Notices of Funding Availability also discouraged this approach. The Philadelphia HOZ site had the largest

relocation workload and its progress was significantly delayed by relocation issues.

Creating the New Urban Community

This section discusses the degree to which each Homeownership Zone (HOZ) city was able to apply the HOZ

design principles to the rebuilding of its HOZ site. To a large extent, the implementation of each project was

determined by the unique characteristics of each HOZ site.

Site Characteristics

The HOZ sites follow three general configuration patterns:

• Compact—complete rebuilding or rehabilitation of an entire, contiguous target area.

• Scattered—entire block or multiple block developments separated from each other by blocks of remaining

older units, within a contiguous target area.

• Infill—single units and small groups of units built or rehabilitated between preexisting units within a

contiguous target area.

Most HOZ sites are either compact or scattered, although several of the compact areas also include scattered older

houses or apartment buildings that were not demolished. As shown in the following chart, the size of the HOZ sites

ranges from 64 acres for Philadelphia to 580 acres for Buffalo.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

24

The Louisville HOZ, pictured below, is a good example of a compact approach. Louisville had a large area of

vacant land as the result of the demolition of two large public housing complexes before the initiation of its

HOZ project. This enabled Louisville to completely redesign its HOZ site, including parts of the street grid. It

also enabled Louisville to control future development. Because Louisville was able to completely redesign and

rebuild its HOZ site, it had an easier time of using uniform design standards to create a cohesive, mixed-income

neighborhood. The city was also able to develop a number of community facilities within the HOZ, including a

school, police station, community center, community health center, and commercial space. The Louisville HOZ

most closely reflects New Urbanism design principles.

The NewYork City HOZ, pictured on the next page, reflects a scattered approach. NewYork City had four largely

vacant sites that had been assembled through earlier urban renewal efforts. These sites had been vacant and blighted for

decades. The development of these sites with new homeowner units helped to complete the city’s long-term strategy for

transforming the area into a vital community. Each site was developed by a separate community sponsor organization.

The rowhouses on each site were uniformly designed but varied by site. The existing street grid and block pattern were

maintained. The homeownership units complemented other major development efforts that were under way in the area.

By the time development was completed, the entire area had begun to experience a major economic revitalization due

to both the city’s numerous development efforts and external economic pressures.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

25

The Trenton HOZ, pictured below, reflects an infill approach. Trenton had scattered developable parcels of land

and buildings spread over a large area that included a number of brownfield sites. The area also had many occupied

buildings. The HOZ contained historic architecture and a preexisting community that the city hoped to strengthen.

By implementing an infill redevelopment plan, Trenton was able to maintain an architectural connection with its

past and preserve community continuity. Nearly 40 percent of its HOZ units involve rehabilitation of existing

structures. Because Trenton had to work within an existing neighborhood structure, however, it could not redefine

the physical characteristics of its HOZ site. In particular, street grids were already established. The city’s ability to

shape development patterns and create new, desirable amenities was limited. The area also continues to experience

serious crime and drug issues that have negatively affected development and sales rates. The city is attempting to

address the area’s crime problems with targeted policing efforts.

Table 9 at the end of this section provides a brief description of the characteristics for each HOZ site. Only limited

information is provided for Flint, Buffalo, and San Juan because these HOZ sites were not selected for intensive site

visits and data collection. (See Appendix A, Methodology, for a discussion of the site visit strategy.)
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

26

Design Guidelines

Most HOZ cities took considerable efforts to ensure that their HOZ sites were physically consistent with the

surrounding communities and that new house designs were compatible with the older homes remaining on the site.

In several cities, HOZ administrators and developers looked at historic pictures and commissioned design boards

to approve architectural recommendations. Two cities (Indianapolis and Trenton) undertook façade renovation to

preserve the historical design of existing houses without encountering major expenses.

Only two cities (Indianapolis and Trenton) provided information on energy-efficient design. Indianapolis recycled

materials during the construction phase and rented an onsite stone crusher to convert subsurface debris into sidewalks. Trenton worked with the New Jersey Office of Community Affairs’ Green Homes Program to provide technical assistance, training, outreach, consulting, and other resources to developers, trade contractors, and builders to

inform them of ways that new “green” technologies and energy-efficient materials could be applied in HOZ housing

developments. To demonstrate how operating expenses (including heating costs) and future maintenance could be

reduced, Trenton rehabilitated several “green houses” using energy-efficient materials and the latest technology.

Several cities developed uniform design standards for the new houses. These were the cities that also used the

“model home” approach that allowed buyers to select from several floor plan and design options. The use of these

strategies contributed to a unified feeling in the neighborhood, even when homes were built by different builders.

Largely because of cost limitations, some cities did not give priority to exterior design elements or did not use the

HOZ housing initiative as an opportunity to improve the quality of design within their HOZ neighborhoods. A

future study should examine how these decisions affect the long-term resale value of the housing and the relative

competitiveness of the neighborhood.

Blight Removal and Green Spaces

The overall development progress in each area determined the degree of blight removal. All cities have made

progress in the demolition or rehabilitation of deteriorated buildings, the renovation of dilapidated open spaces, and

the removal of debris and abandoned cars. Several cities, however, faced challenges caused by brownfield areas.

Unanticipated environmental subsurface conditions required both Cleveland and San Juan to change some of their

development plans. From the beginning, Trenton included brownfield cleanup as part of its HOZ strategy.

Most HOZ cities have created or redeveloped parkland and green spaces, or have plans to do so. Nevertheless, not

all cities have addressed the long-term maintenance issues created by these open spaces. Sacramento has partnered

with the local high school to develop a student-run landscaping business. Several cities have encountered issues

with a few homeowners who are not maintaining the exteriors of their properties. These cities attribute this lack of

maintenance to first-time homebuyers’ unfamiliarity with the exterior maintenance responsibilities that come with
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

27

homeownership. One city is considering using homeownership fees to hire a local business to keep vegetation in

front yards and common spaces uniformly trimmed.

Table 10 at the end of this section summarizes the blight removal and green space activities in each HOZ site.

Neighborhood Amenities

All HOZ cities incorporated pedestrian-friendly development in their HOZ designs. Largely due to the urban

location of these neighborhoods, residents of most areas have easy access to public transportation. Public transit

predominantly consists of bus lines. Cleveland provides shuttle buses to the main bus lines. For some HOZ sites,

however, the buses only go to the city center and do not reach all of the areas where residents wish to go. Residents

of two HOZ sites have access to mass rail transit. New York City has a subway system and Philadelphia has a light

rail system.

All HOZ sites include some amenities within walking distance. HOZ sites that are primarily infill sites and those

that are part of older, established communities have the greatest number of shopping options. Even for these HOZ

communities, however, the choices are severely limited. Amenities generally consist of churches, schools, and

an occasional “mom and pop” convenience store. An exception is the New York City HOZ site, which includes a

vibrant commercial area and is located near major commercial and business districts that are readily accessible

by both pedestrians and mass transit. Louisville is also an exception. The city has built a number of community

facilities within the HOZ site including a town center that contains a new community health center and commercial

space. Nevertheless, the city has had difficulty attracting commercial tenants.

Although residents expressed desires for many types of amenities, the one mentioned repeatedly was a large,

clean, well-stocked grocery store. Residents of all of the HOZ sites consistently report a lack of large businesses

and shopping establishments. HOZ administrators spoke of the difficulty in attracting businesses to the HOZ sites.

Storekeepers have been reluctant to risk large capital investments because of concerns about insufficient resident

“purchasing power.” An exception is the Cleveland HOZ, where a nonprofit development organization used grants

to develop a grocery store in a new shopping center. Louisville also has had some success in redeveloping a nearby

shopping center known as the “Big A,” where a Save-A-Lot grocery store recently opened. In Sacramento, the city’s

attempt to attract commercial development failed and city administrators were not eager to try again until more

houses are occupied within the HOZ site.

Table 11 at the end of this section provides additional information about the amenities that are available in the 11

HOZ sites.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

28

Economic Opportunity

Economic opportunities varied among the HOZ sites, as shown in Table 12 at the end of this section. Most HOZ

cities reported a scarcity of employment options within the target areas. Larger HOZ sites like Cleveland and

Trenton still retained some of their manufacturing base. More compact HOZ sites like Indianapolis, or areas like

Louisville and Sacramento that had undergone wholesale infrastructure rebuilding, offered fewer employment

options. All HOZ sites, however, are served by public transportation and are rarely located more than 10 minutes

from the central business districts, where employment options exist.

Some of the HOZ cities that have been least successful in achieving their new home construction goals have exhibited some of the most creative economic planning. The Flint HOZ was part of a larger Enterprise Community plan,

and the city offered small businesses help to expand shopping opportunities in the area adjacent to the HOZ. Buffalo provided low-cost incubator retail space and support for training and launched several employment and business

programs. San Juan created an economic development coordinator position, provided $100,000 for a small business

loan fund, set up a job placement and training program, and developed a recycling company that hired 14 people.

Safety

Residents of most of the HOZ sites perceived a decrease in crime in their neighborhoods. Residents reported feeling

safe or safer than they had felt in the past. Drug dealing in most HOZ sites had been reduced or eliminated, although

drug activity generally had moved to other neighborhoods. Residents of three sites—Indianapolis, Louisville, and

Sacramento—reported an increased police presence that had reduced criminal activity. Cleveland has a Weed and

Seed Program under way. Trenton has asked the National Crime Prevention Council to work with its developer

and the community. Some of the crime reduction appears to be the result of “defensible space” design. Additional

vigilance on the part of the new homeowners was also mentioned as a factor in reducing crime. Table 13 at the

end of this section shows the progress that each HOZ city has made in addressing these issues, as reported by the

residents at that site.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

29

Table 9. Site Characteristics

CITY SITE CHARACTERISTICS SITE 

CONFIGURATION

Baltimore Small, definable area within a larger redevelopment area; many existing, occupied houses 

mixed with vacant parcels of land and units; original street grid retained

Scattered

Buffalo Subareas within a larger area; many existing, occupied houses mixed with vacant parcels of 

land, units, and brownfield sites; original street grid retained

Scattered

Cleveland Six subareas within a larger area; many vacant parcels of land and units mixed with some occupied units; adjacent to a HOPE VI project; original street grid mostly retainedScattered

Flint Two subareas within a larger area; one subarea largely vacant and the other with many existing units mixed with vacant parcels of land and unitsInfill/Compact

Indianapolis Distinct area; largely vacant land and units mixed with some occupied units; original street 

grid retained

Compact

Louisville Distinct area; vacant as the result of public housing demolition; combined with a HOPE VI 

project; street grid reconfigured

Compact

New York City Four compact development sites scattered within a larger redevelopment area; development 

sites largely vacant; rest of area undergoing significant redevelopment; former urban renewal 

area; original street grid retained

Scattered

Philadelphia Large sites, but generally not entire blocks; occupied units mixed with vacant units and 

parcels of land; relocation required to create developable parcels; original street grid largely 

retained

Scattered

Sacramento Definable, largely vacant area; some existing units; street grid reconfigured Compact

San Juan Five development sites within a larger area; two distinct neighborhoods Scattered

Trenton Large area with many occupied units mixed with vacant parcels of land and units; several 

distinct neighborhoods; 10 development areas; original street grid retained

Infill/Scattered

Table 10. Blight Removal and Green Space Activities

CITY

PARKLAND (TOT LOTS, VILLAGE 

GREENS, BALLFIELDS, AND 

COMMUNITY GARDENS)

BLIGHT REMOVAL LANDSCAPING/OTHER 

FEATURES

Baltimore None within the HOZ site Reduced, but older houses still 

vacant, boarded up, and/or dilapidated

Many new homes set back from 

the street with small front yards

Buffalo JFK Park renovated; received national 

attention

Abandoned and dilapidated buildings remainNo information available

Cleveland Generally small green spaces; large 

parks just outside the HOZ site; plans 

exist for green space development next 

to the rail tracks

Mostly eliminated Shade trees; new sidewalks and 

traffic circles; individual homeowners have landscaped their yards

Flint No information available Abandoned and dilapidated buildings remainNo information available

Indianapolis Some new parks; access to citywide trail 

system

Mostly eliminated Historic light fixtures; benches; 

wide sidewalks; individual homeowners have landscaped their 

yards

HOZ = Homeownership Zone.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

30

Table 11. Neighborhood Amenities

CITY CIVIC AND COMMUNITY AMENITIES COMMERCIAL AMENITIES

Baltimore Primarily churches Small convenience stores; some larger retail stores just outside the 

HOZ site

Buffalo No information available No information available 

Cleveland Churches; schools; guidance center; senior 

citizens center; new block associations 

Basic services; recently opened grocery store in a new shopping 

plaza; HOZ is near the central business district

Flint New Job Corps center north of the HOZ Shopping just outside the HOZ site

Indianapolis Churches and schools; new citizens associationNot within the HOZ site, although work and housing units are being 

built on the edge of the site

Louisville Community center; senior citizens center; 

school; health center; adult education center; 

social services; homeowners association

Commercial space is available in the new town center; Save-A-Lot 

grocery store and Big A shopping center are located near the HOZ

New York City Numerous amenities and services Self-sustaining, private-sector commercial development sparked 

largely by investment in the HOZ site

Philadelphia Primarily schools and recreation center; 

increased interaction among neighbors

Small convenience stores; restaurants; no major grocery store or 

shopping centers

Sacramento Community center; high school; increased 

interaction among neighbors 

Small convenience stores; no major grocery store, restaurants, or 

entertainment; HOZ is located near downtown area

San Juan No information available No information available 

Trenton Primarily churches and schools Small convenience stores; major grocery stores are accessible from 

the HOZ site

HOZ = Homeownership Zone.

Table 10. Blight Removal and Green Space Activities (cont.)

CITY

PARKLAND (TOT LOTS, VILLAGE 

GREENS, BALLFIELDS, 

AND COMMUNITY GARDENS)

BLIGHT REMOVAL LANDSCAPING/OTHER 

FEATURES

Louisville Two large parks and two parkways 

created 

Completely gone Extensive new sidewalks; 

development of parkways; many 

new trees; individual homeowners 

have landscaped their yards

New York City No new green spaces; however, a large, 

well-used park exists in the HOZ

Mostly eliminated Renovated subway entrance and 

streetscaping

Philadelphia No parks; only small playgrounds; 

residents did not want parks for fear they 

would attract crime

Reduced, but older houses still 

vacant, boarded up, and/or 

dilapidated

 No information available

Sacramento New park developed; community center 

has playground with playfields 

Mostly eliminated in the completed 

subtarget area

Trees planted in residential 

development areas; notable 

signage and streetscapes; 

individual homeowners have 

landscaped their yards

 San Juan A community center, pocket park, and 

ballfield were developed 

Dilapidated buildings remain No information available 

Trenton Pocket parks, a greenway and walking 

path were developed

Abandoned and dilapidated buildings remain, especially in Southwest Village, where development 

has not yet begun; many other 

areas have pockets of blight due to 

difficult environmental issues

Parks have attractive sidewalks 

and trees; new walkways; 

Monument Square historic site is a 

focal point for the neighborhood 

HOZ = Homeownership Zone.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

31

Table 12. Economic Opportunity

CITY MIXED USE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

Baltimore No Very little business development in or around the HOZ site

Buffalo No information 

available 

New incubator retail space and support for training; other employment and business programs 

launched

Cleveland Yes Several manufacturing facilities within the HOZ site; also community organizations, schools, and 

other service companies provide employment options; other employment opportunities in the surrounding areas

Flint No information 

available 

Part of the Flint Area Enterprise Community plan; microenterprise program just outside the HOZ 

site; new Job Corps center just outside the HOZ site

Indianapolis No Not in the HOZ site, but the area is accessible to downtown employment opportunities 

Louisville No Some small shops, schools, and a health center in the HOZ site provide employment opportunities; 

HOZ construction jobs and trade contracting opportunities were created in rebuilding the HOZ

New York City Yes Lots of economic development within the HOZ site; the area is easily accessible to major employment centers 

Philadelphia Limited No employment centers within the HOZ site; the small community business district adjacent to 

the area has limited economic development although one multiuse development is scheduled for 

construction in 2006; the HOZ site is accessible to downtown employment centers

Sacramento Minimal Schools and a community development organization provide most of the employment opportunities in the HOZ site

San Juan Yes Economic development coordinator position created; Banco Popular provided $100,000 for a small 

business loan fund; a job placement and training program was set up; a recycling company was 

established that employs 14 people.

Trenton Yes Auto repair shops, funeral homes, gas stations, bodegas, grocery stores, small manufacturing 

plants, and retail shops predating the HOZ provide some employment opportunities; the HOZ is 

accessible to downtown employment opportunities

HOZ = Homeownership Zone.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

32

Table 13. Safety

CITY

SAFETY ISSUES

PERCEPTIONS

OF CRIME

DRUG TRAFFICKING

ACTIVITIES POLICE PRESENCE COMMUNITY POLICING

Baltimore Residents report the area 

feels safer

Moved to other neighborhoodsNo information available No information available 

Buffalo No information available No information available No information available No information available 

Cleveland Residents report crime 

is still a problem, but 

reduced; the senior citizens center incorporated 

defensible space design

Still a problem, but reduced; 

fences around yards create 

defensible space against drug 

trading and crime

Specific information not 

available

Residents noted neighborhood policing; Weed and 

Seed Program under way

Flint No information available No information available No information available No information available 

Indianapolis Residents report the area 

feels safer and crime is 

reduced

Moved to other neighborhoodsStronger police presence No information available

Louisville Residents feel safer Less drug activity now Police and fire station 

within the HOZ site

No information available 

New York City Residents report less 

crime

No information available Police presence in the 

area 

Yes 

Philadelphia Residents consider local 

bars dangerous at night; 

residents did not want 

parks for fear of danger 

and crime

No information available No information available No information available

Sacramento Residents report crime is 

much reduced

No information available New police station built; 

HOZ park designed 

so police can view the 

interior; crime prevention 

addressed with environmental design

Neighbors report the tag 

numbers of abandoned 

cars to the police

San Juan No information available No information available No information available No information available 

Trenton Residents report that 

crime is still a problem 

Still a problem Residents disappointed 

with local police presence

Residents noted neighborhood policing efforts

HOZ = Homeownership Zone.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

33

Lessons and Guidelines

This section discusses the lessons that have been learned from the Homeownership Zone (HOZ) demonstration

program so far. At the time of this evaluation in 2004 and early 2005, three HOZ sites (Baltimore, Indianapolis, and

New York City) were near completion, five sites (Cleveland, Louisville, Philadelphia, Sacramento, and Trenton)

were making steady progress, and three sites (Buffalo, Flint, and San Juan) appeared stalled. The experiences

of these HOZ cities can benefit other communities that hope to use mixed-income homeownership housing to

transform their distressed neighborhoods. Appendix E provides a list of contacts that can provide additional

guidance and technical advice.

The Plan

Transforming a deteriorated area by developing a new mixed-income homeownership community is not a simple

task. Careful planning is required. The master plan must be thorough, considered, and community-focused. All

participants must be willing to spend many hours discussing and reviewing options. This will result in a plan that

provides a detailed blueprint for future development. Attention to street patterns and streetscapes is important.

Establishing uniform design guidelines is also important. This will contribute to the feeling of a single neighborhood and improve the area’s marketability. A long-term implementation horizon is a necessity. City administrators

must resist being overly optimistic about this timeframe. Everything will take longer and cost more than the original

estimates. A phased approach is essential. Patience, commitment, flexibility, and perseverance are required to see

the plan through to completion. Everyone must be prepared to make adjustments as conditions change.

Following are some additional observations:

• A substantial amount of time was required to put together a good plan before construction began. Each of

the most successful cities had a master vision and strategy that guided HOZ development from the start.

These cities resisted pressure to begin building before all the plan details were in place.

• The most successful cities involved the community residents and the private sector early in the planning

process.

• Community residents contributed special knowledge about what works for the community and what

inherent local needs should be addressed by the HOZ plan. For example, in one city, community input

made it clear that public parks pose dangers as centers for drug activity. As a result, neighborhood parks

were not included in the design.

• Most cities took 2 to 3 years after HOZ approval to begin constructing their first houses.

• The most successful cities took nearly 8 years to complete their HOZ projects.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

34

• The scope of neighborhood change was broader when the HOZ project was undertaken in conjunction with

other development that preceded the HOZ project or that was occurring concurrently. For example, two

cities combined their HOZ projects with HOPE VI projects.

• Transforming a deteriorated neighborhood was expensive and unpredictable, even with a well-developed

plan. Infrastructure, environmental, and other challenges arose when least expected. Activity was delayed

when contingencies for such unexpected events were not built into the project budget and schedule from

the start.

• The most successful cities effectively used phasing to guide the development process. Several cities

undertook geographic phasing by designating subtarget areas or villages, each with separate development

strategies, financing, and timelines that were guided by the master plan.

• The start of the Round One HOZ projects was delayed by the Section 108 Loan Guarantee approval

requirements. In several cases, these delays were significant because the cities had not adequately identified

the sources for loan collateral before the start of their projects.

The HOZ Site

The formal designation of the HOZ boundaries and public recognition of the HOZ site as a special target area are

critical to success. Not all sites, however, are equally suitable for the HOZ approach. The location, configuration,

and existing conditions of the HOZ site play a significant role in determining success. The availability of vacant or

publicly owned land and the site’s comparative market advantage are the two most important site selection criteria.

City administrators must resist pressure to designate HOZ sites that are too large or too far from other beneficial

changes taking place within the city. The proposed improvements must visually transform the entire site. It is

preferable to choose a smaller, compact site to start and expand the area as spillover effects take hold. Sites that

require relocation will take longer to develop than originally anticipated. Responsible relocation strategies must be

developed as soon as the site is selected.

Following are some additional observations:

• The most successful HOZ sites were located near areas of the city that were growing and offered

employment options and opportunities.

• The most successful HOZ sites were in cities that had growing populations and resurging economies.

• Tight, compact, definable sites were generally easier to design, develop, and market than were multiple

sites that were scattered throughout larger target neighborhoods. The compact sites generally progressed

more quickly than the scattered sites did.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

35

• When the city did not treat all vacant and substandard properties in the HOZ site, resulting in a “gaptoothed” look, the developments were less successful than those developments where the city treated all

substandard properties.

• Those cities that selected HOZ sites where the city had substantial site control progressed the quickest. The

use of publicly owned and vacant land minimized land acquisition cost and development timeframes. These

cities were able to begin construction quickly and had control over the type of development that occurred.

• In one city, the success of the initial HOZ development led to escalating costs and difficulty in purchasing

additional sites from private owners that no longer wished to sell their properties.

• In one city, an on-site relocation workload substantially delayed progress.

• In one city whose compact site had been largely redeveloped, the private sector was investing in adjacent areas.

Leadership and Administration

Neighborhood transformation requires political commitment. The chief executive and the local elected

representatives must support the HOZ project from the initial planning stage through to the sale of the last home.

Cities that do not have the political will for this type of long-term undertaking should not implement HOZ projects.

The chief executive must develop the vision and set the tone for success. She or he must make clear that HOZ

implementation is a priority for all city agencies. Responsibility for the HOZ project’s implementation must be

clearly assigned. The chief executive must select a project coordinator or administrator, assemble a strong project

management team, and establish an effective means of coordinating the numerous partners. HOZ staff must

establish administrative processes to track the project’s progress, resolve complex issues, and document outcomes

before the project gets under way. Baseline data should also be collected before the project starts. This data is

helpful for future project evaluation. Periodic status reports must be provided to all key staff and project partners.

The system for documenting project activities and progress must also establish an audit trail for funding partners.

Following are some additional observations:

• The most successful HOZ sites were located in cities where the HOZ projects were key components of the

mayor’s development strategy.

• The least successful HOZ sites were located in cities where the projects lost political support, lacked the

attention of the agency administrator, or were treated as “just another project”.

• HOZ sites in cities that had experience in large-scale redevelopment generally fared better than those that

did not.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

36

• The most successful HOZ sites were in cities that had dedicated HOZ managers or coordinators who had

the authority and ability to coordinate other city agencies. One of the most successful cities had a full-time

HOZ coordinator.

• Demands on the HOZ manager were heaviest when the project was recruiting partners, leveraging funds,

stimulating community involvement, and developing plans.

• Most staff interviewed at the successful HOZ sites stated that they were given autonomy to do their work.

This engendered a sense of responsibility and satisfaction.

• HOZ sites that were progressing well had administrative teams that were noteworthy for their cohesion,

shared vision, and communication. Team members seemed to respect each other and value the work of the

other team members.

• Cities that were clear about both their HOZ goals and task assignments were more successful than those

that were less organized about their approach.

• Continuity of personnel was important. The most successful HOZ cities retained staff throughout the HOZ

development process.

• A few cities outsourced administrative functions, ranging from preparing the HUD applications to

marketing homes. Outsourcing worked well for some cities and poorly for others. The successful cities had

a clear delineation of the tasks and skills needed for the outsourced activity, followed by careful oversight

of the actual work.

• Some cities hired consultants to carry out specific time-consuming tasks such as developing land use plans

and design guidelines, and negotiating land purchases with private owners.

• Most cities took a phased approach to development—acquiring land and arranging financing for one phase

and developing that phase before beginning the development of subsequent phases. In some cities, the

phases were more clearly delineated as separate subtarget areas or villages; however, a phased approach to

acquisition resulted in higher acquisition costs and delays in development for several cities.

Partnerships

Numerous partners are required to transform the HOZ site into a vibrant, viable community. These partners must be

able to work together smoothly and efficiently. All partners must understand their roles and responsibilities as part

of the HOZ team. There must be a unified vision with common goals. Tasks must be appropriate for each partner’s

experience and organizational capacity. There must be an effective process for communicating among the various

partners and for providing feedback and resolving issues.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

37

Following are some additional observations:

• The most successful cities created strong partnerships among nonprofit, for-profit, and governmental

organizations.

• All cities had to develop partnerships with private lending institutions and public grant-making entities.

• Cities that were clear about the responsibilities of each partner performed better than those that did not

define the partnership tasks.

• Strong communication, perseverance, and personal involvement among all of the partners were required to

keep the HOZ projects on track.

• The capacity of community-based development organizations affected the success of the projects. In one

city, the organization disbanded, resulting in a significant delay in development.

• The most successful HOZ cities used strong, active development teams whose members functioned as

coequal partners.

• Several of the most successful cities used master builders or developers who worked in tandem with the

cities’ HOZ coordinators to facilitate project implementation.

• In some cities, the smaller builders ran into problems as the projects progressed due to demands in excess

of their capacity and budgets.

Community Participation

Community support for the HOZ project at both the neighborhood and citywide levels can determine success.

Community involvement can take many different forms—focus groups, market studies, public meetings,

neighborhood associations, or community boards. All of these approaches can work. Maintaining frequent

contact with community representatives throughout all of the project’s multiple stages will stem the spread of

misinformation and assist with marketing the new homes. Respect for existing residents is paramount. Lack of

attention to and compassion for community members whose lives are being disrupted can lead to declining political

support. Cities must find ways to reach out to community residents and elected representatives during each phase of

their projects. Cities must also help develop and support neighborhood resident and homeowners associations, at

least in the initial phases. As the HOZ projects progress, the communities will evolve and change.

Following are some additional observations:

• Cities used several models of community participation. The different approaches corresponded to each

city’s unique historic conditions and political climate.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

38

• Community support often translated into proactive support from the area’s political representatives. In one

city, a local council member, who controlled the disposition of city-owned land, delayed implementation

until he was comfortable with the city’s development plans.

• Collaboration between community groups and developers ensured that residents learned how the new

construction was benefiting them. This encouraged residents to take an active role in safeguarding

construction sites by reporting theft.

• As the HOZ housing was sold, new communities formed and community goals changed. Former renters

who became homeowners were sometimes the most vocal critics of existing rental housing.

• Several cities organized residents or homeowners associations and provided the associations with

organizational and financial support. Local leaders emerged from some of these groups. The more

advanced cities were developing plans to wean these groups from city support and encourage them to

become self-sustaining.

Financing

Significant public and private financing is required to undertake and complete a large-scale, mixed-income

HOZ development project. Leveraging funds from a variety of sources spreads the risk and attracts partners that

have a stake in a positive outcome. Nevertheless, each funding source will have its own requirements. These

different requirements make project financing very complex. Cities should resist using financing sources that are

incompatible with their HOZ master plans. Because of the long-term nature of this type of project and its inherent

uncertainties, it is impossible to estimate the full project cost and secure all financial commitments before the start

of the project. Making financial partners part of the planning and development team can reap rewards in terms of

subsequent financial commitments and administrative ease. Construction outlays can be kept to a minimum by

building “on demand.” Recycling program income from house sales can also create a funding stream. Significant

homebuyer subsidies are required to both attract higher income homebuyers and enable lower income homebuyers

to afford to buy their homes. Cities must decide whether to impose resale or recapture requirements on the

subsidized units to maintain the neighborhoods’ mixed-income character.

Following are some additional observations:

• Multiple financing sources were required to undertake the HOZ project.

• Significant public funds were required. Some public funding sources had requirements that limited the

city’s ability to sell to homebuyers who were not low-income. These limitations made it difficult to achieve

the city’s mixed-income goal, even though higher income families were interested in buying the new homes.

• The availability of financing had a major impact on the pace of project development. Most cities were

unable to identify all funding sources or obtain all firm financial commitments before their projects started.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

39

• The use of Section 108 Loan Guarantees by the Round One HOZ cities helped to raise significant funds

but also delayed project implementation because of the collateral and eligibility requirements of the loan

guarantee program.

• Round One HOZ cities were required to meet a deadline for the expenditure of their HOZ Economic

Development Initiative (EDI) grants. Cities that did not pay attention to this deadline had to adjust their

project budgets. One city lost funds when it ignored its EDI deadline.

• Those cities that used master builders or developers benefited from those builders’ or developers’ access to

lines of credit.

• Those cities that used a presales approach benefited financially because houses were not built until the city

had identified qualified buyers who had obtained mortgage commitments.

• Financial incentives were needed to attract homebuyers to the HOZ sites. Some cities provided subsidies

directly to the homebuyers in the form of soft second mortgages and downpayment assistance. Other

cities provided subsidies directly to the homebuilders or developers to make up the difference between the

production cost and the market price of the new homes.

• Experienced loan officers were an asset. Some cities encountered problems with inexperienced mortgage

loan officers or appraisals that did not account for or reflect the production cost or sales price of the new housing.

• Creating a mixed-income community was challenging. One city successfully used financial incentives to

attract higher income homebuyers to the area. These subsidies were phased out after the HOZ site started

to become successful. In all of the HOZ cities, lower income buyers required subsidies in order to purchase

their homes.

Land Acquisition

Acquiring land before redevelopment begins takes advantage of land prices at their lowest point, not after the

private sector sees the area improving and speculation begins. Cities must start their planning with a survey of

city-owned land and vacant parcels or buildings. The extent of absentee ownership should also be determined.

After this assessment has occurred, the city can make decisions about the type of development approach—infill

or comprehensive new construction—and the amount of funds that must be budgeted. It is likely that most

communities will need to acquire some land. Protocols for the transfer of land among public entities must be

developed before the start of land acquisition. Cities must decide whether to use eminent domain to acquire

important parcels of land. Concentrated code enforcement can be a useful tool to encourage reluctant, absentee

owners to sell deteriorated units voluntarily.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

40

Following are some additional observations:

• Cities used several strategies for land acquisition. These strategies were largely determined by the HOZ

site’s preexisting conditions.

• Cities that controlled significant portions of the land needed for their HOZ strategies avoided the most

serious delays that impacted other cities.

• Most cities underestimated the cost and time requirements for land acquisition and clearance. In some

cases, unanticipated subsurface conditions on some sites required revised development strategies.

• One city hired a private investigator to locate missing or hard-to-find owners. This approach expedited the

land acquisition process.

• Progress in one city was impeded by interagency land transfer issues that had not been resolved at the start

of the project.

• In one city, the success of the first development phase resulted in rising acquisition costs that were not

reflected in the original project budget. Existing property owners became more reluctant to sell. Using

eminent domain was politically unacceptable. Some land speculation started to occur. These factors

substantially delayed progress.

Resident Relocation

Relocation is always controversial. Cities should avoid choosing HOZ sites that require substantial residential

relocation, especially relocation of homeowners. Using an infill or a phased development approach can reduce the

relocation workload. Nevertheless, this approach can also result in a HOZ site with critical gaps in redevelopment.

When relocation cannot be avoided, cities should be very conservative in estimating project budgets and timelines.

It is important to establish a priority for the HOZ relocation workload within the relocation agency. Cities should

adopt responsible relocation policies that aim to improve relocatees’ housing conditions and provide them with

choices. Social services agencies should be involved as partners from the start of the relocation plan.

Following are some additional observations:

• Most cities did not choose sites that required significant relocation. If relocation occurred, it took place

before the HOZ projects started. For example, in two HOZ sites the demolition of public housing as part of

HOPE VI projects predated the HOZ development.

• One city had a HOZ relocation workload. The slow pace of relocation caused by a court case and

competing priorities within the relocation agency substantially delayed implementation. To avoid

additional relocation, the homeownership housing was scattered throughout the area. As a result, the HOZ

development is less concentrated, and substandard housing remains.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

41

Home Design and Construction

Quality design and mixed-income development can go together. Desirable exterior design features should not be

viewed as an unnecessary expense, but as critical elements for attracting homebuyers. Historic properties or historic

designs give neighborhoods character and can make HOZ sites more competitive. The model home approach

can work in urban areas and is an effective tool for phasing development costs and marketing units. The use of a

uniform building code and design guidelines minimizes the possibility of other city agencies or builders making ad

hoc decisions about construction. Cities should develop streamlined, one-stop permit review procedures to reduce

developer costs. It may be useful for cities to establish blanket variance for the entire HOZ site to eliminate separate

reviews for each property.

Following are some additional observations:

• Those cities that established design standards and ensured that all homes were compatible, even

when built by different developers or contractors, had an easier time attracting nonsubsidized buyers

than did cities that did not establish standards or ensure the design compatibility of all homes within

their HOZ sites. Two cities developed “design codes” to guide development.

• Design standards helped blend subsidized housing with unsubsidized housing and increased the HOZ site’s

marketability, especially to nonsubsidized homebuyers.

• Respecting the architectural style of existing houses, even those in disrepair, was an important design

element that lent character and identity to several of the HOZ sites. One city combined two small row

houses into one unit, maintaining the historical appearance of the facades as two units but providing a

larger, more marketable unit on the inside.

• In general, it was less costly to build new houses than to renovate existing ones.

• In one HOZ site, existing homeowners were offered the materials necessary, such as paint, to improve their

properties’ appearance and condition. In one HOZ site, existing owners started to fix up their properties

after the neighborhood’s transformation became evident.

• All buyers of the new housing, regardless of income, were looking for amenities. With the exception of

the New York City site, garages were important to homebuyers. New homes that were competitive with the

designs and amenities offered in suburban alternatives sold more easily.

• Model homes proved to be an effective approach for several HOZ cities. Potential buyers were able to

choose from different designs, fixtures, and finishes.

• Allowing prospective homebuyers to select both the building lots and the house designs helped create

mixed-income neighborhoods.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

42

• One city used periodic onsite construction review meetings as a cost-effective way to avoid any

misunderstandings, resolve problems before they became major, and facilitate progress. The meetings

involved builders, developers, bankers, and inspectors.

• Not all first-time buyers fully understood the responsibilities and risks inherent in the long-term

maintenance of both the interior and exterior of their properties. One city had to intervene when peeling

paint on exterior trim became an issue. Another city had to address issues of exterior lawn maintenance.

Environmental Considerations

Energy-efficient, green materials and recycling can be used cost effectively in building affordable housing. Energyefficient designs reduce long-term home maintenance costs, thereby sustaining homeownership, especially for lower

income homebuyers. Recycling, including recycling of onsite materials, can be incorporated into the development

process.

Following are some additional observations:

• One city used green building technology to demonstrate how advanced energy efficiency could be

incorporated into the renovation of older buildings.

• One city used an onsite concrete crusher and sifter to reuse old sidewalks, curbs, and remnants of old

basements. All trees removed from the site were chipped and the resulting mulch was stockpiled and

reused. This approach generated cost savings.

• In one city, a small, neighborhood-based recycling company was created.

Creating Demand

Creating demand is crucial for the success of a HOZ project. A resurging economy had the greatest impact on

demand for homeownership units in several HOZ sites. Nevertheless, an acceptable level of demand can also result

from creative marketing efforts, including favorable coverage in the local news media. A HOZ budget should

include funding for a marketing strategy. Cities should use marketing studies to identify potential buyers and plan

their marketing strategies accordingly. Marketing efforts should begin early and focus on changing the image of the

neighborhood by convincing the public that a lasting transformation will occur. The typical buyer does not always

conform to assumptions. Offering prepurchase homebuyer counseling programs that are tailored to the HOZ project,

along with homebuyer subsidies, can tap into the pent-up demand of low-income and first-time homebuyers. Incentive

subsidies also can be used to attract higher income homebuyers. Word of mouth is important. Seeking and receiving

recognition and awards from national organizations can also be very helpful. Postpurchase counseling can help

homeowners avoid predatory lending and cope with the responsibilities of first-time homeownership.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

43

Following are some additional observations:

• Most site administrators thought that the existing residents would be the first households to buy the new

homes, but this did not always happen. Reasons included the inability of existing residents to afford even

heavily subsidized homes, a desire to leave the area, the existence of policies designed to screen out people

with criminal records, and credit issues.

• “Typical buyers” varied by site.

• Most cities used multiple marketing methods. Community organizations and faith-based institutions were

important allies in reaching out to prospective homebuyers.

• One city used model homes as a marketing tool by placing the model homes on a main commuter street so

the general public could envision the HOZ site’s transformation even before substantial construction was

complete.

• Another city “branded” its HOZ subtarget areas to create distinct neighborhoods and instill confidence in

potential buyers.

• Successful HOZ sites received favorable and consistent news coverage from the planning stage through

groundbreaking and completion. “Human interest” stories helped change public perceptions of the area.

One city used the “House that Readers Built” to create excitement about the first family to move into a

HOZ house. Another city involved the local high school in creating decorative tiles as a design element that

would identify the new community.

• Some cities applied for and received recognition from national organizations, such as the American

Planning Association, Urban Land Institute, and National Association of Home Builders. The receipt of

these awards helped to change the neighborhoods’ image and build demand.

• All of the HOZ cities used homebuyer counseling programs. Counseling programs that were specifically

geared to the HOZ project were the most effective.

• One city created a sales center where potential buyers could learn about the HOZ project and obtain loan

advice and referrals to homebuyer assistance programs and other support services.

• Several cities provided checklists that outlined the steps buyers needed to take throughout the purchasing

and construction processes. This type of checklist made the process less intimidating for first-time

homebuyers.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

44

Commercial Development

A new community requires more than houses. Access to commercial and other services contributes to both

the desirability and quality of life in a neighborhood. Commercial development tends to lag behind residential

development because of the population and income required to support various types of businesses. Most cities

are only beginning to address the commercial needs of their HOZ sites. Space for future commercial development

should be part of the original HOZ site plan. Market studies should be conducted to determine the type of

commercial ventures that homebuyers desire and that will also survive in the HOZ site. Until homebuyer demand

builds, businesses may require subsidized space and other incentives to move into the area. One approach is to treat

important commercial services as a form of public service or as an amenity, and provide loans, grants and other

financial incentives to attract these businesses.

Following are some additional observations:

• Attracting quality businesses has been difficult. One city tried to attract businesses but was unsuccessful

because the consumer base was inadequate.

• One city was successful in developing a commercial area by using a nonprofit developer that had received

grant assistance to subsidize the commercial development.

• Not all cities took a comprehensive approach to neighborhood development by including commercial

development, public facilities and other amenities within their HOZ sites. Several cities only focused on

residential development.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

45

Concluding Observations

This interim evaluation found that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Homeownership Zone (HOZ) initiative has successfully demonstrated that cities can use mixed-income homeownership housing

to transform their blighted areas. Today, many of the HOZ demonstration sites have become, or are becoming,

viable homeownership communities. Clear evidence exists that the HOZ approach has improved the quality of life

in these communities.

Signs of revitalization are greatest for those cities that also have growing populations and strong economies.

Nevertheless, these cities credit HUD’s HOZ initiative for their success. The federal HOZ grant provided a critical

incentive at a time when market forces had not taken hold and enabled the HOZ cities to target their resources,

mobilize their communities, and build investor confidence. Of equal importance is that each HOZ city’s federal

contractual obligation required that the city maintain its commitment over many years despite unexpected delays,

competing demands for scarce resources, or changes in city administrations.

Most of the HOZ cities are meeting or exceeding their goals for selling new homes to low- and moderate-income

households and for increasing the homeownership rates within their HOZ neighborhoods. Many of the new

homeowners are first-time homebuyers from underserved groups, including many of the original residents. Most

cities have blended the architectural styles of the new homes with existing buildings and have applied other New

Urbanist design principles.

The speed of execution is the one area where none of the cities met HUD’s expectations. Initial timelines were

overly optimistic given the preexisting conditions and problems associated with each of the HOZ sites. Delays were

caused by land acquisition and site control issues, unforeseen subsurface conditions, and difficulty in obtaining

required financing. In addition, not all of the HOZ cities have been able to attract middle-income homebuyers or

commercial development.

Success also created obstacles for some of the HOZ cities as escalating land values increased costs. Many long-time

residents also expressed fears that their HOZ neighborhood would become less diverse as homes were resold to

higher-income buyers.

In retrospect, it is tempting to say that the most successful HOZ cities would have succeeded without the federal

HOZ designation and demonstration grant. The success of these cities appears inevitable, however, only in

retrospect. For example, the Indianapolis HOZ site residents and other local observers of the HOZ demonstration

project expressed only cautious optimism that the HOZ site could be transformed. It took many committed people

with a shared vision and some very hard work over many years to turn a crime-ridden Indianapolis neighborhood

nicknamed “Dodge City” into Fall Creek Place.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

46

Perhaps the most important policy lesson learned from this study is that transforming a severely distressed

neighborhood into a successful homeownership community takes time, but it can be done with sufficient

commitment, vision, and concentration of resources.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

A–1

Appendix A. Methodology

Project Goals and Tasks

This interim Homeownership Zone (HOZ) evaluation had three primary goals:

1. Collect baseline data for a final evaluation that will be undertaken at the completion of the HOZ demonstration

program.

2. Assess how well each city has been able to implement its approved HOZ proposal so far.

3. Identify best practices or guidelines that other communities can use to transform their deteriorated

neighborhoods through mixed-income homeownership development.

Methodology

The basic methodology for this evaluation was the case study. Case studies were developed for each of the 11 active

HOZ sites. Three basic techniques were used:

1. Document review.

2. Site visits.

3. Social, economic, and geographic data analysis.

Document Review

Project administrative documents were reviewed to gain an understanding of how the HOZ demonstration program

functioned from its early stages of development to the current day. These documents included the following:

• The initial grant funding application submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD).

• Documents concerning the approval of the initial application.

• Documents concerning amendment requests filed by each HOZ city during the course of the demonstration

program.

• The quarterly HOZ progress reports that each city submitted to HUD.

For each neighborhood, data were obtained on crime rates, home values, demographic characteristics, income,

homeownership rates, rental rates, and vacancy rates. Data were also obtained on street layouts and land parcels.

The data were acquired from the Census Bureau and each city’s records. Financial, housing production, and sales

data were extracted, along with summaries of problems and solutions. These data were compiled into a database.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

A–2

Site Visits

The site visits involved four steps: (1) selecting the sites, (2) preparing for the site visits, (3) conducting the site

visits, and (4) analyzing the data and information obtained during the site visits.

Site Selection

The initial goal was to conduct site visits at all 11 sites. Nine sites would be visited for 1 day to 1 1⁄2 days and the

other two sites would be visited for 3 days as indepth case studies. The final plan called for three indepth site visits

(2 to 3 days each), five shorter site visits (1 to 2 days each), and document-only analysis for the remaining three

sites. Researchers made this change because they determined, in consultation with the HUD program staff, that

three of the sites—Buffalo, Flint, and San Juan—had either not made enough progress to justify site visits or the

data provided was not adequate. Additionally, the team determined that more could be learned from visiting the

eight sites that had made more progress.

Site selection was based on the document review described previously. Table A-1 shows the site visit selection

factors, which are described in more detail below.

Progress in Construction Indicators (Two Criteria) 

• Progress on Housing. The number of new and renovated houses completed as a percentage of each HOZ’s

adjusted housing goals.

• Progress on Low- and Moderate-Income Housing. The number of new and renovated houses sold to

households earning below 80 percent of the area median income in each HOZ site as a percentage of all

HOZ houses sold.

Research Team Determined Indicators (Six Criteria)

• Progress on New Urbanism. Based on a review of internal documents. Values range from 1 = follows New

Urbanism principles through 3 = does not follow New Urbanism principles.

• Replicability. How well the strategies employed at each site could be transferred to other sites. Values

include 1 = difficult to replicate and 2 = easy to replicate.

• Data Availability. Based on data available as of November 2004. Values range from 1 = available through 3

= unavailable.

• Expected Data Availability. Based on data obtained as of November 2004 and research regarding

anticipated data availability. Values range from 1 = available through 3 = unavailable.

• External Problems. Difficulties faced by each site that were beyond its control (that is, not caused by the

site itself) and viewed as beneficial to the evaluation because they presented opportunities to assess a site’s
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

A–3

ability to address successful strategies. Mismanagement is an example of an external problem. Values range

from 1 = many problems through 5 = few problems.

• Creative Solutions. How well a site resolved problems or anticipated and addressed problems. Values

range from 1 = most creative through 3 = least creative.

The 11 sites were initially divided into two tiers based on their Progress on Housing scores. The scores of

Indianapolis and New York were substantially higher than all the scores of the other sites. The remaining nine

sites were divided into three tiers based on their progress in meeting their housing and low- and moderate-income

housing goals. The research team visited all eight sites in the top three tiers. As described previously, no site visits

were conducted in Buffalo, Flint, or San Juan.

The three sites selected for indepth visits—Indianapolis, Trenton, and Cleveland—were selected based on the

number of houses constructed, problems encountered, and creative solutions. The research team decided not to

include both Indianapolis and New York City because both cities were experiencing major improvements in their

real estate markets and those experiences would likely not be replicable. The remaining five cities—Baltimore,

Louisville, New York, Philadelphia, and Sacramento—were each visited for 1 to 2 days.

Table A-1. Site Visit Selection Criteria

Site Progress on 

Housing

Progress on 

Low- and 

ModerateIncome 

Housing

Progress on 

New 

Urbanism

Replicability (1 - 2)

Data 

Availability 

(1 - 3)

Expected 

Data 

Availability 

(1 - 3)

External 

Problems

(1 - 5)

Creative 

Solutions 

(1 - 3)

Tier One

Indianapolis 81% 50% 1 2* 1 1 4 2

New York 90% 53% 3 2* 3 1 4 1

Tier Two

Louisville 50% 51% 1 1 3 1 3 2

Philadelphia 48% 71% 3 1 2 2 2 2

Trenton 51% 88% 2 1 1 1 1 1

Tier Three

Baltimore 43% 100% 1 3 1 2 3

Cleveland 31% 72% 1 1 1 1 2 1

Sacramento 26% 52% 1 1 1 1 1 2

Tier Four

Buffalo 36% 38% NA 1 1 1 NA NA

Flint 25% 3% NA 1 3 1 NA NA

San Juan 22% 100% NA 1 3 3 NA NA

*This market has a hot real estate market which cannot be expected in the future.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

A–4

Site Visit Preparation

Because only a short amount of time was available for each site visit, extensive preparation was necessary to maximize

the use of time spent at each site. The research team performed the following tasks to prepare for the site visits:

• Reviewed the project applications, quarterly reports, and other relevant documents describing the project.

• Developed a detailed site visit protocol. The protocol included discussion topics for initial phone

conversations with the appropriate HUD field official and the HOZ project directors; discussion topics

for site-visit interviews with the site administrator, resident or neighborhood association leader, and city

manager or official responsible for project oversight. In addition, a list of key programmatic elements was

formulated as a guide for data collection during observational tours of the neighborhood.

• Communicated with each site administrator via letter and phone to make arrangements for each site visit.

In their correspondence, researchers communicated the purpose of the site visit and identified the people

with whom they wished to meet during the visits.

• Asked the site administrators to arrange appropriate meetings and observation times after the dates for the

site visits were set.

Site Visits

During the winter of 2005, one to three researchers conducted site visits at 8 of the 11 HOZ sites. The staff

interviewed numerous people involved with the project, including the project administrator, other city government

employees, developers, builders, representatives of community organizations, and residents. Researchers also toured

the neighborhoods and took still photos and video footage.

Although HOZ team representatives and residents were generally candid during the site visits, whenever possible

the research team triangulated the information it received and compared it with documents submitted to HUD and

statements made by other team members.

Basic Site Visits at Five Sites 

Although the plan called for one researcher to visit the five basic sites, two researchers visited the first site, New York

City, to set the site visit ground rules and ensure methodological consistency for future visits. These two researchers

visited New York City for 2 days. One researcher visited Baltimore, Louisville, Philadelphia, and Sacramento for

2 days each, not including travel. Each of these visits began with an entrance meeting with the site administrator to

review the purpose of the visit, the local objectives of the HOZ, a discussion of the history and context of the neighborhood development, the level of completion of the HOZ project, and a review of the site visit schedule.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

A–5

Researchers also interviewed the city manager or city official, key staff, the architect, builders, residents, local

community leaders, and primary partners (as appropriate) during the site visit (time and schedules permitting) to

obtain information about project implementation from numerous perspectives. The interview protocols, discussed

previously, guided these discussions. The site visits included a tour of the neighborhood to observe demolition and

construction progress, visualize the extent and form of “New Urbanism” created, and take photographs to capture

visual records.

Indepth Site Visits at Three Sites 

Two senior staff (one from the Exceed Corporation and the other from its research partner, Research Triangle

Institute International) visited Cleveland, Indianapolis, and Trenton for 3 days (not including travel time). Each

of these visits began with an entrance meeting with site administrators to review the purpose of the visit, the

local objectives of the HOZ, the history and context of the neighborhood development, and the project’s level 

of completion.

Researchers also interviewed the city manager or city official, key staff, the architect, builders, residents, local

community leaders, and primary partners (as appropriate) during the site visit (time and schedules permitting) to

obtain information about project implementation from numerous perspectives. The interview protocols, discussed

previously, guided these discussions. The site visits included a tour of the neighborhood to observe demolition and

construction progress, view the extent and form of “New Urbanism” created, and take photographs to capture visual

records.

Social, Economic, and Geographic Data Analysis

Evaluation of a neighborhood’s transformation from a blighted area to a desirable area can be accomplished in

three ways. First, the most obvious method is through a visual comparison of the neighborhood before and after the

HOZ investment. Second, researchers can gather opinion data from residents to assess whether residents value the

transformation. Third, researchers can develop proxy measures of value based on how much homebuyers are willing

to pay for housing.

The research team completed case studies on all 11 sites. The reports incorporated information collected from

the document review as well as information collected during site visits. The basic purposes of these reports were

to indicate whether the sites were meeting their objectives of expanding homeownership and revitalizing urban

neighborhoods and to provide reasons why the sites were or were not meeting these objectives.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

A–6

The case studies were designed to be used by other cities interested in replicating successes of the HOZ projects.

The research team used case study data analysis techniques that enabled them to accomplish the following:

• Deepen the analysis of key questions by asking followup questions and asking several people similar

questions to triangulate data collection.

• Note patterns and themes occurring at each site.

• Search for dominant themes.

• Note divergences among sites.

• Identify key decisionmakers and assess their relative importance and roles in the development effort.

• Assess unintended impacts of the program.

• Tour sites and photograph site progress.

Geographic Analysis

Geographic analysis provided the foundation for much of the visual and analytical analysis for the case studies.

Geographic Information System (GIS) technology served a number of purposes and roles in this research. These

roles can roughly be divided into three categories of increasing analytical complexity:

1. Data integration and mapping.

2. Distance analyses and summary statistics.

3. Geostatistics.

A series of maps accompanied the case studies to provide visual representations of the HOZs and the areas adjacent

to them. The maps showed geographic features such as the HOZ boundaries, streets, zoning (if data were available),

parcel boundaries (if data were available), census geographic boundaries, and other boundaries that may be of

interest (for example, school district zones).

GIS mapping and analysis were performed to show conditions before the projects began and current conditions

after several years of implementation. Geographic data sources were also identified and documented to facilitate

their collection and use in a future evaluation. The researchers obtained locally available, highly detailed GIS data

to develop detailed GIS databases for the three indepth case study cities. The research team worked with local city

government agencies to identify potential data sources that were available to support the research.

A GIS database for each of the 11 cities was created to support the mapping and analysis requirements of the

project. Many sources of data were used to create these databases. These sources included the following:
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

A–7

• Federal geospatial data sources for transportation, hydrography, county boundaries, land use, imagery, and

elevation.

• The Census Bureau’s 1990 and 2000 centennial census data files.

• Commercial sources of geospatial data including those from Environmental Systems Research Institute and

MicroSoft’s Terraserver.

• Geospatial data acquired from the GIS departments, police departments, or other city departments within

particular cities.

• Printed commercial maps illustrating important features in and around HOZ boundaries.

Available federal and commercial geospatial data were identified, analyzed, selected, and downloaded from the

Internet directly to contractor computers whenever possible. Other data already maintained at the contractor’s GIS

department were also used. Internet searches, phone calls, and email enquiries were made to find local and custom

geospatial data necessary for mapping specific features of HOZ sites. Data that were maintained within various city

administrative departments were sent to the contractor on CD media or via the Internet using File Transfer Protocol.

Map digitizing, data conversion, data processing, or address matching was performed on the acquired data (or

maps) as necessary. The process of creating each city’s GIS database after data had been acquired involved assessing

the content and format of each data set; refining or editing data sets; projecting each data set to standard common

coordinate systems; and documenting the source and content of each data source. In some cases, printed maps were

acquired and specific features were manually digitized and converted into new GIS layers. For example, some cities

did not have electronic or GIS data of city bus lines and stops. In these cases, the contractor acquired printed bus

maps from the city and manually entered the bus routes into the GIS.

The resulting GIS databases consist of a series of folders and subfolders containing each of the GIS data layers

organized by theme (for example, transportation, hydrography, boundaries, census, and so on). The primary role of

GIS on the project was to integrate a wide variety of geospatial data and to create maps of these data (or “layers”)

for researchers, the HUD Government Technical Representative, and general readers of the final report so they

could understand the spatial context in which the HOZs existed. Maps have been color coded to highlight distinct

features of each zone.

Interviews With Residents

The study examined the components of New Urbanism features to assess which ones appeared to contribute

to increasing value. Interviews with residents, staff, and community leaders examined which features were

attracting buyers and gathered interviewees’ assessments of changes that had occurred or were occurring in their

neighborhoods.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

A–8

Photographic Analysis

Photographic data were collected for all eight case study sites from publicly available local sources such as local

administrators, from digital and/or video cameras used during site visits, and through the digitization of archival

photographs. For the three indepth site visits, researchers collected information on Global Positioning System

(GPS) locations and obtained digital photographs of important buildings, transportation centers, and other features.

Site visits involved the use of GPS receivers connected to hand-held GIS computers to collect precise locations and

descriptions of important features. During the site visits, researchers drove up and down every street in the HOZs

collecting locations with the GPS receivers, entering descriptions into the hand-held computers for each street, and

using digital cameras to capture images that were later noted in the case studies.

Depending on photo availability, the researchers made photographic comparisons of conditions before and after

implementation. This method focused on project elements not easily measured or captured through GIS mapping or

statistical comparisons. For example, pictures can demonstrate architectural consistency between existing historic

buildings and new construction.

Distance Analyses

GIS data were used to make preliminary measures of a number of spatially related variables to answer questions

about if and how the HOZ had changed some of the fundamental distance relationships between homes and other

entities in the neighborhood. For example, walkability was measured as the distance between a home and the

nearest transit stop.

Crime Analysis

Crime rates were calculated by first geocoding (determining the latitude and longitude of each incident address) the

crime incidents, totalling the counts of incidents within each census block group (via GIS overlay analysis), and

then dividing the count of incidents by the population of the census block group.

Table A-2 shows the source data that served as the basis for the GIS analysis for each of the 11 HOZ sites.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

A–9

Table A-2. Geographic Information System Data Inventory

Data Theme Baltimore Buffalo Cleveland Flint Indianapolis

LouisvilleNew 

York

PhiladelphiaSacramentoSan 

Juan

Trenton

Bus route or rail 

information

X X X X X X X X X NA X

Bus route or rail data X (rail 

only)

X X X X NA X X X NA X

Parcels of land (with 

addresses)

NA X X NA X NA NA X X NA X

Parcel property/sales 

data

NA * NA NA * * * * X NA *

Streets (detailed, with 

address ranges)

NA X X X X NA X X X NA X

City limits X X X X X X X X X X X

HOZ boundaries X X X X X X X X X X X

Aerial imagery (year) 2003 1995, 

2002

1995, 

2003

1998 1998, 

2003

1998, 

2002

1995 1992, 

2003

1994, 

2002

1994 1995, 

2002

Census attributes 

1990

X X X X X X X X X X X

Census attributes 

2000

X X X X X X X X X X X

Cultural data (schools, 

hospitals, parks, 

landmarks, etc.)

X X X X X X X X X X X

Geographic Names 

Information System 

data

X X X X X X X X X X X

Hydrography data X X X X X X X X X X X

Census TIGER data 

1990 (roads, rail, 

urban areas, etc.)

X X X X X X X X X NA X

Census TIGER data 

2000 (roads, rail, 

urban areas, etc.)

X X X X X X X X X X X

National Land Cover 

data 1992

X X X X X X X X X X

National Land Cover 

data 2002

NA NA NA NA 

(2001)

NA NA NA NA 

(1999)

NA 

(2004)

NA NA 

(1997)

Crime data NA X X NA X NA NA NA X NA NA

* = Data are available for purchase.

X = Data have been acquired.

HOZ = Homeownership Zone.

TIGER = Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System.

Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

B–1

Appendix B. Geographic Information System Data

This document lists the general types of Geographic Information System (GIS) data collected for the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development Homeownership Zone (HOZ) project. Due to data availability and

resource limitations, not all data (for example, crime data) were acquired for all cities.

1990 Census Data (All Cities)

These data included Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) polygon shape files showing 1990 Census

Block Group data. This set of data also included countywide, citywide, and HOZ-wide data and the census longform (detailed attributes) table. These data were used to create census maps and the detailed 1990 and 2000 Census

Excel tables.

2000 Census Data (All Cities)

These data included ESRI polygon shape files showing 2000 Census Block Group data. This set of data also

included countywide, citywide, and HOZ-wide data and the census long-form (detailed attributes) table. These data

were used to create census maps and the detailed 1990 and 2000 Census Excel tables.

Changes Data (Buffalo, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Louisville, Philadelphia, Sacramento, 

and Trenton)

These data included ESRI shape files known as the “changes” layers. These files were created manually after close

inspection and comparison of 1995 and 2002 imagery.

Crime Data (Buffalo, Cleveland, Indianapolis, and Sacramento)

Data files of crime incidents and associated GIS layers were created.

1996 ESRI Data (All Cities)

These data included ESRI shape files from 1996 CDs provided with earlier versions of the ESRI ArcView software.

Layers included buildings, cemeteries, hospitals, places, schools, parks, retail centers, and so on. Data points were

used as reference tools for creating changes layers.

2002 and 2003 ESRI Data (All Cities)

These data included ESRI shape files from the latest CDs provided with ESRI ArcGIS software. Layers included

buildings, cemeteries, hospitals, places, schools, parks, retail centers, and so on. Data were used as reference tools

for creating changes layers and displaying features on current HOZ maps.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

B–2

Geographic Names Information System Data (All Cities)

These data included ESRI point shape files of Geographic Names Information System data. Features included

populated places, schools, churches, airports, prominent buildings, parks, and other locales.

Imagery Data (All Cities)

Satellite imagery was acquired from local governments and national government sources. For some cities, imagery

from different years was available and acquired.

JPGs (All Cities)

JPG image files (200 dots-per-square-inch resolution) of 8.5-x-11-inch maps were created for the report.

Maps (All Cities)

Maps were created for general archiving purposes. Maps (.mxd files) were made using ESRI ArcGIS software.

These maps can only be opened if ArcGIS is installed. After the maps are opened, symbology and text will be

preserved but layers will have to be remapped in each map.

National Hydrography Dataset Data (All Cities)

Researchers extracted from the National Hydrography Dataset 1:24,000 scale hydrography data (where available)

covering HOZs, Where appropriate, ESRI Coverage format was used to give maps greater detail.

National Land Cover Data (All Cities)

These data included 1992 and 1997 National Land Cover data. These data were not used in any mapping or analysis.

Other Data (All Cities)

These data included various data layers in ESRI shape file format. All metadata were included. Layers included

some features that were created manually from American Automobile Association maps. These features include city

limits, cultural features, parks, hospitals, libraries, named places, national wetlands inventory, open space, parcels,

post offices, rail lines, and streets.

1990 Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System Data 

(All Cities)

These data included 1990 Census Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER)

data in ESRI shape file format. Layers included county boundaries, designated places (cities) hydrography, rail

lines, roads, tracts, and urban areas.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

B–3

2000 TIGER Data (All Cities)

These data included 2000 Census TIGER data in ESRI shape file format. Layers included county boundary,

designated places (cities) hydrography, key geographic locations, landmarks, transportation, rail lines, roads, school

districts, tracts, traffic zones, and urban areas.

Transportation Data (All Cities)

These data included various transportation-related layers in ESRI shape file format, some of which were created

manually based on provided maps. Layers included Amtrak stations, bus routes, bus stops, greenways, the Northeast

Corridor rail line, river rail line, and river rail line stations. Bus route metadata files were also included.

Site Visit Data (Trenton, Indianapolis, and Cleveland)

These data included various tables, data layers, and documents associated with site visits as well as meeting notes,

digital photos of HOZs and the surrounding areas, GPS points, and related descriptive tables.

Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–1

Appendix C. Site Visit Protocol

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Homeownership Zone Site Visit 

Interview Guide

November 2, 2004

Site Administration Meeting

Note: The site administrator may or may not be the city manager or the official responsible for project oversight. If 

these are two different people, we may need to ask these questions of more than one person. Alternatively, the site 

administrator meeting may simply be a meet-and-greet meeting without substance. Regardless of whom we speak to, 

we should make sure to obtain that person’s name and phone number so we can pursue any followup questions with 

that person later. Also, some of these questions will be asked of builders, developers, U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) regional staff, business leaders, and other project partners in addition to the city 

administrators.

Start with a round of introductions and a bit of pleasant talk. If more than two people are present, make a chart of 

who sat where during the interview. 

The information presented below was shared with interviewees to enhance their understanding of the research

project at hand.

This is an interim evaluation with two goals:

1. Make a preliminary assessment of how well the projects have worked.

2. Identify best practices and model approaches.

The evaluation will focus on three objectives:

1. Getting a picture of what is happening in the zone through the development of a series of maps.

2. Measuring preliminary outcomes to date.

3. Developing models of implementation.

The first two objectives serve the third and also provide data and information for a final evaluation after all of the 

projects are completed and if HUD funds such an evaluation.

The information below was given to interviewees so as to enhance their understanding of the study and thereby

facilitate the data collection process.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–2

We would like to emphasize that this not an “I gotcha” review nor is it a compliance review. Rather, we want to

understand what worked, why it worked, what did not work, why it did not work, what the obstacles and bottlenecks

you encountered, and what creative approaches you used to overcome these challenges.

Some of these questions may sound overly technical and hard edged and we apologize for that. Some of what we

will be doing is verifying what we have read in the quarterly reports. We will only be asking you questions to get a

sense of how important key issues are to you and to clarify a few things we did not understand.

Hand them the goals and focus description. 

Determine the Site Administrator’s Role in the HOZ Development Process 

Ask the following questions:

1. What is your role in the project?

2. How long have you been the project administrator?

3. (If since the beginning) Did you take part in the proposal preparation process?

4. (If not since the beginning)

A. When did you join the project?

B. Where in the process was the project when you joined?

C. Why did the previous administrator leave?

D. What difficulties did you experience in taking over the project midway through the process?

5. Did you make any changes in the process?

6. What are your key functions as project administrator?

7. How many project directors has this program had?

Project Organization

The next set of questions is about the initial stages of the project. If you were not working on the project at that

time, please answer the questions to the best of your knowledge.

1. Please discuss the history of neighborhood development in this area leading up to the Homeownership Zone

project.

2. Explain how the Homeownership Zone plan was developed from the beginning. Who provided the initial

impetus for this development? Was it driven by the city government?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–3

3. Who wrote the grant application? (Note: We are interested in the name of the agency or the primary author’s 

job title, not just the person’s name.)

4. Was the application compiled with a lot of community involvement? Explain what type of involvement

occurred.

5. Were there preexisting community groups?

6. To what extent did these community groups participate in the planning stage?

7. Were the community groups consulted on a regular basis as the project moved forward?

8. Were the community groups consulted at critical junctures, such as how to address unanticipated impediments

(for example, environmental issues)?

9. How often do the community groups have open meetings?

10. What percentage of local residents do the meetings draw?

11. What types of permitting preparations (such as utilities, variances, building permits, and certificates of

occupancy) were made before the project commenced?

12. How did your office coordinate with other offices and agencies to smooth out the Homeownership Zone

process? Was this coordination primarily formal or informal?

13. What type of support did you have from—

A. City hall?

B. Other local officials?

C. State officials?

D. National elected officials?

14. Was this support adequate?

15. Did this support translate into adequate city services (for example, water and sewer) being provided to the

Homeownership Zone?

16. What infrastructure improvements did you make to the Homeownership Zone area?

17. Did your office reorganize itself to handle the Homeownership Zone project?

18. Within your office, how big a focus was the Homeownership Zone?

19. Was there a full-time or nearly full-time coordinator assigned to this project?

20. Did other priorities compete for attention within your office?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–4

Partners

1. Have you been able to obtain political and financial support from both public and private partners?

2. What other key governmental and nongovernmental people, partners, and organizations are involved in this

project—other than those listed here? (Refer to the list from the grant application that you have presented to the 

administrator.)

3. (If the list from the grant application and the list from the quarterly reports are significantly different.) Please

explain the difference between the two lists. For example, why did some partners, originally listed, not

participate? Why did other “new” partners join later in the HOZ development process?

4. What have you found to be the best ways to attract or bring in partners?

5. What were the greatest challenges to obtaining these partners?

6. Have the partners actually contributed what you expected them to contribute?

7. Who are your strongest partners?

8. Why do you consider them your strongest partners?

A. Money.

B. Assistance with planning.

C. Other (please explain).

9. What community organizations have been involved in, interested in, or opposed to the Homeownership Zone?

10. How did the local community respond to the Homeownership Zone at the beginning of the project?

A. Participated in planning and/or execution.

B. Interested in project but did not participate.

C. Opposed to project (please explain).

11. How does the local community respond to the Homeownership Zone now?

A. Participates in planning and/or execution.

B. Interested in project but does not participate.

C. Opposed to project (please explain).
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–5

12. How important were community organizations to the process at various stages?

Planning

A. Very important.

B. Somewhat important.

C. Neutral.

D. Not very important.

E. Unimportant.

Acquisition

A. Very important.

B. Somewhat important.

C. Neutral.

D. Not very important

E. Unimportant.

Construction

A. Very important.

B. Somewhat important.

C. Neutral.

D. Not very important.

E. Unimportant.

Sales and Marketing

A. Very important.

B. Somewhat important.

C. Neutral.

D. Not very important.

E. Unimportant.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–6

13. Were the community organizations that were involved with Homeownership Zone representative of the

community?

A. Very representative.

B. Somewhat representative.

C. Not very representative.

14. If “somewhat” or “not very representative,” please explain. (For example, what constituencies did the

community organizations represent?)

Finance and Leveraging of Funds

Please examine the following summary tables compiled from the most recent quarterly report that we have, dated

_____.

Note: Please refer to the leverage list that you have provided to the administrator. Make sure you can point to the 

figures in the quarterly report copy that you will bring to the site visit.

1. How did you go about leveraging the original Homeownership Zone money?

Crime

1. What steps did you take to reduce crime or reduce the perception of crime in the Homeownership Zone?

2. Do you think these actions were effective?

3. Is there currently less crime in the Homeownership Zone than before the project started?

4. How does crime in the Homeownership Zone compare with crime in the surrounding areas?

Status of the Project

Hand out sheet with original objectives for the site you are visiting.

1. What are your current objectives for home construction and New Urbanism and what is the time period for

achieving these objectives?

2. (If objectives were changed) What was the reason for changing the objectives from those in the original plan?

3. How comprehensively has the neighborhood been revitalized?

4. Other than Homeownership Zone project activities, have special local circumstances contributed to the

Homeownership Zone’s success? Examples include a large employment center or a new transit stop that opened

near the Homeownership Zone. Please indicate what kind of link to the project existed, if any. For example,
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–7

“The opening of the Homeownership Zone was a precondition to the location and construction of the new

transit stop.” Or, “The new transit center was developed independently, but the Homeownership Zone will

benefit from it.”

Problems and Solutions 

Let the respondent know that we have used the quarterly reports to develop our own list of the problems that arose 

during project implementation and have noted which problems were the most serious and how the Homeownership 

Zone administrators approached these problems. Our list also contains strategies or plans the Homeownership Zone 

management team developed to prevent problems. At this point, provide the respondent with the list.

Please take a minute to read this list of problems we have identified.

1. Were other issues or problems encountered, but not described in the quarterly reports, such as the following

issues?

A. Relocation of previous residents.

B. Acquisition.

C. Infrastructure.

D. Environment.

E. Climate.

F. Permits.

G. Working with HUD.

H. Funding.

I. Developers.

J. Neighborhood attitudes.

K. Sales.

L. Postsale counseling.

Please elaborate on any of these issues encountered.

2. How serious were each of these issues (including both problems we list from quarterly reports and new ones

just identified in the previous question)? Please rank them.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–8

Follow each discussion of a problem with a followup question about solutions. Ask interviewees first to verify the 

solutions we listed as documented in the quarterly reports and to identify any solutions we have missed. 

3. How did these problems affect the speed with which you were able to execute the Homeownership Zone

project?

4. What problems still remain unsolved?

5. What do you think were your most successful strategies for achieving the objectives of the Homeownership

Zone, including strategies developed at the start of the project or those developed during the project in response

to emerging problems? Can you rank these strategies?

6. Do you think these strategies could be replicated in other cities? If so, what would be the best way to replicate

them?

7. Overall, what advice would you give a city that is considering setting up a Homeownership Zone?

Relationship With HUD

1. How would you describe your relationship with HUD?

2. Could the national and regional HUD offices have done anything to make the process easier?

National office

___ Yes

___ No

Please explain.

Regional office

___ Yes

___ No

Please explain.

Additional Investments

1. Have any additional non-Homeownership Zone investments occurred in the Homeownership Zone since this

project began? Examples of additional non-Homeownership Zone investments include businesses providing

jobs for residents or neighborhood-oriented stores such as dry cleaners, grocers, clothing stores, restaurants,

and so on.

(If yes) List the businesses and describe them.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–9

A. Do you think these additional investments occurred as a result of the Homeownership Zone activities?

(If yes) What is the connection? How did the Homeownership Zone result in or contribute to attracting the

investment?

(If no) Please explain.

2. Have any additional non-Homeownership Zone investments occurred near the Homeownership Zone since this

project began?

(If yes) List the businesses and describe them.

A. Do you think these additional investments occurred as a result of the Homeownership Zone activities?

(If yes) What is the connection? How did the Homeownership Zone result in or contribute to attracting the

investment?

(If no) Please explain.

Sales and Marketing

1. What methods or strategies were used for marketing the houses?

A. Brochures.

B. Articles in the newspapers.

C. Radio ads.

D. Television ads.

E. Community forums.

F. Internet.

G. Word of mouth.

H. Other (please describe).

2. Which were the most effective strategies?

A. With existing residents?

B. For attracting new residents?

C. With low- and moderate-income residents?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–10

3. Did you work with Realtors to market the units? (If yes) Which were the most helpful or effective ways in

which the Realtors promoted the units and what kinds of incentives did you provide to the Realtors?

4. Did you have any problems getting home builders to participate in the Homeownership Zone program? Which

builders have you used the most?

5. Are there mortgage assistance programs for lower income homebuyers in the Homeownership Zone? (If yes)

Please describe the programs.

6. Did you use incentives like add-ons to units to get people interested in buying homes in the Homeownership

Zone? Examples of add-ons include finished attics, carpeting, appliances, and so on.

7. Have any foreclosures occurred on Homeownership Zone homebuyers? (If yes) How many foreclosures have

occurred? To what do you attribute these foreclosures?

8. Do you have a homebuyer counseling program?

A. (If yes) What have been the key elements for successful homebuyer counseling?

B. (If no) Do you think such a program would have been helpful?

New Urbanism

1. Please describe how the Homeownership Zone constitutes a cohesive neighborhood as outlined in the

Principles for Designing and Planning Homeownership Zones guide.

A coherent unit where adults and children can walk to nearby shopping, services, schools, parks, recreation 

centers, and, in some cases, to their own jobs and businesses; where civic centers can serve as focal points 

for community activity; where streets and blocks are connected with pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths; 

where public transit is readily available to connect with other neighborhoods and communities throughout the 

metropolitan region; where automobiles are convenient to use but do not dominate the most visible aspects 

of the urban landscape with traffic congestion and massive parking lots; and where houses are built closer 

together, with front and back porches and yards, and are grouped around tree-shaded squares, small parks, 

and narrow streets with planting strips.

2. Are amenities integrated within the neighborhood?

3. How diverse is the neighborhood now?

4. Are there more public spaces within the neighborhood? For example, are there places for children and adults

to play, benches for people to sit on, and paths on which they can bike and stroll?

5. Are the newly constructed homes linked to their surroundings or do they stand out as distinct spaces separate

from their surroundings?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–11

6. Has urban blight been reduced? (We define blight as visible evidence of a lack of investment in the area. Blight 

includes abandoned cars, vacant houses, vacant lots, rundown houses, and so on.)

7. Is traffic congestion a problem in the neighborhood?

8. Do people who live in the neighborhood frequently walk through the neighborhood?

9. How much of the neighborhood has been revitalized?

10. Is there an interconnected network of streets within the Homeownership Zone?

11. Is the Homeownership Zone neighborhood—

A. Identifiable?

B. Compact?

C. Pedestrian friendly?

12. Does the design of the streets and buildings reinforce safety?

13. Does the architecture and landscape reflect local history and building practice?

14. If you had to do this project all over again, what would you do differently in terms of accommodating New

Urbanism design principles in the Homeownership Zone?

Residents

Note: For residents and community leaders, we will also need to develop a second set of questions that only 

includes pertinent questions because many people will not be willing to answer all of the questions listed below.

This set of questions is for—

• Residents of Homeownership Zone homes.

• Residents of non-Homeownership Zone homes that are located within the Homeownership Zone boundary.

• Displaced residents living within the Homeownership Zone boundary.

• Displaced residents not living within the Homeownership Zone boundary.

Note: Exceed Corporation’s partner in this research study, Research Triangle Institute International, 

observed that we might not be able to talk with displaced residents. Or, if we are able to talk with them, 

perhaps we only will be able to do so for the indepth case studies. Please see the presite visit procedures 

for an approach on talking with displaced residents.)
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–12

The following questions should be asked of all residents with whom we speak:

1. Are you a—

A. Resident of a Homeownership Zone home?

B. Resident of a non-Homeownership Zone home that is located within the Homeownership Zone boundary?

C. Displaced resident living in the Homeownership Zone boundary?

D. Displaced resident not living in the Homeownership Zone boundary? (If necessary, combine this question 

with the previous one.)

2. Do you know what the approximate boundaries are for the Homeownership Zone?

3. When did you move into the Homeownership Zone area?

4. How involved were you or your neighbors in the community meetings that were held to plan the

Homeownership Zone? (Skip this question if the particular site did not have community meetings. If community 

meetings were held, find out what year in which they occurred and what organization or agency held them. This 

information will help the respondent recall participation.)

The following questions should be asked only of residents of a Homeownership Zone home.

1. Is this the first house you have owned?

2. When you bought your house, where did you get the financing?

3. Was this financing hard to obtain?

4. Did you get any financing assistance?

A. (If yes) Who gave you financing assistance? What kind of help did you get?

5. Was a homebuyer counseling program available to help you buy your home and maintain the mortgage on it?

A. (If yes) Did you take part in this program?

B. What did you do in this program?

C. Was the program helpful?

6. Has the financing package placed undue stress on your monthly budget? If so, what advice about the financing

process and package would you give to people interested in buying new homes in the Homeownership Zone?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–13

7. Is there type of assistance that was not offered that would have made your life easier?

A. (If yes) What would have made your life easier?

8. Are you satisfied with owning a home in this neighborhood?

9. Do you like your neighborhood?

10. Do you like it better now than before the Homeownership Zone project began?

Assessment of Specific Homeownership Zone Features

The following questions are organized by topic. They can be asked of anyone with whom we talk to. These questions 

ask about the current state of things in the Homeownership Zone. When we are speaking with someone who was 

living in the area before the Homeownership Zone project began, we can also ask if these things have changed since 

the Homeownership Zone began.

Transportation

1. Is it easy to walk to transit stops?

2. How close is the nearest public transit stop?

3. Are you satisfied with public transportation in your neighborhood?

4. Is traffic congestion a problem within the Homeownership Zone?

Employment (If respondent is employed)

1. Are you currently—

A. Employed?

B. Between jobs?

C. Retired?

2. Do you think there is there enough work in or near your neighborhood?

3. Is it easy to get to work?

4. How do you get to work? Do you drive, use public transportation, or walk?

5. How long does it take you to get to work?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–14

Shopping

1. Is there shopping within your neighborhood?

2. Is it easy to get to stores?

3. Do you walk to stores?

4. Are you satisfied with the shopping in your neighborhood?

Community Centers

1. Are there community centers near you?

2. Is it easy to get to the community centers?

3. Do you walk to them?

4. Are you satisfied with the community centers in your neighborhood?

Public Spaces

1. Does your neighborhood have good public spaces, benches, play areas for children, walkways, spaces between

houses or between houses and sidewalks, parks, plazas, and so on?

2. Do you use these parks and other public spaces?

3. Do you spend time with your neighbors in these places?

4. Is it easy to get to these public spaces?

5. Do you walk to them?

Appearance

1. Do the new houses match the other houses in the neighborhood or do they stand out?

2. Do you think the new houses look nice?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–15

Safety

1. Do you consider crime a problem in your neighborhood?

2. How bad are the following problems in your neighborhood?

A. Abandoned houses.

B. Crime.

C. Drugs.

3. Does your neighborhood have less crime than surrounding neighborhoods do?

Neighborhood Diversity

1. Does your neighborhood have people of many races, income levels, and ages?

2. Have a lot of new people moved into the neighborhood?

Schools

1. Are there school-age children in your household?

2. Are there schools within your neighborhood?

3. Are you satisfied with these schools?

4. Is it easy to walk to the schools in your neighborhood?

Recreation

1. Does your neighborhood have good places for recreation? Examples of recreation places include restaurants,

bowling alleys, movie theaters, and so on.

2. Are you satisfied with the types of recreation you have available?

3. Is it easy to get to these recreation areas?

4. Do you walk to them?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–16

Community Organization Background

This set of questions is for—

• Leaders of neighborhood associations (that is, organizations whose members are residents and are either 

homeowners or tenants).

• Representatives of other types of organizations.

1. Is the community organization that you represent a residential membership organization? Put another way, is it

a grassroots organization of residents?

A. (If yes) Is the organization composed of a broad base of—

a. Tenants?

b. Homeowners?

c. Both tenants and homeowners?

B. (If no) Is the organization a—

a. Community-based development organization?

b. Faith-based organization? Please explain.

c. Other type of organization? Please explain.

2. Which area(s) or neighborhood(s) does your organization represent?

3. Do you know what the approximate boundaries are for the Homeownership Zone?

4. Did your community organization—

A. Predate the Homeownership Zone? (If yes) How active was your organization before the Homeownership

Zone began?

B. Begin in response to the Homeownership Zone? (If yes) Describe how the organization evolved.

5. Has your community organization played a role in the Homeownership Zone project during—

A. Planning?

a. Were you consulted on a regular basis?

b. (If yes) How often? Who consulted with you?

c. Were you consulted at critical decision points?

d. (If yes) What did you consider the critical decision points to be?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–17

e. Do you think this was the right amount of involvement?

— Yes, this was the right amount of involvement.

— No, we were not involved enough.

— No, we were too involved.

B. Home construction?

a. Were you consulted on a regular basis?

b. (If yes) How often? Who consulted with you? 

c. Were you consulted at critical decision points?

d. (If yes) What did you consider the critical decision points to be? 

e. Do you think this was the right amount of involvement?

— Yes, this was the right amount of involvement.

— No, we were not involved enough.

— No, we were too involved.

C. Marketing of the new homes to potential residents?

a. Were you consulted on a regular basis?

b. (If yes) How often? Who consulted with you?

c. Were you consulted at critical decision points?

d. (If yes) What did you consider the critical decision points to be?

e. Do you think this was the right amount of involvement?

— Yes, this was the right amount of involvement.

— No, we were not involved enough.

— No, we were too involved.

6. How did your organization get involved in the process?

7. Was your organization’s input sought out by the program administrators?

8. Did you feel like your involvement was welcomed? (If not) (Please explain.)

9. Describe your meetings, community activities, and other activities.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–18

10. How often did you meet?

11. Who attends your meetings?

12. To what extent is your organization representative of the entire community of residents in the Homeownership

Zone?

Assessment of Homeownership Zone Administration

1. From your perspective, what were the biggest problems that the Homeownership Zone project experienced?

2. What were the best solutions to these problems?

3. What do you consider to be the most important benefits of the Homeownership Zone?

4. If you had to do the project over again, what would you do differently?

5. How comprehensive has redevelopment been in the Homeownership Zone area? (For example, how much

redevelopment has occurred? How wide an area does this redevelopment cover?)

6. What amount of public, private, political, and financial support was developed in support of the

Homeownership Zone project?

7. Not including investment in new home construction, has there been increased business investment such as new

businesses, stores, and restaurants in the community as a result of the Homeownership Zone program?

8. How effective has the Homeownership Zone been at building partnerships?

9. Have these partnerships contributed to the success of the Homeownership Zone? (If yes) How have the

partnerships contributed to its success?

10. Has the Homeownership Zone process empowered the residents of the Homeownership Zone area?

Assessment of Specific Homeownership Zone Features

The following questions are organized by topic. We can ask these of people whether their organizations predate 

the Homeownership Zone. We can do this because the questions ask about the current state of things in the area, 

not how they have changed. When we are speaking with someone from an organization that does predate the 

Homeownership Zone project, we can also ask if the following items have changed since the Homeownership Zone 

started. 

Transportation

1. Is it easy to walk to transit stops within the Homeownership Zone?

2. Do you know how many public transit stops are in the Homeownership Zone?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–19

3. Does the Homeownership Zone contain recently upgraded transportation links?

4. Is traffic congestion a problem within the Homeownership Zone?

Employment

1. Is there employment nearby for Homeownership Zone residents?

2. Is it easy for these residents to get to work?

3. Do you know who the largest employers are in the Homeownership Zone?

A. (If yes) Can you list these employers?

Shopping

1. Is shopping located within the neighborhood?

A. (If yes) Are there grocery stores?

B. Are there clothing stores?

C. Are there department stores?

D. Are there hardware stores?

E. Are there pharmacies?

2. Is it easy for residents to get to stores?

3. Do people walk to stores in the area?

4. Are residents satisfied with the shopping in or near the Homeownership Zone?

Community Centers

1. Are there community centers within the Homeownership Zone?

2. Is it easy for residents to get to community centers?

3. Do residents walk to them?

4. Are residents satisfied with the community centers in the area?

Public Spaces

1. Does the Homeownership Zone have good public spaces, benches, play areas for children, walkways, spaces

between houses or between houses and sidewalks, parks, plazas, and so on?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–20

2. Do residents use these parks and other public spaces?

3. Do residents spend time with their neighbors in these places?

4. Is it easy for residents to get to these public spaces?

Appearance

1. Do the new houses match the other houses in the neighborhood or do they stand out?

2. Do you think the new houses look nice?

3. Does the neighborhood have a problem with abandoned cars or other abandoned items like discarded furniture

and other trash?

4. Has blight been reduced in the neighborhood? (We define blight as visible evidence of a lack of investment in the 

area. Blight includes abandoned cars, vacant houses, vacant lots, rundown houses, and so on.)

Safety

1. Do you consider crime a problem in the neighborhood?

2. How bad are the following problems within the Homeownership Zone?

A. Abandoned houses.

B. Crime.

C. Drugs.

3. Does this neighborhood have less crime than surrounding neighborhoods do?

Neighborhood Diversity

1. Does the Homeownership Zone neighborhood have people of many races, income levels, and ages?

2. Have many new people moved into the Homeownership Zone area?

Schools

1. Are there schools within the neighborhood?

2. Are residents satisfied with these schools?

3. Is it easy to walk to the schools in this neighborhood?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–21

Recreation

1. Does the Homeownership Zone have good places for recreation? Examples of recreation places include

restaurants, bowling alleys, movie theaters, and so on.

2. Is it easy to get to these recreation areas?

3. Do residents tend to walk to them?

Observational Tour of the Neighborhood—Things to Look For

1. Is there a centrally located park, a central plaza, or some other area of focus within the Homeownership Zone?

A. (If yes) What is this central feature?

2. Was this feature present before the Homeownership Zone started or was it built as part of the development

process?

3. Do all streets have sidewalks or are sidewalks in the process of being constructed?

A. (If no) What estimated percentage of streets has sidewalks?

B. (If yes) Were these sidewalks present before the Homeownership Zone started or were they built as a part of

the development process?

4. Are there bicycle paths in the Homeownership Zone?

A. (If yes) Were these paths present before the Homeownership Zone started or were they built as a part of the

development process?

B. How many bike paths does the Homeownership Zone contain?

C. Where are these paths located within the Homeownership Zone?

D. Do these paths appear easy to use?

E. How many people did you see using them during the site visit? 

5. What do the Homeownership Zone and the surrounding area look like? Check specifically for items and

conditions in the following charts.
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–22

6. Do new buildings look like preexisting ones? (Look at both the Homeownership Zone and the surrounding area.)

7. What type of commercial development is present in the—

Homeownership Zone?

___None.

___Basic services (grocery stores, for

example).

___Other shopping (for example,

clothing, hardware, or furniture

stores).

Surrounding Area?

___None.

___Basic services (grocery stores, for example).

___Other shopping (for example, clothing, hardware, or

furniture stores).

Physical Appearance—Residential

Homeownership Zone Surrounding Area

Abandoned buildings Abandoned buildings

None Some Many None Some Many

Abandoned lots Abandoned lots

None Some Many None Some Many

Debris on streets, sidewalks, or abandoned lots Debris on streets, sidewalks, or abandoned lots

None Some Lots of debris None Some Lots of debris

Abandoned vehicles Abandoned vehicles

None Some Many None Some Many

Number of cars that are new and in good condition Number of cars that are new and in good condition

None Some Many None Some Many

Physical Appearance—Commercial

Homeownership Zone Surrounding Area

Vacancies Vacancies

None Some Many None Some Many

Abandoned buildings Abandoned buildings

None Some Many None Some Many

Abandoned lots Abandoned lots

None Some Lots of debris None Some Lots of debris

Debris on streets, sidewalks, or abandoned lots Debris on streets, sidewalks, or abandoned lots

None Some Many None Some Many
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–23

8. What type of grocery store is present in the—

Homeownership Zone?

___Major grocery store.

___Mom-and-pop store.

___Both types of stores are present.

Surrounding Area?

___Major grocery store.

___Mom-and-pop store.

___Both types of stores are present.

9. Are people shopping in the zone?

10. Are people using public spaces?

11. To what extent has the transformation of public and private space resulted in greater or lesser community

interaction? Examples of community interaction include people strolling or hanging out on the street or at

community gathering places such as parks and plazas and on bike paths.

12. What are the “shared use” spaces?

As much as possible, please identify these spaces on maps and in reports before your site visit. This preparation 

will help you determine whether these places are preexisting or newly constructed spaces. Alternatively, 

determine the status of shared use spaces through observation or by asking about them during the guided tour. 

Please note that shared space” can be public or private. Public spaces could include parks or community 

centers, for example. Private spaces could include fenced or unfenced spaces between homes that are 

accessible to more than one home. 

A. For each of these spaces, specify below whether the space existed before the Homeownership Zone started

or if it was built as part of the project. Also indicate who, if anyone, you noticed using the space during 

your visit.

Space Preexisting? Built for project? People using the Space

Additional Questions 

Here are some additional questions to ask during the site visit. (We may want to organize this list differently. 

Perhaps we need to incorporate the questions below into the other questions listed above instead of treating them as 

a tacked-on list like this.)

1. Does the Homeownership Zone “feel” like a distinct neighborhood?

2. Is the lighting sufficient at night? (This observation requires driving through the neighborhood at night.)

3. Are the home units in good condition and properly maintained?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

C–24

4. Does there appear to be racial diversity within the Homeownership Zone?

5. Does the neighborhood have significant greenery such as trees, bushes, and flowers or is it a “concrete jungle”?

How does the neighborhood’s landscaping compare with that of the surrounding community?

6. What condition are the streets in?

7. Are yards kept clean and trimmed and are they treated with care?

8. Are there signs of children playing, riding bikes, or otherwise enjoying themselves outdoors?

9. Are civic or community centers present?

10. Are these facilities located centrally so they can become a center of community activity?

11. Are any schools or learning centers located within the Homeownership Zone? Are amenities integrated within the

neighborhood? Please list or describe these amenities.

12. Are there adequate public spaces within the neighborhood? Please list or describe these spaces.

13. Are the new developments linked to their surroundings or do they stand out as distinct spaces separate from their

surroundings?

14. Has urban blight been reduced in the neighborhood? (We define blight as visible evidence of a lack of investment in 

the area. Blight includes abandoned cars, vacant houses, vacant lots, rundown houses, and so on.) 

15. Is traffic congestion a problem in the neighborhood?

16. Are neighborhood amenities such as stores, libraries, and entertainment venues easily accessible?

17. Do the Homeownership Zone’s architecture and landscape reflect local history and building practice?

18. Have historic areas been preserved?
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–1

Appendix D. Maps and Pictures

This appendix includes maps and summary statistics for the 11 active Homeownership Zone (HOZ) areas.

Photographs of the HOZ sites and the new HOZ developments are provided for the indepth case study cities and

the case study cities. Photographs are not included for the less intensive case study cities because these cities had

not made significant progress at the time of this evaluation. Only Baltimore, Indianapolis, and New York City were

nearing completion. Statistics for all of the areas reflect interim data.

More detailed case study information, including maps and statistics for individual HOZ sites, is available upon

request from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Those wishing to learn more about

the individual HOZ strategies and outcomes may wish to directly contact the HOZ community. Appendix E provides

a list of HOZ contacts.

Indepth Case Study Cities

• Cleveland, Ohio—Villages of Central

• Indianapolis, Indiana—Fall Creek Place

• Trenton, New Jersey—Canal Banks

Case Study Cities

• Baltimore, Maryland—Sandtown-Winchester

• Louisville, Kentucky—Park DuValle

• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—Cecil B. Moore

• New York City, New York—Mount Morris

• Sacramento, California—Del Paso Nuevo

Less Intensive Case Study Cities

• Buffalo, New York—Willert Park Village

• Flint, Michigan—University Park

• San Juan, Puerto Rico—Cantera Peninsula
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–2

Baltimore, Maryland

Sandtown-Winchester HOZ

The HOZ is located in West Baltimore. It is bounded by North Avenue on the north, Pennsylvania Avenue on the

east, Lafayette Avenue on the south, and Monroe Street on the west. The Sandtown-Winchester HOZ site consists of

311 acres.

Map

Interim Data

Grant Section 108 All HUD Funds Approval Date Contract

$5,240,000 $6,700,000 $13,795,006 4/8/97 8/4/00

Units Proposed Current Units Completed Completion Date

Scattered 322 236 102 3/30/06

 New 200 66

 Rehabilitated 36 36

Sold (116 units) Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

80% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

81–120% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

More than 120% of 

AMI

Percentage of Units 

Sold to Low-Mod 

Homebuyers

116 100%

AMI = area median income. 

Source: April–June 2004 Homeownership Zone Progress Report 
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–3

2100 Block of Pennsylvania Avenue

2114 Pennsylvania Avenue
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–4

New Homeownership Development
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–5

Rehabilitated Homes—Calhoun Street

Pennsylvania Avenue Shops
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–6

Buffalo, New York

Willert Park HOZ

The HOZ is located in the middle of Buffalo, just to the east of the central business district. It is bounded by Cherry

Street on the north, Adams Street on the east, Seneca Street on the south, and Michigan Avenue on the west. The

Willert Park HOZ site consists of 580 acres.

Map

Interim Data

Grant Section 108 All HUD Funds Approval Date Contract

$5,000,000 $7,675,000 $13,875,000 4/8/97 5/1/98

Units Proposed Current Units Completed Completion Date

Scattered 344 344 125 12/31/08

 New 344 125

 Rehabilitated

Sold (125 units) Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

80% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

81–120% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

More than 120% of 

AMI

Percentage of Units 

Sold to Low-Mod 

Homebuyers

47 74 4 38%

AMI = area median income. 

Source: October–December 2002 Homeownership Zone Progress Report 
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–7

New Development
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–8

Cleveland, Ohio

Villages of Central HOZ

The HOZ is located in Cleveland’s East Side. It is bounded by Cedar Avenue on the north, East 71st Street on the

east, Community College Avenue and Scovill Avenue on the south, and East 36th Street on the west. The Villages of

Central HOZ site consists of 363 acres.

Map

Interim Data

Grant Section 108 All HUD Funds Approval Date Contract

$4,643,965 $12,000,000 $21,053,965 4/8/97 8/4/00

Units Proposed Current Units Completed Completion Date

Scattered 465 465 154 11/30/07

 New 420 153

 Rehabilitated 45 1

Sold (169 units) Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

80% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

81–120% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

More than 120% of 

AMI

Percentage of Units 

Sold to Low-Mod 

Homebuyers

122 41 6 72%

AMI = area median income. 

Source: July–September 2004 Homeownership Zone Progress Report
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–9

New Development
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–10

Before Redevelopment

Infill Housing
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–11

East 68th Street Garden Village—Before and After Redevelopment
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–12

Friendship Village

St. John’s Village East
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–13

St. John’s Village East—Infill Housing

Senior Citizen Housing
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–14

Longwood Commercial Plaza Before and After Redevelopment
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–15

Flint, Michigan

University Park HOZ

The HOZ is located in the middle of Flint. The HOZ consists of two subdivisions that are distinct but connected.

The west subdivision is bounded by Mary Street on the north, Saginaw Street on the east, Fifth Avenue on the south,

and Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue on the west. The east subdivision is bounded by Harriet Street on the north,

Industrial Avenue on the east, Cornelia Street on the south, and Saginaw Street on the west. The University Park

HOZ site consists of 265 acres.

Map

Interim Data

Grant Section 108 All HUD Funds Approval Date Contract

$2,013,000 $0 $7,433,738 3/27/98 8/3/98

Units Proposed Current Units Completed Completion Date

Infill/Compact 309 319 80 Unknown

 New 269 69

 Rehabilitated 50 11

Sold (66 units) Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

80% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

81–120% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

More than 120% of 

AMI

Percentage of Units 

Sold to Low-Mod 

Homebuyers

3 63 5%

AMI = area median income. 

Source: January–March 2004 Homeownership Zone Progress Report
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–16

Vacant Lots Within the Homeownership Zone
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–17

Indianapolis, Indiana

Fall Creek Place HOZ

The HOZ is located 2 miles north of the central business district. It is bounded by Fall Creek on the north,

Broadway Street on the east, 22nd Street on the south, and Meridian Street on the west. The Fall Creek Place HOZ

site consists of 189 acres.

Map

Interim Data

Grant Section 108 All HUD Funds Approval Date Contract

$4,057,500 $0 $13,125,755 3/27/98 8/19/98

Units Proposed Current Units Completed Completion Date

Compact 269 300 261 12/31/05

 New 253 224

 Rehabilitated 47 37

Sold (259 units) Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

80% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

81–120% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

More than 120% of 

AMI

Percentage of Units 

Sold to Low-Mod 

Homebuyers

129 128 2 50%

AMI = area median income. 

Source: July–September 2004 Homeownership Zone Progress Report
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–18

Entrance Marker

New Development
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–19

Welcome Center 

Development Phases 
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–20

23rd Street and Pennsylvania Street Before and After Redevelopment
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–21

2400 Block of Delaware Street Before and After Redevelopment
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–22

Completed HOZ
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–23

Louisville, Kentucky

Park DuValle HOZ

The HOZ is located in Louisville’s West End, 6 miles from the central business district. It is bounded by Russell Lee

Park on the north, Algonquin Park on the east, Algonquin Parkway on the south, and Interstate 264 on the west. The

Park DuValle HOZ site consists of 191 acres.

Map

Interim Data

Grant Section 108 All HUD Funds Approval Date Contract

$4,600,000 $5,000,000 $23,770,000 4/8/97 10/31/98

Units Proposed Current Units Completed Completion Date

Compact 300 300 186 4/30/08

 New 300 186

 Rehabilitated

Sold (186 units) Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

80% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

81–120% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

More than 120% of 

AMI

Percentage of Units 

Sold to Low-Mod 

Homebuyers

96 42 48 52%

AMI = area median income. 

Source: October–December 2004 Homeownership Zone Progress Report
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–24

Marketing New Homes

New Development
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–25

New Homes Under Construction

Sales Office
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–26

New Homeownership Housing—Phase 3A

New Homeownership Housing—Phase 2A
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–27

New Homeownership Housing
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–28

New Rental Housing
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–29

Rental Office and Community Center

Community Center 
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–30

Town Center Community Health Center

Town Center Rental Housing
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–31

Town Center Commercial Space
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–32

New York City, New York

Mount Morris HOZ

The HOZ is located in Harlem, in northern Manhattan. It is bounded by 125th Street on the north, Park Avenue on

the east, 116th Street on the south, and Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard on the west. The Mount Morris HOZ site

consists of 184 acres.

Map

Interim Data

Grant Section 108 All HUD Funds Approval Date Contract

$4,654,500 $0 $4,654,500 3/27/98 9/24/98

Units Proposed Current Units Completed Completion Date

Scattered 120 121 109 7/31/05

 New 121 109

 Rehabilitated

Sold (121 units) Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

80% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

81–120% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

More than 120% of 

AMI

Percentage of Units 

Sold to Low-Mod 

Homebuyers

64 57 53%

AMI = area median income. 

Source: April–June 2004 Homeownership Zone Progress Report
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–33

Before Redevelopment
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–34

Shabazz Gardens
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–35

Mount Morris Homes
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–36

Madison Park Homes

Fifth Avenue Homes
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–37

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Cecil B. Moore HOZ

The HOZ is located in North Central Philadelphia, just a few miles from the central business district. It is bounded

by Montgomery Avenue on the north, North Bouvier Street on the east, Master Street on the south, and North 20th

Street on the west. The Cecil B. Moore HOZ site consists of 64 acres.

Map

Interim Data

Grant Section 108 All HUD Funds Approval Date Contract

$5,520,000 $18,000,000 $29,278,215 4/8/97 8/14/98

Units Proposed Current Units Completed Completion Date

Scattered 296 296 142 3/31/08

 New 225 105

 Rehabilitated 71 37

Sold (126 units) Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

80% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

81–120% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

More than 120% of 

AMI

Percentage of Units 

Sold to Low-Mod 

Homebuyers

90 36 71%

AMI = area median income. 

Source: July–September 2004 Homeownership Zone Progress Report
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–38

Before Redevelopment
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–39

Rehabilitated Housing
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–40

Historic Rehabilitation Under Way

New Homeownership Housing
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–41

Charter School
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–42

Sacramento, California

Del Paso Nuevo HOZ

The HOZ is located in northern Sacramento. It is bounded by Silver Eagle Road and Interstate 80 on the north,

Marysville Road on the east, Arcade Creek on the south, and the East Main Drainage Canal and Norwood Avenue

on the west. The Del Paso Nuevo HOZ site consists of 163 acres.

Map

Interim Data

Grant Section 108 All HUD Funds Approval Date Contract

$5,000,000 $5,455,000 $10,455,000 4/8/97 9/3/98

Units Proposed Current Units Completed Completion Date

Compact 300 300 77 7/31/08

 New 300 77

 Rehabilitated

Sold (77 units) Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

80% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

81–120% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

More than 120% of 

AMI

Percentage of Units 

Sold to Low-Mod 

Homebuyers

40 30 7 52%

AMI = area median income. 

Source: July–September 2004 Homeownership Zone Progress Report
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–43

Before HOZ Development

New Development
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–44

Completed Homes—Phase 1

Model Home Opening
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–45

New Homeownership Housing
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–46

Park

New and Rehabilitated Homes
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–47

Private Infill Development

Decorative Tile Markers
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–48

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Cantera Peninsula HOZ

The HOZ is a peninsula on the northern edge of San Juan. It is bounded by the Las Casas public housing project on

the north and west, the San Jose Lagoon on the east, and the Martin Pena Canal on the south. The Cantera Peninsula

HOZ site consists of 290 acres.

Map

Interim Data

Grant Section 108 All HUD Funds Approval Date Contract

$3,500,000 $0 $7,299,740 3/27/98 7/17/98

Units Proposed Current Units Completed Completion Date

Scattered 304 277 62 unknown

 New 277 62

 Rehabilitated

Sold (50 units) Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

80% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

81–120% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

More than 120% of 

AMI

Percentage of Units 

Sold to Low-Mod 

Homebuyers

50 100%

AMI = area median income. 

Source: April–June 2004 Homeownership Zone Progress Report
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–49

Trenton, New Jersey

Canal Banks HOZ

The HOZ is adjacent to the central business district. It is bounded by Pennington Avenue on the north, Bank Street

on the east, West Hanover Street on the south, and Prospect Street on the west. The Canal Banks HOZ site consists

of 213 acres.

Map

Interim Data

Grant Section 108 All HUD Funds Approval Date Contract

$3,875,000 $0 $5,730,748 3/27/98 7/8/98

Units Proposed Current Units Completed Completion Date

Infill/Scattered 250 287 148 12/31/08

 New 174 125

 Rehabilitated 113 23

Sold (143 units) Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

80% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

81–120% of AMI

Number of Units Sold 

to Homebuyers With 

More than 120% of 

AMI

Percentage of Units 

Sold to Low-Mod 

Homebuyers

123 20 86%

AMI = area median income. 

Source: July–September 2004 Homeownership Zone Progress Report
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–50

New Home Development

Monument Crossing I
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–51

Development Areas
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–52

Units Acquired for Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation Under Way
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–53

Bellevue Court—Historic Rehabilitation
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–54

Monument Square Townhouses—New Infill Housing

North Willow Green—Before

North Willow Green—After
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

D–55

Willow Green—New Infill Housing

Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

E–1

Appendix E. Homeownership Zone Contacts

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Hal Holzman

Social Science Analyst

Program Evaluation Division

Office of Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

451 Seventh Street SW

Washington, DC 20410–4500

Tel: 202–708–3700 ext. 5709

Fax: 202–708–4250

Email: harold_r._holzman@hud.gov

Ginger Macomber

Homeownership Zone Coordinator

Office of Affordable Housing Programs

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

451 Seventh Street SW

Washington, DC 20410–4500

Tel: 202–708–2684 ext. 4605

Fax: 202–708–1744

Email: ginger_macomber@hud.gov

Sandtown-Winchester Homeownership Zone—Baltimore, Maryland

Paul T. Graziano

Commissioner

Baltimore Housing

417 E. Fayette Street

Suite 334

Baltimore, MD 21202

Tel: 410–396–8050

Fax: 410–396–7771

Email: paul.graziano@baltimorecity.gov
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

E–2

Clint Tearnan

Economic Development Officer/Homeownership Zone Coordinator

Baltimore Housing

417 E. Fayette Street

Baltimore, MD 21202

Tel: 410–396–1652

Fax: 410–685–5947

Email: clint.tearnan@baltimorecity.gov

Willert Park Village Homeownership Zone—Buffalo, New York

Timothy E. Wanamaker

Executive Director

Office of Strategic Planning

920 City Hall

65 Niagra Street

Buffalo, NY 14202–3376

Tel: 716–851–5035

Fax: 716–854–0172

Email: twanamaker@city-buffalo.com

Villages of Central Homeownership Zone—Cleveland, Ohio

Daryl P. Rush

Director

Department of Community Development

601 Lakeside Avenue

Cleveland, OH 44114

Tel: 216–664–4000

Fax: 216–664–4006

Email: drush@city.cleveland.oh.us
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

E–3

Althea Ray

Project Manager/Homeownership Zone Coordinator

Department of Community Development

601 Lakeside Avenue

Suite 320

Cleveland, OH 44114

Tel: 216–664–4098

Fax: 216–420–7965

Email: aray@city.cleveland.oh.us

University Park Homeownership Zone—Flint, Michigan

Tamar Lewis

Administrator

Major Grants Division

Department of Community and Neighborhood Services

120 E. 5th Street

Room N102

Flint, MI 48502

Tel: 810–766–7426 ext. 3001

Fax: 810–766–7351

Email: tlewis@cityofflint.com

Fall Creek Place Homeownership Zone—Indianapolis, Indiana

Maury Plambeck

Director

Office of Metropolitan Development

200 E. Washington Street

Suite 2042

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Tel: 317–327–3341

Fax: 317–327–5858

Email: mplambec@indygov.org
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

E–4

Jennifer Green

Project Manager/Homeownership Zone Coordinator

Office of Metropolitan Development

200 E. Washington Street

Suite 2042

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Tel: 317–327–5861

Fax: 317–327–5908

Email: jcgreen@indygov.org

Park DuValle Homeownership Zone—Louisville, Kentucky

Melissa Barry

Director

Louisville Metro Housing and Community Development

745 West Main Street

Suite 300

Louisville, KY 40202–2633

Tel: 502–574–3107 ext. 2322

Fax: 502–574–4199

Email: melissa.barry@louisvilleky.gov

Stephen R. Ward

Assistant Director/Homeownership Zone Coordinator

Louisville Metro Housing and Community Development

745 West Main Street

Suite 300

Louisville, KY 40202–2633

Tel: 502–574–4315

Fax: 502–574–1850

Email: sward@louky.org
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

E–5

Mount Morris Homeownership Zone—New York City, New York

Wendell B. Walters

Assistant Commissioner

Homeownership Programs

Department of Housing Preservation and Development

100 Gold Street

New York, NY 10036

Tel: 212–863–6240

Fax: 212–863–8055

Email: waltersw@hpd.nyc.gov

Lenny Seif

Deputy Director/Homeownership Zone Coordinator

New Homes Programs

Department of Housing Preservation and Development

100 Gold Street

Room 9P12

New York, NY 10036

Tel: 212–863–6421

Fax: 212–863–8055

Email: LS9@hpd.nyc.gov

Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone—Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Deborah McColloch

Director

Office of Housing and Community Development

1234 Market Street

17th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19107

Tel: 215–686–9750

Fax: 215–686–9801

Email: deborah.mccolloch@phila.gov
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

E–6

Scott Wilds

Deputy Director

Office of Housing and Community Development

1234 Market Street

17th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19107

Tel: 215–686–9774

Fax: 215–686–9801

Email: scott.wilds@phila.gov

Del Paso Nuevo Homeownership Zone—Sacramento, California

Anne Moore

Executive Director

Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

630 I Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Tel: 916–440–1319

Fax: 916–441–1197

Email: amoore@shra.org

Steve Lierly

Housing Finance Analyst/Homeownership Zone Coordinator

Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency

P.O. Box 1834

Sacramento, CA 95812–1834

Tel: 916–440–1399 ext. 1256

Fax: 916–442–6736

Email: slierly@shra.org
Rebuilding America’s Cities

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

An Interim Evaluation of HUD’s Homeownership Zone Initiative

Final Report

E–7

Cantera Peninsula Homeownership Zone—San Juan, Puerto Rico

Hector Tamayo

Executive Director

Department of Housing

P.O. Box 362136

San Juan, PR 00936–2138

Tel: 787–722–8088 ext. 2323

Fax: 787–725–7715

Canal Banks Homeownership Zone—Trenton, New Jersey

Taneshia Laird

Acting Director

Division of Housing Production

319 E. State Street

Trenton, NJ 08608

Tel: 609–989–3603

Fax: 609–989–4243

Email: tlaird@trentonnj.org

Henrietta Owusu

Project Coordinator/Homeownership Zone Coordinator

Division of Housing Production

319 E. State Street

Trenton, NJ 08608

Tel: 604–989–3607

Fax: 604–989–4243

Email: howusu@trentonnj.org