CITY OF HOLLYWOOD
HOUSING MASTER PLAN 2025–2026
Prepared for City of Hollywood, FL
Prepared by GAI Consultants’ Community Solutions Group
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD
HOUSING MASTER PLAN 2025–2026 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CONSULTANT TEAM
CITY LEADERSHIP
Laura Smith, MPA, CRE, FRA-RA | Urban Analytics Director
Raelin Storey | City Manager
Natalie Frazier, MBA, FRA-RA | Urban Analytics Manager
Adam Reichbach | Deputy City Manager
Owen Beitsch, PhD, FAICP, CRE | Senior Advisor
Jose Cortes | Assistant City Manager
Britney Broxton, MPA | Project Analyst
Andria Wingett | Director of Development Services
Andrew McCown, AICP | Urban Planning Director
Ryon Coote | Director of the Office of Housing and Community Development
Claudia Ray | Senior Urban Planner Hannah Hollinger, LEED AP O+M | Senior Urban Planner
Cameron Palmer, AICP, MCIP-I | Assistant Director of Development Services/Chief Planner
GAI Consultants’ Community Solutions Group
Nicole Moyo | Principal Planner, Long Range Planning and Urban Design
618 East South Street, Suite 700
Donna Biederman | Community Development Program Manager
Orlando, FL 32801
Anand Balram, MCIP-I | Special Projects and Administrative Manager
(321) 319.3088
Angela Blaine | Project Manager, Community Court Coordinator Adrian Montoya, AICP | Project Manager, Long Range Planning and Urban Design City of Hollywood 2600 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, FL 33020
This document has been prepared by GAI Consultants, Inc. on behalf of the City of Hollywood, Broward County, FL.
FINAL July 2026
TABLE OF CONTENTS
01 02 03 04
Introduction & Defining the Study Area
Existing Conditions & Housing Needs Assessment
Housing Demand & Affordability Analysis
Strategic Action Plan & Next Steps
02
18
98
124
SECTION ONE:
INTRODUCTION & DEFINING THE STUDY AREA
Section One: Introduction & Defining the Study Area 1.1 Introduction....................................................... 4 1.2 Defining the Study Area.. ................................ 5 City of Hollywood.. ...................................................................................5 Map Series.................................................................................................. 8 Census Tract Boundaries................................................................... 8 Existing Land Use................................................................................... 9 Future Land Use.................................................................................... 10 Zoning...........................................................................................................11
1.3 Housing Terminology & Typology. . ..............12
Housing Terminology..........................................................................12 Housing Typology.................................................................................13 Housing Continuum.. ............................................................................14
1.4 Data Limitations. . ............................................16
Small Area Data Limitations.. .......................................................... 16 General Population Estimates and Projections Limitations.................................................................................................17 Calculation of Residential Supply Limitations.......................17
North Beach Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
About this Section This section titled Introduction and Defining the Study Area outlines the purpose of the Housing Master Plan (“Study”) and establishes the boundaries of the Study Area. This section offers a high-level overview of the City of Hollywood and its defining characteristics. This section also includes a map series illustrating the Census Tract boundaries primarily located within the City, Existing Land Uses, Future Land Use designations, and Zoning classifications for the Study Area. It identifies and explains any significant data limitations considered throughout the course of this Study.
Section 1.1
Introduction GAI Consultants’ Community Solutions Group (“GAI” or “CSG”) was retained by the City of Hollywood, Florida (“Client” or “City”) to evaluate the current housing market and identify opportunities to enhance and diversify housing options within the City. This effort includes aligning strategies and funding from higher levels of government with land use and development initiatives to support the City’s long-term goals through a Housing Master Plan (“Study”). This Study provides a comprehensive analysis of the City’s current housing supply and future housing needs to support anticipated population growth. It evaluates the existing state of residential development; considers historical trends in population and housing activity; and projects future growth in population, housing, and employment demand to determine whether sufficient land supply exists. Methodologies employed in the evaluations, assessments, and analyses conducted in each phase of this Study are defined—including data source references—within the respective sections. To support any observations, the Study examines demographic and socio-economic trends, the existing housing inventory, overall housing production, regulatory policies affecting residential development, and local and regional factors influencing housing availability, affordability, and related issues. Special attention is given to workforce housing and affordable housing needs, including assisted, subsidized, and income-restricted units. It also includes community engagement efforts to understand local needs, aspirations, and challenges. Lastly, the Study presents strategic recommendations, both programmatic and policy, for short-, mid-, and long-term actions to ensure an adequate housing supply for current and future needs. These strategies will incorporate innovative financing, land use regulations, construction methods, and housing types. They will also address affordability; explore supply and labor challenges; and consider gentrification impacts, mitigation measures, and the protection of legacy residents. The Study is being conducted in three (3) phases over the course of an 8-month period, as illustrated in the graphic on the following page.
| 4 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Figure 1. Housing Master Plan Phased Approach
PH ASE 1
PH AS E 2
Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment
P HAS E 3
Housing Demand Affordability Analysis
Existing Policy Framework and Regulatory Environment
Future Housing Needs Forecast
Housing Needs Assessment
Housing Affordability Assessment
Public Engagement
Strategic Action Plan
Final Consolidated Housing Master Plan
Visioning Financing Alignment Land Use Policy Recommendations Monitoring and Evaluation
Section 1.2
Defining the Study Area City of Hollywood The City of Hollywood (“City”) is located in southeastern Broward County (“County”), Florida, positioned east of Interstate 75 and south of Interstate 595, with Interstate 95 and Florida’s Turnpike running through it, and the Atlantic Ocean bordering it to the east. Founded by Joseph Young in 1925, the City is a beachfront community situated between Miami and Ft. Lauderdale. Covering roughly 30.8 square miles (27.3 square miles of land and 3.5 square miles of water, including about 6.5 miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline), it is the County’s third-largest municipality, home to
about 159,100 permanent residents representing a population density of 5,830 persons per square mile. Additionally, the City contains approximately 69,850 housing units, with an average household size of 2.6 persons per household and an average home value of $475,200. The Housing Needs Assessment (Section 2.2) provides an in-depth look at the City’s historic and current demographic and socio-economic profile, with County-wide references included for additional context. Section 1: Introduction and Defining the Study Area | 5 |
Beyond its residential offerings, the City boasts more than 60 parks, 7 golf courses, 7 miles of scenic beaches, and the iconic Hollywood Beach Boardwalk, a 2.5-mile oceanfront promenade that serves as a major recreational and tourism destination. Other major recreational and tourism anchors include the ArtsPark at Young Circle, a hub for arts, entertainment, and community events in Downtown Hollywood; and the Anne Kolb Nature Center, a unique coastal mangrove preserve featuring an observation tower, aquarium, and Eco-educational programs. Additionally, the City’s Historic Downtown district offers a lively mix of cultural arts, dining, and nightlife, making it a popular destination for both residents and visitors. Moreover, adjacent to the City’s municipal boundaries is the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino, a world-class resort and entertainment destination.
In addition to these prominent neighborhoods, the City contains numerous subdivisions, such as Hollywood Beach Gardens, Hollywood Little Ranches, and Beverly Park, which contribute to the diversity of housing options available.
Further, the City has evolved into a dynamic business hub with over 10,000 companies, and is closely tied to Port Everglades, the world’s second-busiest cruise port, with approximately 80% of Port Everglades operations occurring within the City. Residents and visitors also benefit from convenient access to Fort LauderdaleHollywood International Airport and Miami International Airport. The City is also a center for healthcare, hosting the Memorial Healthcare System, one of the nation’s largest public healthcare systems; along with Memorial Regional Hospital and Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital, the largest free-standing pediatric facility within the County.
For the purposes of this Study, the City of Hollywood as a whole defines the Study Area (“City” or “Study Area”) and serves as the basis for analyzing broader socio-economic and demographic factors that influence future housing demand. Because neighborhood boundaries do not align with Census Tract boundaries, Census Tracts were utilized as the primary unit of analysis to represent concentrations of key variables throughout the Study Area. Although not the primary focus of this Study, information and data for the County and broader region, where relevant are also examined or presented for additional context.
The City also features 19 distinct neighborhoods, each offering its own character and lifestyle. Among the most notable are Hollywood Beach, Hollywood Hills, Hollywood Lakes, Emerald Hills, and Boulevard Heights—areas recognized for their unique blend of coastal charm, suburban appeal, and historic significance.
| 6 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Collectively, these neighborhoods range from exclusive waterfront enclaves and historic districts to more affordable residential pockets, creating a rich tapestry of living environments. This diversity supports a wide array of housing preferences, from luxury oceanfront properties to traditional single-family homes and multifamily developments—ensuring the City remains an inclusive, dynamic community for residents of varying incomes and lifestyles. Today, Hollywood continues to grow as a coastal city rich in amenities, economic opportunity, and community character.
The following map series (Figures 2–6) illustrates Census Tract boundaries primarily located within the City, along with Existing Land Uses, Future Land Use designations, and Zoning classifications for the Study Area. These maps provide a visual framework for understanding the City’s development patterns and regulatory context, supporting the analysis of housing needs and opportunities.
Legend Broward County City of Hollywood
Figure 2. Study Area Map Section 1: Introduction and Defining the Study Area | 7 |
| 8 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Map Series Census Tract Boundaries The map below illustrates the boundaries of Census Tracts that fall primarily within the City’s municipal boundaries. In total, 34 Census Tracts are entirely contained within the City limits, while an additional 7 partially overlap the City’s municipal boundaries. Among these, the largest tract wholly within the City is Census Tract 901.02, which runs north–south along the Atlantic Ocean.
Figure 3. City of Hollywood Census Tract Boundaries Map
The following section, Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment, provides a visual representation of the distribution of key demographic and socio-economic variables across these tracts, based on Census data. For Census Tracts that span both the City and County, tract‑level data were apportioned to the City based on the percentage of tract acreage within City boundaries.
Legend City of Hollywood Census Tract Boundaries
Section 1: Introduction and Defining the Study Area | 9 |
Existing Land Use The map below depicts the Existing Land Use (“ELU”) designations for parcels within the City, with the legend illustrating the distribution of total land area by ELU category. According to the 2025 Broward County Final Tax Roll, the City’s 63,144 parcels account for a total of 16,178 acres. Of this total, Residential accounts for the largest share, at 43.2% of the total share. Additionally, Vacant Lands collectively (i.e., vacant residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and government) account for about 5.4% of the total land acres, while Centrally Assessed and
Figure 4. City of Hollywood Existing Land Use Map
Right‑of‑Way lands represent 10% of the overall acreage within the City. Of the vacant land, vacant residential represents the highest proportion, at 3.5%. This was followed by vacant governmental (0.9%), commercial (0.5%), industrial (0.4%), and institutional (0.05%). Because the City is bounded by surrounding municipalities and natural barriers, opportunities for outward expansion are limited. As the City approaches build-out, future growth will be driven largely by infill development and redevelopment.
Legend City of Hollywood Residential..............................................43.2% Vacant/Support.......................................... 3.5% Single-Family............................................ 33.6% Multi-Family (<10 Units).......................... 3.3% Multi-Family (10+ Units)...........................2.7% Commercial.............................................. 6.2% Vacant.............................................................. 0.5% General............................................................ 3.1% Auto-Related............................................... 0.6% Hotel................................................................. 0.4% Mixed-Use.....................................................0.3% Office................................................................. 1.3% Industrial.................................................... 4.4% Vacant.............................................................. 0.4% General........................................................... 0.5% Airport.............................................................. 0.1% Warehousing................................................ 3.4% Utilities/Parking Lots....................... 3.2% Institutional............................................... 2.4% Vacant........................................................... 0.05% General........................................................... 2.3% Governmental.......................................... 8.6% Vacant..............................................................0.9% General............................................................ 7.7% Open Space............................................ 16.0% Agricultural....................................................0.2% Parks................................................................12.1% Golf Courses................................................ 3.7% Rights of Way/Centrally Assessed....10.0% Water.................................................... 5.9%
| 10 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Future Land Use The map below depicts the Future Land Use (“FLU”) designations for parcels within the City, with the legend illustrating the distribution of total land area by FLU category. According to the 2025 Broward County Final Tax Roll, the City’s 63,144 parcels account for a total of 16,178 acres. Of this total, Low Residential FLU accounts for the largest share, at 32.8%, followed by Open Space and Recreation and Transportation with 11.9% and 8.5%, respectively, of this total share. Collectively, all residential FLU
Figure 5. City of Hollywood Future Land Use Map
categories, including high-, medium-high, medium-, low-medium, and low-residential, represent about 44.4% of the City’s total land area. Broward County’s Comprehensive Plan, BrowardNEXT, establishes the maximum density and intensity of Future Land Use designations within the City; accordingly, the City is required to remain consistent with the County’s overall Land Use Plan.
Legend City of Hollywood Commercial Flex......................... 0.1% Community Facility....................2.7% Conservation............................... 8.9% Diplomat Activity Center............................................. 0.1% General Business....................... 4.3% High (50) Residential................ 0.4% Medium-High (25) Residential..................................... 1.1% Medium (16) Residential.......... 6.0% Low-Medium (10) Residential.................................... 4.1% Low (5) Residential..................32.8% Industrial....................................... 3.6% Intracoastal Waterway............... 1.8% Office............................................. 0.5% Open Space and Recreation.................................. 11.9% Regional Activity Center.......... 6.7% Transit-Oriented Corridor........................................ 5.6% Transit-Oriented Development........ 0.2% Transportation............................ 8.5% Utilities.......................................... 0.7%
Section 1: Introduction and Defining the Study Area | 11 |
Zoning The map below depicts the Zoning designations for parcels within the City, with the legend illustrating the distribution of total land area by Zoning category. The City covers approximately 16,178 land acres and includes about 75 distinct Zoning classifications. Of this total acreage, the General Use (GU) district represents the largest share, at 21.7%, followed by Residential Single-Family (RS-6), at 16.6%. Collectively, all residential Zoning categories—including Single-Family (RS-1–RS-10), Multi-Family (RM series), Beach and Boardwalk Residential zones (BRT-25-R, BRT-25-A1A-R, and
Figure 6. City of Hollywood Zoning Designation Map
BWK-25-HD-R), and Residential Planned Development (PUD-R)— account for roughly 44.8% of the City’s total land area. In total, the City maintains 75 distinct zoning districts. Within the Residential Single-Family(“RS”) classification alone, there are 10 separate zoning districts. Of these, four districts—RS-3, RS-5, RS-6, and RS-7—collectively make up approximately one-third of the City’s total land area. This is examined further in Section 2.1.
Legend City of Hollywood AD.............................. 0.5% BRT-25...................0.02% BRT-25-A1A-C..........0.1% BRT-25-A1A-R...... 0.01% BRT-25-C................. 0.3% BRT-25-R...................0.1% BWK-25-HD-C........ 0.2% BWK-25-HD-R....... 0.01% C-1.............................. 0.2% C-2............................. 0.5% C-3.............................. 1.3% C-4............................. 0.3% C-5...............................0.1% CC................................ 1.1% C-JS.......................... 0.2% C-LP............................0.1% C-MU.......................... 1.5% C-SS........................0.03% DH-1............................0.7% DH-2.......................... 0.5% DH-3............................ 1.1% FH-1........................... 0.3% FH-2.......................... 0.9% GU............................. 21.7% HD................................0.1% IM-1..............................1.7% IM-2........................... 0.6% IM-3.............................2.1% LT.................................0.1% MC-1.......................... 0.3% NBDD-CZ............... 0.01% NBDD-DZ................. 0.2% ND-1........................... 0.5% ND-2............................0.1% ND-3............................0.1% N-MU......................... 0.8%
O-1.............................. 0.4% O-2............................. 0.2% O-3...............................0.1% OM...............................0.1% OS............................... 1.3% PD...............................3.4% PEDD.......................... 7.2% PR................................0.1% PS-1........................... 0.3% PS-2............................0.1% PS-3............................0.1% PUD........................... 0.2% PUD-R........................ 1.3% RC-1........................... 0.2% RC-2............................0.1% RM-12......................... 1.3% RM-18......................... 1.9% RM-25........................ 1.8% RM-25-SCB...............0.1% RM-9..........................2.7% RM-WET................... 0.6% RS-10......................0.05% RS-1............................0.7% RS-2.......................... 0.6% RS-3.......................... 5.9% RS-4........................ 0.01% RS-5...........................7.8% RS-6.........................16.6% RS-7............................2.5% RS-8.......................... 0.4% RS-9.......................... 0.3% S-MU.......................... 1.3% SR7 RM-18............... 0.5% SR7 RM-25............0.03% SR7 RM-9................. 0.5% SS.............................. 0.2% TC-1........................... 0.2% TD.............................. 0.3% YC.................................0.1%
Section 1.3
Housing Terminology & Typology To effectively assess the housing composition of the study area, it is essential to establish a clear and consistent understanding of housing terminology and typology. This section introduces the key definitions and classifications that will be used throughout the housing needs assessment to provide context for the analysis and ensure a shared understanding of housing types and conditions. In addition, it outlines the housing continuum, which represents the range of housing options available within a community, from temporary and supportive housing to market-rate and ownership opportunities.
Housing Terminology
It is important to note the significance of terminology when discussing the topic of “Housing”. For example, terms such as Housing Unit and Household, are often mistakenly used interchangeably, resulting in the misuse or misrepresentation of data related to discretely different variables. In its most basic interpretation, a Household is simply an Occupied Housing Unit. Definitions procured from the Census and used for its reporting and tabulations are provided below for clarification of terminology used consistently throughout this Study. Housing Unit – A Housing Unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Occupied Housing Unit – A Housing Unit is occupied if a person or group of persons is living in it at the time or if the occupants are only temporarily absent, for example, on vacation. The persons living in the unit must consider it their usual place of residence or have no usual place of residence elsewhere. The count of Occupied Housing Units is the same as the count of Households.
| 12 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Vacant Housing Unit – A Housing Unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time…unless its occupants are only temporarily absent. In addition, a vacant unit may be one that is entirely occupied by persons who have a usual residence elsewhere. Vacant Units for Rent – This group contains vacant units offered for rent and those [which may also be] offered both for rent and sale. Vacant Units for Sale Only – This group is limited to units for sale only; it excludes units both for rent and for sale. If a unit was located within a multi-unit structure that was for sale as an entire structure, and if the unit was not for rent, it was reported as “held off market.” However, if the individual unit was intended to be occupied by the new owner, it was reported as “for sale.” Vacant Units Rented or Sold – This group consists of vacant units that have been rented or sold but the new renters or owners have not moved in. Vacant Units Held off the Market – Included in this category are units held for occasional use, temporarily occupied by persons with usual residence elsewhere, and vacant for other reasons. Seasonal Vacant Units – This group contains units intended for occupancy only during certain seasons of the year and are found primarily in resort areas. Housing units held for occupancy by migratory labor employed in farm work during the crop season are tabulated as seasonal. Other Vacant – This category is defined as “year-round units which were vacant for reasons other than units available for rent; for sale, only; rented, but not occupied; sold, but not occupied; and seasonal, recreational, and occasional use. Examples include units that are vacant due to foreclosures, personal or family reasons, legal proceedings, being prepared for rent or sale, being held for storage
North Beach Hollywood Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
of household furniture, needing repairs, currently being repaired and/or renovated, specific use housing (e.g., military housing, employee/corporate housing, student housing, etc.), extended absence, abandoned or possibly to be demolished or condemned, or other unknown reasons. Household – Related family members and all other unrelated people, if any, such as lodgers, foster children, wards, or employees who share the same Housing Unit. Group Quarters (“GQ”) – A place where people live or stay in a group living arrangement that is owned or managed by an entity or organization providing housing and/or services for the residents. These services may include custodial or medical care, as well as other types of assistance, and residency is commonly restricted to those receiving these services. This is not a typical household-type living arrangement. GQs include such places as college residence halls, residential treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities, group homes, military barracks, correctional facilities, workers’ dormitories, and facilities for people experiencing homelessness.
Housing Typology
It is important to note the significance of typology when discussing the topic of “Housing”. Defining the housing typology describes what housing exists based on physical form, tenure, density, and function. Definitions procured from the Census and used for its reporting and tabulations are provided below for clarification of typology used consistently throughout this Study.
Single-Family House – Includes detached, semi-detached, row houses, quadplex, and townhouses. Attached units must have a ground-to-roof wall and separate utilities to qualify as single-family. Units stacked vertically or sharing facilities (e.g., attic, basement, HVAC, plumbing, etc.) are not classified as part of the single-family structures. Attached and Detached Single-Family Housing Units – In order for attached units to be classified as single-family structures, each unit must: (1) Be separated by a ground-to roof wall; (2) Have a separate heating system; (3) Have individual meters for public utilities; and (4) Have no units located above or below. If each unit within the building does not meet the conditions above, the building is considered multi-family. Manufactured (Mobile) Home – Defined as a movable dwelling, 8 feet or more wide and 40 feet or more long, designed to be towed on its own chassis, with transportation gear integral to the unit when it leaves the factory, and without need of a permanent foundation. These homes are built in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) building code. Module Home – A module home is a finished 3-dimensional sections of the complete dwelling are built in a factory and transported to the site to be joined together on a permanent foundation. Condominium – A type of ownership in which each owner owns the interior walls of the unit. The owner of each unit also holds a common or joint ownership in all common areas and facilities Section 1: Introduction and Defining the Study Area | 13 |
associated with the unit; such as land, roof, exterior walls, hallways, entrances, elevators, lobbies, etc. Condominium ownership may apply to single-family and multi-family structures. A condominium apartment building is classified with apartment buildings in structures having five units or more, despite the fact that each unit is individually owned. Multi-Family Housing – Residential buildings containing units built one on top of another and/or units built side-by-side that do not have a ground-to-roof wall or have common facilities (e.g., attic, basement, heating plant, plumbing, etc.) Design types for multifamily housing include: Townhouse – Side-by-side housing units that do not meet the definition of single-family houses. Conventional Apartments – These structures have units above and below each other. Households, as defined by the Census, are classified as either family households or non-family households. Definitions for these types of Households include: Family Household – A Household maintained by a householder who is in a family and includes any unrelated people (unrelated subfamily members and/or secondary individuals) who may be residing there. Married Couple Household – As defined by the Census, these include family households where the householder and their spouse live together, including formal marriages, common-law marriages, and same-sex couples, forming a core family unit within a larger dwelling. The Census distinguishes these from other household types like single-person or non-family households, focusing on the relationship of individuals living in the same housing unit, and counts them as a primary family structure. Male-led/Female-led Household – Family Households with a male/ female householder and no spouse present. Householder is defined as a person in whose name the Housing Unit is rented or owned. This person must be at least 15 years old. | 14 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Non-Family Households – Consists of a householder living alone (a one-person household) or where the householder shares the home exclusively with people to whom they are not related. It is important to note that Householder is defined as the person (or one of the people) in whose name the Housing Unit is owned or rented (maintained) or, if there is no such person, any adult member, excluding roomers, boarders, or paid employees.
Housing Continuum
While housing typology describes the forms of housing based on physical form, tenure, density, and function, the housing continuum describes how those housing types are positioned relative to levels of affordability, stability, and support across a community. The housing continuum, illustrated in the figure on the following page, organizes housing typology by needs and access. One key determining factor for housing needs and accessibility along the housing continuum is the Area Median Income (“AMI”). The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) defines AMI as the midpoint of a specific area’s income distribution and is calculated on an annual basis. Income limits for housing programs are established as a percentage of the AMI, including: • • • •
Extremely Low Income: Below 30% AMI Very Low Income: Between 30% and 50% AMI Low Income: Between 50% and 80% AMI Moderate Income: Greater than 80% AMI
These income thresholds are used to determine eligibility for affordable housing programs and to set corresponding rent limits, ensuring that housing costs remain proportional to household income. As seen in Figure 7 on the following page, those within Broward County with incomes between 50% and 80% of the AMI are eligible for community housing and affordable housing programs. The following section defines the forms of housing on the continuum, utilizing definitions derived from the HUD, the Florida Department of Children and Families, and the National League of Cities.
Figure 7. Housing Continuum ABOVE 80% AMI 50%-80% AMI 30%-50% AMI BELOW 30% AMI
HOMELESSNESS
EMERGENCY SHELTER
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
COMMUNITY HOUSING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
MARKET HOUSING
Source: Addressing the Housing Continuum, County of Huron, Ontario, CA; GAI Consultants.
Homelessness – Individual or family lacking a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; or those living in shelters, temporary housing, or public and private places not designed for sleeping accommodations (e.g. on the street, in cars, in parks, etc.). HUD categorizes homelessness into the following four categories based on need: literally homeless, imminent risk of homelessness, homeless under other Federal Statutes, and fleeing/attempting to flee domestic violence.
Permanent Supportive Housing – Defined by HUD as housing assistance (e.g., long-term leasing or rental assistance) and supportive services provided to households having at least one member (adult or child) with a disability, with the goal of helping achieve housing stability. Services available to those in permanent supportive housing typically include case management, healthcare coordination, behavioral health coordination, job and education coaching, assistance with daily living skills, and transportation.
Emergency Shelter – Any facility, the primary purpose of which is to provide a temporary shelter for the homeless in general or for specific populations of the homeless and which does not require occupants to sign leases or occupancy agreements.
Community Housing – Community housing refers to housing that is developed and maintained by a nonprofit or community housing development organization (“CHDO”). Community housing provides stable and affordable housing options for individuals and families.
Transitional Housing – Transitional housing provides temporary housing with supportive services to individuals and families experiencing homelessness, with the goal of interim stability and support to successfully move to and maintain permanent housing.
Affordable Housing – HUD defines affordable housing as housing for which the occupant(s) is/are paying no more than 30% of his or her income for gross housing costs, including utilities.
Section 1: Introduction and Defining the Study Area | 15 |
Attainable Housing – Refers to a variety of housing types for moderate- or middle-income households typically with incomes ranging between 80% and 120% of AMI; this population segment is often referred to as the “Missing Middle”. Many Attainable Housing income earners, which may include teachers—healthcare providers, public safety personnel, armed service members, etc.—are often ineligible for Affordable Housing by definition, as their household incomes commonly exceed the limits of Affordable Housing eligibility.
Market Housing – Market housing, or market-rate housing, refers to non-subsidized properties that are rented or owned by those who pay market-rate rents or who paid market value to purchase the property. Market rates are determined by local market conditions, including supply and demand, income levels, interest rates, and population growth. Unlike subsidized affordable housing, marketrate housing does not confer special government benefits.
Workforce Housing – Defined by Florida Statutes § 420.5095 (3), workforce housing means housing affordable to natural persons or families whose total annual household income does not exceed 80% of the area median income, adjusted for household size, or 120% of area median income, adjusted for household size, in areas of Critical State Concern.
Section 1.4
Data Limitations
Small Area Data Limitations
This Study draws upon data from multiple sources, many of which are secondary. While these sources are generally considered reliable, variations in definitions, estimation methods, and reporting standards can lead to minor discrepancies or inconsistencies, especially given revisions that have been underway in the U.S. Department of Commerce since the beginning of 2026. To address these issues, certain adjustments and reconciliations were made throughout the Study. Although such differences and potential factual errors are inherent in the data collection process, they are not expected to materially affect the findings or conclusions presented in this Study.
Capturing uniform and consistent indicators across smaller geographic areas presents challenges due to the precise nature of these areas and the varying release schedules of data from both public and proprietary sources. Most relevant to this Study is that the smallest geographic areas for which estimates are widely available are Census Tracts. However, certain Census Tract boundaries do not align perfectly with the City’s limits, requiring either exclusion or proportional estimation to maintain accuracy relevant to the City. To address these discrepancies, GIS-based spatial analysis techniques were employed. While data for larger geographic areas can be interpreted with high statistical confidence, the margin of error increases significantly as the area of interest becomes smaller. These limitations underscore the importance of cautious interpretation when analyzing neighborhood-level trends.
The following pages outlines several key considerations and limitations, providing important context for interpreting the projections of future residential demand within the City. | 16 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
General Population Estimates and Projections Limitations
Calculation of Residential Supply Limitations
Without debating the merit of the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research (“BEBR”) and the University of Florida’s Shimberg Center for Housing Studies’ forecasts as a planning tool, they are often misunderstood or misapplied to many issues. Despite the general application of the medium data set to support planning decisions, the actual numbers reflect a range of possible outcomes from low to high.
A reasonable and diligent effort was made to correct or otherwise adjust for inconsistencies related to supply and demand in the data modeling conducted for this Study. Limitations related to the calculation of residential supply may be evident in the State of Florida’s tax treatment of certain vacant lands. More specifically, it is simply not practical for planning purposes to assume all parcels and holdings are equally available or suitable to accommodate future housing demand. Some parcels or lots will remain in family ownership as a matter of legacy, while some are simply inadequate or poorly configured to become residential sites. Further, some parcels are saddled with legal entanglements while others will be withheld from the market for varying reasons precluding their availability to satisfy residential demand in an imminent or serviceable time frame. Ultimately, although a vacant property may allow for residential use according to the Future Land Use Map, it may not physically meet the requirements of the City’s Land Development Regulations to accommodate the construction of housing.
This range is a statistical calculation of actual population— although population will have a strong probability of falling within that range, it could also fall below or above that range. In Florida, many counties have experienced significant growth above the higher statistical range because of external influences not adequately explained in the BEBR model. To keep local projections in context, Florida has long been one of the states gaining the most population, but it is now also the fastest growing state. While it is certainly speculative to posit how this pace will impact Broward County’s own growth trajectory, it is not unreasonable for policy to recognize the limitations of the data in use. To that point in particular, it is also not unreasonable to anticipate change at, or above, the higher end of the range. To be clear, BEBR remains among the most credible and highly regarded sources of population information; however, its output as a legislative and administrative ceiling for growth policy is not without problems, especially absent an informed understanding of its real limitations.
Vacant lands or properties designated on the Future Land Use Map for residential use do not universally translate to supply in terms of potential units. They could be years away from practically or strategically being converted into residential production. A reasonable and diligent effort was made to address these limitations within the model(s) produced for this Study.
Section 1: Introduction and Defining the Study Area | 17 |
SECTION TWO:
EXISTING CONDITIONS & HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
North Central Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
Section Two: Existing Conditions & Housing Needs Assessment 2.1 Existing Policy Framework and Regulatory Environment......................20 Past Plans and Studies............. 20 Current Programs and Initiatives........................................... 22 Policy Framework and Regulatory Environment.......... 23 City of Hollywood Comprehensive Plan......................23 Availability of Buildable Land.....23 Reliance Upon Regional Activity Centers. . ................................................23 High Vacancy Rates.. ......................24 Impact of Large Capital Investors...............................................24 Lack of Housing Diversity............25 Land Development Code.............25 Zoning District Complexity. . ........25 Dimensional Constraints..............25 Accessory Dwelling Units ...........26
Legal Context and Strategies for Implementing and Regulating Accessory Dwelling Units in Florida................................27 Frequently Asked Questions. . ....27 State of Florida Governing Law..........................................................28 Broward County Ordinances.. ....29 Evaluating ADU Best Practices . . .............................................29 Measures or Metrics for Evaluating ADUs. . ............................ 30
2.2 Housing Market Overview............................32
Historical and Current Context of the Housing Market...............32 State and Local Conditions....35 Context for Homelessness Challenges. . ..................................... 37 Literature Review ........................... 37 National, State, and Local Counts of Homelessness . . ........................... 38 Implications and Conclusions. . .40
2.3 Housing Market Assessment...................... 42
People.. ...............................................42 Total Population............................... 43 Household Population.................. 45 Employment Activity..................... 46 Consumer Spending..................... 52 Race and Ethnicity.. ........................ 52 Age Distribution............................... 54 Group Quarters Population . . ..... 56 Implications and Conclusions. . . 57
Product..............................................58 Total Households............................ 58 Household Tenure.. .........................60 Total Housing Units......................... 61 Ownership Characteristics......... 61 Vacancy Characteristics.............. 61 Housing Composition................... 63 Multi-Family Market Performance. . .................................... 65 Eviction Activity.. .............................. 67 Housing Conditions....................... 67 Implications and Conclusions. . . 69
Price. ....................................................70 Employment Wages.. ..................... 70 Industry Earnings............................. 71 Income Characteristics. . .............. 72 Household Incomes. . ......................74 Median Home Values.....................74 Median Gross Rent.. ....................... 76 Monthly Housing Costs. . .............. 76 Cost-Burdened Households..... 77 Income Limits . . ................................. 78 Affordable Housing ....................... 78 Implications and Conclusions. . . 79
Place. .................................................. 80 Mobility Displacement. . ................80 Land Values.. ......................................80 Availability of Vacant Land.. ........ 83 Annexation Activity........................ 83 Pace of Residential Construction. . .................................... 83 Major Residential Developments.. ................................. 85 Implications and Conclusions. . . 87
2.4 Public Engagement..................... 88 Overview and Summary...........88 Accomplishments........................... 89 Challenges.. ........................................90 Resources. . ......................................... 93 Recommendations and Ideas. . . 94 Measuring Success....................... 96 General Insights .............................. 96
Overarching Observations..... 97
About this Section This section titled Existing Policy Framework and Regulatory Environment provides an overview of past housing plans and studies prepared by the City and County, outlines the City’s current programs and initiatives related to housing, evaluates current policy framework, and examines the regulatory environment. It also offers legal context along with best practices and strategies for implementing and regulating Accessory Dwelling Units in Florida. Overall, this section establishes a foundational understanding and baseline assessment of the City’s existing regulatory environment, which will inform recommendations as part of the broader Housing Master Plan (“Study”).
Section 2.1
Existing Policy Framework and Regulatory Environment Past Plans and Studies Previous housing-related plans and studies prepared by the City and County were reviewed to establish a baseline understanding of the existing policy framework and regulatory environment for this Study. An overview of the key plans and studies is provided below. The City of Hollywood Comprehensive Plan (2008) The City of Hollywood Comprehensive Plan is a long-range, community-informed blueprint that guides growth and development—covering land use, zoning, infrastructure, housing, transportation, economic development, and environmental sustainability. The City is actively working to update its Comprehensive Plan to guide visionary growth and development through 2050, aiming for adoption in 2026. This updated Comprehensive Plan will include a housing element that will establish the City’s framework to build a thriving community where all residents have access to safe, affordable, and diverse housing options. BrowardNEXT Comprehensive Plan (2017) Adopted in 2017, with additional amendments through 2025, the BrowardNEXT Comprehensive Plan sought to update the County’s land use planning program within the context of meeting the challenges of Broward County’s future and anticipated population growth through 2040. The plan emphasizes affordable housing and regional economic development, helping provide municipalities with the planning tools they need for the future. Broward County Residential Housing Linkage Fee Nexus Study (2019) The purpose of the Residential Housing Linkage Fee Nexus Study is to determine whether there exists a rational nexus between the construction of new residential buildings in Broward County and the demand or need for additional affordable housing. The study confirmed a clear link between new residential development and increased demand for affordable housing, identifying significant affordability gaps and recommending linkage fees based on costs of $4–$42 per square foot. Broward County Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (2022) In 2022, the Broward County Affordable Housing Needs Assessment was conducted to provide a market perspective on the key demand and supply factors affecting the production | 20 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
and availability of affordable housing in Broward County. The Assessment measures the level of need and distress in the housing market throughout the 31 municipalities in the County; it also provides an understanding of how critical affordable housing is to the economic well-being and quality of life of Broward County’s residents. The study concluded that significant gaps in affordable housing persist across income levels, underscoring the need for coordinated regional strategies and targeted investment. Housing Broward: 10-Year Affordable Housing Master Plan (2024) The Housing Broward: 10-Year Affordable Housing Master Plan builds on the 2022 Housing Needs Assessment and continues to review the affordability challenges within Broward County. The Master Plan focuses on three key policies and program strategies, including project funding, densification and land-use incentives, and programmatic and regulatory tools. These are all aimed at generating substantial affordable housing units and leveraging strategic density near transit and job centers. Hollywood Relocation Plan for Driftwood Terrace (2024) Completed by the Hollywood Housing Authority, this plan assessed the physical needs of all Public Housing properties within the City and determined that Driftwood Terrace requires significant rehab. This plan outlines how the Hollywood Housing Authority intends to convert the property into a Housing Choice Voucher subsidy through the Streamlined Voluntary Conversion process in order to leverage additional funds to address the physical needs of the property. City of Hollywood Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) Annual Report(s) Established in 1993, the AHAC is responsible for reviewing and evaluating local plans, policies, procedures, and land development regulations that impact the production of affordable housing. The committee produces an annual report each year which provides a review of previously produced documents and provides recommendations to the City Commission, changes that will improve the production of a particular kind of housing. The most
recent annual report found that while current strategies support affordable housing production, additional actions—such as continued expedited reviews, expanded impact‑fee incentives, and greater flexibility in development standards—are needed to further strengthen the City’s affordable housing framework. City of Hollywood 2025 Annual Action Plan As a requirement to receive federal funding from HUD, the City is required to provide an Annual Action Plan each year describing the activities and goals that the City plans to pursue with the federal funding. For 2025, priorities include upgrading infrastructure and public facilities for permanent residents, supporting small businesses, expanding affordable housing through new construction and rehabilitation, and providing supportive services to 1,000 residents, while ensuring compliance and effective grant management. City of Hollywood 2024-2028 Consolidated Plan HUD also requires the City to submit a Consolidated Plan every 5 years. This plan helps entitlement communities like Hollywood evaluate affordable housing and community development needs, analyze market conditions, and make data-driven, place-based investment decisions. The plan’s key takeaways emphasize a clear focus on expanding public infrastructure, strengthening economic development, increasing and preserving affordable housing, enhancing public services, and ensuring effective program management over the five‑year period. Local Housing Assistance Plan for Fiscal Year 2025-2028 The Local Housing Assistance Plan serves as the City’s strategic framework for allocating State Housing Initiatives Partnership (“SHIP”) funds over a three-year period. The plan’s key takeaways highlight the targeted use of SHIP funds to expand affordable homeownership opportunities, rehabilitate and preserve existing housing, offer down‑payment and closing cost assistance, and address the needs of special populations. The plan ensures compliance with state guidelines while addressing local housing challenges through targeted, sustainable investments. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 21 |
Current Programs and Initiatives The mission of the City’s Community Development is to revitalize housing and strengthen neighborhoods by leveraging Federal, State, and County grant funds. Its services include expanding affordable housing options, offering home repair loans to eligible households, assisting with home purchases, supporting neighborhood associations, and implementing programs to sustain the local tax base. An overview of the City’s current programs and initiatives are provided below. Housing Rehabilitation & Repair Loan Program The Home Rehabilitation & Repair Program’s objective is to offer assistance to Low- and Moderate-Income (“LMI”) households to improve their housing to meet minimum property standards, assist with structural and system repairs, and provide housing replacement loans. Neighborhood Pride Housing Rehabilitation Program Supported by an Interlocal Agreement among the County, City, and the City’s Community Redevelopment Agency, Neighborhood Pride aims to provide and revitalize affordable housing within the City. This program provides funding for exterior-only housing rehabilitation improvements. Applicants must have a maximum household income at or below 120% of the area’s median household income and reside in an LMI area. First-Time Home Buyer Purchase Assistance Program Qualified buyers can receive a 0% interest, 15-year deferred payment loan for up to $50,000 to purchase property within Hollywood’s eligible Neighborhood Pride areas. This program is available to households whose income is at or below 120% of the area’s median income and aims to make homeownership more accessible to residents in the City. Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) Funds CDBG is a federal program through HUD that aims to provide select communities with flexible funds to address a wide range of unique community development needs. The City utilizes these funds for | 22 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
housing rehabilitation, disaster mitigation, and special projects as well as funding public service agencies that provide critical services to residents. Through the CDBG Funds, the City offers financial assistance to LMI homeowners who are required to connect to the City’s sewer system. CDBG funding will cover the installation cost, including costs of abandonment of the septic tank, and any required permits. HOME Investment Partnership Program (“HOME”) HOME is the largest Federal block grant to State and Local governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households. The City uses HOME funds to expand affordable housing for low-income households through activities like constructing and rehabilitating rental units, supporting Community Housing Development Organizations (“CHDOs”), and providing owner-occupied housing rehabilitation. State Housing Initiative Partnership (“SHIP”) Funds SHIP provides funds to local governments as an incentive to create partnerships that produce and preserve affordable homeownership and multi-family housing. The program was designed to provide very low, low, and moderate income families with assistance to purchase a home, money to repair or replace a home, and many other types of housing assistance. The City uses its SHIP funds to address a broad range of local housing needs, as outlined in its 2025–2028 Local Housing Assistance Plan. Program priorities include owner‑occupied home rehabilitation, demolition/ reconstruction, emergency repairs, and disaster recovery. The City’s Community Development Division, through it’s Rental Assistance–Eviction Prevention Program, also administers SHIP funds to renters who might be on the verge of homelessness due to not being able to afford their rent. This funding can cover up to six months of past due unpaid rent, and is available to tenants with incomes below 80% of the area’s median household income and who have resided in Hollywood for at least 6 months.
Fair Housing Initiative HUD enforces the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination against and intimidation of people in their homes and during transactions involving the rental and sale of housing and the provision of mortgage loans. The City is committed to the policies that promote fair housing and public accommodations, as well as equal opportunities regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, national origin, familial status or disability.
Policy Framework and Regulatory Environment This section summarizes the existing policy framework and strategies shaping housing production at the State, County, and local levels, with emphasis on the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. It also reflects the ongoing Comprehensive Plan updates by both the City and Broward County to ensure alignment with anticipated policy changes.
City of Hollywood Comprehensive Plan At least as early as 2007, when the Data and Analysis for the City’s Comprehensive Plan Update was underway, planners at the City were already suspecting that multiple forces were at play affecting the availability and affordability of housing within the City, and were potentially compromising its ability to meet future housing needs. However, reviewing the Future Land Use and Housing Elements adopted in 2008, the policies do not appear to be well aligned with the identified challenges they were intended to resolve. At that time, the U.S. and Florida were entering a period of significant economic turmoil, known as “the Great Recession”, which had far-reaching impacts on home prices, mortgage lending, and many other economic factors that may have masked some of the underlying symptoms. Since then, the City’s Data and Analysis for the new
Work Skills and Training Assistance The City is committed to ensuring residents are well equipped and aware of community resources, particularly focused on workforce development and economic mobility. The following resources are supported by the City, and work to create a diverse workforce: CareerSource Broward, Employ Florida Market Place, Hispanic Unit of South Florida, and Second Chance of Society.
Comprehensive Plan update signals many of the underlying issues identified nearly 20 years ago still linger, and policies will need to go beyond fulfilling minimum statutory requirements and promoting neighborhood protection to begin to address the problems.
Availability of Buildable Land According to the City’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan, the City is essentially built out, with less than one square mile of vacant land across the entire city limits that is suitable for development. Despite several annexations since that time, this condition largely persists today, limiting opportunities for new, traditional residential developments within the City. Consequently, the City must continue to rely primarily on redevelopment and infill projects to expand and diversify its housing stock.
Reliance Upon Regional Activity Centers Based on the City’s recognition of the lack of vacant land to support residential growth, the Future Land Use (“FLU”) Element relies heavily on its Regional Activity Centers (“RACs”) (i.e., Regional Activity Center [RAC], Transit-Oriented Corridor [TOC], TransitOriented Development [TOD], Oakwood Activity Center [OAC], Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 23 |
Diplomat Activity Center [DAC]), to accommodate the largest share of future housing growth. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan prescribed a capacity of 16,100 housing units within the RACs, including 1,000 Flexibility Units in addition to the 10,727 units that already existed in the RACs at that time. Since the designation of the RACs, Hollywood has allocated an additional 1,000 Flexibility Units to the region, and 6,683 units have been constructed. The disparity between the number of housing units allocated and those ultimately delivered within the RACs indicates that redevelopment in these areas is significantly more challenging than initially anticipated, and that a re-evaluation of the application of these FLU categories and corresponding zoning districts is warranted. While select areas within the RACs permit higher intensity development, many are not zoned to allow large-scale residential buildings exceeding four stories. Even within districts that do allow greater heights, substantial portions of the land remain underutilized. These areas are further constrained by fragmented ownership patterns and small parcel sizes that are not conducive to development at the scale envisioned, often requiring costly and complex parcel aggregation. In its current form, RACs cannot be relied on to supply the amount of new residential units needed to achieve the City’s housing goals.
High Vacancy Rates High housing vacancy rates within the City were identified as a concern in the 2008 Plan, which reported an overall vacancy rate of 17%—significantly higher than the Countywide rate of 13%. Noting that the vacancy rate dropped sharply to 9.7% after removing seasonal/recreational units, this “high” vacancy rate was taken to indicate the current housing supply was meeting the demand. Still today, this vacancy rate is offered as an indication of sufficient supply. However, this conclusion does not fully reflect local housing conditions, as it fails to consider other contributing factors to vacancy, including housing unit size, physical condition, and habitability. As a result, the presence of vacant units alone does
| 24 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
not necessarily indicate available or appropriate housing for current residents or future households. Additionally, the issue of the high number of seasonal households within the City was largely overlooked. The presence of a substantial seasonal housing population is itself a concern, as these units do not represent true vacancies within the local housing market. Although not occupied year round, seasonal residences are typically privately-owned, often mortgage encumbered, and therefore unavailable to other potentially permanent residents of the City. As a result, these units should not be considered part of the effective housing supply, as they do not meaningfully contribute to addressing year-round housing demand.
Impact of Large Capital Investors In 2008, the phenomenon of large capital investors purchasing single-family dwelling units and converting them to rental properties was not identified as a significant issue. As in many jurisdictions across Florida, this is a potentially significant emerging issue within the City. The updated Data and Analysis of the new Comprehensive Plan presents several challenges for prospective home buyers due to this trend. First, large institutional buyers often outcompete individual home buyers for affordable homes—sometimes purchasing properties before they are publicly listed—making it increasingly difficult for residents to enter the homeownership market. Second, when investment firms acquire single-family homes, the overall supply of homes available for purchase is reduced. These firms may then introduce the properties into the rental market at higher price points, contributing to rising rental costs throughout the surrounding area. Together, these challenges exacerbate both housing affordability and availability issues within the City, and the current policies have not addressed this emerging issue.
Lack of Housing Diversity Historically, single-family dwelling units have dominated the City’s housing stock. In 2005, attached and detached single-family units accounted for 48.7% of the City’s total housing inventory, compared to 49.3% in the County. Although this number has shifted slightly over time, the overall housing landscape has remained largely unchanged, with single-family units continuing to represent the type with the largest share of housing in the City. One contributing factor may be the physical constraints created by existing lot and block configurations within areas zoned for multifamily development. As noted previously, many of these parcels do not meet the minimum dimensional requirements needed to accommodate the building footprints prescribed by current zoning regulations. As a result, developers are often required to aggregate multiple parcels to achieve viable development sites, a process that is both complex and costly, making large scale redevelopment and higher density housing production in these areas particularly challenging.
Land Development Code A review of the City’s zoning framework within the Land Development Code identified several structural and regulatory constraints that may be limiting the feasibility of new housing development and redevelopment. These constraints fall into two main categories: 1) excessive zoning district complexity; and 2) dimensional constraints, with other minor issues also contributing. Collectively, these factors constrain housing production and hinder the City’s ability to respond effectively to ongoing affordability and availability pressures.
Zoning District Complexity One issue identified through the review of the City’s zoning code is the number of zoning districts currently in use. In total, the City maintains 75 distinct zoning districts. Within the Residential Single-Family (“RS”) classification alone, there are 10 separate zoning districts. Of these, four districts—RS-3, RS-5, RS-6,
and RS-7—collectively make up approximately one-third of the City’s total land area. By contrast, several other residential zoning categories account for only small portions of the City’s land area, including RS-10, at approximately 0.05% and RS-4, at approximately 0.01%. Given the fundamental purpose of zoning since its inception has been to reduce the negative impacts caused by incompatible land uses by separating them into discrete districts, it is difficult to understand how these four RS districts (and others) are so incompatible that they require their own zoning categories. The only differences of note between the top four districts mentioned above are their minimum lot sizes of 50 feet, 60 feet, and 75 feet. Beyond leading to potential exclusionary effects, the fragmented structure and pattern of zoning application across the City certainly adds greater regulatory complexity to the Residential Single-Family zones. That being said, these RS zones are not likely to contribute significantly to new housing in the future, due to their built-out nature de facto lack of redevelopment potential. The traditional multi-family districts and the mixed-use districts throughout the City also exhibit extremely complex patterns of their own. Not even considering the beach and resort-related zones, the multi-family and mixed-use districts represent at least 25 zoning categories. Nearly every major road and transit route in the City has a unique patchwork of highly specific zoning categories, each seeking to accomplish individualized goals for their corridor. The application of many of these zones appears to be focused on forcing fine grained transitions between residential densities. The detail with which these various transitioning zones appear to have been implemented may result in inflexibility that causes a lack of redevelopment interest.
Dimensional Constraints A review of the physical distribution of zoning categories reveals that existing lot and block configurations prevalent across the City, particularly along corridors zoned for mixed-use or multi-family, are not always conducive to redevelopment at the densities and Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 25 |
| 26 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
intensities anticipated. These constrained conditions are most evident within several of the RAC zoning categories, such as the DH 3 (Dixie Highway Low Intensity Multi Family District) and MC-1 (Multi-Family Residential Core ). In the case of DH-3, the code permits buildings of up to 10 stories in height; however, in many locations, the existing extent and configuration of the zoning district, the depths of blocks, and particularly lot sizes and/or the geometry of zoned parcels, do not allow for redevelopment of that scale. The size and ownership pattern of the platted lots in mixed-use and multi-family zones across the City also poses a major obstacle to development of these critical focus areas of growth. Due to the number of small existing lots, development at a meaningful scale would require the aggregation of multiple smaller parcels and vacation of alleys to achieve a viable redevelopment site. In practice, this presents a significant obstacle, as parcel aggregation is often constrained by fragmented ownership patterns, elevated land acquisition costs, strategic holdout properties, and other market and transactional barriers.
Accessory Dwelling Units The final issue identified through the review of the City’s zoning code is the absence of regulations permitting accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”). While the City has been actively working toward developing standards to allow ADUs on residential properties, such provisions have not yet been formally adopted or published. Incorporating ADUs into the City’s zoning framework would represent a positive step forward, as ADUs can provide additional housing opportunities within established neighborhoods. These units can help address the existing housing shortage by increasing the overall housing supply to a neighborhood that has already achieved maximum build-out. Although the introduction of ADUs alone will not resolve the broader issues of housing affordability or availability within the City, they would nonetheless serve as an important complementary tool. The following section presents the legal framework and implementation strategies for ADUs in Florida, offering a comprehensive foundation for understanding how the City can introduce and regulate ADUs at the local level.
Parkside Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 27 |
Legal Context and Strategies for Implementing and Regulating Accessory Dwelling Units in Florida Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) are habitable secondary residential units permitted under local regulations. They have emerged as a popular strategy to expand a community’s housing inventory. ADUs are appealing because the cost of land has, in theory, already been absorbed by the primary structure, effectively allowing the site’s density to double. While ADUs present distinct planning and financial considerations, they offer a meaningful opportunity to increase housing supply in well-developed or fully built-out areas where land is constrained. In suburban contexts, where zoning and development controls tend to be more flexible, ADUs may be more readily permitted and constructed, particularly when integrated into the siting and build of a new home. It is often assumed that ADUs will automatically contribute to the affordable housing inventory, but this is not guaranteed. While they can provide naturally occurring affordability by leveraging existing land and infrastructure, affordability is significantly influenced by market dynamics, owner pricing strategies, and local regulatory frameworks. In some cases, local controls and regulatory approaches serve as both incentives and deterrents, shaping whether ADUs are priced as affordable units. To note, this brief overview of ADUs as part of this Study should not be construed as a legal opinion. Rather, it reflects professional experience and identifies implementation and regulatory considerations that the City and legal advisors may wish to evaluate. This section covers frequently asked ADU questions, reviews legislative measures and local regulatory approaches, and concludes with best practices and metrics for ongoing evaluation.
Frequently Asked Questions Where in Florida have the most ADUs been constructed? In Florida, ADU activity has been most pronounced in several highdemand areas. Miami-Dade County has seen strong interest, driven by high housing costs and recent ordinance updates allowing ADUs in single-family zones. In addition, Orange County has introduced the Ready, Set, Orange Program, providing pre-approved plans for certain sized units, with half being ADUs. This program received over 400 applications in its first year, signaling strong local interest in expanding housing options. Pinellas County has also advanced construction of ADUs through progressive zoning changes paired with affordability initiatives. Lastly, the City of Gainesville in Alachua County has adopted an ADU ordinance prioritizing affordable housing, making it a leader in North Florida. These jurisdictions share common drivers: elevated housing costs, population growth, and enabling local policies that encourage ADUs. Are ADUs more affordable to lower-income residents? ADUs can be more affordable for lower-income households, but this is not always the case. While they often rent for less than market norms, this is typically because owners lack access to industry resources and do not maximize pricing opportunities. ADUs can provide naturally occurring affordable housing without subsidies since they utilize existing land and infrastructure. Their affordability is generally linked to smaller size, shared lots, and lower construction costs compared to new multi-family developments. However, affordability is not guaranteed and varies by market conditions and owner decisions. For those residents in Florida considering ADUs, what are the taxation implications? Adding an ADU is treated as a new improvement that triggers reassessment of the property’s value, with taxes generally increasing only on the added value attributable to the ADU. The
magnitude of the increase varies with construction cost, unit size and features (e.g., full kitchen and bathroom), and location, with coastal and urban areas tending to see larger impacts. ADUs do not generate a separate tax bill; their assessed value is incorporated into the existing parcel’s assessment and billed as a single combined tax. Although an ADU may raise property taxes, rental income can help offset the increase. Florida’s homestead exemption typically remains in effect for the primary residence even when an ADU is added. Owners should also note that failing to report an ADU can result in penalties and back taxes, and some local programs (for example, Gainesville) offer incentives to encourage affordable ADUs. How are most ADUs financed? Financing ADUs is generally difficult. Most homeowners use Home Equity Lines of Credit (“HELOCs”) or cash-out refinances, sometimes factoring in projected rental income. Other options include personal loans, retirement funds, private lenders, and family loans. Common strategies include: (1) cash-out refinances, replacing the existing mortgage and using the difference for construction; (2) construction-to-permanent loans, interest-only during construction and then converting to a permanent loan; (3) specialized ADU loan products that factor projected rent; and (4) standard construction loans based on future property value. Federal programs also shape ADU financing options. The Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) allows up to 75% of rental income from an existing ADU and up to 50% of projected income for additions under its 203(k) Program, provided the unit meets FHA standards. This allowance refers to how much of the rental income from an ADU the FHA will let a borrower count as qualifying income when applying for an FHA-insured mortgage. Additionally, Fannie Mae generally excludes ADU income, except under its HomeReady Program, which caps it at 30% of qualifying income with supporting documentation. Lastly, Freddie Mac permits ADU rental income for primary and investment properties, typically up to 75% of market rent after analysis, requiring leases and tax records. | 28 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
State of Florida Governing Law Florida Statute §163.31771 Florida Statute encourages local governments to permit ADUs within Residential Single-Family zones to help alleviate affordable housing shortages. It authorizes local governments to enact ordinances allowing ADUs in these zones and requires property owners to submit an affidavit during the building permit process affirming that the ADU will be rented at an affordable rate to lowor moderate-income households. ADUs built under this statute are also counted toward the affordable housing component of a jurisdiction’s comprehensive plan. 2026 Legislative Session Statute Changes Several related legislative developments were introduced for the 2026 session. Senate Bill 48 (and its companion, House Bill 313), defeated during session, would move from optional to mandatory, requiring local governments to adopt ADU ordinances by mid‑2026. These bills also defined “primary dwelling unit”; directed a study on mezzanine financing and tiny homes via the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (“OPPAGA”); and introduced reusable tenant screening reports. In addition, Senate Bill 594, which passed during session, revised the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (“SHIP”) Program, allowing use of funds for mobile home lot rental assistance, mandating emergency repair strategies, and expanding affordable housing preservation measures. Finally, House Bill 489, defeated during session, would update the Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s definitions and eligibility criteria, such as “demonstrated capacity” and “qualifying principal”, and explicitly include young adults aging out of foster care. Other Related State Measures Advocacy groups and Florida Realtors are working to preserve the Live Local Act, which supports workforce housing initiatives. Efforts to expand ADUs are centered on Senate Bill 48, the primary legislation driving this initiative. Additionally, the Hometown Heroes Housing Program is expected to receive increased funding to provide housing assistance for essential workers.
Broward County Ordinances Broward County (“County”) has adopted Ordinance 22-Z3, amending Chapter 39 of its Code of Ordinances to define an accessory dwelling as a unit with its own kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping facilities. The ordinance permits ADUs in Agricultural Estate (A-1), Estate (E-1, E-2), Rural Estate, and Rural Ranches zoning districts, expanding beyond the previous allowance for guest houses without kitchens. This change aligns with Broward County’s Comprehensive Plan and its affordable housing goals. In addition, Section 39-300 authorizes ADUs in certain commercial districts under specific conditions: units must range from 400 to 1,500 square feet, be located on an upper story within the building, and cannot exceed 50% of the commercial floor area. Permitting requires zoning verification, engineered plans, and Building Department approval, with timelines typically ranging from 6 to 18 months and permit costs between $1,000 and $3,000; overall project costs often fall between $80,000 and $300,000. Lastly, since the County lies within a High Velocity Hurricane Zone, ADUs must comply with stringent wind load and impact-resistant standards under the Florida Building Code.
Evaluating ADU Best Practices Address Specific Zoning and Regulatory Barriers Reducing zoning barriers, such as minimum lot sizes, parking mandates, and restrictions on attached or detached ADUs, is key to improving feasibility, especially in urban areas. These changes make ADUs possible on smaller lots and expand housing options. Traditional zoning practices often restrict ADUs through minimum lot sizes, height limits, and parking requirements, which can unintentionally limit housing options. The Florida Housing Coalition provides a guidebook to help local governments implement these strategies while ensuring compliance with state law. Adopt Clear and Flexible Local Ordinances Clear and flexible ADU regulations are essential to reduce confusion and encourage adoption. Ambiguous rules and
restrictive standards, such as setbacks, size limits, and impact fees, make the process unclear to homeowners. Political resistance and neighborhood concerns about character, property values, and parking often complicate implementation, especially in older cities with infrastructure constraints. Additional challenges include high hurricane-rated construction costs, limited local expertise, and lengthy public hearing processes. Well-defined ordinances provide predictability, maintain neighborhood character, and support compliance, while Florida Statue reinforces the need for ADUs to address housing shortages. Additionally, flexibility in design standards and clear guidelines help reduce disputes and promote safe, durable housing options. Ensure Design Standards and Compatibility Clear design standards are essential to ensure compatibility and avoid disputes. Ambiguity in what “complements” a primary dwelling often leads to inconsistent approvals, so visual guidelines and staff training are critical. At minimum, ADUs should reflect the architectural style of the main home and maintain privacy. Opposition often stems from fears of visual disruption or property value decline, while resilience requirements, such as hurricane-rated construction, add significant costs and can deter homeowners. Well-defined standards help preserve neighborhood character, improve safety, and reduce liability for municipalities, aligning with Florida’s need for strong building codes in storm-prone areas. Streamline the Broader Review and Approval Processes Streamlining ADU review and approval processes is critical to reducing costs and delays. Implementing digital permitting systems, pre-application meetings, and pre-approved design templates can accelerate approvals and improve homeowner and developer confidence. However, technology adoption and interdepartmental coordination pose challenges, especially for smaller municipalities lacking resources or technical expertise. When implemented effectively, these measures ensure uniformity, accessibility, and can cut approval timelines from months to weeks, potentially accelerating deliveries of this housing segment. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 29 |
Incentivizing ADUs as Part of the Overall Housing Strategy ADUs face more complex regulatory and financial hurdles than typical single-family homes, making implementation challenging. If ADUs are to serve vulnerable populations, a comprehensive strategy that leverages all opportunities, including fee reviews and incentives, is essential. Barriers to entry include regulatory complexity, lack of homeowner and community awareness, and logistical and financial challenges, especially when retrofitting existing structures. These factors often undermine cost-benefit considerations. Broad strategies can support workforce housing and aging-in-place goals while encouraging homeowners to unlock equity and land resources to expand housing inventory. Encourage and Incentivize Affordable ADUs Complex regulations and administrative hurdles often discourage homeowners from renting ADUs to vulnerable populations, despite the perception that lower costs alone ensure affordability. Incentives such as property tax exemptions or fee reductions can help, and local governments may consider direct financial support in some cases to meet affordable housing needs. However, these programs require lease monitoring and income verification, adding administrative complexity, and homeowners may resist lower rents due to perceived financial loss. Without incentives, short-term rentals often take priority over affordable housing. Tax breaks and fee reductions encourage compliance and support workforce housing and aging-in-place strategies. Proposed legislation, such as CS/SB 1440, would allow counties to offer property tax exemptions for affordable ADUs, further promoting this goal. Educate and Engage the Public Overcoming misconceptions about ADUs is critical to reducing community resistance that can derail programs. Many residents associate ADUs with short-term rentals or fear increased crime and neighborhood disruption. Proactive outreach, often multi-lingual and culturally sensitive, is necessary to address these concerns,
| 30 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
although it adds cost and complexity. Effective engagement builds trust, supports broader housing initiatives, and opens dialogue with groups such as homeowners’ associations that have unique needs. Coordinate Across Housing Resources and Agencies or Authorities The Live Local Act has generated controversy over its impact on housing and local government control. While state law promotes affordable housing, it does not override Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”) covenants or private agreements, which often restrict ADUs. Early identification of all relevant stakeholders and resources, along with structured pre-application meetings, is essential to prevent conflicts. Challenges include HOA restrictions, multiple layers of approval, and the need for tailored outreach to specialized groups. Coordinated efforts streamline approvals, reduce costs, and prevent conflicting requirements, making ADUs more viable.
Measures or Metrics for Evaluating ADUs Measuring the effectiveness of ADU best practices requires both quantitative metrics and qualitative indicators. Below are the most commonly used metrics in Florida and why they matter: Number of ADUs Permits Issued Direct indicator of adoption; higher volumes suggest effective ordinances and streamlined permitting. Example: The City of Orlando saw a 40% increase after introducing digital permitting and outreach. Average Permitting Time • Measures efficiency; shorter timelines reflect successful process improvements. Example: Miami-Dade County cut approval time from 90 days to under 30 with pre-approved plans. Cost of Compliance • Lower fees and design costs make ADUs more accessible. Example: The City of Gainesville’s simplified standards reduced costs by 15 to 20%.
Hollywood Hills Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
Percentage of ADUs Used for Affordable Housing • Tracks success of affordability incentives. Example: The City of Gainesville pilot programs reported 25% of ADUs rented at workforce rates. Community Acceptance Indicators • Fewer complaints or zoning appeals signal effective outreach and design compatibility. Example: The City of Orlando’s campaign reduced neighborhood opposition during hearings. Ordinance Update Frequency • Shows adaptability; regular updates reflect responsiveness to market and technology changes. Example: The City of Tampa revises ADU rules every 3 years, based on data and trends. Housing Supply Impact • Measures ADUs’ contribution to overall housing stock. Example: Statewide reporting (HB 247) tracks ADUs as a share of new housing units. Equity and Accessibility Metrics • Evaluates benefits for diverse income groups and aging populations. Example: The City of Orlando monitors ADU permits in under served neighborhoods. Return on Investment for Incentives • Assesses whether tax breaks or fee waivers increase affordable ADUs. Example: The City of Gainesville compares tax exemption costs to affordable ADU output. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 31 |
About this Section This section title Housing Market Overview offers a high-level summary of housing market conditions from 1929 to 2025, highlighting key factors that have influenced supply and demand as well as their longterm impacts at both national and local levels. This section also compares state and local housing conditions, noting the growing gap between housing incomes and rising housing costs, which drives local affordability challenges. In addition, this section provides context on homelessness through a literature review, national data, and regional observations. This research offers historical and broader context to guide the Housing Master Plan (“Study”).
Section 2.2
Housing Market Overview Historical and Current Context of the Housing Market The housing market is a pillar of the economy and society at large, simultaneously shaping and being shaped by economic shifts and societal trends. From the founding of the country to the mortgage crisis of 2008 and all the way to today’s trends-the housing market is constantly in a state of transformation. The housing market is a sector of the economy that is concerned with the supply and demand for housing, the prices of homes, and the financing of real estate transactions. A range of factors can influence the housing market, including interest rates, economic conditions, demographics, government policies, and local market conditions. The health of the housing market can both impact and reflect the greater economy, as it can be a major driver of consumer spending and affect the construction industry. 1929 to 1945: The Great Depression and World War II The Great Depression and World War II triggered significant changes in the housing market. Following the stock market crash of the late 1920s, many people lost their jobs and were unable to pay for their homes, leading to record foreclosures. Then, World War II caused a temporary pause on domestic housing construction, as many resources were diverted to the war effort. To help jump start the housing market and facilitate homeownership in the aftermath of the war, the government created various agencies and policies, like the Federal Housing Administration and mortgage insurance. 1945 to 1970: The Post-War Housing Boom After World War II, the suburban housing market grew astronomically. Returning soldiers and their Baby Boomer children increased the need for affordable, single-family homes close to urban centers. Concurrently, the government built interstate highways, and modes of transportation improved to help facilitate travel between the suburbs and cities. This allowed even more people to easily travel between their place of work and place of living. By around 1960, homeownership rates increased to over 61%. | 32 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
1970 to 2000: Interest Rate Highs and Lows
2020 to 2025: Pandemic Disruptions and Housing Market Volatility
As Baby Boomers came of home-buying age during the 1970s and early 1980s, interest rates rose significantly, driving the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate to over 18%. These high rates effectively scared borrowers away. But then, following the loosening of lending requirements and a bull market that would last through the 1980s and 1990s, mortgage interest rates dropped dramatically to under 7% by May 1998, which would drive robust demand for homes into the new millennium.
The early 2020s saw unprecedented housing shifts driven by the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially, uncertainty and economic shutdowns slowed home sales and construction. However, historically low mortgage rates (below 3%), combined with remote work trends fueled demand, particularly in suburban and exurban areas. Home prices skyrocketed nationwide, creating intense competition and affordability challenges for first-time buyers.
2000 to 2009: The Mortgage Bubble and the Great Recession
By 2022, inflation and supply chain issues raised construction costs, while the Federal Reserve’s aggressive interest rate hikes drove mortgage rates above 7% by late 2023—cooling demand and slowing price growth. Rental demand surged as many buyers were priced out, while other homeowners chose not to sell, leading to a “locked-in” effect and continued inventory shortages. By 2024–2025, policy responses helped stabilize the market with slight price corrections, but affordability challenges continue to persist as wages lag and remote work continues to shape migration patterns.
Entering 2000, the housing market continued to boom. Interest rates dropped even more, and lending standards loosened further as lenders provided sub-prime mortgages to borrowers with lower credit ratings. This new type of mortgage carried higher, and often variable, interest rates. As banks took more and more risky borrowers on, the housing bubble inflated. When variable rates shifted, and new payments came due, the bubble burst, giving us the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession. Stock markets plummeted, unemployment rates soared, and many people lost their homes—proving just how essential the housing market is for the economy. 2010 to 2019: A Period of Recovery Eventually, the crisis would clear and trigger significant changes in lending practices. Boosted by new policies deployed in response to the Great Recession and re-calibrated property prices, the housing market began to bounce back, with home prices eventually surpassing pre-crisis highs. Lower mortgage rates and ever-increasing demand pushed prices further upward, which created new challenges for first-time buyers, especially. While homeowners saw their investment appreciate significantly, many buyers remained priced out of the market entirely.
Based on the events depicted in the timeline, it can be concluded that the housing market serves as a microcosm of the greater economy. Beyond the power of purchasing and selling property, the housing market impacts communities by shaping individual lives and ultimately, driving economic growth. The nature of supply and demand greatly impacts the climate of the housing market. As the housing market evolves, different trends pop up along the way— often reflecting current culture. The relationship between supply (the amount of a resource) and demand (how much people want that resource) drives everything in the economy, including the housing market. This relationship is often what decides whether the housing market is a buyer’s market versus a seller’s market. Interest rates are effectively the cost of borrowing money in percentage terms, also influencing supply and demand. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 33 |
For example, as interest rates rise, demand often falls because mortgages become more expensive. At the same time, higher rates discourage homeowners from selling, keeping supply tight. The market typically remains in balance only when new construction increases supply or prices adjust downward. The following identifies key factors, beyond mortgage rates, which influence housing supply and demand. Factors that Affect Supply •
•
Land Availability: The availability of land affects the amount of space there is to build homes. An area with limited land will likely also have the limited supply, leading to increases in housing prices. Zoning Regulations and General Development Regulations: These regulations, as they relate to real estate, dictate what can and cannot be done with a given property. The rules and regulations change depending on the geographic location or in which “zone” a parcel is located. These regulations help determine what type of housing is built, their size, what features they might have and ultimately, how densely populated an area might be, all of which ultimately affect supply.
•
Construction Costs: When construction costs rise, it can trigger a cool-down period in new development. Developers and home builders may wait until costs drop for new home production to maintain a profit margin. When too few homes are being built, home values tend to increase as demand outpaces supply.
•
Age and Condition of Housing Stock: The overall age and physical condition of existing homes can significantly influence housing supply. Older homes may require substantial repairs or renovations to meet modern standards, which can limit their availability or reduce their desirability to buyers. In markets where a large share of housing is aging or deteriorating, fewer units are considered “move‑in ready,” effectively tightening supply. Conversely, well-maintained or recently updated housing stock can help stabilize supply by keeping more units in livable, market-ready condition.
| 34 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Factors that Affect Demand •
Generational Trends: The characteristics of a population may impact demand within the housing market. Simply put, different people want different things at different times. As younger generations age, have families, and look to buy a home, their desires help inform the housing market.
•
Migration Patterns: As people flock to certain areas of the country, demand for housing tends to go up. Depending on the supply of homes, this may increase prices in that area. At the same time, it may cause a drop in prices in the areas left behind.
•
Economic Conditions: In addition to interest rates discussed earlier, economic conditions like employment rates and wage growth affect the overall health of the economy and, therefore, demand in the housing market. During periods of economic growth and stability, people might feel more comfortable making bigger investments—increasing demand for housing.
•
Social Attitudes Toward Homeownership: Cultural perceptions and societal expectations around homeownership play a significant role in shaping housing demand. In communities where owning a home is viewed as a key milestone of financial stability or personal success, demand tends to be stronger, even during periods of high prices or economic uncertainty. Conversely, when social preferences shift toward renting, mobility, or prioritizing lifestyle flexibility over long‑term ownership, demand for home purchases may soften.
Almost certainly, across the nation, low-income households have been the most adversely affected by all of these factors. Florida’s housing market reflects broader national patterns, which have shifted from cyclical to structural. Without specifically addressing future growth, changing household preferences, or periodic market imbalances, housing production has steadily fallen behind population growth for decades. Even in the nation’s most productive year when housing deliveries reached about 2 million units, output varied significantly and has not kept pace with demand.
During the 1970s, housing starts average about 1.6 million units annually. Relative to the national population change of that decade, this represented about 0.82 homes per person. In later decades, production hovered between 1.3 and 1.5 million units, except during the recession when it fell to just 554,000 units. Output gradually recovered, peaking near 1.4 million units in 2020, but that represented only 0.58 units relative to the change in population. Any excess inventory before the recession was absorbed within a few years. With consistent annual deliveries averaging about 1.3 million units, the nation is now short an estimated 2 to 4 million units. Given roughly 50 years of production history, the supply of housing has simply not kept pace with demand generated by normal population growth, certainly not at a pace sufficient to catch up to prior shortfalls. When production fails to meet needs for diverse housing types, sizes, and price points, the impact on the market becomes clear. These impacts are especially evident in Florida and other high-growth states. While many factors drive housing market fluctuations, the prior recession was pivotal, disrupting ownership segments and sending ripples for years. For over five decades, about 60% of housing has been single family, aligning with owner-to-renter ratios. Yet, following the recession, this segment virtually disappeared for 6 years. Additionally, many builders who left the market during the recession struggled to regain momentum–having lost workers, committed lots, and access to credit. Although homebuilding employment has improved, skilled labor remains scarce, and many smaller firms have disappeared or consolidated. These challenges reshaped the homebuilding industry, separating lot development from home construction. Before the recession, major builders held both lot and housing inventories, forcing continuous building. Today, they build at a controlled pace aligned with demand and focus more on higher-priced homes.
Immediately after the recession, many displaced homeowners entered the rental market, crowding that segment. In subsequent years, prospective owners, unable to qualify for increasingly higher price homes, have also come to compete with traditional renters. Over the decade, these trends significantly boosted demand and interest in rental housing. The COVID-19 pandemic added new pressures on the market by disrupting material supply chains and influencing housing design. Migration from high-cost regions to lower-cost states boosted demand for ownership housing and spilled into rentals. Although housing starts peaked at 1.6 million units in 2021, rising interest rates and inflation quickly slowed production—dropping to 1.55 million in 2022, 1.42 million in 2023, 1.36 million in 2024, and an estimated 1.35 million in 2025. Persistent shortfalls and delays have driven prices even higher, making today’s housing market, particularly in fastgrowing states like Florida, a structural challenge.
State and Local Conditions Since 2010, Florida’s population has seen much greater growth than the national average, adding nearly 4.6 million people from 2010 to 2024, reflecting a Compound Annual Growth Rate (“CAGR”) of 1.5% compared to 0.6% nationally. This trend extends to housing and households: Florida added more than 1.6 million housing units, reflecting a CAGR of 1.1% versus 0.7% nationally; and saw household growth at a 1.4% CAGR annually, significantly higher than the national rate of 0.9% during the same 15-year period. In comparison, Florida and the nation show more similarity in income and housing prices. In 2024, median household income was $81,604 nationally and $77,735 in Florida. While Florida’s income is lower, both grew at nearly the same pace since 2010—at a CAGR of 3.3% in Florida and 3.1% nationally. As of 2024, owner-occupied households made up 68% of Florida’s households versus 65% nationally. However, since 2010, Florida’s share of owner-occupied households increased minimally at a 0.1% CAGR, while the share nationally did not change over the 15-year period. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 35 |
Further, median home values in Florida, at $396,900, are slightly higher than the nation, at $360,600, based on 2024 estimates. From 2010 to 2024, home values in Florida, at a CAGR of 4.5%, grew nearly identically to those nationally, at a CAGR of 4.4%. Median monthly housing costs were similar in Florida and the nation, at $1,628 and $1,435, respectively, in 2024. These costs experienced similar growth rates since 2010 at 2.9% in Florida and 2.6% nationally. The City of Hollywood (“City”), located along Florida’s Atlantic coast between Fort Lauderdale and Miami, with convenient access to Florida’s Turnpike and Interstate 95, has been experiencing slower growth compared to Florida as a whole. The City’s population grew at a CAGR of 0.8% between 2010 and 2024, roughly half of the 1.5% growth rate observed statewide in Florida. Over the same 15year period, total households in the City grew at a CAGR of 0.5%, again trailing the state’s 1.4% growth. Similarly, housing unit growth within the City was significantly slower than Florida overall, with CAGRs of 0.2% and 1.1%, respectively, from 2010 to 2024.
Based on 2024 estimates, the City’s median household income is $71,067, closely aligned with Florida’s median of $77,735. From 2010 to 2024, these incomes grew at CAGRs of 3.0% in the City and 3.3% statewide. Median home prices, however, are notably higher in the City, at $475,200 compared to $396,900 across Florida. Home prices in the City increased at a CAGR of 4.6% during this period, nearly matching the state’s 4.5% growth rate. This trend can also be observed in median monthly housing costs for the City and Florida, at $1,894 and $1,628, respectively, in 2024. These costs experienced greater growth in the City at 3.5% compared to the statewide growth rate of 2.6% during the 15-year period. Although household incomes in the City have grown steadily, they have not kept pace with rising housing costs. Slower population and household growth has limited economic momentum, while strong housing demand, which may be driven by the City’s coastal location and connectivity, has pushed prices and monthly costs higher. This imbalance is intensifying affordability challenges despite modest income gains.
Highland Gardens Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
| 36 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Context for Homelessness Challenges This Study examines homelessness within the broader framework of housing needs and priorities, providing context for informed and effective community action. Intended only to complement and inform the broader analysis of housing conditions being experienced locally, it is purposefully limited to more general issues. While relevant to overall Study objectives, it does not address the specific homeless situation within the City or County, which, if policy requires, may necessitate its own study to explore various detailed options.
Literature Review The homeless population in the nation has become both highly visible and politically sensitive. While opinions on its causes and severity vary widely, the issue has received extensive academic attention across multiple disciplines. This literature review provides a foundation for shaping policy and allocating resources; highlighting that homelessness stems from deeply rooted and complex factors. Absolute counts of the homeless population alone fail to: (1) provide an adequate picture of the complexities with this problem; (2) fully capture the underlying causes and related issues; and (3) simply ignore the tools needed to address the overall problem comprehensively. Theoretical Constructs Several broad theories explain how social and economic structures shape homelessness and related issues: •
Structural Functionalism views society as interconnected institutions working to maintain stability (Maines, 1977). From this perspective, homelessness results from failures in housing, employment, and healthcare systems. This is a longstanding view by the Committee on Health Care for Homeless People and reinforced by recent research.
•
Conflict Theory, rooted in Marxist principles, frames homelessness as a symptom of systemic inequality and resource allocation favoring other societal needs (Wilson,
2019). This perspective highlights economic disparities and housing market dynamics, underscoring funding gaps and program challenges. •
Symbolic Interactionism focuses on social meanings and labels. It examines stigma and subjective experiences, suggesting that negative perceptions isolate individuals and hinder selfimprovement (Hoolachan, 2020). These attitudes often shape public opinion about homelessness.
•
Social Constructionism shares similarities with symbolic interactionism but emphasizes broader narratives shaped by governments, media, and institutions (Cokeley, 2017; Berger & Luckmann, 2016). It argues that homelessness is not only a physical condition but also a socially defined status, often portrayed as personal failure.
Implications and Policy Response These four theories highlight distinct dimensions of homelessness, pointing to policy priorities and tools for prevention and intervention, as detailed in the following pages. While the findings may seem unsurprising, they reveal common threads underlying the challenges faced by the homeless population. Researchers and professionals describe homelessness as a complex condition influenced by multiple factors (Meyer et al., 2024; Fowler et al., 2019; Fogel, 1985). These include social variables such as welfare policies, housing shortages, and unemployment, as well as psychological challenges like family instability, mental health issues, addiction, and loneliness. Elsinga (2020) emphasizes that these social conditions must be considered alongside housing market dynamics. Meyer et al. (2024) notes that homeless individuals often experience persistent economic deprivation, including low earnings, high unemployment, and limited access to safety-net programs. Fowler et al. (2019) argues that addressing homelessness requires a comprehensive social service system that also supports prevention strategies. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 37 |
Consistently, research has linked homelessness to psychological factors such as adolescent trauma, substance abuse, divorce, legal issues, unemployment, and disability (Czaderny, 2020). Schütz (2016) identifies substance use as the most significant contributor among these factors. An analysis by the Los Angeles Times reported that roughly half of Los Angeles County’s homeless population struggles with mental illness (Lopez, 2022). Education also plays a role, particularly for children experiencing homelessness. Biggar (2001) found that homeless students are more likely to repeat grades and perform poorly in school, perpetuating structural economic disadvantages. While housing affordability correlates with homelessness, the direct impact is difficult to isolate. Pew Trust (Horowitz et al., 2023), using HUD’s Point-in-Time (“PIT”) data, found that in six metro areas where homelessness rose sharply from 2017 to 2022, rents increased faster than the national average. Conversely, four urban areas that saw declines in homelessness experienced slower rent growth. These interconnected issues suggest the need for integrated solutions, with the Housing First model frequently cited. Baxter et al. (2019) reviewed randomized controlled trials on the Housing First model, noting some improvements in health and well-being, but concluding that further research is needed to understand long-term outcomes.
National, State, and Local Counts of Homelessness While homelessness has many dimensions and root causes, HUD’s PIT counts show that, except for a few years between 2006 and 2024, the share of the population identified as homeless has remained around 19%. Periods of elevated homelessness typically align with economic disruptions. From the recession through 2021, homelessness as a share of the population declined, but numbers rose noticeably during the COVID-19 pandemic, with 2022 showing a significant increase. For more than a decade, Florida’s homelessness rates were significantly higher than the national average. Since 2016, however, | 38 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Florida has outperformed the nation, with notable improvements between 2021 and 2024, a period marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and strong migration into the state. Broward County has consistently fared better than Florida overall, as illustrated in the table on the following page. Although reported numbers for the County and other areas are relatively small, data limitations may affect broader conclusions. Despite criticism, HUD’s PIT count remains the most consistent and reliable industry source. It is unclear whether HUD’s methodology’s challenges are more pronounced in large states like Florida, but experts generally agree that any resulting undercounts are unlikely to compromise the overall reliability of HUD’s data, which has served as the primary source for over two decades. In terms of long-term planning or analysis, the related issues may be different. Current numbers, however accurate, often obscure critical aspects of homelessness. Future undercounts or errors may require reassessment as methods and priorities evolve. In any case, housing inventory cannot fully meet the needs of specific populations. Even with flaws, current methodology offers a limited view of chronic homelessness, which cannot be solved solely through housing allowances or vouchers. Factors such as substance abuse, mental health challenges, and broader social issues also play a significant role beyond housing availability and cost. Looking ahead, many programs targeting specific populations are being phased out, leaving vulnerable groups, often with limited access to information, unaware of remaining resources. Housing vouchers, one of the most widely used supports, are being reduced or eliminated, and programs that helped lower veteran homelessness are expiring without replacements. Law enforcement actions aimed at homelessness may also discourage participation in official counts. While housing costs show signs of stabilizing, other expenses (e.g., insurance) continue to rise, pushing those on the financial margin into greater hardship. Overall numbers may appear lower, partly because undocumented individuals are likely to avoid counts, regardless of program eligibility.
Table 1. Homeless Population Counts (2010–2024) United States Homeless Population Count 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Average
649,917 636,017 633,782 610,042 578,424 564,708 549,928 550,996 552,830 567,715 580,466 380,630 582,462 653,104 771,480 590,833
State of Florida
% of Total Homeless United States Population Count Population 0.21% 57,551 0.20% 56,687 0.20% 55,170 0.19% 47,862 0.18% 41,542 0.18% 35,900 0.17% 33,559 0.17% 32,190 0.17% 31,030 0.17% 28,328 0.18% 27,487 0.11% 21,121 0.17% 25,959 0.19% 30,756 0.23% 31,362 0.18% 37,100
Broward County % of Total Homeless % of Total County Florida Population Count Population Population 0.31% 2,803 0.16% 0.30% 2,312 0.13% 0.29% 2,561 0.14% 0.24% 2,054 0.11% 0.21% 2,487 0.13% 0.18% 2,469 0.13% 0.16% 2,636 0.14% 0.15% 2,302 0.12% 0.15% 2,450 0.13% 0.13% 2,318 0.12% 0.13% 2,803 0.14% 0.10% 2,312 0.12% 0.12% 2,054 0.11% 0.13% 2,487 0.13% 0.13% 2,469 0.12% 0.18% 2,434 0.13%
Source: U.S. Housing Department Point-In-Time Estimates, Retrieved November 15, 2025.
Available Local Homelessness Resources and Bed Capacity HUD’s Continuum of Care (“CoC”) Homeless Assistance Program publishes the Housing Inventory Count (“HIC”), which provides a snapshot of the number of beds and units dedicated to serving people experiencing homelessness, including those in Permanent Supportive Housing (“PSH”). The HIC categorizes the housing inventory into two major groups: (1) Emergency, Safe Haven, and Transitional Housing; and (2) Permanent Housing. Since an exact count of the City’s homeless population is not available, examining the current supply of beds and housing resources helps provide insight into the potential scale of need.
According to HUD’s CoC Homeless Assistance Program, the County has 2,706 year‑round beds. Of these, 37% are family beds, 63% are adult‑only beds, and 0.1% are children‑only beds. Additionally, 58% of all beds in the County are permanent housing options, while 42% fall into emergency, safe haven, or transitional housing categories. Within the City, there are approximately 284 year-round beds, representing 11% of the County’s total inventory. Of these beds, 55% serve families, while 45% serve adults only.
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 39 |
Compared to the County overall, the City has a substantially larger share of emergency, safe haven, and transitional housing (86%), with only 14% designated as permanent housing, as shown in the following table.
Hollywood Hills Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
Table 2. Local Homelessness Resources and Bed Capacity
110 134
% of County 960 11.5% 179 74.9%
244
1,139
21.4%
40 – 40 284
1,301 266 1,567 2,706
3.1% 0.0% 2.6% 10.5%
City Emergency Shelters Transitional Housing Total Emergency, Safe Haven, and Transitional Housing Permanent Supportive Housing Total Rapid Rehousing Total Permanent Housing Total Supportive Housing
County
Source: U.S. Housing Department Continuum of Care Point-In-Time Estimates, Retrieved December 10, 2024.
Implications and Conclusions Specific to the homeless population, numbers across Broward County are relatively small in comparison to total population and therefore likely even smaller within the City. Though the numbers fluctuate modestly year to year, the homeless population has remained relatively stable since 2010. What is clear, is that homelessness is not driven solely by housing costs. While cost may be a significant factor, research shows housing instability stems from a complex interplay of social and cultural variables that cannot be resolved simply by increasing or targeting the availability and supply of housing.
| 40 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
The general inference from the challenges experienced by the homeless population is the Housing First model, which addresses the totality of the problem, appears to be a rational strategy. This model recognizes the vast array of health, economic, and cultural issues that must be managed, anchored by stability in the physical living space. Yet, its long-term outcomes remain uncertain, and implementing such a comprehensive solution may be extremely costly. Regardless of the strategy that is embraced or advanced, the homeless population may grow due to external pressures and programs that further vilify or stigmatize the condition.
[ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ]
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 41 |
About this Section This section titled Housing Market Assessment provides an in-depth analysis of housing conditions and market performance within the City, with comparisons to the County where relevant. It examines the four fundamental components of the housing market and includes heat maps illustrating key data points across Census Tracts within the City to highlight spatial patterns and relationships that influence housing demand and supply. This section is essential for identifying gaps between housing demand and available supply and for projecting future needs within the broader Housing Master Plan (“Study”), ensuring that recommendations are data-driven and responsive to the City’s unique marketplace.
Section 2.3
Housing Market Assessment Analyzing the market that supports housing requires a comprehensive approach, incorporating numerous variables and data points. A key component of this Study is identifying gaps between housing demand and supply, as well as examining patterns and trends that influence these dynamics. This process involves extensive data collection and interpretation to capture the full picture of housing conditions and market performance. At its core, understanding the housing market revolves around four fundamental components: people, product, price, and place. •
People represent the demographic and socio-economic characteristics driving demand.
•
Product refers to the types and conditions of housing available. Housing typology and terminology is previously defined in Section 1.3.
•
Price encompasses affordability, cost trends, and economic factors shaping access to housing.
•
Place considers the geographic and locational attributes that influence mobility and development patterns.
Together, these elements provide a framework for evaluating current conditions, identifying imbalances, and informing strategies to meet housing needs effectively within the City of Hollywood (“City”).
People Several major demographic and socio-economic indicators are essential for determining the market characteristics of a specific market area, these include: • • • • •
Total Population Household Population Employment Activity Race and Ethnicity Age Distribution
A profile of these demographic and socio-economic characteristics was necessary to fully understand the unique marketplace and the overall market-supporting housing demand within the City. | 42 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Total Population According to the U.S. Census Bureau (“Census”) year-end 2024 estimates, the total population of the City is approximately 159,072 persons. This represents approximately 7.8% of Broward County’s (“County”) total population of 2.03 million people. Between 2010 and 2024, the population increased at a 0.8% Compound Annual Growth Rate (“CAGR”), adding approximately 18,304 people over the 15 years. Since 2010, the County increased at a higher rate, increasing at a 1.0 % CAGR, from 1.75 million in 2010 to 2.03 million in 2024. As the County increased at a greater rate, the City as a proportion of the County decreased by 0.2% CAGR, from 8.1% in 2010 to 7.8% in 2024. The following table illustrates the changes in total population within the City and the County from 2010 to 2024 year-end estimates.
The heat map on the next page depicts estimated population density across all Census Tracts within the City, based on year-end 2024 estimates. Downtown Hollywood Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
Table 3. Total Population (2010–2024)
2010 2020 2024 5-YR CAGR 15-YR CAGR
City of Hollywood 140,768 153,067 159,072 0.8% 0.8%
Broward County 1,748,066 1,944,375 2,037,472 0.9% 1.0%
% Capture of the County 8.1% 7.9% 7.8% (0.2%) (0.2%)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024) and Decennial Survey (2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
Additionally, population density in the City also increased between 2010 and 2024, from 5,156 residents per square mile in 2010 to 5,827 residents per square mile in 2024, at a 0.8% CAGR. Population density increased more rapidly in the County, increasing at a 1.0% CAGR, from 1,453 residents per square mile in 2010 to 1,694 residents per square mile in 2024. This suggests that while both the City and County are becoming more densely populated, the County’s faster growth rate indicates a trend toward suburban intensification and potential shifts in development patterns. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 43 |
Legend City of Hollywood Population Density 450–4,000 Persons 4,001–6,000 Persons 6,001–8,000 Persons 8,001–10,000 Persons 10,001–22,400 Persons
| 44 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Figure 8. City of Hollywood Population Density Heat Map
Household Population Total population includes both the population residing within Occupied Housing Units or Households (“household population”), as well as the population residing in Group Quarters. The Census defines the latter as places such as college residence halls, residential treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities, group homes, military barracks, correctional facilities, workers’ dormitories, and facilities for people experiencing homelessness. These terms are further described within the subsequent pages. The distinction between total population and the household population is important in the context of estimating future Housing Unit demand or production. The portion of the population residing in Group Quarters requires specialized Housing Units. Therefore, that portion of the population does not contribute to future Housing Unit demand. As of year-end 2024, total household population within the City was approximately 157,679 persons, experiencing an increase of 0.8% CAGR since 2010, when the population was 139,565 persons. Comparatively, total household population within the County as of year-end 2024 was approximately 2.02 million persons, experiencing a slightly higher CAGR of 1.0% since 2010.
As of year-end 2024 estimates, total household population captures approximately 99% of the overall population within both the City and the County. Since 2010, the proportion of the household population relative to the total population has shown virtually no growth for both the City and the County. The following table illustrates the changes in the total household population within the City and the County from 2010 to 2024 yearend estimates. Table 4. Total Household Population (2010–2024)
2010 2020 2024 5-YR CAGR 15-YR CAGR
City of Hollywood 139,565 151,250 157,679 0.8% 0.8%
Broward County 1,731,174 1,929,434 2,018,669 0.9% 1.0%
% Capture of the County 8.1% 7.8% 7.8% (0.1%) (0.2%)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024) and Decennial Survey (2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
Washington Park Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 45 |
Employment Activity While it is true that certain areas of Florida exhibit different patterns of change, it is a well-accepted axiom of regional dynamics that population growth is substantively driven by the inflow of capital and income stemming from job creation. As employment grows in a particular area, there is movement to settle closer to that employment. Although the correlation is not a perfect one, increased employment induces housing development, thus driving population growth—which itself induces secondary employment. What is seen in the current circumstances is a growing pattern of workers commuting into the City from nearby communities, evidencing that the City is acting as an employment center. Physically connected in part by major thoroughfares, the City is also economically linked to its surrounding neighbors, which displays an obvious trend for its populations to work within the City. In addition, a diverse workforce and industry base within a market area can be an indication of healthy economic conditions, as it enhances the variety of available employment and interested companies in an area. The components to consider when analyzing the overall business and employment market include: • • • • •
Annual Employment Trends Trends in Remote Work Jobs by Industry Sector Employee Inflow/Outflow Unemployment Rate Trends
To note, the most current employment data available from the Census comes from Florida Commerce’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (“QCEW”) program, which includes annual employment figures by North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) for the County. For the City, the latest Census data, along with employee inflow/outflow information, is from year-end 2022. To estimate total employment for 2023 and 2024, historic capture and growth rates for the City relative to the County were applied. | 46 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Total Employment As of year-end 2024, total employment within the City was estimated to be approximately 71,287 employees, representing roughly 8.2% of the County’s total employees at 864,568. From 2010 to 2024, total employment within the City and County experienced CAGRs of 1.4% and 1.5%, respectively. The following table illustrates the changes in the total employment within the City and the County from 2010 to 2024 year-end estimates. Table 5. Total Employment (2010–2024)
2010 2020 2024 5-YR CAGR 15-YR CAGR
City of Hollywood 57,889 66,962 71,287 1.3% 1.4%
Broward County 695,625 816,836 864,568 1.1% 1.5%
% Capture of the County 8.3% 8.2% 8.2% 0.1% (0.1%)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap LEHD (2010, 2020); Florida Commerce Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (2024); GAI Consultants.
The heat map on the next page depicts estimated total employees across all Census Tracts within the City, based on year-end 2024 estimates.
Legend
Figure 9. City of Hollywood Employment Density Heat Map
City of Hollywood Employment Density 200–1,000 Employees 1,001–2,000 Employees 2,001–4,000 Employees 4,001–7,000 Employees 7,001–14,400 Employees
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 47 |
Trends in Remote Work The “Great Global Work-From-Home Experiment” created by the COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped work expectations. As organizations transition back to office life, a blend of remote and on-site work is emerging. This new chapter continued to evolve through 2025, with more employees returning to the office parttime. While the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) collects annual data on the location of work for full-time employees, data was not collected in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, BLS data from 2016 to 2019 shows that, nationally, about 82% of fulltime employees worked on-site, compared to roughly 23% who worked from home at least part of the time. Since 2021, the share of employees working on-site has risen from 68% to 73% in 2024, while the share working from home has declined from 38% to 33%, based on BLS data. At the City and County level, approximately 11,650 and 147,690 residents worked from home, respectively, according to year-end 2024 data from the Census. This represents 15% of the City’s labor force and 14% of the County’s labor force. Since 2021, the proportion of those who worked from home has also decreased by 17% in both the City and County. Although the share of remote workers has declined over the past four years, it remains notably higher than pre-pandemic levels. Since 2019, the number of people working from home in the City has tripled, and in the County it has nearly doubled. In 2019, about 2,510 City residents and 59,580 County residents worked remotely, representing 3.2% and 6.0% of their respective labor forces. The post-pandemic surge in remote work has fundamentally reshaped the area’s workforce composition. Unemployment Rates As of year-end 2024, the City’s unemployment rate is 7.1%, notably higher than the County’s 4.4%. Since 2010, the City’s rate fell from 9.5% to 7.1%, a decline at about a 1.9% CAGR, while the County saw a steeper drop at a 4.6% CAGR, as shown in the following table.
| 48 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Table 6. Unemployment Rates (2010–2024) 2010
City of Hollywood 9.5%
Broward County 8.9%
2020
6.2%
5.9%
2024
7.1%
4.4%
5-YR CAGR
2.7%
(5.7%)
15-YR CAGR
(1.9%)
(4.6%)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2010, 2020, 2024); GAI Consultants.
Employee Inflow and Outflow The most current employee inflow/outflow data from the Census is for year-end 2023, which provides insights into the efficiency of the local labor force. As of year-end 2023, the City had 70,413 employees, while the County had 898,463 employees. About 87% and 40% of these total employees live outside of the City and County boundaries, respectively. Conversely, only 13% and 61% of the total employees are living and employed in the City and County, respectively. In addition, the City saw a slight decrease in residents who live and work within the City, decreasing from 14.7% in 2010 to 13.3% in 2023, reflecting a negative CAGR of 0.7% over this period. Similarly, the County declined by 1.8 percentage points, dropping to 60.5%, reflecting a negative 0.2% CAGR over the same period. Employment by Place of Residence The most current employment by place of residence data from the Census is for year-end 2023. As of 2023, 12.8% of individuals employed in the City also lived within the City, reflecting a decline from 14.5% in 2010. Among workers who are employed in the City but reside elsewhere, the largest share lived in unincorporated Miami-Dade County, comprising 7.3% of employees in 2023, an increase from 6.9% in 2020 and 6.8% in 2010. The table on the following page summarizes the trends in employment by place of residence from 2010 through 2023.
Table 7. Employment by Place of Residence, City of Hollywood (2010-2023)
Hollywood Unincorporated Miami-Dade Pembroke Pines Fort Lauderdale Miramar Davie Plantation Miami Gardens Sunrise Miami Dania Beach Hallandale Beach Hialeah Lauderhill Coral Springs Tamarac Cooper City Pompano Beach Weston North Miami Other Total Employees
2010 Total 8,405 3,917 3,820 2,613 2,712 2,307 1,855 1,618 1,465 1,382 1,339 1,053 960 1,082 923 671 1,014 701 912 732 18,408 57,889
% Capture 14.5% 6.8% 6.6% 4.5% 4.7% 4.0% 3.2% 2.8% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 1.8% 1.7% 1.9% 1.6% 1.2% 1.8% 1.2% 1.6% 1.3% 31.8% 100.0%
2020 Total 8,580 4,638 4,243 3,352 3,223 2,666 1,869 1,778 1,630 1,737 1,352 1,231 1,231 1,178 979 949 1,051 931 897 823 22,624 66,962
% Capture 12.8% 6.9% 6.3% 5.0% 4.8% 4.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.4% 2.6% 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 1.4% 1.6% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 33.8% 100.0%
2023 Total 9,023 5,163 4,136 3,264 3,037 2,676 1,986 1,924 1,756 1,679 1,452 1,316 1,211 1,173 1,125 1,059 1,043 972 893 848 24,677 70,413
% Capture 12.8% 7.3% 5.9% 4.6% 4.3% 3.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.5% 2.4% 2.1% 1.9% 1.7% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 35.1% 100.0%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap LEHD (2010, 2020, 2023); GAI Consultants.
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 49 |
Jobs by Industry Sector As of year-end 2024, the leading industries within the City are Healthcare and Social Assistance, Retail Trade, and Accommodation and Food Services, which together account for over 43% of total employment. Similarly, these same sectors dominate employment within the County, where they collectively represent approximately 36% of the County’s total share of employment as of year-end 2024. Professional employment includes sectors such as Information; Finance and Insurance; Real Estate; Professional Services; Management of Companies; Administration, Support, and Waste Management; and Educational Services. In total, these professional occupations make up about 29% of the City’s workforce and 33% of the County’s workforce. Since 2010, the Utilities industry in the City has experienced the steepest decline, with a negative CAGR of 7.5%, dropping from 0.3% of the total employment in 2010 to 0.1% in 2024. In contrast, the Construction industry saw the largest growth among all industries within the City, growing at a 3.3% CAGR, increasing its share from 3.5% in 2010 to 5.7% in 2024. Within the County, the Transportation industry recorded the highest growth rate, at a 3.4% CAGR between 2010 and 2024, while the Agriculture industry experienced the greatest decline, contracting at a negative CAGR of 4.3% over the same period. The following table illustrates the breakdown of employment by NAICS industry sector for both the City and County as of year-end 2024, while the heat maps on the following page illustrate concentrations of primary jobs by industry sector across all Census Tracts in the City.
Table 8. Jobs by Industry Sector (2024)
Mining
City of Hollywood 0.0%
Broward County 0.0%
Agriculture
0.0%
0.1%
Utilities Information Arts/Entertainment/Rec Educational Services Management Manufacturing Finance/Insurance Public Administration Wholesale Trade Transportation Other Services Construction Real Estate Admin/Waste Management Professional/Tech Services Accommodation/Food Services Retail Trade Healthcare Total Employees
0.1% 1.2% 1.3% 1.4% 1.9% 2.5% 2.8% 3.4% 4.2% 5.1% 5.6% 5.7% 5.7% 7.6% 8.3% 10.6% 10.9% 21.7% 71,287
0.1% 1.9% 1.8% 5.9% 0.9% 3.6% 4.6% 5.2% 5.4% 4.9% 3.4% 6.3% 3.0% 9.1% 7.5% 10.3% 12.2% 13.7% 864,568
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Florida Commerce’s Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (2024); GAI Consultants.
| 50 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Figure 10. Jobs by Industry Sector Heat Maps Legend City of Hollywood Concentration of Jobs 0.01%–5.00% 5.01%–10.0% 10.01%–15.0% 15.01%–20.0% 20.01%–25.0%
Healthcare Services
Accommodation and Food Services
Professional Services
Retail Trade Services
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 51 |
Consumer Spending Consumer spending refers to the total amount of money individuals and households spend on goods and services, such as food, housing, transportation, and entertainment, and is a key indicator of economic activity and overall demand in an economy. As of year-end 2024, total consumer expenditures in the City are
approximately $5.4 billion (“B”), which represents about 7.4% of the County’s total consumer expenditures of $73.3B. Housing (34%) and retail goods (32%) account for the largest shares in both the City and County, reflecting similar spending patterns across both areas, as shown in the table below.
Table 9. Consumer Spending (2024)
Housing Transportation Retail Goods Food Food at Home Food Away from Home Entertainment/ Recreation Healthcare Travel/Transportation Annual Expenditures
City of Hollywood Total Expenditures (000s) $1,830,300 $602,400 $1,738,400 $628,500 $407,900 $220,600 $220,200 $403,400 $61,100 $5,407,000
% Capture of City’s Total 33.9% 11.1% 32.2% 11.6% 7.5% 4.1% 4.1% 7.5% 1.1% 100.0%
Broward County Total Expenditures % Capture of County’s (000s) Total $24,580,600 33.6% $8,167,100 11.1% $23,670,100 32.3% $8,458,100 11.5% $5,476,600 7.5% $2,981,500 $2,995,800 $5,540,100 $824,500 $73,257,200
4.1% 4.1% 7.6% 1.1% 100.0%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI Business Analyst (2024); GAI Consultants.
Race and Ethnicity Understanding racial and ethnic composition provides insight into market dynamics. As of year-end 2024, the City’s population is 44% White, 16% Black/African American, 1.4% Asian, 31% Two or More Races, and 7.4% Other Race. The County shows a similar pattern: 36% White, 28% Black/African American, 26% Two or More Races, 3.9% Asian, and 6.7% Other Race. Since 2010, the fastest-growing group in both areas has been individuals identifying as Two or More Races, with CAGRs of 16% in the City and 15% in the County. Additionally, Hispanic
| 52 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
origin is defined as an ethnicity and therefore can be identified as any race. As of year-end 2024, 42% and 34% of the total population in the City and County, respectively, are of Hispanic ethnicity. The table on the following page details the racial and ethnic distribution trends in the City and County from 2010 to 2024.
Table 10. Race and Ethnicity (2010–2024)
White
City of Hollywood 2010 2024 72.7% 43.9%
Black
16.7%
16.1%
(0.3%)
26.7%
27.7%
0.2%
American Indian
0.4%
0.4%
1.2%
0.3%
0.4%
1.4%
Asian
2.4%
1.4%
(3.4%)
3.2%
3.9%
1.2%
Pacific Islander
0.1%
0.0%
(100.0%)
0.1%
0.1%
0.5%
Other Race Population of 2+ Races Hispanic Ethnicity
4.5% 3.2% 32.6%
7.4% 30.8% 42.3%
3.4% 16.2% 1.8%
3.7% 2.9% 25.1%
6.7% 25.7% 34.4%
4.0% 15.6% 2.1%
15-Year CAGR (3.3%)
Broward County 2010 2024 63.1% 35.7%
15-Year CAGR (3.7%)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024) and Decennial Survey (2010); GAI Consultants.
North Central Hollywood Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
FINAL DRAFT
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 53 |
Age Distribution Age distribution is another key factor in understanding market dynamics. As of year-end 2024, the City’s median age is about 40 years, similar to the County’s median age of nearly 42 years. Roughly 63% of the City’s population are between the ages of 15 to 64, which is defined as the typical “working-age population”. Between 2010 and 2024, the working age population minimally decreased at a 0.6% CAGR in the City. Additionally, 20% of the population within the City are younger than 20, while 20% are 65 years or older. Conversely, in the County, 65% of the population fall within the working-age population, which also experienced a minimal decline of 0.3% CAGR since 2010. Additionally, 23% of the County’s population are younger than 20, while 19% are 65 years or older. The table below summarizes the age distribution of the City and County from 2010 to 2024, while the accompanying figure displays an age pyramid in 10-year increments for the City in 2010 and 2024, providing a more detailed view of population by age cohort.
Figure 11. City of Hollywood Age Distribution (2010–2024) 2010
2024
Under 10 Years
11.4%
11.7%
10 to 19 Years
11.1%
12.0%
30 to 39 Years 40 to 49 Years 50 to 59 Years 60 to 69 Years
8.8%
12.2%
20 to 29 Years
13.7%
17.7%
15.9%
13.9%
14.9%
11.0% 10.1%
11.9%
70 to 79 Years
6.1%
80 Years or Older
4.6%
The heat map on the next page depicts the median age distribution across all Census Tracts within the City, based on year-end 2024 estimates.
8.4% 4.8%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024) and Decennial Survey (2010); GAI Consultants.
Table 11. Age Distribution (2010–2024)
Under 5 5 to 14 15 to 64 65 or Older Median Age
City of Hollywood 2010 2024 5.9% 5.2% 11.0% 12.8% 68.0% 62.5% 15.1% 19.5% 41.1 40.0
15-YR CAGR (0.8%) 1.0% (0.6%) 1.7% (0.2%)
2010 5.9% 12.4% 67.5% 14.3% 39.7
Broward County 2024 5.3% 11.4% 64.7% 18.6% 41.6
15-YR CAGR (0.7%) (0.6%) (0.3%) 1.8% 0.3%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024) and Decennial Survey (2010); GAI Consultants.
| 54 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Legend
Figure 12. City of Hollywood Median Age Distribution Heat Map
City of Hollywood Median Age 35–40 Median Age 41–45 Median Age 46–50 Median Age 51–55 Median Age 56–65 Median Age
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 55 |
Group Quarters Population
In 2020, the City’s total GQs population was 1,817, reflecting a CAGR of 3.8% since 2010. At that time, most institutionalized residents were housed in nursing facilities, while the majority of non-institutionalized residents lived in other non-institutionalized facilities, such as temporary group homes. Detailed data by GQs type are not available for 2024; however, the City’s total GQs population declined to 1,393 in that year. The following tables present GQs population data for both the City and the County for 2010 and 2020.
It is important to identify vulnerable populations within group quarters (“GQs”), as these groups have distinct and varied housing needs. Particular attention is given to individuals residing in nursing facilities, in-patient hospice care, homes for persons with disabilities, and adult group homes. These housing types are emphasized because they represent long-term, non‑temporary living arrangements and are not related to correctional facilities; residents within these housing types typically require ongoing and specialized care.
Table 12. Group Quarters Population by Age-Cohort and Type, City of Hollywood (2010–2020) City of Hollywood 2010
Institutionalized population Correctional facilities for adults Juvenile facilities Nursing facilities/Skilled-nursing facilities Other institutional facilities In-patient hospice facilities Residential schools for people with disabilities Other Non-institutionalized population College/University student housing Military quarters Other non-institutional facilities Group homes intended for adults Other Total (Institutionalized and Non-Institutionalized Population)
2020
>18
18 to 64
65+
Total
>18
18 to 64
65+
Total
10 0% 100% 0% 0% 12 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 22
112 0% 0% 71% 29% 69% 0% 31% 522 0% 0% 100% 5% 95% 634
486 0% 0% 81% 19% 70% 0% 30% 61 0% 0% 100% 15% 85% 547
608 0% 2% 78% 20% 70% 0% 30% 595 0% 0% 100% 6% 94% 1,203
4 0% 75% 0% 25% 0% 0% 100% 155 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 159
204 10% 0% 72% 19% 0% 0% 100% 624 0% 0% 100% 17% 83% 828
768 0% 0% 94% 6% 0% 0% 100% 62 0% 0% 100% 56% 44% 830
976 2% 0% 89% 9% 0% 0% 100% 841 0% 0% 100% 17% 83% 1,817
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Survey (2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
| 56 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Table 13. Group Quarters Population by Age-Cohort and Type, Broward County (2010–2020) Broward County 2010
Institutionalized population Correctional facilities for adults Juvenile facilities Nursing facilities/Skilled-nursing facilities Other institutional facilities In-patient hospice facilities Residential schools for people with disabilities Other Non-institutionalized population College/University student housing Military quarters Other non-institutional facilities Group homes intended for adults Other Total (Institutionalized and Non-Institutionalized Population)
2020
>18
18 to 64
65+
Total
>18
18 to 64
65+
Total
406 8% 92% 0% 0% 308 3% 0% 97% 1% 99% 714
7,133 89% 1% 9% 1% 45% 0% 55% 4,872 23% 0% 77% 21% 79% 12,005
3,392 1% 0% 95% 4% 79% 0% 21% 781 0% 0% 100% 56% 44% 4,173
10,931 58% 4% 36% 2% 66% 0% 34% 5,961 19% 0% 81% 26% 74% 16,892
116 3% 83% 0% 15% 0% 24% 76% 258 1% 0% 99% 16% 84% 374
4,563 72% 0% 19% 9% 2% 2% 95% 3,546 30% 0% 70% 50% 50% 8,109
5,734 0% 0% 98% 2% 4% 0% 96% 724 0% 0% 100% 77% 23% 6,458
10,413 32% 1% 62% 5% 3% 2% 95% 4,528 24% 0% 76% 53% 47% 14,941
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Survey (2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
People: Implications and Conclusions Overall, the trends indicate that while the City experienced modest population growth, it lags behind the County. Coupled with the high proportion of those employed within the City but living outside its limits may indicate the City is losing its relative competitiveness as a place to live compared to other areas within the County—even though it remains an important employment center. Additionally, the City’s decrease in the working age population, but increase in those
65 years or older, may indicate potential future increased demand for healthcare and senior services, as well as potential pressures on economic growth. The City’s transition over the past 15 years to an aging, employment-centered community could constrain growth and lead to additional potential housing needs such as senior/ assisted living and more affordable workforce housing options to increase labor force participation. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 57 |
Product In Section 1.3 Housing Terminology and Typology, key definitions regarding housing were defined, which will inform the following section. In addition to defining and understanding these terms, several key factors should be considered, including: • • • • • • • • •
Total Households Household Tenure Total Housing Units Ownership Characteristics Vacancy Conditions Housing Composition Multi-Family Market Performance Housing Conditions Eviction Activity
Developing a comprehensive profile of these housing and productrelated characteristics is essential to fully understand the unique characteristics of the marketplace and the overall housing demand that supports both the City and County markets.
Total Households As of year-end 2024, the City had approximately 60,640 total Households, which represents roughly 8.0% of County’s total Households at 756,040. From 2010 to 2024, total Households within the City grew at a 0.2% CAGR, adding over 2,000 Households throughout the 15-year period. During this period, the County’s total Households grew at a faster pace, with a 0.6% CAGR and a net increase of nearly 70,000 new Households. Consequently, the City accounted for 3.1% of the County’s new Household growth since 2010.
| 58 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
The following table illustrates the changes in total Households within the City and the County from 2010 to 2024 year-end, while the heat map on the next page depicts total Households across all Census Tracts within the City as of year-end 2024. Table 14. Total Households (2010–2024)
2010 2020 2024 5-YR CAGR 15-YR CAGR
City of Hollywood 58,438 61,941 60,640 (0.4%)(1) 0.2%
Broward County 686,047 756,657 756,040 0.0% 0.6%
% Capture of the County 8.5% 8.2% 8.0% (0.4%) (0.4%)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024) and Decennial Survey (2020, 2010); GAI Consultants. Note: (1)The decline in Households between 2020 and 2024 falls within the margin of error of the 2024 American Community Survey.
Legend
Figure 13. City of Hollywood Household Distribution Heat Map
City of Hollywood Household Distribution 300–500 Households 501–1,000 Households 1,001–1,500 Households 1,501–2,000 Households 2,001–3,000 Households
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 59 |
As of year-end 2024, about 61% of Households in the City are Family Households. Of this total, approximately 66% are Married Couple Households. Non-Family Households make up approximately 39% of the total Households within the City. Since 2010, Family Households have grown modestly at a CAGR of 0.5%, driven largely by Male-led Households, which experienced a CAGR of 1.4% over the 15-year period. In contrast, Non-Family Households actually saw a decline of a 0.1% CAGR. The following table illustrates the trends in Family and Non-Family Households within the City from 2010 to 2024. Table 15. City Family and Non-Family Households (2010–2024) 2010
2024
58,438
60,640
15-YR CAGR 0.2%
58.9%
61.1%
0.5%
Married Couple
66.2%
66.2%
0.5%
Male-Led Household
9.4%
10.8%
1.4%
Female-Led Household
24.4%
23.0%
0.1%
41.1%
38.9%
(0.1%)
Total Households Total Family Households
Non-Family Household
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024) and Decennial Survey (2010); GAI Consultants.
Data on certain household characteristics was not available for 2010. However, to effectively understand the housing conditions within the City, it is essential to examine key characteristics that help assess housing needs more accurately. The data presented reflects conditions as of year-end 2024. More than 20% of Households are considered large, with four or more members. Additionally, 4.1% are multi-generational Households, as reflected by the presence of both grandparents and children living together. Approximately 45% of Households include at least one person aged 60 or older, while 36% include at least one person aged 65 or older. The term Householder, as defined in Section 1.3, Housing Terminology & Typology, refers to the individual (or one of the individuals) in whose name the Housing Unit is owned or rented. As of 2024, over 30% of Householders in the City were aged 65 or older. | 60 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Finally, 14% of Households are receiving SNAP benefits. Data on households with one or more person with a disability is unavailable, however, 11.8% of the population has a disability, which may require additional housing needs.
Household Tenure Persons per household within the County and City represented 2.55 and 2.60 persons per household, respectively, as of yearend 2024. The City experienced a slight 9.2% increase from 2.38 persons per household observed in 2010, whereas, the County experienced only a 1.2% increase during this same time period. As of year-end 2024, the City and County are predominantly owner-occupied at 57% and 61% of total Households, respectively. Since 2010, owner-occupied Households have experienced negative CAGRs of 0.3% and 0.5% in the City and County, respectively. Subsequently, renter-occupied Households have increased during this time frame for both the City and County at CAGRs of 0.4% and 1.0%, respectively. This suggests that both the City and the County are trending toward a more renter-oriented housing market. The table below illustrates the owner- versus renter-occupied total Households within the City and County from 2010 to 2024. Table 16. Household Tenure (2010–2024) City of Hollywood
Broward County
2010 2020 2024
OwnerOccupied 59.6% 55.6% 57.2%
RenterOccupied 40.4% 44.4% 42.8%
OwnerOccupied 66.6% 60.9% 61.4%
RenterOccupied 33.4% 39.1% 38.6%
5-YR CAGR
0.6%
(0.8%)
0.2%
(0.3%)
15-YR CAGR
(0.3%)
0.4%
(0.5%)
1.0%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024) and Decennial Survey (2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
Total Housing Units As of year-end 2024, the City had approximately 69,850 Housing Units, which represents roughly 8.0% of County’s total Housing Units. From 2010 to 2024, total Housing Units within the City declined at a 0.1% CAGR, losing nearly 1,220 Housing Units throughout the 15-year period. During this period, the County’s total Housing Units grew at a positive rate, with a 0.5% CAGR and a net increase of nearly 59,300 Housing Units. The following table illustrates the changes in total Housing Units within the City and the County from 2010 to 2024 year-end.
2010 2020 2024 5-YR CAGR 15-YR CAGR
Broward County 810,388 860,329 876,135 0.2% 0.5%
City of Hollywood
Broward County
Occupied
Vacant
Occupied
Vacant
2010 2020
82.2% 85.3%
17.8% 14.7%
84.7% 87.9%
15.3% 12.1%
2024
86.8%
13.2%
86.9%
13.1%
5-YR CAGR 15-YR CAGR
0.3% 0.4%
(2.1%) (2.0%)
(0.2%) 0.2%
1.6% (1.1%)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024) and Decennial Survey (2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
Table 17. Total Housing Units (2010–2024) City of Hollywood 71,070 72,585 69,850 (0.8%) (0.1%)
Table 18. Occupied and Vacant Housing Units (2010–2024)
% Capture of the County 8.8% 8.4% 8.0% (1.0%) (0.6%)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024) and Decennial Survey (2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
Ownership Characteristics As of year end-2024, the City’s Housing Unit occupancy rate stood at 86.8%. From 2010 to 2024, Occupied Housing Units grew at a 0.4% CAGR, rising from 82.2% to 86.8%. In comparison, the County experienced a 0.2% CAGR during this period, increasing from 84.7% to 86.9%. The table below shows the distribution of Occupied versus Vacant Housing Units for both the City and County from 2010 to 2024.
Vacancy Characteristics Vacant Housing Units within the City can be further broken down into several categories, including For-Rent, Only; Rented, Not Occupied; For Sale, Only; Sold, Not Occupied; For Seasonal Use; For Migrant Workers; and Other Vacant. One observation that should be noted, is the Census defines Other Vacant Housing Units as “year-round units which were vacant for reasons other than those mentioned above (i.e., for rent; for sale, only; rented, not occupied; sold, not occupied; and seasonal, recreational, and occasional use). For example, held for settlement of an estate, held for personal reasons, or held for repairs.” For purposes of this Study, the most recent Census data on vacancy categories is available for year-end 2023. Of the City’s total vacant Housing Units, For Seasonal Use makes up the majority with 60%, followed by For Rent with 19%, as of year-end 2023. The remaining uses, including Sold, Not Occupied, For Sale, Other Vacant, and Rented, Not Occupied, compose a combined 21% of the total vacant Housing Units within the City. There are zero For Migrant Worker units within the City.
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 61 |
Composition of vacant Housing Units within the County are comparable with that of the City, with the largest category being For Seasonal Use at 57%, followed by For Rent and Other Vacant both at 16%, as of year-end 2023. The remaining uses compose 27% of the total vacant Housing Units within the County, as illustrated in the table below. Table 20. Vacancy Characteristics (2010–2023)
Total Vacant For-Rent Rented, Not Occupied For Sale Only Sold, Not Occupied For Seasonal Use For Migrant Workers
City 2010 2023 12,632 12,097 25.6% 18.7% 0.9% 1.2% 12.0% 2.0% 1.7% 3.6% 45.7% 60.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Other Vacant
14.2%
14.2%
County 2010 2023 124,341 113,633 22.3% 15.7% 0.9% 2.7% 12.6% 5.2% 2.1% 3.7% 44.3% 57.0% 0.0% 0.1% 17.7%
In addition to Excess Vacancy, this Study also considers Housing Units designated for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (e.g., Vacant units held off the market, Seasonal Vacant Units). When combined, these categories form what is referred to in this Study as “Rotational Vacancy.” This broader measure captures the portion of the housing stock that, while technically vacant, plays a critical role in maintaining housing availability, supporting market fluidity, and absorbing fluctuations in demand. As illustrated in the following table, the City recorded an average Rotational Vacancy rate between 2010 and 2023 of 14.0%. During this period, the City also recorded an average Excess Vacancy rate of 4.3% and a seasonal vacancy rate of 9.7%—both marginally higher than the averages observed across the County during this same period. Table 19. Rotational Vacancy Rate as a Percent of Total Housing Units (2010–2023) City
15.7%
Excess Vacancy
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2023) and Decennial Survey (2010); GAI Consultants
While the total historic Households illustrates the total residential units necessary to accommodate population in Occupied Housing Units or Households, the calculation of total future Housing Unit demand must also account for the fact that some inventory or share of Housing Units will always be in various states of vacancy, and some amount of Housing Units will be eliminated due to demolition or conversion to non-residential use(s). One specific set of vacancy conditions is Housing Units that are listed exclusively as either “for rent, only” or “for sale, only”. For purposes of this Study, the sum of these Housing Units is referred to as “Excess Vacancy”. This figure is then adjusted to account for natural vacancy—the baseline level of unoccupied Housing Units typically needed to allow for normal turnover and mobility within the housing market. | 62 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Seasonal Vacancy
Rotational Vacancy
2010
5.9%
8.1%
14.0%
2020
3.8%
8.6%
12.5%
3.1%
9.9%
13.0%
4.3%
9.7%
14.0%
2010
Excess Vacancy 4.9%
County Seasonal Vacancy 6.8%
Rotational Vacancy 11.7%
2020
3.5%
6.5%
10.0%
2023
2.6%
7.4%
10.0%
Average(1)
3.6%
8.4%
12.0%
2023 Average
(1)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2023) and Decennial Survey (2020, 2010); GAI Consultants. Note: (1) Average reflects the calculated average across all years between 2010 and 2023.
In addition to Rotational Vacancy, data from HUD’s Components of Inventory Change (“CINCH”) estimates that about 0.33% of total Housing Units nationwide are also lost due to demolitions, and 0.06% are lost due to conversions to non-residential uses. Thus, approximately 0.39% of the total housing stock is lost due to conversions or demolitions every 2 years, the equivalent of roughly 0.20% per year. For the purposes of this Study, this would be equivalent to approximately 270 Housing Units in the City and 3,400 Housing Units in the County lost due to demolitions and conversions every 2 years. To emphasize, some portion of total Housing Units will always be in various states of vacancy, and some will be eliminated due to demolition or conversion to non-residential use(s). These factors do not suggest a supply of Housing Units readily available to support or accommodate demand. The City may show a higher vacancy share due to seasonal population shifts, but this percentage, whether high or low, does not indicate actual Housing Unit availability. In this Study, future Housing Unit projections were adjusted to account for these conditions, as detailed in the subsequent section.
Housing Composition Housing composition is classified by structure size and applies only to Occupied Housing Units, as defined by the U.S. Census, as follows: • • • • • • •
1-Unit, Detached: Single-Family Homes 1-Unit, Attached: Townhouses, Row Houses 2 Units: Duplexes 3 or 4 Units: Triplex or Quadplex 5 to 9 Units: Small Apartment Buildings 10 or More Units: Larger Apartment Complexes Mobile Homes/Other: RVs, boats, etc.
attached, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes) account for only 13.8%. Multi-family units (such as those with 5–9 units or 10 or more units) represent the second-largest share, at 37%, while mobile/ manufactured homes and other housing types make up just 1.3% of the total. Since 2010, the composition of Occupied Housing Units in the City has remained relatively stable, with 1-unit, detached Housing Units continuing to represent the largest share. Among all residential structures, the only categories to show growth since 2010 are 1-unit, attached, 2-unit (duplex), and multi-family buildings with 10 or more units, as illustrated in the following table. The heat map on the next page depicts composition of Occupied Housing Units across all Census Tracts within the City as of year-end 2024. Table 21. Occupied Housing Units in Structure within the City (2010–2024) 2010
2020
2024
5-YR CAGR
15-YR CAGR
48.9%
48.4%
47.8%
(0.2%)
(0.1%)
5.9%
5.6%
6.5%
2.9%
0.6%
4.7%
4.7%
4.7%
0.1%
0.0%
3 to 4 Units
4.0%
5.0%
2.6%
(12.1%)
(2.8%)
5 to 9 Units 10 or More Units Mobile Homes/ Other
4.7%
3.9%
3.7%
(1.0%)
(1.5%)
30.2%
31.0%
33.3%
1.5%
0.7%
1.6%
1.4%
1.3%
(1.2%)
(1.4%)
1-Unit, Detached 1-Unit, Attached 2 Units
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024, 2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
According to the Census, 1-unit detached Housing Units make up the largest share of Occupied Housing Units within the City, at 48% as of year-end 2024. Other single-family types (including 1-unit Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 63 |
Legend City of Hollywood Housing Type Single-Family Multi-Family Condominium Manufactured Housing Residential Other
| 64 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Figure 14. City of Hollywood Housing Composition
Multi-Family Market Performance An in-depth review of the City’s multi-family market was conducted using CoStar data for year-end 2024. To note, CoStar reports total multi-family units, including both occupied and vacant units, as a single count. As a result, the figures presented below may not align with the percentages shown in the preceding table.
reflecting a slight decline over time with a negative CAGR of 0.2% since 2010. Meanwhile, average rental rates have seen significant growth, increasing from $1,270 per unit in 2010 to $1,889 per unit in 2024—reflecting a 2.7% CAGR. Notably, growth in average rental rates accelerated between 2020 and 2024, rising at a 2.9% CAGR, or $248 over the 5-year period. The table below presents the performance characteristics of the City’s multi-family market from 2010 through 2024.
As of year-end 2024, the City had approximately 30,287 total multi-family units. Between 2010 and 2024, the total number of multi-family units grew at a 0.7% CAGR, adding 3,186 units over 15 years. In 2024, the occupancy rate for multi-family units was 91.5%, Table 22. Multi-Family Performance Characteristics (2010–2024) 2010
2020
2024
5-YR CAGR
15-YR CAGR
Total Units
27,101
28,647
30,287
1.1%
0.7%
Occupancy Rate
93.7%
93.9%
91.5%
(0.5%)
(0.2%)
Vacancy Rate Average Rental Rates per Unit Studio
6.3%
6.1%
8.5%
6.9%
2.0%
$1,270
$1,641
$1,889
2.9%
2.7%
$1,053
$1,355
$1,538
2.6%
2.6%
1-Bedroom
$1,090
$1,410
$1,676
3.5%
2.9%
2-Bedroom
$1,444
$1,861
$2,211
3.5%
2.9%
3-Bedroom
$1,497
$1,513
$1,508
(0.1%)
0.0%
4-Bedroom+
$1,201
$1,501
$1,690
2.4%
2.3%
Sources: CoStar Group; GAI Consultants.
Of the multi-family units within the City, all bedroom types have experienced increases in average rental rates since 2020, with the exception of 3-bedroom units, which saw a slight decline of $5 per unit. During this period, 2-bedroom apartments recorded the largest increase at $350 per unit, followed by 1-bedroom units at $266 per unit, which may be driven by stronger demand for smaller,
more affordable rental options or shifts in household composition. CoStar also classifies multi-family units into age-restricted and affordable segments. Performance metrics for these segments are shown on the following page.
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 65 |
Age-Restricted Multi-Family Units According to Costar, age-restricted units are defined as communities that legally limit occupancy to older adults, requiring that at least 80% of units be occupied by at least one resident who is 55 years or older. As of year end 2024, the City had approximately 2,302 age-restricted multi-family units. Between 2010 and 2024, this segment grew at a modest 0.4% CAGR, adding just 120 units over 15 years. In 2024, the City’s age-restricted multi-family units had a 98.9% occupancy rate, which increased at a 0.9% CAGR between during the same period. In addition, average rental rates for age-restricted units have risen significantly from $768 per unit in 2010 to $1,174 in 2024, representing a 2.9% CAGR. Growth accelerated between 2020 and 2024, with rents increasing at a 3.1% CAGR, or $168 over the 5-year period, as illustrated in the table below.
Affordable Multi-Family Units According to Costar, affordable multi-family units are defined as properties in which all rents are offered at or below prevailing market rates. As of year-end 2024, the City had about 1,707 affordable multi-family units. From 2010 to 2024, this segment grew at a 1.9% CAGR, adding 429 units. Occupancy rates remain strong, reaching 93.6% in 2024, with a 0.2% CAGR during the same period. Additionally, average rental rates increased from $1,120 per unit in 2010 to $1,237 in 2024, reflecting a 2.7% CAGR. However, unlike the overall multi-family and age-restricted segments, rents declined between 2020 and 2024 at a negative 3.0% CAGR, dropping by $252 over the 5-year period, as illustrated in the table below. Table 24. Affordable Multi-Family Performance Characteristics (2010–2024)
Table 23. Age-Restricted Multi-Family Performance Characteristics (2010–2024)
2010
2020
2024
5-YR CAGR
15-YR CAGR
Total Units
1,278
1,398
1,707
4.1%
1.9%
2010
2020
2024
5-YR CAGR
15-YR CAGR
Total Units
2,182
2,302
2,302
0.0%
0.4%
Occupancy Rate
91.0%
97.5%
93.6%
(0.8%)
0.2%
Occupancy Rate
86.1%
97.7%
98.9%
0.2%
0.9%
Vacancy Rate
9.0%
2.5%
6.4%
20.7%
(2.2%)
Vacancy Rate
13.9%
2.3%
1.1% (13.7%) (15.6%)
Average Rental Rates
$1,120
$1,443
$1,237
(3.0%)
0.7%
Average Rental Rates
$768
$1,006
$1,174
3.1%
2.9%
Sources: CoStar Group; GAI Consultants..
| 66 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Sources: CoStar Group; GAI Consultants.
Eviction Activity Eviction activity is tracked by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies using data from the Florida County Clerks and Comptrollers, with records available from 2020 through 2024 at the Census Tract level. In 2024, 1,106 evictions were recorded in the City, accounting for 6.0% of all evictions in the County. Evictions within the City increased over the 5-year period at a CAGR of 3.8%, which may indicate regression in housing stability. Conversely, the County experienced a sharp increase in eviction filings, reaching 18,335 cases in 2024, which represents a 13% CAGR since 2020, as illustrated in the following table. This eviction activity data suggests that eviction pressures remain significant at the City and County level. Rising eviction activity often reflects underlying challenges such as housing affordability, income/ employment volatility, neighborhood instability, and/or inadequate or underutilized rental assistance programs, making it a critical indicator for assessing housing insecurity as a precursor to housing affordability-induced homelessness, and market stress.
Housing Conditions Evaluating the physical conditions and characteristics of Occupied Housing Units helps determine whether residents are living in safe, habitable structures. Key factors include building age, as well as available facilities and heating systems, all of which can influence how long residents remain in their homes. The following section summarizes current housing conditions and the average time in residence within the City. Age of the Building As of year-end 2024, the majority of total Occupied Housing Units in the City were built between 1960 and 1970, accounting for 44% of the total. This is followed by units constructed in 1940 or earlier, which represent 29%. An additional 18% were built between 1980 and 1999, meaning that over 90% of the City’s housing inventory predates the year 2000. The remaining 9.8% consists of units built in 2000 or later, highlighting limited recent construction and
Table 25. Total Evictions (2020–2024) City
County
% of County
2020
916
9,830
9.3%
2021 2022 2023 2024 5-YR CAGR
990 1,155 1,084 1,106 3.8%
10,779 17,657 18,670 18,335 13.3%
9.2% 6.5% 5.8% 6.0% (8.1%)
Sources: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies; Florida County Clerks and Comptrollers.
an aging housing stock. The table below shows the distribution of Occupied Housing Units by year built within the City as of year-end 2024, while the heat map on the next page depicts the building ages across all Census Tracts in the City. Table 26. Year Built for Units in the City (2024) Year Built
% Capture of Total Occupied Housing Units
1959 or earlier 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 to 2019 2020 or later
28.5% 43.7% 18.1% 9.6% 0.2%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024); GAI Consultants. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 67 |
Legend City of Hollywood Age of Structure 1950 and before 1951–1970 1971–1990 1991–2010 2011–2025
| 68 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Figure 15. City of Hollywood Age of Housing Units Heat Map
Facilities and Services Facilities and services within Occupied Housing Units include essential components such as plumbing, kitchen amenities, and telephone access. In the City, approximately 98.9% of Occupied Housing Units are equipped with complete plumbing systems, while 99.1% have full kitchen facilities. These figures have remained unchanged between 2010 and 2024, indicating consistent access to these fundamental services over time. Telephone service availability, however, has shown improvement during the same period. In 2024, 99.2% of Occupied Housing Units have telephone service, up from 96.3% in 2010. This growth represents a CAGR of 0.2%, reflecting gradual but steady progress in telephone service connectivity for all Occupied Housing Units across the City. Table 27. Occupied Housing Units in the City with Complete Facilities and Telephone Services (2010–2024)
2010 2020 2024 5-YR CAGR 15-YR CAGR
With Complete Plumbing Facilities 99.4% 99.4% 98.9% (0.1%) 0.0%
With Complete Kitchen Facilities 98.9% 98.9% 99.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Time in Residence As of year-end 2024, approximately 14% of Households in the City moved into their current unit in 1999 or earlier, while the remaining 86% relocated in 2000 or later. Within this group, about 11% moved in between 2000 and 2009, and the largest share (30% of Households) moved in during 2010 to 2019. More recent moves account for a significant portion as well, with nearly 25% of Households having relocated between 2020 and 2022, and an additional 21% moved in 2023 or later, as illustrated in the table below. These figures indicate a high level of residential mobility, particularly in the last five years, with nearly half of all households having moved in since 2020. This trend suggests a dynamic housing market characterized by frequent relocations, which may reflect factors such as population growth, new housing development, and/or changing affordability conditions. Table 28. Time in Residence (2024)
With Telephone Service 96.3% 98.8% 99.2% 0.1% 0.2%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024, 2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
Product: Implications and Conclusions The trends indicate that while Households have increased, the supply of Housing Units is constrained and declining. This tightening gap between growing demand and shrinking supply is more likely to increase affordability problems, particularly for renters. Additionally, due to the City’s geographic boundaries and limited vacant land, the predominantly single-family and low density housing typologies
Total Households
% of Households
1989 or Earlier
4,319
7.1%
1990 to 1999
4,247
7.0%
2000 to 2009
6,397
10.5%
2010 to 2019
18,378
30.3%
2020 to 2022
14,861
24.5%
2023 or Later
12,438
20.5%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024); GAI Consultants.
are not supportive of a growing population. Coupled with the configuration of the Occupied Housing Units, the aging housing stock presents opportunities for reinvestment and rehabilitation to meet evolving housing needs. This may require infill development, zoning adjustments, and diversification of housing types to meet growing demand and address affordability issues. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 69 |
Price Income and wage data are key to understanding purchasing power and housing affordability. Combined with housing costs, these indicators offer a clear picture of financial stability within the City compared to the County. The following section analyzes these factors to assess affordability and economic resilience: • • • • • • • • • •
Employment Wages Industry Earnings Income Characteristics Household Incomes Home Values Median Gross Rent Monthly Housing Costs Cost-Burdened Households Income Limits Affordable Housing
A profile of these price-related characteristics was necessary to fully understand the unique marketplace and the overall marketsupporting housing demand within the City.
Employment Wages Employment wage data is provided by the Census’ Center for Economic Studies Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (“LEHD”) for year-end 2022. Wage distributions provided by the Census are categorized into three groups: •
Jobs earning $1,250 per month or less: Entry-level positions, part-time roles, or jobs in industries with lower wage scale.
•
Jobs earning between $1,250 and $3,333 per month: Typically a range of entry-level to mid-level positions across various industries.
•
Jobs earning $3,333 per month or more: Typically a range of mid-level to high-level positions across various industries. These roles often require specialized education, training, or experience.
| 70 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
As of year-end 2022, about 51% of employees in the City earned more than $3,333 per month. This share has grown significantly since 2010, when only 32% earned above this threshold, reflecting a 3.6% CAGR. Additionally, 33% of employees earned between $1,251 and $3,333 per month, while nearly 17% earned $1,250 or less as of year-end 2022. In comparison, the County shows similar patterns: 52% of employees earned more than $3,333 per month, 32% earned between $1,251 and $3,333, and just over 16% earned $1,250 or less. The proportion of higher-earning employees in the County also increased steadily, with a 3.3% CAGR from 2010 to 2022. The following table illustrates the changes in total employment wages within the City and the County from 2010 to 2022. Table 29. Employment Wages (2010–2022) City of Hollywood $1,250 per Month or Less $1,251 to $3,333 per Month More than $3,333 per Month
Broward County
2010
2022
2010
2022
25.6%
16.5%
24.4%
16.4%
42.3%
32.7%
41.3%
31.5%
32.1%
50.7%
34.3%
52.1%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap LEHD (2010, 2022); GAI Consultants.
As illustrated above, the jobs earning wages $1,250 per month or less within both the City and County have experienced the greatest decline since 2010. This trend may be attributed to changes in the local economy, such as the decline of certain industries or entrylevel positions; or increases in the cost of living, wages that once fell within this range may no longer be sufficient to attract workers; and lastly, as the job market evolves, there my be a greater demand for higher-skilled positions that pay more than $1,250 per month.
Industry Earnings Data provided by the University of Florida’s Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (“Shimberg”), further examines employment wages by industry sector for the City as a whole, as well as the estimated maximum affordable monthly rent for each industry based on 30% of an individual’s respective monthly income. It is important to note that Shimberg lists the fair market rent for a two‑bedroom unit in the City at $2,388 per month. As illustrated in the following table, Management, Utilities, and Information have the highest monthly wages as of year-end 2024, while Accommodation and Food Services and Retail Trade offer some of the lowest monthly wages within the City, which is not surprising as these industries tend to rely heavily on part-time employment. Overall, about 94% of industries in the City provide salaries earning $3,333 per month or more, with the remaining industries falling between $1,250 to $3,333 per month. During the same time period, there were no industries earning less than $1,250 per month. This suggests the average monthly earnings within the City exceed those in other areas within the Nation and State, where lower-wage industries are more prevalent.
Table 30. Earning by Industry (2024)
Agriculture
$3,896
Maximum Affordable Rent(2) (30% of Income) $1,169
Mining
$6,900
$2,070
Utilities Construction Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation Information Finance/Insurance
$11,363 $6,467 $8,380 $3,980 $6,756 $10,804 $10,164
$3,409 $1,940 $2,514 $1,194 $2,027 $3,241 $3,049
Real Estate
$5,785
$1,736
Professional/Tech Services Management Admin/Waste Mgmt Educational Services Healthcare Arts/Entertainment/Recreation Accommodation/ Food Services Public Administration
$9,308 $15,922 $4,917 $4,910 $5,978 $4,501
$2,792 $4,777 $1,475 $1,473 $1,794 $1,350
$3,007
$902
$7,443
$2,233
Average Monthly Wage(1)
Sources: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies; Florida Department of Commerce, 2024 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages; 2025 HUD Fair Market Rent; GAI Consultants. Notes (1): Data for the Manufacturing and Other Services (excluding Public Administration) Industries was not available for the City. (2) Maximum Affordable Rent estimates how much a household can spend on monthly housing cost without spending more than 30% on its monthly income.
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 71 |
Income Characteristics Income is also an important factor to consider when examining market characteristics, as it can be a broad indicator of a household or individual’s spending potential and their general ability to purchase a variety of goods and services within a specific marketplace. The median household income within the City was approximately $71,067 as of year-end 2024, which was significantly lower than the County’s median household income, at $81,488. Since 2010, the City’s median household income grew at a 3.0% CAGR, increasing from $45,699 in 2010 to $71,067 in 2024. Comparatively, the median household income in the County increased by nearly $29,800 between 2010 and 2024, reaching $81,488 in 2024, as illustrated in the following table.
Table 32. Per Capita Income (2010–2024) 2010 2020 2024 5-YR CAGR 15-YR CAGR
City of Hollywood
Broward County
$45,699 $57,095 $71,067 4.5% 3.0%
$51,694 $60,922 $81,488 6.0% 3.1%
Broward County
$28,833 $30,993 $41,693 6.1% 2.5%
$30,940 $33,912 $45,033 5.8% 2.5%
The table below indicates the total households by size and the presence of workers within each household. Households with four or more people had the lowest proportion of households with no workers, at 4.8%, while one person households had the highest proportion, at 45%. Table 33. Workers per Household by Size (2024)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024, 2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
In addition, per capita incomes within the City were estimated to be $41,693 as of year-end 2024, which was comparable to the County’s per capita income at $45,033. Per capita income is the average income per person in an area, calculated by dividing total income by the population, and according to the Census, it includes earnings for individuals aged 16 and older. Since 2010, per capita incomes within the City and County both grew at a 2.5% CAGR, as illustrated in the
| 72 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
City of Hollywood
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024, 2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
Table 31. Median Household Income (2010–2024) 2010 2020 2024 5-YR CAGR 15-YR CAGR
following table. The heat map on the following page depicts the average per capita incomes across all Census Tracts in the City as of year-end 2024.
Persons per Household Total No workers 1 worker 2 workers 3 or more workers
1
2
3
4+
19,071 45.0% 55.0% 0.0% 0.0%
19,955 31.7% 35.0% 33.3% 0.0%
9,089 7.5% 38.3% 42.3% 11.9%
12,525 4.8% 20.9% 44.6% 29.8%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024, 2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
Legend
Figure 16. City of Hollywood Per Capita Income Heat Map
City of Hollywood Per Capita Income Distribution $20,500–$25,000 $25,001–$35,000 $35,001–$45,000 $45,001–$55,000 $55,001–$85,500
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 73 |
Household Incomes
Median Home Values
As of year-end 2024, the largest concentration of Households within the City, at approximately 18%, has household incomes at $150,000 or more, which is less than that of the County; wherein the largest concentration of Households, at approximately 23%, has household incomes at $150,000 or more. The distribution of household incomes within the City and the County are illustrated in the table below.
As of year-end 2024, the median home value in the City was $475,200, which is slightly higher than the median home value of $471,900 in the County.
Since 2010, household incomes have grown at positive CAGRs in categories of $75,000 or more, while all lower-income categories declined in both the City and County. The $150,000 or more category saw the strongest growth, with CAGRs of 6.5% in the City and 6.2% in the County between 2010 and 2024. This suggests a significant upward shift in income distribution, reflecting increasing income divergence and a growing concentration of higher-income households. Table 34. Household Incomes (2010–2024) City of Hollywood
Broward County
2010
2024
2010
2024
Less than $10K
8.1%
6.7%
6.7%
5.9%
$10K-14.9K
5.8%
2.7%
5.3%
3.0%
$15K-$24.9K
12.0%
5.8%
11.0%
6.3%
$25K-$34.9K
12.9%
8.5%
11.0%
5.6%
$35K-$49.9K
15.6%
11.5%
14.6%
10.0%
$50K-$74.9K
18.0%
17.2%
18.3%
15.5%
$75K-$99.9K
10.8%
11.6%
11.9%
13.0%
$100K-$149.9K
9.8%
17.8%
12.3%
18.3%
7.1%
18.2%
9.1%
22.6%
$150K or more
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024, 2010); GAI Consultants.
| 74 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Since 2010, the median home values within the City and County have experienced CAGRs of 4.6% and 4.4%, respectively. Specifically, between 2010 and 2024, median home values rose sharply in both the City and County, by more than 95% and 90%, respectively. These rates of growth, outpacing both median household and per capita income increases, indicate that housing affordability has declined as home prices have risen faster than incomes over time. Median home value trends within the City and the County are illustrated in the table below. Table 35. Median Home Values (2010–2024) 2010 2020 2024 5-YR CAGR 15-YR CAGR
City of Hollywood
Broward County
$243,700 $281,300 $475,200 11.1% 4.6%
$247,500 $282,400 $471,900 10.8% 4.4%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024, 2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
The heat map on the following page depicts the median home values across all Census Tracts in the City as of year-end 2024.
Legend
Figure 17. City of Hollywood Median Home Values Heat Map
City of Hollywood Median Home Value Distribution $143,200–$300,000 $300,001–$450,000 $450,001–$600,000 $600,001–$750,000 $750,001–$1,165,000
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 75 |
Median Gross Rent Similar to the rise in home values, median gross rents have increased substantially since 2010. In the City, median gross rent per unit grew at a 3.5% CAGR, rising by $753 over the 15-year period. More notably, rents accelerated in the past five years, increasing at a 5.6% CAGR from $1,433 in 2020 to $1,886 in 2024. In contrast, the County experienced faster growth rates of 5.4% since 2010 and 10.8% since 2020; this suggests that rental affordability pressures have intensified more sharply within the County than in the City, reflecting heightened demand and limited supply in urban areas. The table below illustrates the median monthly gross rents per unit in the City and County from 2010 to 2024.
than the growth in median gross rents, suggesting that renting has become relatively more expensive over time—possibly indicating rising demand for rental housing and affordability pressures for renters. The table below illustrates the median monthly housing costs with and without a mortgage in the City and County from 2010 to 2024. Additionally, the following graph reiterates the proportions of Consumer Spending from Table 9 in the People subsection. Table 37. Median Monthly Housing Costs (2010–2024) City of Hollywood
Table 36. Median Gross Rents per Unit (2010–2024) City of Hollywood
Broward County
$1,133 $1,433 $1,886 5.6% 3.5%
$963 $1,262 $2,106 10.8% 5.4%
2010 2020 2024 5-YR CAGR 15-YR CAGR
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024, 2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
Monthly Housing Costs As of year-end 2024, median monthly housing costs for households with a mortgage were slightly lower in the City at $2,652 per month compared to the County at $2,705 per month, according to the Census. For households without a mortgage, meaning properties owned outright, median monthly housing costs were $1,005 per month in the City and $983 per month within the County, reflecting expenses such as property taxes, insurance, utilities, and maintenance. Since 2010, housing costs with and without a mortgage have grown at CAGRs of 2.8% and 3.7% in the City, compared to 2.3% and 3.6% in the County. Overall, these increases have been more modest | 76 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
2010 2020 2024 5-YR CAGR 15-YR CAGR
Broward County
With a Mortgage
Without a Mortgage
With a Mortgage
Without a Mortgage
$1,747 $1,737 $2,652
$583 $616 $1,005
$1,927 $1,878 $2,705
$575 $643 $983
8.8%
10.3%
7.6%
8.9%
2.8%
3.7%
2.3%
3.6%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024, 2020, 2010); GAI Consultants.
Cost-Burdened Households Housing cost burdens refer to the financial strain experienced by Households when a significant portion of their income is spent on housing expenses. Specifically, a Household is considered cost burdened if it spends more than 30% of its income on housing costs, which can include rent or mortgage payments, utilities, and other related expenses. If a Household spends more than 50% of its income on housing, it is considered severely cost burdened. Consumer spending, when compared to median housing costs and incomes, as detailed on the prior pages, shows that Households in the City are dedicating a disproportionately large share of their annual expenditures to housing. Housing expenses exceed all other spending categories (as illustrated in the figure below), including total retail spending, highlighting that housing represents the largest financial obligation for most residents as costs continue to rise.
Figure 18. City of Hollywood Consumer Spending (2024)
Further, data provided by the Census offers detailed insights into housing cost burdens for the City as a whole. In 2024, it is estimated that around 55% of all Households in the City are facing a housing cost burden; with approximately 25% of all Households severely cost burdened, spending more than 50% of their income in the past 12 months on housing. This suggests that a significant portion of the population is spending more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, which can limit their ability to afford other essential needs such as food, healthcare, and transportation. The table below shows the share of Households that are costburdened, broken down by household type that includes owners with and without a mortgage and renters in the City. Table 38. City Cost-Burdened Households, Housing Costs as a Percentage of Income in the Past 12 Months (2010–2024)
15.4% Housing Transportation
7.5%
33.9%
Retail Goods
With a Mortgage
Healthcare Other Expenditures 32.2%
11.1%
Using the widely accepted 30% affordability threshold, this data suggests many residents are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. As a result, they may be considered “cost burdened,” leaving reduced financial capacity for other essential needs such as transportation, healthcare, food, and savings. Overall, this trend may be contributing to a growing proportion of cost-burdened Households within the City.
Without a Mortgage Gross Rent
Total
2010 2024 Net Change 2010 2024 Net Change 2010 2024 Net Change 2010 2024 Net Change
Less than 30% 45% 49% +4% 74% 72% -2% 35% 28% -7% 47% 45% -3%
30%– 50% or 49.9% More 28% 27% -1% 17% 15% -2% 32% 39% +7% 28% 30% -2%
27% 24% -3% 9% 14% +5% 32% 33% +1% 26% 25% -1%
Total Cost Burdened 55% 51% -4% 26% 28% +2% 65% 72% +7% 53% 55% +2%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024, 2010); GAI Consultants.
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 77 |
Since 2010, the share of cost-burdened Households has increased among owners without a mortgage and renters, while Households with a mortgage have seen a decline over the same period. This suggests that renters and mortgage-free owners may be facing growing affordability challenges, possibly due to rising rents and other housing-related expenses. Severely cost-burdened
Households have seen a significant rise among those without a mortgage, increasing from 9% to 14% of total Households since 2010. This suggests that even mortgage-free owners are increasingly struggling with housing-related expenses such as property taxes, insurance, and maintenance, highlighting broader affordability challenges beyond mortgage costs.
Income Limits
Affordable Housing
In 2024, Broward County’s AMI was $89,100. This AMI is determined for the Fort Lauderdale HUD Fair Market Rent (“FMR”) Area, which includes both Broward County and the City of Hollywood. As mentioned in Section 1.3 Housing Continuum, these income limits determine eligibility for housing programs. For example, the very lowincome limit bracket is typically the limit for many rental assistance and affordable housing programs, while the low-income limit or 80% AMI is typically used for workforce housing and home buyer assistance programs. The table below outlines income limits based on household size. The four-person household is emphasized since this is the household size HUD uses as the standard benchmark for determining median family income.
An in-depth analysis was conducted on the affordable and incomebased multi-family units to determine the types of support these properties received—whether from local, state, or federal funding sources. Within the City, five primary funding mechanisms were identified as affordable, including: Section 8 Housing (Housing Choice Voucher and Project Based Rental Assistance), Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”), Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“FHFC”), Local Housing Finance Authority (“LHFA”), and State Apartment Incentive Loan (“SAIL”). Unlike Public Housing Authorities (“PHA”), which limit residents to properties owned and operated by local housing authorities, these other programs are associated with various direct financial assistance that enables eligible households to access housing in the private market.
Table 39. Broward County 2024 Income Limits Summary
In addition, the Study examines the State Housing Initiative Partnership (“SHIP”) to understand the funding allocated toward developing single-family affordable units. These programs are outlined below.
Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low (30% AMI) $22,200 $25,400 $28,550 $31,700 $36,580 $41,960 $47,340 $52,720
Very Low (50% AMI) $36,950 $42,200 $47,500 $52,800 $57,000 $61,250 $65,500 $69,700
Low (80% AMI) $59,150 $67,550 $76,050 $84,450 $91,200 $98,000 $104,750 $111,500
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s FY 2024 Income Limits Documentation System; GAI Consultants. | 78 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
•
FHFC and LHFA Programs are State and City programs that provide financial assistance to support local development initiatives.
•
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (“HCV”) Program establishes that landlords must ensure their properties meet all required physical standards and address any deficiencies. Once compliant, they can list the property, select a tenant, and enter into a Housing Assistance Payment (“HAP”) Contract, which outlines payment schedules and conditions for any adjustments.
–
HCV Program applicants must qualify as a “very low-income family”, generally earning no more than 50% of the area median income (“AMI”). In certain cases, households earning up to 80% of AMI may also be eligible if they meet additional specific requirements: 1. Displaced as a result of the prepayment of a mortgage or voluntary termination of a mortgage insurance contract on “eligible low-income housing,” as defined in 24 CFR § 248.101; 2. Continuously assisted under the public housing, housing choice voucher, project-based rental assistance, or other housing program under the Housing Act of 1937; 3. A criterion set by the PHA to address essential local housing needs.
•
•
The LIHTC Program provides tax incentives to individuals or entities that develop and own qualified low-income rental housing. By reducing the taxpayer’s annual federal income tax liability, the credit helps offset a portion of the costs associated with constructing, acquiring, or rehabilitating low-income housing. Importantly, the credit applies only to expenditures directly related to the low-income units, unless the entire property is designated as low-income housing. SAIL provides low-interest loans on a competitive basis for developers each year. These loans are given to developers who set aside a minimum of 20% of the developments units for families earning 50% or less of the area’s median income.
According to Shimberg, there are 20 multi-family properties that benefit from one or more primary funding mechanisms within the City, indicating a concentrated reliance on a few key programs. FHFC and LIHTC are the dominate programs, each capturing 1,749 multi-family units that benefit from these programs. In addition, SAIL contributes to 475 of these units, while Section 8 programs support 363 units, reflecting moderate diversification of funding sources. LHFA’s share is comparatively small at 159 units, suggesting limited local-level financing capacity. Additionally, the City’s Public Housing
Units, affordable rental homes provided by local authorities and funded by HUD, represent just 120 of the program supported multifamily units, highlighting a shift away from traditional public housing toward mixed-financing models. The table below illustrates the multifamily units that benefit from federal funding mechanisms within the City as of year-end 2024. Table 40. Affordable/Income-Based Multi-Family Units By Type And Federal or State Funding Source (2024)
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Housing Finance Authority State Apartment Incentive Loan Public Housing
Total Assisted Multi-Family Units 363 1,749 1,749 159 475 120
Sources: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies; Florida County Clerks and Comptrollers; GAI Consultants.
Price: Implications and Conclusions The trends indicate that the City’s affordable housing conditions are structural. While the proportion of employees within the City earning more than $3,333 per month has increased to over 50% of total employment in 2024, incomes continue to lag behind the rising cost of living. Due to this mismatch, cost-burdened Households have increased to a significant 55% of all Households, with a disproportionate impact on renters. Additionally, the imbalance between wages and housing costs constrains household spending, limiting economic growth within the City. This suggests that the City must prioritize the production of both affordable housing and workforce/attainable housing to better align supply with the income profile of its workforce. Absent expanded access to affordable housing options, the City may continue to experience workforce outflow, as employees in its primary industries face challenges in affording median housing costs. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 79 |
Place There are several key topics to consider when determining the characteristics of a specific area. Developing a comprehensive profile of these place-based topics is necessary to fully understand the area and the overall market-supporting housing demand within the City. Place-based topics include: • • • • •
Mobility Displacement Land Values Pace of Residential Construction Availability of Vacant Land Annexation Activity
Mobility Displacement According to Census data, mobility displacement refers to tracking whether individuals lived in the same residence one year earlier. This measure applies only to the population aged one year and older. The following table illustrates the trends in geographic mobility of the household population aged one year or older within the City between 2010 and 2024. Table 41. Geographic Mobility within the City (2010–2024) 2010
2020
2024
Population 1+ Year 139,863 152,456 157,976 Same House from Prior Year 82.2% 86.0% 84.5% Moved within the 11.4% 7.4% 6.0% County Moved from Another County 3.5% 2.8% 2.0% in Florida Moved from a 1.8% 2.1% 2.3% Different State Moved from 1.2% 1.7% 5.1% Abroad
5-YR CAGR
15-YR CAGR
0.7%
0.8%
(0.3%)
0.2%
(4.1%)
(4.2%)
(6.5%)
(3.7%)
1.8%
1.6%
24.6%
10.1%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024, 2020, 2010); GAI Consultants. | 80 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
In 2010, the City had a household population of 139,863 aged one year or older, with 82% remaining in the same residence as the previous year. By 2024, this share increased to 85%, indicating greater residential stability. Meanwhile, the proportion of residents relocating from elsewhere within the County declined from 11% in 2010 to 6% in 2024, suggesting reduced intra-county mobility. More notably, the share of residents moving from abroad rose from 1.2% to 5.1% over the same period. These trends suggest a growing international presence in the City’s population, coupled with increasing housing stability and a shift away from local moves, which may reflect both economic conditions and evolving migration patterns.
Land Values Location plays a major role in shaping property desirability, accessibility, and market demand—all of which influence valuation. This property analysis utilized Broward County’s Final 2025 Tax Roll and Existing Land Use data to classify properties into commercial, residential, industrial, institutional, agricultural, governmental, and vacant categories based on the Florida Department of Revenue (“DOR”) Use Codes. Within the City, residential properties account for nearly 70% of total building area, followed by commercial properties at 13.5%. Additionally, residential properties have the highest just value per acre; whereas, commercial properties hold the highest taxable value per acre. This suggests that residential properties contribute significantly to overall land valuation, while commercial properties represent a key source of taxable revenue for the City. From a general land‑planning perspective, when land value represents more than 40% of a property’s total just value, it may indicate that the site is a strong candidate for redevelopment and/or new development activity. Within the City, excluding clearly developable vacant parcels, land value for properties with
governmental uses exceeds this 40% threshold, while institutional uses fall just below it. This may suggests that many properties within these categories may have redevelopment potential or could
be transitioned to alternative, higher‑value land uses. The table below summarizes all properties within the City by DOR Use Codes, using data from Broward County’s Final 2025 Tax Roll.
Table 42. City Parcel Summary Data (2025)
Residential Commercial
Total Building Square Feet 96,461,131 18,640,378
Total Land Acres(1) 7,124 1,544
Just Value (JV) per Acre $4,201,461 $2,992,305
Land Value (LV) per Acre $414,991 $527,296
LV as a % of JV 9.9% 17.6%
Taxable Value (TV) per Acre $2,685,826 $2,841,799
TV as a % of JV 63.9% 95.0%
Industrial
9,509,083
633
$2,680,255
$545,186
20.3%
$2,281,313
85.1%
Institutional
3,756,972
374
$1,542,242
$503,525
32.6%
$518,672
33.6%
Agricultural
9,826
3,204
$603,447
$261,142
43.3%
$8,145
1.3%
Governmental
9,673,219
33
$325,591
$86,184
26.5%
$156,097
47.9%
Vacant
–
419
$1,301,715
$1,293,675
99.4%
$728,169
55.9%
Other(2) Total
464,511 138,515,120
2,847 16,178
$53,953 $2,263,200
$41,210 $332,762
76.4% 14.7%
$21,881 $1,465,606
40.6% 64.8%
DOR Use Code(s)
Sources: Broward County Property Appraiser Final 2025 Tax Roll; City of Hollywood Existing Land Use; GAI Consultants. Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. (1) Reflects Existing Land Use values (see Figure 4 on pg. 9). (2) Other includes all ‘90’ DOR use code categories such as utilities, right-of-ways, rivers, lakes, ponds, environmentally sensitive lands, waste lands, centrally assessed lands, etc.
Figure 19 compares land value per acre by DOR Use Codes between 2020 and 2025. The data indicate that vacant land saw the most significant increase in value, whereas, government land
use was the only category that experienced a decline during this period.
Figure 19. City of Hollywood Land Value per Acre by DOR Use Code (2020 and 2025) 2020
Land Value per Acre
$1,400,000
2025 $1,293,675
$1,000,000
$600,000
$381,849 $414,991
$433,470
$545,186
$527,296 $385,504
$472,821 $503,525
$477,784 $261,142
$200,000
$36,459 Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Agricultural
$210,998 $86,184 Governmental
$36,749 Vacant
$41,210
Other
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 81 |
Residential Properties To further examine the residential properties using Broward County’s Final 2025 Tax Roll, these properties were categorized by DOR Use Codes into the following groups: single-family, condominium, manufactured home, multi-family, and “residential other”, which includes cooperatives, retirement homes, and miscellaneous units such as boarding homes. According to Broward County’s Final 2025 Tax Roll, single-family residential makes up the largest share of units at 44%, followed by condominiums at 29% and multi-family units at 26%. “Residential other” and manufactured homes represent the smallest share, together accounting for about 1%, as illustrated in the table below. From a valuation perspective, single-family has the highest average just and taxable value per unit, followed by “residential other” and
condominiums. Overall, the average just value and taxable value per unit for all residential properties in the City are $414,645 and $265,066, respectively, as shown in the table below. In comparison, these figures are slightly lower than the County’s averages of $438,467 for just value and $274,766 for taxable value per unit. From a general land‑planning perspective, when land value represents more than 40% of a property’s total just value, it may indicate that the site is a strong candidate for redevelopment and/or new development activity. Within the City, land value for properties with manufactured homes and ”residential other” exceeds this 40% threshold. This may suggests that many properties within these categories may have redevelopment potential or could be transitioned to alternative, higher‑value land uses.
Table 43. Residential Parcel Summary Data (2025) DOR Use Code(s) Single Family Condo Multi-Family Manufactured Other(1) Total
Total Units 31,843 20,801 18,599 1 945 72,189
% of Total 44.1% 28.8% 25.8% 0.0% 1.3% 100.0%
Just Value (JV) per Unit $582,579 $368,598 $171,989 $52,620 $545,675 $414,645
Land Value (LV) per Unit $69,755 $–(2) $23,342 $28,310 $318,715 $40,956
LV as a % of JV 12.0% 0.0% 13.6% 53.8% 58.4% 9.9%
Taxable Value (TV) per Unit $317,768 $286,097 $148,680 $39,520 $317,157 $265,066
TV as a % of JV 54.5% 77.6% 86.4% 75.1% 58.1% 63.9%
Sources: Broward County Property Appraiser Final 2025 Tax Roll; GAI Consultants. Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. (1) Other includes all ‘90’ DOR use code categories. (2) Individual condo units do not have distinct land values, as the entire property’s land is owned collectively as one parcel.
Residential Sales Activities by Exemption Status Analyzing property sales data between 2020 and 2024 indicated a distinct sales trend regarding homestead exemption. These patterns indicate the characteristics of residents or investment companies buying homes within the City. Between 2020 and 2024, on average, 48% of homes that sold never had a homestead exemption, while nearly 42% of homes sold remained homestead exempt. Additionally, 8.7% of homes sold between 2020 and | 82 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
2024 became homestead exempt. Finally, only 1.6% of homes sold lost homestead exemption. This data indicates that there is not a significant amount of investor-led residential sales activity within the City. Additionally, the large proportion of homes that remained homestead exempt were sold and purchased by permanent residents and are not being used as seasonal homes.
Table 44. Residential Sales Activity of Homestead and Non-Homestead Properties (2020–2024) Became Homestead Exempt Lost Homestead Exemption Remained Homestead Exempt Never Homestead Exempt
2020-2024 Average 8.7% 1.6% 41.7% 48.0%
Sources: Broward County Property Appraiser Final 2020-2024 Tax Rolls; GAI Consultants.
Availability of Vacant Land According to Broward County’s Final 2025 Tax Roll and Existing Land Use data, the City has approximately 419 acres of vacant land. For purposes of this section, vacant lands are identified based on DOR Use Codes, and include any parcels designated as vacant or unimproved agricultural (e.g., grazing land, cropland, miscellaneous agricultural, non-agricultural acreage). To note, vacant land calculations do not include the DOR Use Code 009 representing Residential Common Elements/Areas or Support. In 2025, the largest share of vacant land acreage in the City consists of vacant governmental land, accounting for approximately 36% of the total vacant acreage. This is followed by vacant residential land, at 27%, and vacant commercial land, at 20%. Other categories include vacant industrial and institutional land, which represent 16% and 2%, respectively, of the City’s total vacant land.
Annexation Activity Since 1996, four parcels have been annexed into the City. Two parcels were added in 1999, expanding the City’s boundaries by approximately 19 acres, followed by two more parcels in 2000, adding an additional 7 acres. No further annexation activity has occurred in over two decades, likely due to the surrounding municipalities of Dania Beach, Hallandale Beach, and Pembroke Pines limiting available unincorporated land.
Today, the City spans roughly 30.8 square miles, including 27.3 square miles of land and 3.5 square miles of water, featuring about six and a half miles of Atlantic Ocean coastline.
Pace of Residential Construction According to Broward County’s Final 2025 Tax Roll, approximately 4,640 total Housing Units have been constructed in the City since 2010. Of these residential dwelling units constructed after 2010, multi-family makes up 57%, followed by single-family units and condominiums, at 25% and 18% of the total share, respectively. “Residential other” represents less than 1% of all units constructed in the City since 2010. During this same period, the City contributed approximately 6.0% of all new Housing Units built within Broward County, reflecting a modest but steady role in regional housing development. Most of the residential construction activity in the City occurred between 1960 and 1979, with approximately 34,873 units, or 48% of the total housing stock, built during this period. This suggests a significant portion of the City’s housing inventory is aging and may require reinvestment or redevelopment to meet current standards and demand. Of these units, about 48% are single-family homes, 25% are condominiums, and 24% are multi-family units. To note, the age of Occupied Housing Units shown in previous sections differs from the pace of residential construction. The age data reflects existing properties and their structural age, whereas, residential construction pace accounts for all Housing Units built, demolished, converted, or otherwise altered during the specified timeframe. The map on the next page depicts residential construction activity by housing type in 10-year intervals within the City from 1930 through 2025.
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 83 |
Figure 20. City of Hollywood Pace of Residential Construction Legend City of Hollywood Year Built 1930–1939 1940–1949 1950–1959 1960–1969 1970–1979 1980–1989 1990–1999 2000–2009 2010–2019 2020–2025
| 84 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Major Residential Developments This Study encompasses a review of several residential developments within the City that are either active, approved, or under construction. Development activity includes both new residential properties and additional units within existing properties. Examining these developments provided valuable insights into both the current and planned residential construction activities within the City. This information is crucial for accurately estimating the future housing supply within the City.
developer purchased seven parcels for the proposed build site for roughly $4.5 million before Phase 1 was completed. Although no completion date for the project has been set, rent for Phase 2 is expected to align with the rates for Phase 1, which begin at $1,625 for a 461-square foot studio.
These active development projects represent the ongoing efforts to enhance and expand housing options within the City and to accommodate the growing population. As of year-to-date 2025, there are a total of 634 approved and/or under construction multifamily units within the City, with an additional 636 condominium residential units, 444 multi-family units, and 400 affordable multifamily units proposed and/or under review, as detailed in the following pages.
Revv Hollywood – 2233 Hollywood Blvd., Hollywood, FL Revv Hollywood recently received its Temporary Certificate of Occupancy on December 1, 2025, making it one of the City’s newest developments. The project features 180 multi-family units along with a fitness studio, resort-style pool decks, a co-working hub with private offices and shared spaces, a resident lounge, pet spa, and two ground-floor retail spaces designed to integrate with the surrounding neighborhood. Average rental rates per unit start at $2,030 for a 445 square foot studio and range to $3,450 for a twobedroom, two-bath, 1,225-square foot unit.
21 Hollywood – 2100 N. Federal Highway, Hollywood, FL Currently under construction, 21 Hollywood is a 14-story mixed-use development slated for completion between late 2026 and early 2027. The project will include 200 luxury rental units and 10,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space. Planned amenities feature a fitness center with 14-foot ceilings, yoga and Pilates studio, children’s playroom, pet park with washing stations, dual screening rooms, and an 85-foot infinity-edge pool. No pricing information was readily available for this project.
Wesley at Fillmore – 2236 Pierce Street, Hollywood, FL Construction began in April 2025 on a low-rise multi-family development designed by Kaller Architects. After purchasing the site for $1 million, the developers secured a $13.7 million loan from the National Bank of Florida, which allowed construction to begin. Upon completion, the project will offer 56 units with amenities such as a swimming pool and fitness center. No estimated completion date has been announced and no rental pricing is readily available for the project.
Nine Hollywood – 1831 Jackson St, Hollywood, FL The first phase of the Nine Hollywood project was completed in 2024, delivering 226 luxury multi-family units. Developer Gadamis Property LLC now plans Phase 2, which will include an additional 198 multi-family units, multiple pickleball courts, a fifth-floor amenity deck with a fitness center and pool, and 6,400 square feet of commercial space. In May 2025, the developer submitted a rezoning request for 1 acre along Jackson Street to the Hollywood Development Review Committee, which remains pending. The
2455 Polk Street – 2455 Polk St., Hollywood, FL A Chicago-based developer has proposed a four-story, 30-unit low-rise multi-family project designed by Kaller Architecture, featuring 1- to 2-bedroom units after purchasing a 0.47-acre site for $1.3 million in late 2024. The Hollywood Development Review Committee approved the plans in April 2025, although no start or completion date has been announced for the project. No additional pricing information was readily available for this project.
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 85 |
Caltopia Hollywood – 2750 Van Buren Street, Hollywood, FL The Calta Group secured a $53.69 million construction loan in early 2025 to begin work on Caltopia Hollywood and Caltopia Hollywood II. This two-phase project will deliver 251 Class-A multi-family units across two four-story buildings, featuring amenities such as a lounge, pool, pet grooming services, and a fitness center. Combined, the development will provide 184,497 square feet of rentable groundfloor space. No additional pricing information was readily available for this project. Gaia Residences – 401 North Federal Highway, Hollywood, FL Alta Developers plan to break ground on Gaia Residences in early 2026. The project will deliver 238 luxury condominiums starting at $400,000 and will include amenities such as a swimming pool, fitness center, and co-working space. While the groundbreaking date is set, the anticipated completion date has not yet been announced. Construction costs are not readily available for this project, however, developers purchased the construction site for $23 million in 2021. Guitar View Apartments – 5200 South SR 7, Hollywood, FL Submitted for approval in late 2024 and is being considered for administrative approval in May 2026. As Hollywood’s first Florida Live Local Act project, Guitar View Apartments is a proposed 14-story multi-family development featuring 198 units, 6,000 square feet of
commercial space, and 277 parking spaces. The development will be located on a .88-acre site, which was purchased for $2.4 million in 2024, near the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino. The amenity deck will include a swimming pool, Jacuzzi, fitness center, and spa. At least 40% of units will be designated for workforce housing for individuals earning up to 120% of the AMI. No estimated completion date or average rental rates for the proposed units have been provided. Hillcrest Village – 1101 Hillcrest Drive, Hollywood, FL Hillcrest Village is a planned affordable housing development featuring 110 multi-family units reserved for households earning up to 80% of the AMI. Amenities will include a swimming pool and fitness center. Approved by the City Commission in November 2025, the project is expected to be completed by 2028. No additional pricing information was readily available for this project. Hollywood Moon – 901 South Ocean Drive, Hollywood, FL Hollywood Moon will comprise 48 luxury waterfront boutique residences across two towers, with condominium units ranging from 1,100 to 2,250 square feet and starting at $1.1 million. Planned amenities include an infinity pool, wellness spa, and private clubhouse. Construction is expected to begin by the end of 2025, with completion targeted for 2027. No additional pricing information was readily available for this project.
Downtown Hollywood Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
| 86 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Icon Beach Residences – 3724 South Ocean Drive, Hollywood, FL Developers Related Group and BH Group plan to break ground in 2026 on a 38-story luxury condominium tower along Ocean Drive. The project will deliver 350 condo units and feature high-end amenities, including a pool deck, a full-service beach club, a resident marina, spa and wellness center, and indoor-outdoor lounges. While no construction costs are readily available, pricing for the residential properties will range from $825,000 to $2.8 million per unit. Completion of the project is anticipated in 2028.
Place: Implications and Conclusions
Paramount Place – 826 S. Dixie Highway, Hollywood, FL Approved in December 2025, Paramount Place is an eight-story affordable housing development for seniors, led by Coral Gablesbased Housing Trust Group. The project will include 96 units reserved for individuals aged 62 and older, along with amenities such as a swimming pool and fitness center. The developer acquired the site for $3.6 million in August 2024, and the development has remained in the planning phase with no announced completion date. No additional pricing information was readily available for this project.
When considered alongside People, Product, and Price, the limited pipeline of affordable unit production further exacerbates the City’s housing affordability issues. Constrained land supply may continue to push new development toward higher-priced, marketrate products, reducing the availability of housing accessible to low- and moderate-income households.
Parkside Vue – 1809 Madison Street, Hollywood, FL Las Villas JDL, LLC has submitted a proposal for a 45,000-squarefoot project featuring 44 multi-family units and 1,500 square feet of commercial space. The development site was purchased for $400,000 in 2014, while the construction expected to cost $15 million to complete. The proposal is currently under review by the Hollywood Planning and Development Board, though a start and anticipated completion date has not been announced. No additional pricing information was readily available for this project.
One of the primary trends evident within the City is the limited availability of developable land, which is constraining the pace of residential development. The rate of new housing construction has slowed considerably due to both a shortage of vacant land and existing geographic and built-out constraints. Among projects that are currently under construction, approved, or proposed, only a small share of units are planned to be income-restricted or affordable.
These trends point to two key takeaways. First, without targeted incentives to support the construction of affordable and workforce/attainable units, as well as streamlined administrative and approval processes, the City is likely to continue experiencing a slow pace of affordable and workforce/attainable housing development. Second, the City will need to prioritize redevelopment, infill, and reinvestment opportunities to maximize existing land capacity and better align future housing production with the income levels of its workforce.
Residences at Beverly Park – 6017 Washington St., Hollywood, FL In July 2025, NuRock Companies secured $38.7 million for the Residences at Beverly Park, a 10-story development with 115 affordable multi-family units for tenants earning between 30% and 80% of the AMI. Construction contracting is anticipated to conclude by January 2026, although a final completion date has not been announced. No additional pricing information was readily available for this project. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 87 |
About this Section
Section 2.4
As a part of the Housing Master Plan (“Study”), community input was gathered by conducting a series of stakeholder engagement sessions. The main focus of these engagement sessions was to listen and learn from stakeholders representing various segments of the community.
Public Engagement
This Community Input is intended to be used as an informational guide highlighting the stakeholders’ input on ideas, goals, and aspirations for the City’s housing needs. It will also help inform community strengths, opportunities, and priorities for future growth and development within the City of Hollywood.
Participants were asked to respond to the following questions:
Overview and Summary Three public engagement sessions were conducted on Thursday, February 5, 2026, with stakeholder groups of 10 to 20 participants. These consisted of Community Leaders and Non‑Profit Organizations, the City Leadership Team, and the Private Sector, including developers, architects, and attorneys. Each two‑hour public engagement session featured a brief presentation followed by focused, collaborative discussions guided by a questionnaire, which participants also completed individually. 1. What key accomplishments has your organization achieved in addressing housing needs within the city or region? 2. What housing challenges or needs are Hollywood and the broader region currently facing—both within the overall housing system and within your organization, committee, or department? 3. What additional resources or support are needed to effectively address these housing challenges? 4. How do you envision the state of housing in Hollywood and the region over the next 10 years? 5. How would you measure success in addressing current housing needs and achieving your long-term housing vision? The following pages summarize the key themes that emerged during each session, including the accomplishments participants highlighted, current housing challenges and needs, additional resources and supports needed, the housing vision for the next 10 years, and the recommendations and ideas they proposed for future action.
| 88 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Accomplishments
a daily activity, along with brain games and either music or art therapy. All potential participants are given a mini-mental test, so that the staff is aware of their functioning level. This allows for the program to be more client centered. Renovations are needed to the existing Oak Lake Park Community Center to prepare it for service delivery. This includes interior and exterior security hardening, ramps/railings, furnishing/equipment, HVAC repair, electrical repair, roof repair, plumbing repair, and necessary permitting.
What key accomplishments has your organization achieved in addressing housing needs within the City or region? Community Leaders & Non-Profit Organizations Affordable Housing Accomplishments: •
•
Seven on Seventh (Opened September 2024): An affordable residential rental community in downtown Fort Lauderdale, situated adjacent to Broward Partnership’s Central Homeless Assistance Center. In collaboration with lead development partner Green Mills Group, Seven on Seventh was designed and built to facilitate the housing needs of individuals and families transitioning out of homelessness in Broward County, while also providing housing opportunities for other income-eligible households. The facility features 72 residences encompassing studios to two-bedroom apartments. It provides readily accessible common areas, including a fitness center, interactive library, training/conference room, offices for case management, and a Workforce Development and Training HUB. Pinnacle 441 (Opened 2023/2024): Phase 1: A 7-story, mixeduse development on the bustling corner of SR 7 and Johnson St., featuring 113 units of affordable housing and 6,760 square feet of ground-floor retail space. (Opened 2023) Phase 2: An 8-story, 100-unit affordable housing development in Hollywood on a 1.7-acre site just west of the first phase. The building incorporates one-, two- and three-bedroom floor plans. Amenities include a fitness center, a game room, a clubhouse, an outdoor lounge, barbecue stations, Energy Star appliances and approximately 110 parking spaces. (Opened 2024)
•
•
Oak Lake Community Center Redevelopment (ongoing, completion expected 2026): The Oak Lake Park Community Center will be retrofitted to create a safe environment for an Adult Day Care Program. Programming will be centered around a structured, safe, caring, social environment that provides physical and cognitive stimulation for participants. Exercise is
University Station (Opened 2025): University Station consists of 216 apartments, more than 2,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, 12,210 square feet of educational space, and a parking garage with 635 spaces. The property has 108 onebedroom and 108 two-bedroom floor plans with spacious living areas ranging from 621 to 899 square feet. One hundred percent of the apartments are reserved for individuals and families at various income thresholds, including 22%, 30%, 40%, 60%, 70%, and 80% of the area median income. This development is in partnership with the City of Hollywood and features workforce and affordable housing options, retail space, parking for public and private use, and a new home for Barry University’s College of Nursing and Health Services.
Accomplishments in Programs and Services: • • • • •
The TIBA Homeless Program has successfully housed 24 individuals, with one-third progressing toward self-sufficiency in rent. Opening of a new 14-resident Elder Haven & Hope Home to provide emergency and transitional housing for seniors. HOMES Inc. housed 24 tenants under the COH TBRA program. Housing Navigation teams provide street outreach, community court case management, resource fairs, referrals, and unsheltered support. Agencies support emergency shelter, permanent supportive housing (PSH), and unsheltered outreach. Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 89 |
Administrative and Regional Accomplishments: • CDAB members help advise and allocate funding for homeless and subsidized housing projects. • County’s GAP financing program has produced 4,300 units since 2019 and continues to support new projects ($22M/500 units targeted). • Broward County has adopted a 10-year Affordable Housing Master Plan with a municipal “scorecard” to evaluate homeownership and rental demand. • Recent revisions to the County Homelessness Plan support coordinated regional action. City Leadership Team Affordable Housing Accomplishments: • Development of 700+ affordable units in the last four years. • New programs, including first-time home buyer assistance, housing rehabilitation programs, and gap financing. • Additional density is introduced in targeted areas to support new housing supply. • Support for more affordable housing production through zoning and planning reforms. Accomplishments in Programs and Services: • Work on traffic calming, roadway expansions, and transit/ mobility initiatives. • Review of Live Local Act implications for transportation and housing. • Planned installation of new stormwater pump stations, with implementation anticipated over the next five years through the adoption of the Stormwater Master Plan. • Septic-to-sewer conversions and major water main upgrades Citywide. • Active housing rehabilitation programs supporting both interior and exterior home improvements. • Adoption of design guidelines and one-on-one design workshops to elevate building quality. • Land development regulations encouraging mixed-use, higherdensity, and varied housing types. | 90 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Administrative Accomplishments: • Work on traffic calming, roadway expansions, and transit/ mobility initiatives. • Review of Live Local Act implications for transportation and housing. • Implemented new permitting software to improve efficiency and data retention. • Reworked and streamlined the development review process to speed approvals and reduce production timelines, while Development Services reduced permit issuance times. • Strengthened staffing capacity and improvements to internal organizational structure. Private Sector: Developers, Architects, Attorneys Affordable Housing Accomplishments: • Village Ordono: a highlighted senior development that was built on City acquired land and was meant to “keep the City accessible for those who live here”. • Pinnacle 441: (see description on the previous page).
Challenges What housing challenges or needs are the City and the broader region currently facing—both within the overall housing system and specifically within your organization, committee, or department? Community Leaders & Non-Profit Organizations • •
•
Significant shortage of affordable housing units, particularly for residents aged 60+ and those needing an affordable continuum of care. Transportation costs heavily contribute to overall housing burden in Broward County, with combined housing and transportation expenses reaching approximately 70% of household expenditures. The mismatch between income and costs– low wages versus high land and construction costs.
• • • • • • • • •
Ongoing tension between competing priorities, especially balancing the need for new housing with necessary infrastructure investments. Insufficient shelter capacity, transitional housing, and access to medical outreach. Complex access points make navigation difficult for families transitioning between shelters or Section 8 into permanent housing. Lack of accessible pathways to homeownership. According to HUD, NIMBY, which stands for “not-in-mybackyard,” is a mentality adopted by those who reject certain changes to their communities. NIMBY concerns, entitlement disputes, and zoning obstacles slow development, even under supportive policies like the Live Local Act. Limited available land in Broward County requires a shift toward density changes and redevelopment of commercial corridors. System capacity constraints deriving from slow planning processes and lack of coordination amongst regional planning actors. Strategic efforts to direct higher density toward major corridors (US 441, Federal Highway, and Dixie Highway), although these corridors currently lack the walkability, transit orientation, and infrastructure needed to support greater intensity.
• •
Increasing prevalence of multi‑generational and family co‑living arrangements, highlighting the need for supportive environments for both permanent and temporary housing solutions. The City’s CRA is approaching its sunset date in 2027.
City Leadership Team • • •
• • •
Nearly 40% of housing units remain on septic systems, creating significant environmental and infrastructure challenges. Funding for stormwater improvements is limited, slowing the pace of needed upgrades. Regional Activity Center (RAC) and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) land‑use categories allow high densities, but unit size requirements, FAR standards, and threshold limits restrict the ability to maximize density on individual sites. Transportation limitations–specifically the lack of multimodal options and reliable transit–continue to hinder opportunities for higher‑density development along major corridors. Community resistance to density remains strong, largely driven by concerns over traffic congestion and potential impacts on property values. Infrastructure deficiencies, particularly in transportation and sewer systems, pose major obstacles to new development.
Highland Gardens Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 91 |
• • • •
• • •
Many households decline to connect to City sewer despite available subsidies, as total conversion costs for property owners remain high (approximately $10,000). Developers face financial barriers to building affordable units due to limited funding and insufficient profitability. “Missing Middle” housing remains difficult to deliver, in part because federal funding regulations do not align well with moderate‑density housing types. Numerous derelict properties across the City present opportunities for redevelopment and reinvestment. Efforts to expedite new housing development must be balanced with preserving existing housing and protecting current residents from displacement. Land‑use authority resides at the County level, meaning the City cannot independently increase density without going through the County approval process. High allowable densities exist, but unit size and FAR requirements prevent maxing out density on many sites Limited staff capacity, red tape, and resource shortages.
Private Sector: Developers, Architects, Attorneys •
• • •
City plan review and permitting processes are significantly delayed, often taking 3 months instead of the intended 30 days, with no differentiated timelines for affordable versus market‑rate housing. High staff turnover contributes to instability within City departments and slows overall development workflows. Limited availability of large vacant parcels necessitates land assembly as a common—and often complex—component of new housing development. The City’s slow annual absorption rate of approximately 1,000 units constrains the market; a single 400‑unit project can represent nearly half of what the City can feasibly absorb in a year.
| 92 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
• •
• • •
• • • •
• •
Maintaining long‑term affordability remains one of the biggest challenges for workforce and affordable housing developments serving local employees. Hollywood offers few incentives, financial or otherwise, to encourage affordable/workforce housing production; without local funding, development viability becomes the “last‑mile gap” that prevents projects from moving forward. High development review application fees make Hollywood one of the most expensive jurisdictions in the region, potentially discouraging investment. Regulatory requirements can be prohibitive, preventing developers from achieving functional and efficient unit layouts that would better serve future residents. Although certain areas were up‑zoned for higher density and intensity, such as the RAC, infrastructure has not been upgraded to support growth; for example, sewer service has not been extended throughout the RAC. Developers often must negotiate with private lift‑station owners or install new utility lines, sometimes nearly a mile long, due to restrictions on tapping into multi‑jurisdictional existing lines. Long, costly utility extensions, without reimbursement, credits, or compensation, have caused multiple projects to stall or be abandoned. Height restrictions remain a limiting factor for achieving viable density and development feasibility. Strong anti‑density sentiment continues to create delays, with the Planning and Development Board frequently denying projects that are later approved only after developers appeal to the City Commission. Existing zoning lacks flexibility for different building typologies needed for affordable and workforce housing. Downtown Hollywood struggles with vacant storefronts, deterring new residents.
Resources What additional resources or support do you believe are needed to effectively address these housing challenges? Community Leaders & Non-Profit Organizations • • • • • •
TaskForce for Ending Homelessness (“TaskForce”). Homeless Management Information Systems (“HMIS”). Broward Affordable Housing Study. Initiatives to meet the ongoing demand for more affordable units, including: Workforce housing; Senior/congregate housing; and Assisted living for mild to moderate cognitive impairment. Increased pathways to homeownership: support for moving unhoused or low-income households into permanent homeownership. Need for better public transportation, mirroring models like the Rotay Connection shuttle.
• •
Private Sector: Developers, Architects, Attorneys • • • •
City Leadership Team • • • • • • • • • • •
City will initiate overhaul of its zoning code to a form-based code in 2026 to help with development, but this may not be done for three years. Impact fee waivers. Look at Charlotte’s scoring system for LIHTC funding. Increased staffing and technological capacity Reduced administrative barriers and faster internal processes. Long-term planning for more transportation modes (e.g., PREMO system). Infrastructure capacity to support additional growth. Public education on density, smart growth, and community benefits. Changing perceptions around affordable housing and ADUs. More state and federal support. A City-controlled revolving fund for housing and transportation initiatives.
Use of land bank, trust fund, and impact fees for affordable housing. Continued SHIP, CDBG, HOME, and County contribution fund management.
• • • • • • •
Hollywood Go and Sun Shuttle could be highly impactful in supporting development of higher density housing. Create a dedicated affordable housing liaison to shepherd applications through review. Develop standardized checklists, uniform submittal requirements, and a vetted developer registration program for expedited review. City of Dania Beach Tier 1/Tier 2 review system—a classification method that was referenced as an example during discussion. Essentially, the intent of the classifications is that smaller, lower-risk projects (Tier 1) face different review procedures compared to larger, higher-value projects (Tier 2). Conduct a fee study to ensure development review costs align with service levels and the market. Provide local incentives such as: (1) Reduced or waived impact fees; (2) Infrastructure reimbursements or credits; and (3) Tax rebates tied to affordable housing. Establish a site identification system for suitable development parcels. Reduce utility connection fees. Expand or accelerate the City’s utility and sewer extension programs. Establish a rebate/credit system when developers extend utilities beyond a certain distance. Maintain a public-facing project database showing all proposed, pending, and approved residential developments.
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 93 |
Recommendations and Ideas How do you envision the state of housing in the City and the region over the next 10 years?
•
Community Leaders & Non-Profit Organizations
•
• •
• • • • •
• •
Prioritizing local incentive dollars to align with and complement the County’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund offerings. Streamlining procedural steps for affordable housing developments and advancing policies that provide clear preference for projects incorporating affordable housing components. More affordable units and added shelter capacity, with the goal of ensuring no families sleep outside. Stronger homelessness services, particularly enhanced support and outreach around Young Circle. Expanded pathways to homeownership, supported by new development and strategic land acquisition. County leadership is open to considering an extension of the CRA, provided that a dedicated portion of future funding is guaranteed for affordable housing initiatives. Incorporating an educational component on density, its purpose, benefits, and community impacts, into the recommendations to support broader public understanding and acceptance. A vision of “food and shelter for all” and a vibrant, resilient city environment. Concerned and more cautious views included less affordable units in the future due to rising construction and land costs, as well as potential mis-allocation of the 7,500 multi-family units projected in the City over the next 5 to 16 years.
• •
Private Sector: Developers, Architects, Attorneys • • • • • •
City Leadership Team • •
Expectations of more multi-family, mixed-use, and high-density housing, with growth focused along main corridors near transit. Increased diversity in housing types, including ADUs and Missing Middles.
| 94 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Increasing flexibility of funding sources and strengthening the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to help make pro formas viable for missing‑middle housing types. Evaluating the utilization of the City’s multiple municipal golf courses and exploring whether any portions could be repurposed for affordable housing development. Establishing a land bank and pursuing strategic acquisition of derelict or underutilized properties to facilitate redevelopment and future housing opportunities. Concerns and more cautious views included some foreseeing a decrease in affordability, as single-family homes may become a luxury-only product and that older structures will be at risk without strong floodplain measures.
•
Strengthen incentives for developers, especially those delivering affordable housing to improve feasibility. Align City incentives with County programs to create greater continuity and predictability for developers. Establish an active site‑identification system to proactively pinpoint parcels suitable for affordable housing across various permissible densities. Create tax rebates, reimbursements, or credit programs to offset developer‑funded infrastructure improvements, such as extensive utility extensions. Increase flexibility in parking requirements and strengthen understanding of the cost differences between surface and structured parking. Introduce design guidelines for taller buildings—such as setbacks, pedestrian‑scaled lower floors, and enhanced landscape standards—to support higher density while improving project quality. Expand zoning flexibility to allow a broader range of housing typologies, configurations, and designs; current standards often prevent lots from meeting density thresholds needed for viable development.
Lawn Acres Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
• • •
• • •
• • • •
Reduce utility connection fees to lower cost burdens on new housing projects. Either accelerate the City’s utility extension program or establish a rebate/credit system for developers who extend utilities beyond a defined distance. Assign a dedicated staff liaison to coordinate affordable housing proposals through a review process, ensuring applicants work with personnel familiar with relevant programs and requirements. Standardize proposal and application submittal requirements using checklists and clear evaluation criteria to ensure consistency and predictability. Create a developer registration or pre‑qualification program that, once vetted, grants expedited review for proposals submitted by registered builders. Maintain a publicly accessible map or database of proposed, pending, and approved residential projects, including program details and project status, to increase transparency and support coordinated planning. A more predictable, efficient, and transparent permitting system that aligns City timelines with real-world development cycles. Stronger transit and infrastructure systems enabling higherdensity residential growth. Expanded housing options for seniors, workforce residents, and families across income levels. A revitalized Downtown Hollywood that serves as a vibrant mixed-use hub.
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 95 |
Measuring Success How would you measure success in addressing current housing needs and achieving your long-term housing vision? Community Leaders & Non-Profit Organizations Quantitative Indicators • Increased production of affordable units. • Reduction in unsheltered homelessness. • Housing vacancy vs. housing need gap in single digits. • Households spending ≤30% of income on housing. • Employers paying livable wages (25%–35% rise). Qualitative Indicators • Improved senior affordability and dementia-care housing. • Clear, actionable housing vision that progresses without delay. City Leadership Team Quantitative Indicators • Increased housing supply, including workforce and Missing Middle units. • More rent-stabilized apartments for low and moderate-income households. • Lower overall housing costs for residents.
General Insights Following the guided discussion, participants were asked about any additional general insights they wished to add that would support the overall plan moving forward. Community Leaders & Non-Profit Organizations • • •
A growing population will require expanded housing production to keep pace. Insufficient income is a major barrier—even when housing is available at varying levels. Families need a clearer, more accessible entry system for housing services.
| 96 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
• • •
More small- to mid-scale developments. Successful implementation of a new zoning code. Reduced regulatory barriers and more efficient City processes.
Qualitative Indicators • Better balance of infrastructure, amenities, transportation, and livability. • Increased knowledge and reduced fear around density and growth. Private Sector: Developers, Architects, Attorneys Quantitative Indicators • Permitting timelines consistently meeting stated targets (e.g., 30-day reviews). • Reduced infrastructure barriers, particularly around sewer and stormwater capacity. • Increase transit ridership. Qualitative Indicators • Greater community acceptance of development, with fewer NIMBY-driven delays. • Enhanced Downtown vibrancy and business stability.
• •
Transportation burden significantly impacts overall affordability. Participants recommend using employer and recruitment market data for cost-of-living benchmarks.
City Leadership Team • • •
Need to redefine the narrative on ADUs to build community support. Questions raised about balancing affordable housing goals with maintaining the commercial tax base. Strong appreciation for stakeholder engagement and opportunity to share concerns.
Private Sector: Developers, Architects, Attorneys • • •
Hollywood risks falling behind peer cities by not making improvements to incentives, permitting, and infrastructure. The City must modernize systems and processes to ensure feasibility for affordable and workforce housing. Reinforcing and upgrading aging infrastructure—especially sewer and stormwater—is essential for supporting density and long-term resilience.
• •
Redevelopment and reinvestment in the City’s housing stock and commercial cores are essential to stability and growth. Community engagement and education are needed to reshape public perception and reduce resistance to development.
Overarching Observations Overall, the public engagement exercise underscored both the challenges and opportunities shaping housing within the City. Across community leaders, non-profit partners, City staff, and private‑sector stakeholders, there was strong consensus that systemic staffing shortages and outdated infrastructure, zoning, and policy frameworks are slowing development and complicating project delivery. Participants emphasize that reinvestment— particularly in core areas such as Downtown—will be essential to strengthening existing housing, supporting local businesses, and
attracting new growth. The need for senior housing and workforce/ affordable housing emerged as a shared priority, although concerns around neighborhood change and persistent NIMBY sentiment continue to influence how development is perceived at the community level. Above all, stakeholders reinforced that improving infrastructure is the foundation on which all other progress depends, and must be at the forefront of the City’s long‑term strategy.
Section 2: Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment | 97 |
SECTION THREE:
HOUSING DEMAND AND AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS
Section Three: Housing Demand & Affordability Assessment 3.1 Future Housing Needs Forecast.. .............. 100 Overview and Summary................................................................ 100 Projections of People....................................................................... 101 Sources of Population Growth......................................................101 Population Projections......................................................................101 Population Age Cohort Projections...........................................103 Sources of Employment Growth. . .............................................. 104 Employment Projections. . ...............................................................105 Household Population Projection ............................................. 106 Mobility. . ................................................................................................... 107
Projections of Product.....................................................................107 Sources of Housing Growth.......................................................... 107 Housing Tenure Projections .. ....................................................... 108 Household Projections. . .................................................................. 108 Housing Unit Projections . . ............................................................. 109
Estimates of Residential Supply. . ............................................... 110 Methodology..........................................................................................110 Residential Supply Estimates......................................................... 111 Reconciliation of Residential Demand with Supply............113
Future Housing Needs: Implications and Considerations. . ....................................................................................115
3.2 Housing Affordability Assessment........... 116
Overview and Summary..................................................................116 Context . . ...................................................................................................116
Housing Affordability ........................................................................ 117 Housing and Transportation . . .......................................................118 Affordability and Wages. . .................................................................119 AMI Projections.. ...................................................................................121 Household Income Projections...................................................121 Affordability: Implications and Considerations..................123
About this Section
Section 3.1
This section titled Future Housing Needs Forecast relies on historical population and housing unit data, projecting future housing demand and needs within the City of Hollywood and Broward County. This section further estimates the distribution of housing demand based on household tenure and composition.
Future Housing Needs Forecast
Overall, this section establishes a comprehensive foundation for understanding the City’s future housing needs, which directly informs the affordability assessment and supports the development of recommendations as part of the broader Study.
Overview and Summary Based on multiple sources, including the University of Florida’s Bureau of Economic and Business Research and the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, this section analyzes projected population growth and housing needs through 2045. This 20‑year projection period provides important context for understanding and planning the City’s future housing ecosystem. Consistent with the housing continuum discussed in Section 1.3, this analysis clearly distinguishes between housing demand and housing need. Demand reflects market-driven conditions and is inherently unpredictable, while need represents a quantifiable, existing deficit in housing that can be measured using available data. At its core, understanding the future housing needs relies on several key characteristics under people and product. •
Projections of People include population growth/decline, household population, mobility, and employment.
•
Projections of Product relates to the increase/decrease in housing units, households, housing tenure, and vacancy. Hollywood Lakes Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
| 100 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Projections of People Sources of Population Growth There are only two sources of population growth: (1) natural change and (2) net migration. While both birth and death rates can and have exhibited distinct trends over time, natural population change tends to be relatively stable. Generally, birth rates among highly urbanized, industrialized economies have tended to experience a decline over time. At the same time, improvements in broad social conditions such as working conditions, nutrition, and medicine have shown a declining trend in death rates—collectively resulting in a stable net change in natural population. Regardless, the underlying conditions that affect both birth and death rates generally take longer periods of time to alter future conditions, resulting in relatively slow changes.
Population Projections Considering these sources of national and local population growth, the University of Florida, through its Bureau of Economic and Business Research (“BEBR”), prepares long-term population projections used for planning purposes by the state itself and most jurisdictions. These projections are the basis of growth management policies and practices. BEBR’s projections provide low, moderate, and high outlooks. For the purposes of this Study, BEBR’s moderate scenario for Broward County was examined since it is considered the most probable forecast of future population change. At the County level, BEBR utilizes five different techniques to estimate population growth in 5-year increments. Based on the results of these techniques, BEBR calculates a weighted average for each individual county in Florida and applies that against the
However, migration can and does exhibit relatively sudden shifts from year to year. Mobility within the U.S. has historically represented 10% to 25% of the total U.S. population change—much of which shifts downward to specific states and regions such as Florida and other parts of the southeast. While this movement does not impact national population counts materially, it can and does impact smaller areas of the U.S., including Broward County and each incorporated place therein.
base year to estimate future growth. The projections are then compared to historic population trends and the level of population growth projected for the state as a whole. To note, BEBR population projections solely reflect Florida residents and exclude any seasonal population change as a result of tourism and visitation. These population projections are the foundation for a demand model that considers future housing demand and incorporates demand from both growth and market deficiencies. Throughout the full projection period, 2025 through 2045, the County’s population is expected to increase 8.4% according to BEBR’s moderate scenario. Total population within the County is expected to increase from 1.99 million persons in 2025 to 2.16 million persons in 2045, resulting in a net increase in population of about 168,065 persons.
Section 3: Housing Demand and Affordability Analysis | 101 |
The University of Florida’s Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (“Shimberg”) relies on population projections provided by BEBR to project population at the City level. Shimberg applies a methodology that aligns closely with BEBR’s approach, including applying linear, exponential, share, and shift techniques. The City’s population for the entire projection period was estimated by calculating an aggregate average of the historical compound annual growth rate (“CAGR”) of the City’s total population and its average share of total population within the County. As a result, the City’s overall population is expected to experience the following increases in the moderate projection scenario: • • •
2.1% over the next 10 years (2025–2035); 3.6% over the next 15 years (2025–2040); 4.9% over the next 20 years (2025–2045).
moderate scenario. Total population within the City is estimated to increase from 157,844 persons in 2025 to 165,576 persons in 2045, resulting in a net increase in population of about 7,732 persons. The County’s overall population is expected to experience the following increases in the moderate projection scenario: • • •
5.5% over the next 10 years (2025–2035); 7.1% over the next 15 years (2025–2040); 8.4% over the next 20 years (2025–2045).
Throughout the full projection period, 2025 through 2045, the County’s population is expected to experience a CAGR of 0.4% in the moderate scenario. Total population within the County is estimated to increase from 1.99 million persons in 2025 to 2.16 million persons in 2045, resulting in a net increase in population of about 168,065 persons.
Throughout the full projection period, 2025 through 2045, the City’s population is expected to experience a CAGR of 0.2% in the
Table 45. Projected Total Population, 2025–2045, 5-Year Increments
Est. 5-YR
2025 2030
City of Hollywood Low Moderate 157,844 157,844 152,887 159,498
High 157,844 166,104
Broward County Low Moderate 1,993,535 1,993,535 1,953,500 2,059,200
High 1,993,535 2,164,800
10-YR
2035
148,933
161,201
173,468
1,930,600
2,104,000
2,277,400
15-YR
2040
146,231
163,466
180,701
1,897,500
2,134,900
2,372,300
20-YR
2045
143,653
165,576
187,493
1,863,900
2,161,600
2,459,200
10-YR CAGR
(0.5%)
0.2%
0.9%
(0.3%)
0.5%
1.2%
20-YR CAGR Net Change (2025-2045)
(0.4%) (14,191)
0.2% 7,732
0.8% 29,649
(0.3%) (129,635)
0.4% 168,065
1.0% 465,665
Source: BEBR 2025-2050 Population Projections by County; U.S. Census Bureau; GAI Consultants.
| 102 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Population Age Cohort Projections BEBRs projections provide estimates for the population by age cohort. The City’s population by age cohort was estimated by calculating the historic proportion of the City’s population by age and an aggregate average of the historical CAGR. As a result, the population 80 years and older experienced the greatest growth throughout the full projection period, 2025 to 2045, at a 3.4% CAGR, resulting in a net increase of about 7,955 persons. The population between 55 and 64 years old experienced the greatest decline throughout the full projection period, 2025 through 2045, at a negative 1.9% CAGR. This resulted in the loss of about 5,886 persons within this age cohort. Additionally, the population between the ages of 65 and 79 experienced a 0% CAGR, resulting in a nominal increase of 184 persons. The population under 5 years also experienced nominal change at a negative 0.1%. Changes in population trends over the full projection period indicate a steadily aging population, which has important implications for housing needs. When combined with the high proportion of
single-family residences, this trend suggests a strong desire among residents to age in place. As a result, there may be increased demand for home modifications, accessibility improvements, and in-home health services. However, aging in place may become challenging for many seniors due to the rising costs of living, particularly since a large portion of the senior population relies on fixed incomes. Consequently, some older residents may seek more affordable housing options or supportive care in retirement communities or assisted living facilities. Population growth among individuals aged 5 to 17, as well as 25 to 54, point to a strong presence of family households. In contrast, slower growth among those under age 5 suggests declining birth rates. When combined, these demographic trends indicate that future housing needs will likely focus on accommodating both family-oriented households and the aging population, with an emphasis on affordability, accessibility, and supportive services.
Table 46. Projected Total Population in the City of Hollywood by Age Cohort, 2025–2045, 5-Year Increments Est. 5-YR
2025 2030
0-4 8,591 8,526
05-17 24,597 26,263
18-24 10,518 9,928
25-54 64,258 64,507
55-64 17,025 13,482
65-79 24,914 27,346
80+ 7,941 9,446
10-YR
2035
8,437
27,172
9,427
65,343
11,679
27,887
11,256
15-YR
2040
8,370
28,249
9,322
65,815
11,228
26,898
13,585
20-YR
2045
8,444
29,144
9,390
66,465
11,139
25,099
15,895
10-YR CAGR
(0.1%)
0.9%
(0.9%)
0.2%
(3.2%)
1.0%
3.2%
20-YR CAGR Net Change (2025-2045)
(0.1%) (147)
0.8% 4,547
(0.5%) (1,128)
0.2% 2,207
(1.9%) (5,886)
0.0% 184
3.4% 7,955
Sources: BEBR 2023 Population Projections by Age Cohort; 2025-2050 Population Projections by County; U.S. Census Bureau; GAI Consultants..
Section 3: Housing Demand and Affordability Analysis | 103 |
Comparatively, in the County the population 80 years and older experienced the greatest growth throughout the full projection period, 2025 to 2045, at a 3.7% CAGR, resulting in a net increase of about 117,842 persons. The population between 55 and 64 years old experienced the greatest decline throughout the full projection period, 2025 through 2045, at a negative 0.4% CAGR. This resulted in the loss of about 24,151 persons within this age cohort. The population between
the ages of 25 and 54, the majority of the working age population, increased at a 0.2% CAGR. These aging patterns throughout the full projection period reflect similar patterns to the City. This indicates that the overarching needs of the County are similarly reflected within its municipalities. The overall population in the County will continue to require familyoriented housing needs and affordable, accessible, and supportive housing and services for the aging population.
Table 47. Projected Total Population in Broward County by Age Cohort, 2025–2045, 5-Year Increments Est. 5-YR
2025 2030
0-4 110,683 111,753
05-17 288,088 293,556
18-24 153,895 156,303
25-54 778,156 796,688
55-64 266,196 241,371
65-79 296,513 337,190
80+ 100,003 122,338
10-YR
2035
111,225
298,026
153,963
814,713
225,451
350,461
150,161
15-YR
2040
109,362
299,614
155,653
816,412
230,332
339,547
183,979
20-YR
2045
109,023
297,971
159,803
817,674
242,046
317,239
217,846
10-YR CAGR
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.4%
(1.5%)
1.4%
3.7%
20-YR CAGR Net Change (2025-2045)
(0.1%) (1,660)
0.1% 9,883
0.2% 5,907
0.2% 39,518
(0.4%) (24,151)
0.2% 20,726
3.7% 117,842
Sources: BEBR 2023 Population Projections by Age Cohort; 2025-2050 Population Projections by County; U.S. Census Bureau; GAI Consultants..
Sources of Employment Growth Employment growth is influenced by a range of factors, including demographic shifts, economic development, and the expansion of key industries. As the population increases, so does the demand for services, infrastructure, and consumer goods, which in turn drives job creation in sectors such as healthcare, education, retail, and construction. Strategic economic initiatives, such as public infrastructure investments and private sector growth, further stimulate employment by attracting new businesses and supporting existing businesses. Innovation and entrepreneurship also play a vital role
| 104 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
by introducing new technologies and industries, while regional advantages such as access to transportation networks or educational institutions can enhance job opportunities in specific areas. Moreover, estimating the total number of new employees is essential for anticipating demand for commercial real estate. As the workforce expands, so does the need for office space, retail centers, service establishments, and industrial facilities to support both employment functions and the growing population’s consumption patterns.
Employment Projections Relying upon an aggregate average that considers population projections, historical growth rates, average employees per population, and historical capture rates, projections of total employment were calculated for the City and the County, as illustrated in Table 27. Throughout the full projection period, the City’s total employment is expected to increase significantly by 13%, from 71,190 employees in 2025 to 80,197 employees in 2045, resulting in a net increase in total employment of approximately 9,007 employees. The City’s total employment is projected to experience a CAGR of 0.6% during this same period, reflecting a slightly higher growth rate than those projected for the total population in the moderate scenario. Comparatively, total employment within the County is projected to increase by 28%, from 888,417 employees in 2025 to 1.14 million employees in 2045 in the moderate scenario, resulting in a net increase of approximately 248,147 employees. The County’s total employment is projected to experience a CAGR of 1.1%. Table 48. Projected Total Employment, 2025–2045, 5-Year Increments Est. 5-YR
2025 2030
Hollywood 71,190 72,931
Broward 888,417 955,311
10-YR
2035
75,265
1,012,566
15-YR
2040
77,691
20-YR
2045
Based on historic employment inflow/outflow growth rates within the City, previously mentioned in Section 2.3 Housing Market Assessment, employees working within the City but living outside the area are projected to increase from 87.5% of total employment in 2025 to 89.8% in 2045. Conversely, those both living and employed within the City are projected to decrease from 12.5% in 2025 to 10.2% in 2045. This growing share of employees who work within the City but reside elsewhere is largely driven by broader regional market pressures. Factors such as the availability of employment opportunities, housing affordability, and income disparities contribute to imbalances between where workers live and where jobs are located. Additionally, the City’s geographic position and proximity to major regional employment centers, including Fort Lauderdale and Miami, facilitate cross-jurisdictional labor flows. Mismatches in job availability, wage levels, and housing affordability will continue to influence commuting and residency patterns. Table 49. Projected Employee Inflow Outflow, 2025–2045, 5-Year Increments
1,072,782
Est. 5-YR
Employed in the City, Living & Employed in but Living Outside the City 2025 87.5% 12.5% 2030 88.1% 11.9%
80,197
1,136,564
10-YR
2035
88.7%
11.3%
10-YR CAGR
0.5%
1.1%
15-YR
2040
89.2%
10.8%
20-YR CAGR Net Change (2025-2045)
0.6% 9,007
1.1% 248,147
20-YR
2045
89.8%
10.2%
Source: BEBR 2025-2050 Projections by County; U.S. Census Bureau; GAI Consultants.
Source: BEBR 2025-2050 Projections by County; U.S. Census Bureau; GAI Consultants.
Section 3: Housing Demand and Affordability Analysis | 105 |
Household Population Projection Relying upon BEBR and Shimberg’s population projections, historical CAGRs, and capture rates, projections of the total population in Occupied Housing Units or Households, were estimated for the City and the County, as illustrated in Table 50 below. Throughout the full projection period, the City’s population in Occupied Housing Units or Households is expected to capture about 99% of the City’s total population, resulting in a net increase of about 7,462 persons—from 156,451 persons in 2025 to 163,913 persons by 2045 in the moderate scenario. Within the moderate scenario, City’s total population in Occupied Housing Units or Households is projected to experience a CAGR of 0.2%.
Total population in Occupied Housing Units or Households within the County is also expected to capture approximately 99% of the County’s total population, resulting in a net increase in of about 164,672 persons—from approximately 1.975 million persons in 2025 to 2.14 million persons by 2045 in the moderate scenario. The County’s total population of Occupied Housing Units or Households is projected to experience a slightly higher CAGR compared to the City’s throughout the full projection period, at 0.4%.
Table 50. Projected Total Population in Occupied Housing Units or Households, 2025–2045, 5-Year Increments
Est. 5-YR
2025 2030
City of Hollywood Low Moderate 156,451 156,451 151,499 158,050
10-YR
2035
147,533
159,686
171,837
1,911,921
2,083,643
2,255,365
15-YR
2040
144,809
161,877
178,945
1,878,717
2,113,768
2,348,818
20-YR
2045
142,210
163,913
185,610
1,845,034
2,139,721
2,434,309
10-YR CAGR
(0.5%)
0.2%
0.9%
(0.3%)
0.5%
1.2%
20-YR CAGR Net Change (2025-2045)
(0.4%) (14,241)
0.2% 7,462
0.8% 29,158
(0.3%) (130,014)
0.4% 164,672
1.0% 459,260
High 156,451 164,596
Broward County Low Moderate 1,975,048 1,975,048 1,935,036 2,039,737
High 1,975,048 2,144,338
Source: BEBR 2025-2050 Population Projections by County; U.S. Census Bureau; GAI Consultants.
| 106 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Mobility Based on patterns of geographic mobility within the City from 2010 to 2024, it is projected that a growing share of the population in Occupied Housing Units or Households will remain in the same residence from one year to the next. Given the steady increase in households remaining in the same residence between 2010 and 2024, this trend is expected to continue through 2045. By 2045, it is estimated that approximately 88% of the City’s population will live in the same Housing Unit as in the previous year. Conversely, the proportion of residents relocating within the County is projected to decline to 2.4% of the total population, while those moving from another county within Florida are expected to decrease to approximately 0.9%, as shown in the table below. In contrast, migration from other states is projected to increase to 3.2% of the population. Migration from abroad is anticipated to remain relatively consistent over the forecast period. Table 51. Projected Population Mobility, 2025–2045 Same House from Prior Year Moved within the County Moved from Another County in Florida Moved from a Different State Moved from Abroad
2025
2045
84.7%
88.0%
5.7%
2.4%
1.9%
0.9%
2.3%
3.2%
5.3%
5.4%
Source: BEBR 2025-2050 Population Projections by County; U.S. Census Bureau; GAI Consultants.
Projections of Product Sources of Housing Growth Housing growth is driven by a combination of economic, demographic, and market influences. Rising incomes and access to credit increase purchasing power, while population growth and household formation create additional demand for Housing Units. Market dynamics, including home prices and interest rates, further influence housing affordability and the ability of potential buyers to enter the market. These factors together create a complex interplay that drives housing growth. Although housing growth is shaped by multiple factors, new construction is primarily driven by supply and demand, with supply constraints such as limited availability of land, zoning regulations, and high construction costs, can restrict the number of new homes built. Demographic trends, such as population growth and migration patterns, also play a significant role, as an influx of people into certain areas can drive up housing prices due to increased demand. Additionally, market dynamics like interest rates and inflation impact affordability. However, there are important distinctions between need and demand when it comes to housing prices. Need is a relatively one dimensional concept, driven primarily by insufficient housing supply. Responses to need typically focus on community priorities without considering the market’s capacity to provide alternatives through profit-driven transactions. While needs are real and definable, they cannot always be adequately addressed. On the other hand, demand, is a dynamic concept, heavily influenced by price and product factors. It results from choices, age, lifestyle, preferences, and the continued movement of the population. Even when need is limited, demand can be strong in a marketplace that has proven itself a reliable and systematic source for products and services. Demand can grow or expand without gains in population, and may be totally divorced from issues of need. This dynamic nature of demand plays a significant role in driving housing price changes. Section 3: Housing Demand and Affordability Analysis | 107 |
Household Projections
Housing Tenure Projections
Taking into account these sources of national and local housing construction and deliveries, along with the previously identified projections of total population, population in Occupied Housing Units or Households, and employment, as well as the historical persons per household and total Households CAGRs detailed in Section 2.3 Housing Market Assessment, projections of the total number of Households were estimated for the City and the County.
As identified in Section 2.3, Housing Market Assessment, the City and the County are predominantly owner-occupied, representing 57% and 61% of total Households, respectively, as of year-end 2024 estimates. Historically, owner-occupied Households have experienced negative CAGRs of 0.3% in the City and 0.5% in the County since 2010. Over the same period, renter-occupied Households have increased in both areas, indicating a shift toward a more renter-friendly environment. From 2025 through 2045, the City’s owner-occupied Households are projected to decrease at a 0.3% CAGR, while renter-occupied Households are expected to increase at a 0.4% CAGR.
Throughout the full projection period, 2025 through 2045, the City’s total number of Households is expected to experience a CAGR of 0.2% in the moderate scenario. Total Households within the City is estimated to increase from 60,911 Households in 2025 to 64,345 Households in 2045, resulting in a net increase of 3,434 total Households. The County is estimated to experience a CAGR of 0.7% throughout the full projection period—from an estimated 765,197 total Households in 2025 to 886,175 total Households in 2045, resulting in a net increase of 120,977 total Households. Overall, the City is only expected to capture 2.8% of the total Household growth within the County between 2025 and 2045. Table 52 below illustrates the projected total number of Households for the City and the County over the full projection period, 2025 to 2045 in 5-year increments. Table 52. Projected Total Households, 2025–2045, 5-Year Increments Est. 5-YR
2025 2030
Hollywood 60,911 63,254
Broward 765,197 812,674
10-YR
2035
63,918
836,471
15-YR
2040
64,138
860,964
20-YR
2045
64,345
886,175
10-YR CAGR
0.4%
0.8%
20-YR CAGR Net Change (2025-2045)
0.2% 3,434
0.7% 120,977
Source: BEBR 2025-2050 Projections by County; U.S. Census Bureau; GAI Consultants. | 108 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Comparatively, the County is projected to experience a slightly more pronounced shift, with owner-occupied Households declining at a CAGR of 0.4% and renter-occupied Households growing at a CAGR of 0.6%, as illustrated in the table below. Table 53. Projected Household Tenure, 2025–2045, 5-Year Increments City of Hollywood Owner Renter 57.1% 42.9% 56.4% 43.6% 55.5% 44.5%
Broward County Owner Renter 61.2% 38.8% 60.2% 39.8% 58.7% 41.3%
Est. 5-YR 10-YR
2025 2030 2035
15-YR
2040
54.5%
45.5%
57.3%
42.7%
20-YR
2045
53.6%
46.4%
55.9%
44.1%
10-YR CAGR
(0.3%)
0.3%
(0.4%)
0.6%
20-YR CAGR
(0.3%)
0.4%
(0.4%)
0.6%
Source: BEBR 2025-2050 Population Projections by County; U.S. Census Bureau; GAI Consultants.
Housing Unit Projections Relying upon the projections of total population, population in Occupied Housing Units or Households, and Households, as well as historical growth rates of population, Households, average persons per household, and the total vacancy and demolition/conversion considerations described in Section 2.3 Housing Market Assessment, projections of the total number of Housing Units can be calculated for the City and the County. To note, these projections include all residential product types (i.e., single-family detached/attached and multi-family). As illustrated in Table 54, total Housing Units within the City, after adjusting for rotational vacancy, seasonal vacancy, and demolition or conversion rates, is expected to experience a CAGR of 0.3% throughout the full projection period in the moderate scenario, resulting in the addition of a projected 3,801 new Housing Units, or roughly 190 new Housing Units per year, in the City by 2045. Total Housing Units within the City are projected to increase from an estimated 69,679 Housing Units in 2025 to 73,480 Housing Units in 2045. Comparatively, the County is estimated to experience a slightly greater CAGR of 0.7% throughout the full projection period–from an estimated 866,836 total Housing Units in 2025 to 994,595
total Housing Units in 2045, resulting in the addition of a projected 127,759 new Housing Units, or roughly 6,388 new Housing Units per year, in the County by 2045. Overall, the City is only expected to capture 3.0% of the total growth within the County between 2025 and 2045. Table 54. Projected Total Housing Units, 2025–2045, 5-Year Increments Hollywood
Broward
Est.
2025
69,679
866,836
5-YR
2030
71,634
907,001
10-YR
2035
72,931
938,646
15-YR
2040
73,240
966,295
20-YR
2045
73,480
994,595
10-YR CAGR
0.4%
0.8%
20-YR CAGR
0.3%
0.7%
Net Change (2025-2045)
3,801
127,759
Source: BEBR 2025-2050 Projections by County; U.S. Census Bureau; GAI Consultants.
Royal Poinciana Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
Section 3: Housing Demand and Affordability Analysis | 109 |
Estimates of Residential Supply Methodology To assess future Housing Unit demand over the entire projection period, it is essential to compare the needed Housing Units with the prospective residential supply that might occur within the City. For purposes of this Study, the methodology for determining the supply of
land and residential units involves calculating the maximum allowable density. This calculation helps ascertain the number of residential units permissible on vacant lands designated for residential use, according to the City’s Future Land Use map, illustrated below.
Figure 21. City of Hollywood Future Land Use Map
Legend City of Hollywood Commercial Flex......................... 0.1% Community Facility....................2.7% Conservation............................... 8.9% Diplomat Activity Center............................................. 0.1% General Business....................... 4.3% High (50) Residential................ 0.4% Medium-High (25) Residential..................................... 1.1% Medium (16) Residential.......... 6.0% Low-Medium (10) Residential.................................... 4.1% Low (5) Residential..................32.8% Industrial....................................... 3.6% Intracoastal Waterway............... 1.8% Office............................................. 0.5% Open Space and Recreation.................................. 11.9% Regional Activity Center.......... 6.7% Transit-Oriented Corridor........................................ 5.6% Transit-Oriented Development........ 0.2% Transportation............................ 8.5% Utilities.......................................... 0.7%
| 110 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Residential Supply Estimates
Table 56. Potential Residential Units in City, 2025 Estimates
Utilizing the aforementioned Future Land Use (“FLU”) designations, as well as the Draft Hollywood 2050 Comprehensive Plan, Table 55 displays the number of potential residential units within the City, based on vacant lands that allow for residential property uses. To emphasize, this Study only considers potential residential units on vacant lands currently located within the City. As illustrated below, there are approximately a maximum of 1,678 allowable residential units on 142.6 acres of vacant land within the City as of 2025. Table 55. Potential Residential Units in City, 2025 Estimates Future Land Use High Residential Medium-High Residential Medium Residential Low-Medium Residential Low Residential Regional Activity Center
Maximum DU/AC 50.0 25.0 16.0 10.0 5.0 Total
Total Vacant Land (AC) 9.5 7.4 37.9 39.5 48.2 142.6
Gross Density (Units) 237 117 379 197 748 1,678
Sources: FDOR Use Codes (2025); Broward County Final Tax Roll 2025; Draft Hollywood 2050 Comprehensive Plan; GAI Consultants. Note: The City of Hollywood is expected to consider a Draft Ordinance sometime in 2026 for increased allocation of an additional 8,000 dwelling units in Regional Activity Center (“RAC”), bringing the total allocation of units within the RAC to 23,600.
While Table 55 presents the approximate maximum allowable residential units based on the total vacant lands and gross density based on Future Land Use designation, Table 56 presents the zoning categories that are primarily residential in nature. However, Table 56 presents an additional factor, minimum lot size. These minimum lot sizes reduced the maximum units permitted to 1,124 units. This loss of developable vacant acres, which results in the loss of 554 potential units, is a significant loss considering overall demand within the City. The following section utilizes these two scenarios for maximum potential units to present the reconciliation between supply and demand throughout the full projection period.
Zoning
Acres
RAC DAC RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 NBDD-CZ RS-4 RS-6 RS-5 RM-9 RM-25 RM-18 RM-12 SR7 RM-18 SR7 RM-9 BRT-25 SR7 RM-25 RM-WET RS-7 RS-8 RS-9 RS-10 TD AD PUD-R PUD Total
48.23 0.01 5.65 0.25 3.37 0.65 0.15 31.33 8.04 6.11 0.42 7.08 6.62 0.96 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 6.56 0.69 0.17 43.69 2.87 0.63 174.74
Vacant Areas Meeting Min. Lot Size N/A N/A 4.96 0.25 3.17 0.14 0.15 26.33 7.79 5.81 0.42 6.70 6.51 0.52 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 6.12 0.69 0.00 43.42 2.52 0.00 116.54
Max Units Permittable
Minimum Lot Size (SF)
748 32 2 15 3 0 99 5 41 2 87 34 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 30 3 0 20 0 0 1,124
4,000 4,800 5,000 5,800 5,800 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,500 7,500 10,000 15,000 15,000 21,780 35,000 87,120 87,120 -
Sources: FDOR Use Codes (2025); Broward County Final Tax Roll 2025; Draft Hollywood 2050 Comprehensive Plan; GAI Consultants. Note: The City of Hollywood is expected to consider a Draft Ordinance sometime in 2026 for increased allocation of an additional 8,000 dwelling units in Regional Activity Center (“RAC”), bringing the total allocation of units within the RAC to 23,600.
Section 3: Housing Demand and Affordability Analysis | 111 |
In addition, this Study considers a calculation for excess vacant Housing Units, which has been included in the calculation of residential supply to establish market turn-over conditions. As previously illustrated in Section 2.3 Housing Market Assessment, this Study examined the vacancy conditions occurring from 2010 to 2023, and determined the percentage of excess vacant Housing Units that needs to be maintained for mobility of Households and housing stock is 9.6%, referred to as “natural vacancy rate”. The natural vacancy rate is a blended average largely driven by the ratio of vacant for-sale units to owner-occupied units, as well as the ratio of vacant for-rent units to renter-occupied units. Excess vacant Housing Units is calculated by subtracting rotational vacancy from the number of vacant Housing Units not in seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Since the vacancy rate of Housing Table 57. Vacant Housing, Not in Seasonal Use and Rotational Vacancy, 2010–2023
2010 2020 2023 Average(1)
Vacant, Not Seasonal 9.6% 6.0% 6.5% 9.0%
Rotational Excess Vacant Vacancy 14.0% 5.9% 12.5% 3.8% 13.0% 3.1% 14.0% 4.3%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2023) and Decennial Survey (2020, 2010); GAI Consultants. Note: (1) Average reflects the calculated average across all years between 2010 and 2023.
| 112 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Units can fluctuate each year, this Study considers the excess vacant Housing Units within the residential supply model as the 2010 to 2023 annual average, as illustrated in Table 57. This results in a 5-year average excess vacancy of 2,566 units. To avoid misrepresentation of the total number of potential residential units, any approved and/or under construction units located within the City were excluded from the prior residential supply calculation, as shown in Tables 55 and 56. Consequently, it was determined that there are approximately 1,678 allowable residential units within the City as of 2025, in addition to 634 approved and/or under construction units. To summarize, there is a supply of approximately 4,878 potential residential units within the City to accommodate future housing demand throughout the full projection period, 2025 to 2045, as illustrated in Table 58. Table 58. Summary of Potential Units in the City Net Density of Vacant Land (High) Excess Vacancies (5-Year Average) Approved and/or Under Construction Residential Units Total
City of Hollywood 1,678 2,566 634 4,878
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2010–2024); FDOR Use Codes (2025); Broward County Final Tax Rolls 2025; Draft Hollywood 2050 Comprehensive Plan; GAI Consultants.
Reconciliation of Residential Demand with Supply The following reconciliation of housing demand with supply is necessary to determine if there is adequate supply to meet demand within the City, as well as to illustrate the rate that estimated new demand will absorb potential supply.
Within each of the scenarios, moderate and high, the supply will capture the full demand, at 119% and 134% captured, respectively. This indicates the residential land supply is meeting projected demand, when excess vacancy is factored into the calculation.
This Study compares the estimates of residential demand for the full projection period in 5-year increments to the summary of the supply of potential units detailed above. Table 59 illustrates these comparisons, along with the rate at which estimated new demand will capture potential supply within the City. The moderate values represent the maximum allowable density adjusted for compliance with zoning regulations, while the high values represent the FLU allowable densities applied against vacant lands without zoning regulations and limitations.
Whereas, the low scenario presents the supply without consideration of excess vacancy. Presenting the low scenario indicates the available supply without the natural rotation of vacant Housing Units for sale and vacant Housing Units for rent. In this scenario, projected residential demand is expected to exceed the potential supply by 2035, indicating that vacancy turnover plays a critical role in meeting housing needs and reinforcing the importance of maintaining a balanced level of market vacancy to support household mobility and choice.
Table 59. Reconciliation of Residential Demand with Supply, 2025–2045 Existing Supply (2025) 5-Year Demand (2025-2030) % Captured 10-Year Demand (2025-2035) % Captured 15-Year Demand (2025-2030) % Captured 20-Year Demand (2025-2045) % Captured
Low 2,312 1,955
Moderate 4,324 1,955
High 4,878 1,955
129.6%
242.4%
273.4%
3,252
3,252
3,252
75.0%
140.4%
158.3%
3,562
3,562
3,562
68.2%
127.5%
143.9%
3,801
3,801
3,801
63.7%
119.1%
134.4%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2010–2024); FDOR Use Codes (2025); Broward County Final Tax Rolls 2025; Draft Hollywood 2050 Comprehensive Plan; GAI Consultants.
Section 3: Housing Demand and Affordability Analysis | 113 |
| 114 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Florida Statute (“F.S.”), Chapter 163 stipulates the Comprehensive Plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. F.S. 163.3177 (1)(f)3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections...The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period... F.S. 163.3177 (6)(a)4. The amount of land designated for future land uses should allow the operation of real estate markets to provide adequate choices for permanent and seasonal residents and business and may not be limited solely by the projected population. The element shall accommodate at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period.
While the City’s Comprehensive Plan does not explicitly state a threshold for what could constitute providing “adequate choices for permanent and seasonal residents”, a general procedure for comparing residential supply and demand would suggest that if the percentage of future Housing Unit demand met by supply is less than 125% of that required for the planning period, the City no longer provides adequate residential acreage to accommodate projected population growth. As illustrated in Table 59 on the previous page, in the low and moderate scenarios, the potential supply is capturing less than 125% of the total projected demand in the 20-year demand projection, respectively. Meanwhile, in the high scenario, the potential supply exceeds 125% though the full projection period (2025-2045). As a result of this reconciliation of residential supply versus demand, the supply of vacant residential lands within the City over the full 20-year projection period is likely not adequate to accommodate future growth through 2045. As a result, the City will need to either redevelop existing properties and sites within the City at higher densities and intensities, convert commercial lands to accommodate residential uses, or permit additional growth within the City to accommodate this future demand.
Central Beach Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
Section 3: Housing Demand and Affordability Analysis | 115 |
Future Housing Needs: Implications and Conclusions The following section highlights key topics from Section 3.1 Future Housing Needs Forecast. Mismatch between Population and Employment Growth Throughout the full projection period, employment is estimated to increase at a 0.6% CAGR, increasing by approximately 9,007 employees, while the population is only estimated to increase at a 0.2% CAGR or by 7,732 residents. The divergence between projected employment and population growth indicates that future housing demand will be driven primarily by job creation rather than resident population increases. Additionally, regarding the form of housing required to meet this demand, slower population growth paired with faster job growth may indicate the need for workforce housing, smaller units, and housing near employment hubs. Reliance on Long-Term Excess Vacancy The supply of residential units is heavily reliant on consistent average excess vacancy. Without this smooth cyclical rotation of excess vacancy, the supply of potential units throughout the full projection period will not sustain demand. Restrictive Zoning Lot Sizes The minimum lot sizes create an arbitrary boundary for development. When just considering FLU zoning, there are a potential 1,678 units. However, when instituting the minimum lot sizes, there is a significant loss of developable vacant acres, which results in the loss of 554 potential units. The sum of residential FLU and zoning vacant lands is approximately 78.6 acres. However, the sum of residential FLU and zoning vacant lands that meet the minimum lot size requirements is approximately 45.02 acres. Without these additional vacant lands, the supply and ability to meet demand reduces. Long-Term Planning Based on the moderate scenario in Table 59, the available supply is estimated to meet approximately 119% of demand through 2045. While this may satisfy demand in the near to mid term, it is not likely to satisfy the demand throughout the life of the City’s 2050 Comprehensive Plan. Looking forward, the City will need to continue to seek out additional development opportunities, such as redevelopment. Washington Park Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
About this Section
Section 3.2
This section, titled Housing Affordability Assessment, provides an overview of housing affordability in the context of the City’s projected housing needs. It seeks to understand affordability through multiple lenses, including AMI, household income, wages, and transportation. It assesses the ability for residents within the City to afford varying housing configurations.
Housing Affordability Assessment
Overall, this section establishes an understanding and baseline assessment of the City’s current and future housing affordability.
Overview and Summary The following section assesses the economic and demographic factors that drive housing demand within the City, with a direct focus on workforce and attainable housing needs. This assessment is informed by Section 2 Existing Conditions and Housing Needs Assessment and Section 3.1 Future Housing Needs Forecast and will estimate the gap between supply and demand within the context of affordability. To measure this gap, the analysis projects household growth by income as a percentage of the Area Median Income (“AMI”) and by tenure.
Context This following section seeks to address affordability utilizing the previously defined housing spectrum, terminology, and typology, as mentioned in Section 1.3 Housing Terminology and Typology. A clear understanding of these concepts is critical, as housing needs differ substantially by degree of affordability and housing security. The key terms introduced previously are restated below to ensure consistency and clarity as this section examines affordability-related conditions and challenges. •
Area Median Income (“AMI”) - The midpoint of a specific area’s income distribution, which is calculated on an annual basis. Income limits for housing programs are established as a percentage of the AMI.
•
Affordable Housing - Housing for which the occupant(s) is/are paying no more than 30% of his or her income for gross housing costs, including utilities.
•
Workforce Housing - Housing affordable to natural persons or families whose total annual household income does not exceed 80% of the AMI, adjusted for household size, or 120% of AMI, adjusted for household size, in areas of Critical State Concern.
•
Market Housing - Non-subsidized properties that are rented or owned by those who pay market-rate rents or who paid market value to purchase the property.
| 116 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Housing Affordability
income bracket. These values are used to determine the maximum annual housing costs affordable to Households without exceeding the standard 30% of gross income threshold. The analysis further translates these annual affordability limits into estimated maximum monthly housing costs by income bracket.
As of 2024, the County’s AMI was $89,100. This AMI is determined for the Fort Lauderdale HUD Fair Market Rent (“FMR”) Area, which includes both Broward County and the City of Hollywood. Based on the 2024 AMI for Broward County, Table 60 presents an affordability matrix. Estimated annual household income is calculated using the percentage of AMI associated with each Table 60. Housing Affordability Matrix Estimated Annual Income Low
Affordable Housing (30%) Annual Cost Low High $$8,019
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost Low High $$668
$-
High $26,730
31–50% AMI (Very Low Income)
$26,730
$44,550
$8,019
$13,365
$668
$1,114
51–80% AMI (Low Income)
$44,550
$71,280
$13,365
$21,384
$1,114
$1,782
81–100% AMI (Moderate Income)
$71,280
$89,100
$21,384
$26,730
$1,782
$2,228
>100% AMI (Above Moderate Income)
$89,100
$-
$26,730
$-
$2,228
$-
≤ 30% AMI (Extremely Low Income)
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s FY 2024 Income Limits Documentation System; GAI Consultants:
Table 61 details the average monthly housing costs for renter Households by unit size, as well as the average monthly ownership costs for owner-occupied households within the City. When compared to the affordability matrix presented in Table 60, the analysis indicates that, on average, Households must earn approximately 80% of AMI or higher to afford most housing configurations available in the City. Given that approximately 60% of owner-occupied Households fall within income brackets at or above 80% of AMI, compared to only 39% of renter households, a substantial portion of the City’s renter population remains below the income threshold necessary to access market-rate housing without experiencing cost burden.
Table 61. Average Housing Costs in the City (2024) Monthly Costs $1,886
Average Rent Studio
$1,486
1 bedroom
$1,662
2 bedrooms
$2,060
3 bedrooms
$2,318
4 bedrooms
$2,877
Average Owner Costs with a Mortgage
$2,652
Average Owner Costs without a Mortgage
$1,005
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024); GAI Consultants.
Section 3: Housing Demand and Affordability Analysis | 117 |
Housing and Transportation According to the United States Department of Transportation, a household spending more than 15% of its income on transportation and/or 45% of its income on housing and transportation combined is considered cost burdened. The Center for Neighborhood Technology’s (“CNT”) Housing and Transportation (“H+T”) Affordability Index provides a comprehensive analysis of affordability down to the neighborhood level. CNT utilizes Census Bureau data to estimate transportation costs incurred by households. At the national level, CNT’s H+T Index has found that only 26% of neighborhoods in the U.S. are considered affordable.
City had the fifth-highest combined housing and transportation cost, at 51%. Among the comparable cities, Miramar had the highest combined housing and transportation costs, at 55%, followed by Fort Lauderdale and Pembroke Pines, at 54% each. One key factor that reduces transportation costs for households is access to public transportation. The City had the secondhighest rate of workers who utilize public transportation, at 6%. The rate of workers who use public transit directly correlates with annual vehicle miles traveled per household. As the City has the second-highest rate of public transit riders, it also has the thirdlowest annual vehicle miles traveled per household, at 13,781 miles. Although public ridership in the City is higher than in surrounding areas, overall usage remains relatively low, reducing the potential to offset transportation expenses and contributing to households spending over 15% of their annual income on transportation.
This analysis utilizes H+T data and compares the affordability of the City’s housing and transportation costs to surrounding cities and the County. According to the H+T Index, the average household in the City spends 32% of its income on housing and approximately 18% of its income on transportation. Compared to the six comparable cities and the County shown in Table 62, the
Table 62. Housing and Transportation Costs as % of Income for the City, Surrounding Cities, and County, 2023
Hollywood Dania Beach
Housing Cost as % of Transportation Cost as Total H & T Cost as % Transit Riders as % Annual Vehicle Miles Income % of Income of Income of Workers Traveled 51% 32% 18% 6% 13,718 45% 28% 18% 4% 13,981
Hallandale Beach
29%
16%
45%
7%
12,750
Pembroke Pines
35%
19%
54%
4%
15,740
West Park
29%
19%
48%
4%
14,992
Miramar
35%
20%
55%
3%
16,484
Fort Lauderdale
37%
18%
54%
6%
13,881
Broward County
34%
19%
53%
4%
15,639
Sources: The Center for Neighborhood Technology’s Housing and Transportation (H+T®) Affordability Index GAI Consultants.
| 118 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Affordability and Wages Utilizing employment and wages data previously referenced in Section 2.3 Housing Market Assessment, Table 63 on the following page presents an affordability matrix based on average monthly wages. Table 63 categorizes employment by industry and combines this information with data provided by the University of Florida’s Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (“Shimberg”). The analysis examines employment wages by industry sector for the City as a whole, along with the estimated maximum affordable monthly rent for each industry, calculated as 30% of average monthly income. To note, data for the Manufacturing and Other Services industries is not available for this exercise. Based on these data points, the analysis evaluates whether employees in select industries can afford the City’s average rental and ownership costs, estimated at $1,886 and $2,652 per month, respectively. Only 10 industries within the City provide average monthly wages sufficient to support the average rental cost without resulting in a cost-burdened renter, while only 5 industries provide average monthly wages sufficient to support the average ownership cost without resulting in a cost-burdened owner. Industries with wages capable of supporting average rental costs account for just 34% of total employment, while industries with wages sufficient to support average ownership costs account for only 15% of total employment. Industries within the City that provide wages capable of affording the average rent account for only 34% of total employment, while industries with wages that could reasonably afford average ownership costs account for just 15% of total employment.
While these proportions reflect total employment, which may include individuals who work within the City but reside elsewhere, the City’s labor force by industry does not differ significantly from the overall employee population. For example, the leading industries within the City are Healthcare and Social Assistance, Retail Trade, and Accommodation and Food Services, which together account for nearly 44% of total employment. Similarly, within the City’s labor force, the leading industries are Retail Trade, Healthcare and Social Assistance, Accommodation and Food Services, and Construction, which together account for 43% of the total labor force. Wage variation within industries, combined with ongoing housing affordability constraints, may contribute to members of the labor force seeking employment opportunities with higher wages or housing options outside the City. Additionally, relative to AMI, 11 industries within the City have average monthly wages that equate to 80% or greater than AMI. As detailed in Table 60, the 80% of AMI is $71,280, which equates to an average monthly income of $5,940. These 11 industries with incomes higher than 80% of AMI represent approximately 56% of total employment within the area. Overall, Table 63 on the following page as well as the preceding information detail severe affordability challenges within the City, which may be resulting in the high proportion of the employees living outside the City, while employed within. This imbalance highlights the need for targeted housing and economic strategies to better align local wages with housing costs and support a more stable, resident workforce within the City.
Section 3: Housing Demand and Affordability Analysis | 119 |
Table 63. Affordability Matrix for the City by Employment and Median Wages Average Monthly AMI Category Wage(1)
Attainable Housing
Maximum Affordable Can Afford Rent(2) (30% Average Rent of Income) $4,777 X $3,409 X
Can Afford Average Ownership Costs X X
Employment Industries
% of Total Employees
Management Utilities
1.9% 0.1%
$15,922 $11,363
Above Above
Market Market
Information
1.2%
$10,804
Above
Market
$3,241
X
X
Finance/Insurance
2.8%
$10,164
Above
Market
$3,049
X
X
Professional/Tech Services
8.3%
$9,308
Above
Market
$2,792
X
X
Wholesale Trade
4.2%
$8,380
Above
Market
$2,514
X
-
Public Administration
3.4%
$7,443
Above
Market
$2,233
X
-
Mining
0.0%
$6,900
Moderate
$2,070
X
-
Transportation
5.1%
$6,756
Moderate
$2,027
X
-
Construction
5.7%
$6,467
Moderate
$1,940
X
-
Healthcare
21.7%
$5,978
Moderate
$1,794
-
-
Real Estate
5.7%
$5,785
Low
Affordable
$1,736
-
-
Admin/Waste Mgmt
7.6%
$4,917
Low
Affordable
$1,475
-
-
Educational Services
1.4%
$4,910
Low
Affordable
$1,473
-
-
Arts/Entertainment/ Recreation
1.3%
$4,501
Low
Affordable
$1,350
-
-
Retail Trade
10.9%
$3,980
Low
Affordable
$1,194
-
-
Agriculture
0.0%
$3,896
Low
Affordable
$1,169
-
-
Accommodation/Food Services
10.6%
$3,007
Very Low
Affordable
$902
-
-
Workforce/ Attainable Workforce/ Attainable Workforce/ Attainable Workforce/ Attainable
Sources: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies; Florida Department of Commerce, 2024 Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages; 2025 HUD Fair Market Rent; GAI Consultants. Notes (1): Data for the Manufacturing and Other Services (excluding Public Administration) Industries was not available for the City. (2) Maximum Affordable Rent estimates how much a household can spend on monthly housing cost without spending more than 30% on its monthly income. | 120 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
AMI Projections As mentioned, the County’s 2024 AMI was $89,100. Between 2000 and 2024, the AMI calculated for the County increased at a 2.0% CAGR. Additionally, between 2015 and 2024, the AMI increased more rapidly at a 3.5% CAGR. Throughout the full projection period, 2025 to 2045, the AMI for the County is projected to increase at a 2.4% CAGR, reaching nearly $153,300 by 2045. Annually, the AMI is projected to increase by an average of 2%, indicating a rapid increase in household income throughout the next 20 years. As mentioned in Section 1.3 Housing Continuum, these income limits determine eligibility for housing programs. For example, the very lowincome limit bracket is typically the limit for many rental assistance and affordable housing programs, while the low-income limit or 80% AMI
is typically used for workforce housing and home buyer assistance programs. Income limits for housing programs are established as a percentage of the AMI, including: •
Extremely Low Income: Below 30% AMI (Affordable Housing)
•
Very Low Income: Between 30% and 50% AMI (Affordable Housing)
•
Low Income: Between 50% and 80% AMI (Affordable Housing)
•
Moderate Income: Between 81% and 100% AMI (Workforce/ Attainable Housing)
•
Above Moderate Income: Greater than 100% AMI (Market Rate Housing
Household Income Projections Based on County-level projections from the University of Florida’s Shimberg Center for Housing Studies on housing affordability by household income and tenure, and adjusted for local conditions and historical capture rates, the following section estimates Households by tenure and income as a share of AMI for the County and City throughout the 20-year projection period, 2025 to 2045. Throughout the projection period, the proportional distribution of households across AMI income brackets within the County is projected to remain largely unchanged. Renter-occupied Households with incomes at or below 30% of AMI are projected to remain at approximately 17% between 2025 and 2045. Similarly, renter-occupied Households with incomes above 100% of AMI are projected to remain stable at 25%. Among owner-occupied Households, those with incomes at or below 30% of AMI are projected to remain near 10.5% over the same period, while
owner-occupied Households with incomes greater than 100% of AMI consistently account for approximately 48% of all owner Households. Table 64 presents the distribution of owner and renter-occupied Households by income bracket throughout the projection period for the County. While the overall proportions of Households by income bracket remain relatively stable over the projection period, a persistent pattern emerges in the income distribution by tenure. Owneroccupied Households continue to be disproportionately concentrated in higher-income categories, while renter Households remain more heavily represented in lower-income brackets. This imbalance highlights ongoing affordability pressures, indicating sustained exposure to cost burden among renter Households and persistent housing security challenges that disproportionately affect lower-income renters.
Section 3: Housing Demand and Affordability Analysis | 121 |
Table 64. Projected Household Income as a Percentage of AMI for Broward County, 2025–2045
≤ 30% AMI (Extremely Low Income) 31–50% AMI (Very Low Income)
2025 OwnerOccupied 9.9% 9.6%
RenterOccupied 17.0% 16.6%
2035 (10-Year Projection) OwnerRenterOccupied Occupied 9.9% 16.9% 9.6% 16.6%
2045 (20-Year Projection) OwnerRenterOccupied Occupied 9.8% 16.9% 9.5% 16.6%
51–80% AMI (Low Income)
15.7%
23.5%
15.7%
23.5%
15.7%
23.5%
81–100% AMI (Moderate Income)
10.0%
12.1%
10.0%
12.1%
9.9%
12.1%
>100% AMI (Above Moderate Income)
54.8%
30.8%
54.9%
30.9%
55.0%
30.9%
Total Households
468,247
296,950
490,990
345,481
495,049
391,125
Sources: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies; BEBR 2025-2050 Projections by County; U.S. Census Bureau; GAI Consultants.
The City also experienced similar patterns regarding the distribution of Household incomes throughout the full projection period. Throughout the projection period, the proportional distribution of Households across AMI income brackets within the City remains largely unchanged. Renter-occupied Households with incomes at or below 30% of AMI are projected to remain at approximately 17% between 2025 and 2045. Similarly, renter-occupied Households with incomes above 100% of AMI are projected to remain stable at 25%.
Among owner-occupied Households, those with incomes at or below 30% of AMI are projected to remain near 10.5% over the same period, while owner-occupied Households with incomes greater than 100% of AMI consistently account for approximately 48% of all owneroccupied Households. Table 65 presents the distribution of owner and renter-occupied Households by income bracket throughout the projection period for the City.
Table 65. Projected Household Income as a Percentage of AMI for the City of Hollywood, 2025–2045
≤ 30% AMI (Extremely Low Income) 31–50% AMI (Very Low Income)
2025 OwnerOccupied 10.5% 11.9%
RenterOccupied 16.9% 19.2%
2035 (10-Year Projection) OwnerRenterOccupied Occupied 10.5% 16.9% 11.8% 19.2%
2045 (20-Year Projection) OwnerRenterOccupied Occupied 10.4% 16.9% 11.8% 19.2%
51–80% AMI (Low Income)
17.6%
24.7%
17.6%
24.7%
17.5%
24.6%
81–100% AMI (Moderate Income)
12.3%
14.0%
12.3%
14.0%
12.3%
14.0%
>100% AMI (Above Moderate Income)
47.7%
25.2%
47.8%
25.2%
48.0%
25.3%
Total Households
34,758
26,153
35,445
28,473
34,513
29,832
Sources: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies; BEBR 2025-2050 Projections by County; U.S. Census Bureau; GAI Consultants.
| 122 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Affordability: Implications and Conclusions The following section highlights key considerations from Section 3.2 Housing Affordability Assessment. AMI Thresholds Throughout the past 2 decades, the AMI for the County and City has increased significantly, and it is projected to continue to increase throughout the full projection period. While this may appear to be beneficial to the overall community, increasing AMIs raise the eligibility for housing programs and assistance. This dynamic may unintentionally exclude households whose incomes grow more slowly than AMI–particularly lower-wage workers and fixed-income households–thereby widening the gap between program-defined affordability and actual household financial capacity. Risk Among Renters Based on the affordability analysis, most housing configurations in the City require owners and renters to have incomes at or above 80% of the AMI. Relying on the historic trends and the projections, a substantial share of renters, compared to owners, are cost burdened and will remain cost burdened. These findings highlight the need for housing strategies that place a greater emphasis on renter-focused affordability, including a variety of unit sizes and types, income-restricted rental housing, and housing forms aligned with workforce wage levels. Competitive Wages Although the City’s employment base and labor force share similar major industries, the employment patterns indicate a steady outflow of the City’s labor force, which may indicate that employees are leaving for more competitive wages in surrounding areas. The observation that only five industries provide wages high enough to cover the average ownership costs also suggests that the jobs within the City are not suitable for the majority of the current housing stock. Moving forward, housing planning efforts must
acknowledge this disconnect and ensure that future residential development is better aligned with the income characteristics of the City’s current and projected workforce. Transportation and Infrastructure Transportation and supportive infrastructure are essential to the City’s long‑term prosperity and quality of life for both residents and employees. Currently, household transportation costs significantly exceed the 15% threshold generally considered affordable. Expanding access to and utilization of the City’s public transit options, including Holly‑Go and the Sun Shuttle, can help reduce transportation cost burdens while providing reliable and meaningful mobility options for residents and the local workforce. Limited Mobility Through the Housing Continuum These overall themes have indicated that the affordability challenges due to low wages and high housing and transportation costs restrict households from moving into ownership and housing stability. The growing proportion of renter-occupied households indicates limited upward mobility within the housing continuum and sustained pressure on the rental market. Legacy Residents While these affordability challenges are largely concentrated on renter-occupied households, owner-occupied households and legacy residents also face significant challenges. Legacy residents are more likely to be lower‑income, fixed‑income, or moderate‑wage households, and may be particularly vulnerable to rising housing and transportation costs. As AMI increases, affordability efforts must prioritize protecting fixed‑income and long‑term residents.
Section 3: Housing Demand and Affordability Analysis | 123 |
SECTION FOUR:
STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN & RECOMMENDATIONS
| 124 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Section Four: Strategic Action Plan & Recommendations 4.1 Vision for Hollywood’s Housing Landscape.......................................................... 126
Overview and Summary.................................................................126 External Influences on the Housing Landscape...............127 Labor Market. . ....................................................................................... 127 Construction Methods.....................................................................128 Financial and Economic Resource Alignment.....................130
Core Pillars.............................................................................................134
4.2 Policy Recommendations and Action Strategies.. .......................................................... 136 Institutional Home Buyers.. ............................................................137 Action 1 – Data Monitoring. . ............................................................ 137 Action 2 – Assess Options for Reasonable Restrictions .......................................................................................... 137 Action 3 – Enforce Compliance................................................... 137
Homelessness......................................................................................138 Action 1 – Eviction Prevention . . ....................................................138
Missing Middle......................................................................................138
Action 1 – Expand Missing Middle Opportunities ..............138 Action 2 – Housing Investment Platform ................................138
Infrastructure. ........................................................................................139 Action 1 – Prioritize Infrastructure Investment for Redevelopment.. ..................................................................................139 Action 2 – Septic to Sewer............................................................ 140 Action 3 – Adopt Completed Streets Policies .. ................... 140
Form-Based Code............................................................................ 140 Context Districts Model – Typical Features . . .......................... 141 Transect-Based Models – Typical Features.........................142
Implementation Framework.........................................................143 Action 1 – Housing Delivery Working Group..........................143
Monitoring Hollywood’s Housing Landscape....................144 Monitoring Hollywood’s Housing Landscape Visualization. . .........................................................................................146 Section 4: Strategic Action Plan and Recommendations | 125 |
About this Section
Section 4.1
This section, titled Vision for Hollywood’s Housing Landscape, provides a strategic action plan for the future of the City of Hollywood’s housing landscape. This Analysis concludes that, due to the City’s restricted boundaries, redevelopment of underutilized properties and investment in the City’s existing infrastructure are key strategies moving forward.
Vision for Hollywood’s Housing Landscape
Additionally, the Analysis defines key metrics the City should continue to monitor to help identify trends early, support transparent public reporting, and inform course corrections so actions remain aligned with the City’s longterm housing vision.
Overview and Summary While this Housing Master Plan is focused on housing, successful housing delivery depends on the City’s ability to align land use, infrastructure, mobility, utilities, public facilities, services, and capital planning. It serves as a housing-focused framework informing related growth management decisions and providing insights on where housing growth can be responsibly supported, what barriers must be addressed, and what coordinated actions are needed to create complete, resilient, and well-served communities. For Hollywood, an equitable housing landscape means everyone can access a safe, stable, and affordable home, and housing is diverse, resilient, and well connected to daily needs. Looking to the future, housing functions as essential infrastructure within reach for households across all incomes and life stages. Communities include a wider mix of housing types and tenures such as multi-family, multi-generational, senior-friendly and accessible options located near jobs, schools, services, and daily needs. Housing delivery is fast and predictable through clear rules, streamlined approvals, and coordinated infrastructure investment; while resilience measures are integrated into new development, redevelopment, and legacy neighborhoods. Success is measured not only by units produced, but by fewer cost-burdened households, clear pathways out of affordability-induced homelessness, and neighborhoods that are inclusive, healthy, and well-connected. Through the 20-year planning horizon, Hollywood strengthens housing stability by pairing increased production with preservation and a more navigable housing system. Higher density growth is focused in planned areas, Regional Activity Centers (“RAC”), and commercial corridors (e.g., Downtown and SR 7), as well as through mixed-use and multi-family development. Complemented by Missing-Middle options, including accessory dwelling units and townhouses, expands choice through redevelopment without requiring greenfield sites. The City accelerates delivery by improving predictability and consistency in permitting, aligning incentives, and local funding tools with County, State, and Federal resources. The City prioritizes development and redevelopment projects that serve workforce households, seniors, and residents most at risk of displacement due to affordability. Infrastructure and resilience investments–especially City-wide access to sewer, stormwater enhancements, and floodplain | 126 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
measures–remove barriers to redevelopment and protect existing neighborhoods. By 2046, success looks like fewer households cost burdened by unsustainable housing costs compared to incomes, fewer unsheltered people, more seniors safely aging in place, and vibrant commercial corridors and nodes supported by stable, diverse housing options. A key implementation objective of the Housing Master Plan is to improve internal coordination across City departments and partner agencies. Housing delivery requires alignment between planning, infrastructure, utilities, mobility, parks, public facilities, permitting, legal, finance, economic development, community development, emergency management, and service delivery functions. Strengthening coordination across these areas can reduce internal silos, identify long-term infrastructure and service constraints earlier, align capital and policy decisions, and create more predictable conditions for responsible housing growth.
External Influences on the Housing Landscape Academicians, trade analysts, and others observe many trends impacting the construction and real estate industries, particularly the residential segments in which costs are rising well beyond income growth. While the ways these impact Hollywood specifically are conjectural, their trajectory and scale have implications for the likely supply of housing, its form, its costs, and rational policy responses. What seems certain is that each of these trends and influences is multi-dimensional, with some, more than others, able to be directed or controlled by local policy or actions.
Labor Market Among the major issues plaguing the construction trades generally is a continuing labor shortage. This shortage goes back several years and has many explanations. Evidence indicates the problems will continue. On its face, the competitive scramble to secure labor would appear to add construction costs both directly in terms of
higher wages, and indirectly in the guise of scheduling delays. More intensive recruitment, training, or alternative delivery systems that might mitigate these costs have not yet proven to be effective or easily implemented. While all aspects of construction activity are potentially affected, the pool of subcontractors, often involving skills with lower barriers to entry (e.g., dry wall, painting, roofing, tile work, hauling, etc.) are particularly relevant to housing production. These trades or positions may require certain experience and physical capability, but are not explicitly licensed or regulated. Although the ensuing damage or loss to specific communities or projects caused by labor shortages is only anecdotal at this time, the Urban Institute (“UI”) reported in February 2025 that almost 500,000 workers would be needed beyond the existing shortfall of some 250,000 workers first recognized in 2024. At the very least, these shortfalls suggest major disruption. In recent years, this manpower shortfall was offset in large measure by immigrant labor. There are reasonable concerns that this labor pool could be curtailed at the current levels of immigration enforcement. These mirror concerns similarly voiced by the hospitality and food service industries in which immigrant labor is dominant. Even if licensure or credentials are unnecessary or overlooked, those jobs will logically be more difficult to fill in response to the level of housing deliveries necessary to support population or household gains in the highest growth areas. According to Lyu et al. (2025) in their work entitled “Migrant Workers in the Construction Industry: A Bibliometric and Qualitative Content Analysis”, the problems could now be extending more broadly into skilled trades with specific career pathways (e.g., electricians, plumbers, metal work, heavy equipment, etc.), following more aggressive enforcement. If so, the entire construction process, not just discrete stages or systems, could be threatened at increased level of immigration enforcement.
Section 4: Strategic Action Plan and Recommendations | 127 |
Using data from the American Community Survey, the UI noted about 23% of the construction labor force nationwide was composed of immigrant workers. In Texas, California, and Florida, the share was above 34%. About half of these people are estimated to be undocumented, placing the workers and these states at greater immediate risk. Disregarding the impacts of legal status, the National Association of Homebuilders indicates the percentage of immigrant labor could actually be as high as 41% in Florida. Today, about 42% of the manpower shortage falls in residential construction. Relying extensively on traditional, site-specific construction techniques, the residential segment is more labor intensive, overall using less skilled labor than commercial segments. The residential segment also experiences a steadier stream of activity. As a result, the residential segment of the industry could be the most severely impacted, given the housing deficit widely recognized in most settings. The UI report goes on to observe that Florida and Maine remain among the states with the largest shortfalls in housing production, clearly calling attention to the labor needs in these states. While all housing production is unlikely to be withheld from the market, labor shortages will have adverse implications for deliveries and productivity, materially boosting costs. Based on the numbers and level of housing need in Florida, it is reasonable to posit that immigration enforcement, occurring in settings with particularly high concentrations of immigrant labor, will reduce labor supply faster than it can be replaced with workforce training programs or aggressive recruitment. In the reasonably near term, these issues should force wages higher with no perceptible productivity gains. While the explicit application of these observations to Broward County and the City of Hollywood is conjectural, they rationally relate to various growth planning scenarios and the way local governments should be positioning themselves, adjusting their expectations, and preparing their policy responses. While the issues associated with alternative means to address the problems may be political in nature, the numbers and scale of the problem specific to sheltering the local area population are not. | 128 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Construction Methods There is an obvious association between the means of construction and the manpower needed to assure activity continues. Given that association, an ostensible solution would shift investment to alternative delivery options, substituting labor for improved materials, equipment, or systems. That shift is occurring but is limited and doesn’t appear to be growing at a pace sufficient to bring major change in the housing outlook. To that point, although building components (e.g., factory trusses), equipment (e.g., batterydriven tools), and materials (e.g., manufactured stone) have become available, there has not been a wholesale adoption of alternative techniques or delivery systems. Research evidences, factory constructed options, at least to date, have shown great promise in terms of cost savings, considering controlled weather conditions, replication, and material efficiency. In the context used here, factory construction refers to modular or prefabricated systems, fully or partially assembled, possibly panelized, under roof. Housing using these systems should not be confused with mobile homes, a more pejorative and narrowly defined type of structure subject to certain HUD Codes (i.e., HUDcompliant mobile homes) or regulations since 1976. In multiple academic and professional studies, such factory systems have shown housing delivery costs can be significantly lowered. National studies recently completed by HUD (2022, 2026) and Pew partnering with Harvard (2023) document savings on an average square foot basis of 25% to 45% even after transportation and foundation costs, primarily from control of the construction environment. In Florida itself, the University of Florida reports significant savings in certain cost bands or parts, but the University’s analysis does not provide a detailed comparison with site-built homes. Such conclusions or observations align with studies done by private cost estimating firms in which specific building features or components were compared. Virtually without exception, the information readily available or accessible points to substantive cost savings.
Cost advantages notwithstanding, factory options fulfill only a very limited share of the market. Sources suggest that no more than 25,000-30,000 new single-family housing units and potentially 40,000 multi-family units involve substantive factory assembly, compared with about 100,000 HUD-compliant mobile homes delivered and some 900,000 units conventionally erected almost fully onsite. This almost immeasurably low level of activity, despite many compelling advantages, begs for a fuller understanding of the reasons such techniques have not been widely embraced. Nationwide, the published information identifies these major considerations which have some policy implications for local decision makers. •
•
Zoning and land use controls, the basic means of controlling development, are consistently identified as the major barriers in most settings. Neither Florida nor Texas, two of the country’s major growth states, can exclude housing substantially assembled in a factory exclusively on the basis of its origin. Such exclusion is common in most states, but not here. In contrast, such options are not generally available for HUD compliant mobile homes. While stigma claims or debates about aesthetics may lead to unpleasant public meetings, legally the distinctions in various factory components or units under Florida law are quite clear. In effect resistance persists despite evidence of the flexibility and merits of factory construction. Much of the adverse perception stems from confusion regarding the nomenclature about the products and the systems in place to control the construction. Those involved, including members of the planning community, often refer simply to mobile homes ignoring the major differences articulated in law which responded to the changes mandated by HUD in 1976. At least on a visceral level, it may be difficult to reconcile the quality dimensions advanced in the factory environment which is strongly associated with a traditional mobile home.
•
Homeowner associations (“HOA”) in well-established residential communities may take direct actions to subvert factory-built housing, expressing concerns about aesthetics and property values. There may be certain HOA regulations which violate law were they to be carefully evaluated.
•
The above and similar issues then generate appraisal and insurance friction. Limited comparables challenge acceptable valuation practices, which then confound both the financial and insurance markets that are silent “partners” to the development and construction industries. Insurance concerns are especially prevalent in Florida’s evolving and costly insurance marketplace which is still struggling with hurricane risk and property classification schemes.
•
Hurricane and flooding concerns are issues largely particular to Florida and its building codes. However, those matters can be addressed in the factory-controlled environment where units can be assembled to satisfy almost any local requirements, much like conventional production builders can do now. Still, those concerns are a priority in Florida, where building codes and related standards of construction are exceptionally high.
•
Ironically, Senate Bill 180 adopted by the Florida Legislature in 2024 with the intent of easing regulatory burdens, has itself done nothing obviously measurable to increase housing production, certainly as such barriers might be tied to constraints on manufactured housing production.
On paper, factory-assembled housing offers the prospect of a more economical approach to housing. Given the labor shortages already noted, there is a basis for improving the severely challenged productivity levels. The South Florida region has many companies looking to expand their influence, which might be enhanced by focusing improved attention on factory options.
Section 4: Strategic Action Plan and Recommendations | 129 |
Financial and Economic Resource Alignment
governments. Yet, even with a source of money committed to the Fund, the account was widely misapplied until 2021. The State’s commitment since then to fully release all funds generated by the Fund is notable, although several advocacy groups (e.g., Florida Housing Coalition, Florida Policy Institute, Sadowski Coalition) estimate almost 100,000 units that might have been constructed were not produced. By law, the monies within the Fund support predominantly homeownership programs (70%), with the balance being used for other activities, but primarily to support tax credit housing. Most of these funds are distributed to local governments by right or entitlement and then used for a broad range of purposes.
The broader financial industry depends largely on Federal regulations, although local areas may have programs or adaptations compliant with Federal controls. The adaptations then must be compliant with State law and practices. These layers of control then confer limitations on the options available locally. As a result, while there may be ideas or basic strategies to emulate from other local governments in Florida, in reality, there are no substantively creative practices or programs being explored to aid housing on a material scale. The resources used to support these practices and programs are fairly prescriptive. Florida law limits local governments regarding the funds they can generate and their source, such that the real issue is simply thoughtful application of those monies that are legally available. Those monies are typically the general fund, State or Federal grant programs, sums made available through redevelopment areas, and special charges or fees that must satisfy certain tests of sufficiency. Because sources are limited, the money: (1) can then be spent only for specific activities or (2) the expenditure in question competes with other priorities within a limited budget. In effect, the challenge, given relatively limited resources, is to determine where or how existing proceeds should be spent in terms of leverage or priority. Where permissible, the most flexible options or approaches involving substantial early or upfront participation, cost sharing, or direct capitalization are likely to be outside of the risk tolerances of most local governments.
•
Federal housing resources are often combined with local programs in Florida because access to Fund resources provides significant leveraging effects. Largely, these Federal monies center on Low Income Housing Tax Credits (“LIHTC”), a complex program which is functionally the main source of assisted housing in Florida today. Essentially, tax credits come in two varieties, 4% and 9%. The program structure relies heavily on State agencies such as the Florida Housing Finance Corporation for coordination and review roles, especially as those functions affect awards of the valuable 9% tax credits which are typically linked to Fund monies to implement. While the 9% tax credits are strongly competitive, the 4% tax credits are widely available without competition but the financial resources to complete the capital stack are often lacking, especially given the priorities of Fund monies. Whatever these limitations may be, in a typical year Florida constructs about 16,000 LIHTC units, mostly using the richer 9% tax credit program. While there is continuing talk about ways to leverage the 4% tax credit program, there is not a dedicated fiscal resource to broaden their use.
•
Outside of the LIHTC structure, the tools made available through Florida’s Live Local Act (“LLA”) have started to create unusual opportunities for affordable housing. This housing,
The failure to explore meaningful options after years of under building housing has yielded conditions that virtually constitute a structural issue at this point. Still, there are some bright spots in Florida tempered by occasional missteps. •
Florida created the Sadowski Housing Fund (“Fund”), a statewide housing trust account. The Fund is unusual among peers in that it has dedicated sources, to support its mission. By contrast, most states with housing accounts depend on periodic appropriations and may not share receipts with local
| 130 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
benefiting largely from the removal of zoning restrictions, may not reconcile to the desired land uses in many jurisdictions. In some settings, projects being considered under terms of the LLA are being challenged because they qualify for property tax exemptions. At this point, the full impact of LLA remains to be seen because the program is assembling a pipeline of projects. Many thousands of units are ostensibly planned. Optimistically, because such housing largely bypasses local controls, it could become a major source of housing supply. •
The LLA is Florida’s signature housing legislation. Projects implemented through the LLA rely substantively on property tax abatements for qualifying units. The entirety of such projects are also potentially eligible for additional incentives in some jurisdictions.
•
The property tax inducements to construct affordable units under the LLA could become difficult for local governments to honor if proposed property tax reforms are adopted in the short-term. Without regard to what may or may not happen with property taxes, several sources indicate about 6,500 housing units have been granted affordable status under the LLA. Absent consistent and required reporting, this count should be considered as a point of reference only. Since the LLA is relatively new, determining the “pipeline” effects is difficult. How these units will complement other housing options is speculative, but even modest performance is an increment to existing production.
On the broader regulatory front, there are winners and losers among laws or approaches that might financially support more affordable housing. A bright spot, the result of a legislative adjustment, is that certain impact fees for affordable housing can be waived without penalty. Prior interpretation of Florida law suggested such waivers were not possible. On the other hand, inclusionary housing practices and linkage fees, widely available in other States, are limited in Florida, where protections require incentives be provided to make any burdens cost neutral. While not legally excluded, these options
are financially difficult to advance in Florida. There are some modest linkage fee programs in Florida that pre-date legislative limitations on such options, and it is not clear how those local governments have responded to recent laws. What we have seen little of are special restricted funds or earmarked accounts, provided by local government, to support housing activities comparable to those supported by the Sadowski Fund although these accounts appear to be legally implementable. In Florida, Orange County government has such a fund which currently has money allotted to 12 projects with 2,000 units, with most taking advantage of the 4% tax credit model. Over the next several years, the Orange County fund could award as much as $160 million. The program is largely a response to a regional housing analysis sponsored by several local governments and is intended to address gaps in the typical capital stack. It is less of a creative success than a major political accomplishment. Other local governments have inquired about the procedures and commitment to create similar funds, but few have moved ahead. Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADU”) are getting a lot of attention in Florida and elsewhere simply because they are an obvious way to accommodate additional units almost immediately. Senate Bill 184, defeated in the 2025 Florida legislative session, would have allowed such units, with virtually no limits. Senate Bill 84, defeated in the 2026 Florida legislative session, would have required local governments to adopt ADU ordinances by mid-2026. Relevant to this discussion about emerging funding, financing, and economic considerations is that an ADU is extraordinarily difficult to finance except when part of new mortgage agreement. At some point, the financial and planning communities will need to align their thinking to maximize the benefits of this alternative form of housing. Condominiums have been a modestly more affordable form of ownership in Florida and elsewhere. The savings reflect a means of absorbing certain shared costs of residency. However, the 2021 collapse of a condominium tower in Surfside, Florida, has significantly Section 4: Strategic Action Plan and Recommendations | 131 |
curtailed this market by spreading liability issues across all professionals engaged in the building of such projects, and by forcing fuller financial reporting systems for reserves and replacements. At a minimum, these requirements impose costly financial controls and accounting. It is not clear how these changes are affecting the production of such properties, but they are sharply constraining prices and sales volume, and may be a particular challenge to more affordably priced or valued condominiums. More generally, Employer Assisted Housing (“EAH”) is receiving some new attention after Apple, Microsoft, and several major employers on the U.S. west coast entered the makerspace. Such programs are not new, but they have taken more aggressive positions. In Orlando, for example, both Universal Studios and Disney have contributed land and financial resources to support housing initiatives near, or on, their land holdings. Given the need to secure a labor force, the same concept is being embraced by hospitals, school boards, and general-purpose governments adopting a variety of approaches from direct rental assistance to mortgages. Given the enormity of the housing issues in the U.S., it is surprising how very little has been done at the national level to modify existing programs or resources to address the litany of issues impacting the financial dimensions of housing delivery. Although shelter needs are being discussed among Federal lawmakers, there have been no strategies outlined representing major departures from prior law or practices. Mostly, more dollars are being considered for existing programs such as LIHTC. This strategy, in effect, suggests private capitalization will right the housing marketplace. Much discussion is being given to regulations which largely need their own special treatment in Florida. A couple of ideas are emerging at the Federal level that might be structural, requiring a reorganization of the large financial ecosystem. The first is an extended mortgage period that would lower monthly housing obligations even if the interest rate might be somewhat higher. In terms of tax code changes, new areas are | 132 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
being considered, such as Opportunity Zones, which can attract substantial outside investment. For residential development, Opportunity Zone activity has been confined to rental housing to honor the hold period required to maximum benefits. A variation to the rules may permit certain conversions to that hold period, allowing condominium construction and sales. Although, how such an adjustment might be realized in the Florida context is not clear. About Opportunity Zones The Opportunity Zone Program, as established in the Federal Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, was designed to drive long-term capital to rural and low-income urban communities throughout the nation. The program also encourages private investment by providing tax incentives, including temporary deferrals on capital gains taxes when investors reinvest those gains in Qualified Opportunity Funds (“QOF”). These funds are then invested in low-income communities from designated census tracts, known as Opportunity Zones. An Opportunity Zone is an economically distressed community where new investments, under certain conditions, may be eligible for preferential tax treatment. Florida is home to 427 of these Federally Designated Opportunity Zones. The City of Hollywood currently contains two Opportunity Zones. The purpose of these zones is to act as an economic development tool by spurring development and job creation in distressed communities, and by providing tax benefits to investors. How the Opportunity Zone Program Works Investors receive tax credits when they reinvest capital gains, or profits from the sale of an asset, into Opportunity Zones. Investors may benefit in three ways: 1. They can defer paying taxes on the original capital gain until they dispose of the investment or until 2026. 2. If they hold the investment for at least 5 years, they will have to pay 10% less taxes on the original capital gain. 3. If they hold the investment for at least 10 years, they will not have to pay any capital gains tax on their Opportunity Zone investment.
Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (“OBBBA”), passed in July 2025, tax incentives associated with Qualified Opportunity Zones (“QOZs”) have been permanently renewed. Designation/Re-designation of QOZs will occur July 1, 2026, then again on July 1st every 10 years thereafter. Census Tracts must satisfy the following criteria to be eligible for designation/re-designation as a QOZ:
In preparing of Annual Action Plans as well as future SHIP LHAP updates, the City should prioritize demonstrating how the resources and initiatives described herein–and previously in Section 2.1–advance broader housing priorities, including preservation, rental assistance, affordable rental development, housing rehabilitation, infrastructure readiness, homelessness prevention, resilience, special-needs housing, leveraging of other public and private funds, and complete-community outcomes.
For Census Tracts located within metropolitan areas: •
Census Tract has a median family income that does not exceed 70% of the metropolitan area; or
•
Census Tract has a poverty rate of at least 20%, and has a median family income that does not exceed 125% of the metropolitan area.
For Census Tracts NOT located within metropolitan areas: •
Census Tract has a median family income that does not exceed 70% of the State; or
•
Census Tract has a poverty rate of at least 20%, and has a median family income that does not exceed 125% of the State.
In terms of tax benefits, taxes on capital gains invested in QOFs after December 31, 2026 will be deferred for 5 years, after which investors will see the deferred taxes on their original capital gain reduced by 10%, or 30% for Qualified Rural Opportunity Funds (“QROF”). After 10 years, appreciation on capital gains invested in QOFs is fully taxexempt; this benefit is capped at a 30-year holding period. Layering Resources The resources and tools described here, as well as the City’s existing initiatives previously described in Section 2.1, can be layered to support acquisition, rehabilitation, preservation, resilience, rental production, gap financing, predevelopment, public land projects, and complete-community investments. Layering resources through coordination and cooperation can bridge financial gaps, revealing opportunities that were not previously deemed feasible.
Figure 22. Qualified Opportunity Zone Funds Corporate Investors
Capital Gains from Sale of Assets
Affordable Housing
At least 90% of Assets
Qualified Opportunity Zone (QOZ) Property
Corporate Investors
QOZ Business Property (Direct Holdings)
QOZ Business Property (Indirect Holdings) Section 4: Strategic Action Plan and Recommendations | 133 |
Core Pillars The Housing Master Plan is intended to serve as the City’s coordinating framework for aligning existing housing tools, funding programs, public investments, land use decisions, and implementation processes. Future annual funding decisions, capital priorities, and regulatory actions should be evaluated based on how they advance the housing goals. Housing outcomes are shaped by multiple City functions, requiring a coordinated implementation structure to ensure housing is delivered as part of complete, resilient, and well- served communities. The Core Pillars described herein provide a foundational framework that translates the broader Vision for Hollywood’s Housing Landscape into actionable priorities. They are intended to establish a clear and consistent structure for decision-making, helping the City evaluate opportunities, allocate resources, and set priorities in a manner that remains aligned with the City’s long-term goals. By defining the principal areas of focus, the Core Pillars create a shared point of reference that supports coordination across initiatives and promotes consistency in both day-to-day operations and strategic planning. In addition, they serve as a stabilizing force during periods of growth, change, or uncertainty by ensuring that individual actions, program development, and strategies continue to reflect the broader mission, values, and intended outcomes. Affordability at Scale: More homes across income levels, especially workforce, senior, and deeply affordable units, so that housing cost burden declines and affordability induced homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring. Focus is on net affordability by creating new affordable/ workforce units, preserving naturally occurring affordable housing, rehabilitating aging housing where feasible, replacing obsolete affordable housing where necessary, and reducing the loss of existing affordability.
| 134 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
More Housing Types in More Places: A shift from mostly single-family to a broader mix of housing typologies supportive of missing middle, multi-generational households, small-scale multifamily, and mixed-use with high-density growth focused in commercial corridors and nodes. Support should focus on a broader range of housing types, including missing middle housing, small-site multifamily, ADUs, familysized units, accessible units, and intergenerational housing models that support seniors, caregivers, adult children, families, workers, and multi-generational households. Location-Efficient Living: More homes near jobs, schools, and services, with improved transit and mobility options to reduce the household cost for housing + transportation combined. Housing affordability should account for rent or mortgage costs, transportation, utilities, insurance, and access to jobs, schools, healthcare, groceries, childcare, and daily services. Housing & Services as a System: Stronger pathways from crisis to stability, permanent supportive housing, rental assistance, navigation, and partnerships, especially for seniors and other vulnerable groups. Supportive and special-needs housing should be professionally managed, service-backed, coordinated with Broward County and the Continuum of Care, geographically balanced where appropriate, and integrated into complete communities with access to transit, healthcare, employment, public services, and daily needs.
Resilience & Infrastructure-Ready Homes: Housing that can withstand changing environmental conditions and flooding risks, supported by stormwater, sewer, and utility capacity to enable redevelopment and density safely and responsibly. Preserving affordability where structures are safe and feasible to rehabilitate, retrofit of aging housing where resilience improvements are practical, and support reconstruction or replacement affordability where buildings are obsolete, unsafe, FEMA constrained, floodprone, or difficult to insure.
Central Beach Neighborhood Aerial, City of Hollywood, FL | Source: Homes.com
Faster, Simpler Delivery: Predictable approvals, clearer rules, early issue identification, and better coordination so housing can be produced on realistic timelines and with lower soft costs without bypassing necessary review, concurrency, infrastructure, zoning, building, or life-safety requirements. Community Trust & Shared Benefits: Better public education and outreach to build public trust through improved understanding of density and affordability, with design quality and neighborhood improvements that reduce opposition and increase acceptance. Where public action creates private development value through added height, density, parking relief, fee relief, public land, infrastructure investment, or expedited review, the City focus should be on seeking measurable public benefits such as affordable/workforce units, deeper affordability, longer affordability periods, public realm improvements, mobility investments, resilience upgrades, employment space, or community-serving uses.
Section 4: Strategic Action Plan and Recommendations | 135 |
About this Section
Section 4.2
This section, titled Policy Recommendations and Action Strategies, provides policy recommendations to align Core Pillars with the City’s long-term goals for housing stability, neighborhood protection, redevelopment, and infrastructure resilience.
Policy Recommendations and Action Strategies
Additionally, to ensure the Housing Master Plan translates into measurable outcomes over time, this section describes a concise set of indicators for monitoring that track both housing conditions and the effectiveness of implementation.
Housing growth should be coordinated with the infrastructure, services, and public realm necessary to support complete communities, including sewer, stormwater, transportation, sidewalks, transit, parks, schools, libraries, community facilities, employment access, resilience, and supportive services. The following policy recommendations are intended to align the Core Pillars described in Section 4.1 with the City’s long-term goals for housing stability, neighborhood protection, redevelopment, and infrastructure resilience. Each policy recommendation is coordinated with one or more of the Core Pillar icons, as illustrated below. Taken together, these policy recommendations outline practical actions the City can pursue to better understand emerging challenges, strengthen regulatory and programmatic responses, and align public investment with community priorities. While some recommendations could be implemented locally in the near term, others may depend on future legislative authority, intergovernmental coordination, or sustained resource commitments. Overall, the recommendations are designed to provide a strategic framework for supporting a more equitable, functional, and sustainable housing landscape.
Core Pillars Affordability at Scale
Resilience & InfrastructureReady Homes
More Housing Types in More Places
Faster, Simpler Delivery
Location-Efficient Living
Community Trust & Shared Benefits
Housing & Services as a System
| 136 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Institutional Home Buyers As described earlier in this Study, Institutional Home Buying is an issue garnering increasing public attention as a potential source of pressure on housing affordability, and governmental bodies across the U.S. are putting forth numerous proposals and legislative actions to combat this perceived threat. Despite what may be the most obvious solution, the City cannot broadly restrict institutional buyers from the housing market due to likely legal challenges; however, national and state initiatives are gaining traction and may have direct impact on what actions local governments are allowed to take in the future. Current recommended actions are three-fold: (1) data monitoring, (2) assessing reasonable restrictions, and (3) compliance enforcement.
Action 1 – Data Monitoring
Adopt a policy requiring the city to establish and maintain a monitoring program for institutionally owned units in order to better understand the magnitude and potential effects of the issue, as well as track trends. (Timing: Short-term) 1.
Define what the City considers an institutional buyer (number of units held, out of state, in state, etc.). Studies and legislation have varied widely in their definition of an institutional buyer.
residents than other types of rental unit owners. With eviction being one of the most common precursors to homelessness, tracking eviction petition rates compared to other rental units can help predict possible effects of increasing rates of institutional buyers. 4. Absentee owner rental units of all types are more likely to see deferred maintenance and accumulation of code violations. As a specific type of absentee owner, the institutional buyer phenomenon has become notorious with regard to the difficulty in tracking down owners for even the most basic maintenance and repair issues. Tracking code violation rates of these institutional buyers will help the City identify neighborhoods that might be experiencing the beginning stages of decline due to disinvestment.
Action 2 – Assess Options for Reasonable Restrictions
Evaluate and enact reasonable restrictions and checks on institutional buying when national or state enabling legislation permits. To date, no such legislation has passed, but in the future, more options could become available and the City should stay attentive to actions that could be taken. (Timing: Mid-term)
2. Use publicly available data, such as the property appraiser database, to identify the number and distribution of institutionally owned units. This is not an easy task, as institutional buyers can use multiple legal entities to hold their properties. Owner name is not always the best method; however, owner address can be more effective as the many legal entities typically have a common address.
Example – Florida state legislators have proposed laws enabling local governments to utilize zoning regulations to exclude large-scale investor acquisition by requiring owner occupancy.
3. Large concentrations of absentee landlords (like institutional buyers) can significantly degrade the physical and social fabric of a neighborhood. The City should identify any neighborhoods with concentrations and flag them for potential interventions. Emerging evidence has led some researchers to conclude that institutional buyers are more likely to quickly evict delinquent
1.
Action 3 – Enforce Compliance
Ensure that institutional buyers are meeting all relevant requirements, standards, and codes. (Timing: Long-term) Active code enforcement – institutionally owned properties can accumulate code violations due to poor and/or absentee management.
2. Ensure that institutional buyers are excluded from incentives or programs intended for owner-occupied homes. Section 4: Strategic Action Plan and Recommendations | 137 |
Homelessness Homelessness is a multi-faceted regional issue that the City cannot solve on its own. With limited resources available to address the problem, the City must focus on those actions that help its own citizens and improve quality of life in its own jurisdiction. Policies should be adopted in the comprehensive plan that guide the City’s departments in that direction.
Action 1 – Eviction Prevention
Eviction is one of the most common precursors to homelessness, as it has both immediate effects and long-lasting effects. In the immediate term, the evictees are in a transitional housing state, which is highly disruptive to everyday life, especially employment
and schooling. In the long term, evictions complicate renters’ ability to acquire new housing, as they are perceived as a much higher risk. Eviction prevention and support programs with rental assistance have some of the highest success rates in reducing homelessness. They are also some of the easiest mechanisms to ensure direct assistance to the citizens of Hollywood. Eviction issues may also link to concerns about the influence of institutional buyers on housing affordability.(Timing: Short-term) 1.
Adopt policies that focus significant support for eviction prevention programs.
2. Coordinate with local schools to track the number of homeless students or students in transitional housing situations.
Missing Middle Missing Middle housing is modern terminology for the range of multi-unit residential building types that fall between single-family detached units and apartment buildings. These residential types were ubiquitous in cities throughout the U.S. prior to the domination of the automobile. They were effective ways to provide affordable housing options in a lower-density neighborhood context. Missing Middle units include duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, townhouses, cottage courts, and ADUs. They mostly disappeared from modern neighborhoods because of strict zoning regulations segregating single-family residential and multi-family residential, as well as the rise in NIMBY-ism.
2. Enact education programs focusing on compatibility and the benefits of expanded housing options.
Action 1 – Expand Missing Middle Opportunities
Explore a coordinated housing investment platform that layers SHIP, HOME, CDBG, Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Broward County funds, LIHTC support, CDFI/bank capital, employer contributions, philanthropic resources, and other local funding sources. (Timing:
Allow a greater range of residential housing typologies (duplex, townhouses, cottage courts, ADUs, etc.) in a greater number of zoning categories. (Timing: Short-term) 1.
Adopt comprehensive plan policies that support expansion of Missing Middle housing. Explicitly tie Missing Middle housing to other goals such as affordability, aging in place, resilience, etc.
| 138 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
3. Allow appropriate Missing Middle housing typologies in single family zoning districts, subject to relevant lot and building standards and availability of adjacent sewer infrastructure. 4. Prioritize Missing Middle housing adjacent to transit, retail, and employment centers. 5. Explore allowing alternative construction methods to reduce construction costs, such as factory built.
Action 2 – Housing Investment Platform
Mid-term)
Figure 23. Missing Middle Unit Types
Duplex
Stacked Triplex
Quadplex
Cottage Court Source: MissingMiddleHousing.com
Infrastructure Building and maintaining public infrastructure is one of the foundational responsibilities of government. Infrastructure is also the key enabler of development and redevelopment. It is one of the most important tools for jurisdictions in directing future growth, thereby promoting the community’s vision for the future. In Hollywood, the historical reliance on zoning almost exclusively to entice redevelopment has missed the mark in terms of achieving the City’s vision.
developer to extend. It’s certainly not the case of developers refusing to pay their fair share. Many have gone to great lengths and expense to extend utilities for their projects. But if it isn’t economically feasible for a single development to foot the bill, the infrastructure doesn’t get built, and the redevelopment doesn’t occur–no matter what density enticements the City’s zoning categories can deliver. If the City is going to rely on its activity centers to achieve the goals its has set forth for them, it must take a more active role in prioritizing enabling infrastructure projects. (Timing: Short-term)
Action 1 – Prioritize Infrastructure Investment for Redevelopment
1.
Mixed-use, high-density residential, and intense activity centers are not achievable if utilities are unavailable and/or cost-prohibitive for a
The City should link infrastructure investment decisions with policies addressing economic development, job creation, housing supply and affordability, and community revitalization.
Section 4: Strategic Action Plan and Recommendations | 139 |
2. The City should adopt comprehensive plan policies that proactively prioritize capital improvements that extend urban infrastructure to the areas where it seeks to promote urban redevelopment, especially in the RACs.
1.
3. The City should capitalize on developer-driven utility projects by up-sizing lines for additional capacity.
2. Require that Complete Streets principles be incorporated into the design and planning of all City transportation projects including Resurface, Restoration, and Rehabilitation projects.
4. The City should adopt policies that seek public-privatepartnerships for infrastructure investments.
Action 2 – Septic to Sewer
The City’s current septic-to-sewer conversion program may make the process as streamlined as possible for the end user, but has not led to significant reductions in private septic systems across the City. Septic to sewer conversions should be made a higher priority by linking conversion goals to other City priorities, implementing more city-led conversion campaigns, and broadening the triggers that require connection. (Timing: Short-term) 1.
Make connecting to available sewer a requirement for all new builds and substantial alterations/additions.
2. Adopt comprehensive plan policies that link septic conversions to the City’s capital improvements, resilience, and environmental protection goals. 3. Enact program identifying priority areas of conversion, set annual targets for number of conversions, and establish effective education programs. 4. Allow connection fees to be paid over time.
Action 3 – Adopt Completed Streets Policies
Complete Streets is an approach to transportation planning, design, and operation that seeks to ensure that streets are safe for all users, not just automobiles. Complete Streets principles would support the City’s mixed use and redevelopment vision by encouraging local economic growth, promoting higher quality of life, and ensuring that people can reach shops, neighbors, parks, and services without relying solely on automobiles. (Timing: Mid-term) | 140 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Adopt comprehensive plan policies, level of service standards, land development codes, and technical manuals that incorporate Complete Streets principles, including the accommodation of all modes of transportation and context sensitive design.
3. Because transit use depends on the ability to efficiently and comfortably walk/bike to stops and stations, prioritize Compete Streets projects on existing transit corridors. 4. Advocate with the County and FDOT to ensure that roadway projects under their jurisdiction, but within the City limits, are designed consistent with the City’s Complete Streets policies. 5. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions to promote continuation of complete streets beyond the City limits of Hollywood. 6. Ensure equitable implementation of Complete Streets policies in under served communities.
Form-Based Code The City is in the beginning stages of updating its land development code with a focus on zoning categories and standards. Under serious consideration as part of this effort, is the application of a Form-Based Code (“FBC”) to replace or partially replace the current arrangement. Rather than focusing on regulating land use, FBCs focus more on the end goals of good design and desired urban form by emphasizing the regulation of building form and massing, lot layout, block layout, and public realm standards. Although FBCs have become more popular in recent years, they are not solutions in and of themselves. The regulations must be developed to reflect the City’s vision in order to gain broad acceptance and buy-in from the community. Most certainly, FBCs can reduce zoning categories, accommodate mixed use, allow for transitions between uses, and enhance community character more seamlessly than traditional zoning. However, they can also be overly complicated and burdensome to implement if not carefully designed.
Adopting the right structure for an FBC is critical since few pure formbased codes exist. There are many ways to implement an FBC, and two relevant organizational models are detailed here, as they might have application for Hollywood going forward: context district-based models and transect-based models. The following four case studies are provided to exemplify two of these two popular organizational models, but at the end of the day, the differences between these two models are not extensive.
Context Districts Model – Typical Features Land is organized based on its rural, suburban, or urban context as well as its urban form of neighborhood, corridor, or center. 2. Standards for lots, buildings, blocks, and a host of other design considerations are based on the districts’ respective context/ urban form combination. 3. Compatibility is based on design, rather than use. 4. Uses do not necessarily come into play, although hybrid models can include more regulations for specific uses. 1.
5. Areas not conforming neatly into the standard contexts or forms, or that require more tailored standards, may be called out separately into special districts (hospital campuses, airports, industrial parks, etc). Case Study #1 – Lakeland, Florida Lakeland’s FBC has been in effect since 2014 after being in development for several years. It replaced a more traditional usebased zoning code. The model for the Lakeland code is context district-based with the breakdown shown in the list below. Despite its clear FBC nature, the Lakeland FBC is a hybrid code and retains many aspects of the former zoning, particularly the use regulations tied to the prior zoning categories: i. ii. iii. iv. v.
Neighborhood – Urban or Suburban Center – Urban or Suburban Corridor – Urban or Suburban Special Purpose – Urban or Suburban Preservation, Conservation, Recreation
The code benefits from over a decade of implementation, providing a well-established framework to evaluate. The Lakeland FBC is both detailed and comprehensive, offering a thorough approach to development standards. Additionally, Lakeland and Hollywood are comparable in size, and their context districts share many similarities, making the code more relevant as a point of comparison. The presence of numerous road corridors in Lakeland also creates density and compatibility challenges similar to those experienced in the City. However, there are notable drawbacks to consider. As a hybrid formbased code, it is significantly more complex than more streamlined FBC models. This complexity is further compounded by the City’s reliance on numerous special districts, which add layers of regulation and variation. In addition, Planned Unit Developments (“PUD”) remain widespread and are incorporated into these special purpose districts, contributing to the overall intricacy of the code. Case Study #2 – Crystal River, Florida The Crystal River FBC is a fresh example of a context district-based FBC in Florida, having been adopted in January of 2025. It is most noted for its simplicity and clear focus on design. This design focus is exemplified by the very first page of the entire FBC diving straight into block configuration standards. The FBC is also significant in its streamlined number of zones, with only 6 context districts and 5 special districts. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii.
Neighborhood – Urban 1, 2 or Suburban 1, 2 Center – Urban 1, 2 Civic Conservation Industrial Institutional PUD
The Crystal River FBC represents a more traditional, design-focused approach to form-based coding, emphasizing physical form over land use. Its layout is clean, intuitive, and easy to navigate, making it accessible for both practitioners and the public. The code is also Section 4: Strategic Action Plan and Recommendations | 141 |
highly graphical, incorporating visuals that effectively communicate key concepts and standards. However, there are several limitations to consider. The code is relatively new and has not yet been widely tested in practice. Its range of context districts is more limited, and it notably omits a corridor urban form—an important element for a city like Hollywood. Additionally, while PUDs are discouraged, they are still permitted and assigned their own special purpose district, which introduces an added layer of complexity.
Transect-Based Models – Typical Features Transect-based models are implemented using a continuum of zones based on the urban form, which begin with natural land (T1) and increase in density and intensity all the way through the most urban forms (T6). This continuum is shown in the table below and in the example graphic from the Miami FBC. Within these different T-zones, the FBC will control the uses, block standards, lot standards, building standards, streets, and more. Many transect-based models further subdivide the T-zones to capture more nuance in the particular contexts. Examples of subdivided T-zones could add decimals to make smoother transitions between zones (T2.1, T3.2, etc) or add identifiers to modify max density (T6-24, T6-40, etc). Transect Zone
Characteristics
T1 – Natural
Lands under conservation or otherwise unsuitable for human settlement. Passive recreation and ecological functions are prioritized.
T2 – Rural
Very low density development. Agriculture and farmland are prioritized. Homesteads, large-lot residential, and conservation subdivisions are allowed.
T3 – Sub-Urban
Low‑density residential with some non-residential. Retains natural landscaping and deep setbacks.
T4 – General Urban
Mixed‑use but primarily residential. Variable setbacks and more urban landscaping.
T5 – Urban Center
High‑density, mixed‑use urban core with pedestrian‑ friendly design.
T6 – Urban Core
Highest density, mixed‑use, and pedestrian‑ oriented urban center.
| 142 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Case Study #3 – Miami, Florida Miami’s FBC, known as Miami 21, is possibly the most high-profile FBC in the County, and is still the largest municipality with an FBC. In place since May 2010, Miami 21 is a large and complex transectbased model with many other features addressing topics ranging from resilience to transfer of development rights (“TDR”). Despite the complexity of its built environment, Miami 21 still operates with only 11 T-zones and 6 special districts; however, the FBC also employs a unique system of three add-on identifiers—Restricted, Limited, and Open—which can be attached to any T-zone to further refine areas that are either limited to single uses or allow more flexibility in nonresidential and mixed use. The code benefits from a comparable South Florida context to Hollywood, making it particularly relevant as a reference point. It also has a long track record of implementation and includes examples of every T-zone that would likely be present in Hollywood. Additionally, it demonstrates an effective approach to managing complex uses, transitions, and compatibility challenges that have carried over from prior zoning frameworks. On the other hand, the code may be more complex than necessary for Hollywood’s needs. It continues to rely on multiple overlays and Special Area Plans, which preserve PUDs and other legacy zoning structures that existed prior to the adoption of Miami 21, adding layers of complexity to the regulatory framework. Case Study #4 – Groveland, Florida The Groveland FBC is a hybrid code in place since 2021. Although it explicitly states it is a transect-based model, it does not use the traditional T-zone nomenclature, but opts for customized labels such as Edge, Center, and Core, combined with context modifiers that signify scale such as Town, Village, and Hamlet. The hybrid aspects of the code are apparent in that many of the existing suburban uses retain their pre-FBC zoning categories and aren’t integrated into the transects. The major exception is the traditional downtown and surrounding neighborhood, which is incorporated.
Groveland has ample vacant land already within its city limits and significant room to annex, so the focus of much of the form-based aspects is on these vacant and future annexation areas. The city also has numerous PUDs that were adopted prior to the FBC. These PUDs were maintained as a separate zone. The code has been in place for 5 years, providing a modest track record of implementation. It takes a strong stance by prohibiting new PUDs and demonstrates effective regulation of vacant lands. Additionally, it highlights the value of incorporating clear graphics and thoughtful use of color, which enhance usability and understanding of the code.
However, there are several drawbacks. The code does not utilize standard transect identifiers and instead includes a large number of zones—25 in total across transects and special districts—which exceeds even Miami’s level of complexity. It does not fully integrate existing suburban neighborhoods or legacy zoning categories into the transect framework and continues to rely heavily on use-based regulations. Its overall effectiveness is also somewhat constrained by the significant number of PUDs that were established prior to the adoption of the form-based code.
Implementation Framework Establish the Housing Master Plan as the City’s coordinating framework for aligning housing policy, land use, infrastructure, public investment, redevelopment, preservation, resilience, mobility, employment access, and annual funding decisions.
Action 1 – Housing Delivery Working Group.
Housing delivery requires coordination among Planning, Community Development, Engineering, Utilities, Transportation/Mobility, Parks, Economic Development, Building, Legal, Finance, Emergency Management, Broward County, and service partners. A standing implementation group can help break down internal silos, identify constraints early, align capital and policy decisions, and create more predictable conditions for responsible housing growth. (Timing: Short-term)
1.
Establish a housing project coordinator or concierge function for qualifying affordable, workforce, Live Local, public land, and other priority housing projects. This role should not replace technical review or concurrency evaluation, rather, it will help coordinate pre-application meetings, identify infrastructure and regulatory issues early, align departmental comments,
connect applicants to applicable funding or incentive tools, and elevate recurring barriers to the interdepartmental housing implementation group. 2. Establish a Live Local Strategic Response Program. This would include mapping potentially eligible sites, identifying infrastructure and employment land considerations, establishing legally permissible design and compatibility standards, tracking applications, and prioritizing City support for projects that advance affordability, resilience, mobility, and public benefit. 3. Establish an Employment Land Conversion Test. This will evaluate whether commercial and industrial sites proposed for residential or mixed-use redevelopment continue to serve viable employment, small business, service-oriented commercial, logistics, tourism-related, or local-serving economic functions, and whether conversion would advance or undermine complete affordability and long-term economic sustainability.
Section 4: Strategic Action Plan and Recommendations | 143 |
4. Establish Preservation Triage Program. This should preserve and rehabilitate housing where safe and feasible; support resilience retrofits where practical; enable reconstruction where structures are obsolete or beyond reasonable repair; and preserve affordability through replacement, acquisition, or relocation strategies where redevelopment occurs.
Monitoring Hollywood’s Housing Landscape Success is measured not only by new housing production, but by whether the City is achieving a net gain in affordability. This includes new restricted affordable and workforce units, preserved affordable units, replacement of obsolete or lost affordable units, and reduction in displacement pressures. To ensure the Housing Master Plan translates into measurable outcomes over time, the City will monitor a defined set of indicators that track both housing conditions and the effectiveness of implementation. •
If monitoring reveals production lags, then evaluate expanded incentives or funding.
•
If monitoring reveals affordability losses increase, then preservation tools should be activated.
•
If monitoring reveals Live Local applications cluster in less strategic areas, then refine standards where legally permissible.
•
If monitoring reveals infrastructure blocks priority sites, then evaluate capital improvement reprioritization.
To ensure the Housing Master Plan remains active and implementation-focused over time, the City should also consider expanded monitoring aligning with the Annual Action Plan, CAPER, SHIP reporting, AHAC Annual Report, budget, capital planning, and Broward County performance metrics. | 144 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
5. Establish a Public Land for Housing Pipeline. This should be more than a simple inventory, it should screen City-owned, County-owned, school district, institutional, civic, parking, and other publicly controlled or partner-owned lands for housing suitability, infrastructure readiness, flood risk, legal constraints, delivery model, affordability expectations, and RFP or ground lease readiness.
The measures described provide a consistent, data-driven way to assess whether affordability is improving, whether housing choice and production are keeping pace with need, and whether processes and partnerships are reducing barriers to delivery. Reported on an annual basis and reviewed alongside policy and program milestones, these metrics will help identify trends early, support transparent public reporting, and inform course corrections so actions remain aligned with the City’s long-term housing vision. •
For implementation accountability, track actions completed, code amendments initiated, public land sites advanced, AHAC actions, Annual Action Plan alignment, LHAP alignment, Housing Delivery Working Group meetings, and funding leveraged. This helps ensure the Housing Master Plan remains active after adoption. – Source: City internal database.
•
Total Household Population of the City. – Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial and American Community Survey.
•
Percent of Vacant Housing Units that are for Seasonal Use. – Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial and American Community Survey.
•
Percent of those employed in the City that reside in the City or elsewhere within Broward County. – Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap LEHD (Employment by Place of Residence percentage).
•
Median Household Income in the City, percent change year over year. – Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial and American Community Survey.
•
Number of Housing Units within the City served by septic tanks where City sewer connection is available. – Source: City utilities department.
•
Median Home Values in the City, percent change year-over-year. – Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial and American Community Survey.
•
Median Monthly Housing Costs for Households with a Mortgage and Households without a Mortgage in the City, and percent change year over year. – Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial and American Community Survey.
•
Housing and Transportation Cost as % of Income for City of Hollywood. – Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology’s (“CNT”) Housing and Transportation (“H+T”) Affordability Index.
•
Percentage of Cost-Burdened Households. Percentage of total Households spending 30%–49% of Income of Housing (Cost-Burdened), and percentage of total Households spending more than 50% of Income on Housing (Severely Cost-Burdened). – Source: US Census Bureau, Decennial and American Community Survey.
•
•
Number of new housing units built per year specifically targeting 80%–120% AMI households. – Source: City development review application and permitting database. Number of parcels within the City where connection to City sewer is more than 1,000 feet from the property. – Source: City utilities department.
•
Application review time (from application submittal to final approval) for new development and redevelopment residential/mixed-use projects. This should be measured in number of business days. – Source: City development review application and permitting database.
•
Live Local Act - track applications, location, units, affordability levels, employment land impacts, design issues, infrastructure constraints, approvals, and completions. – Source: City development review application and permitting database.
•
Track demolition, condo conversion, NOAH loss, rent escalation, rehab activity, acquisition, emergency repair, reconstruction, and households assisted. – Source: City permitting database.
•
Annual net gains in affordable housing. Track new restricted affordable/ workforce units added, preserved affordable units, replacement units, Live Local units, expiring affordability, and units lost through demolition, conversion, redevelopment, or market escalation. – Source: City development review application and permitting database.
•
Monitor and track infrastructure readiness in strategic housing growth areas, including sewer, water, stormwater, transportation, sidewalks, transit access, parks, public facilities, and capital improvement needs. This should help with identifying where infrastructure deficiencies may constrain future housing production, while maintaining required concurrency review at the project approval stage. – Source: City utility department and planning database.
•
Track CDBG, HOME, SHIP, Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Broward County, LIHTC, employer, bank/CDFI, philanthropic, and other public/private dollars leveraged to show whether limited public dollars are being used strategically. – Source: City internal database. Section 4: Strategic Action Plan and Recommendations | 145 |
Monitoring Hollywood’s Housing Landscape Visualization
These infographics are intended to serve as an example to help the City monitor key data points described on the prior page in a clear and accessible way. By visualizing trends such as housing costs, income levels, and availability over time, it allows decision-makers
to evaluate progress and identify emerging issues. The use of datadriven insight supports informed planning and policy decisions aimed at improving housing conditions and outcomes within the City.
Household Population (2024)
Median Household Income
2020
$71,067
2016 2018 Year
$61,958
2014
$57,095
2012
$56,542
2010
$48,579
$20,000
$46,419
$40,000
$45,942
Total household population comprises 7.8% of the total population within the County, as of year-end 2024.
$60,000
$45,699
Household 157,679 Total Population in the City
Median Household Income
$80,000
$-
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024); GAI Consultants
Vacant Housing Units (2023)
2022
2024
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2010-2024); GAI Consultants
$475,200
Change in Median Home Values
2024 Median Home Value 19%
1.2% 2.0% 3.6%
$500,000
Rented not Occupied
$400,000
For Sale, Only Sold, not Occupied For Seasonal Use
60%
Other Vacant Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2023); GAI Consultants
| 146 | City of Hollywood Housing Master Plan | 2025-2026
Median Home Value
14%
Vacant for Rent
$300,000
5.2%
16.7%
8.1%
27.0%
$200,000 $100,000 $-
2020
2021
2022 2023 2024 Year Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2010-2024); GAI Consultants
Monthly Housing Costs (2024)
Housing and Transportation Costs as % of Income (2023)
3.2%
$2,652
Average Year-over-Year Increase since 2010
Average Mortgage
$1,005
4.3%
Average Housing Costs with no Mortgage
Average Year-over Year Increase since 2010
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2010-2024); GAI Consultants
Cost-Burdened Households (2024)
18%
Housing Costs Transportation Costs
51% 32%
Sources: The Center for Neighborhood Technology’s Housing and Transportation (H+T®) Affordability Index GAI Consultants.
Employment Inflow and Outflow(2023)
61,390 30%
25%
Of Households are Cost Burdened (30%-49% of income on housing costs)
Of Households are Severely Cost Burdened (50% or more of income on housing costs)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (2024); GAI Consultants
58,850
Employed in the City, Living Outside
Living in the City but Employed Outside
9,023 Living and Employed in the City Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap LEHD (2023); GAI Consultants.
Section 4: Strategic Action Plan and Recommendations | 147 |
Prepared By:
618 E. South St. Suite 700 Orlando, FL 32801 T 407-423-8398 F 407-843-1070 gaiconsultants.com/communitysolutions