Washtenaw County Housing Study 2025

Washtenaw County HOUSING STUDY 2025

Prepared by czbLLC

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible by generous support from the Song Foundation and the Herrick Foundation.

Prepared by czbLLC

Message from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation

The world is changing, sometimes faster than we ever imagined. And yet, amidst that rapid change, some truths remain constant. The need for housing is one of them. No matter who we are or where we come from, the importance of home is something we all know, a source of grounding, dignity, and connection.

At the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation (AAACF), we commissioned this Housing Study, co-funded by the Herrick Foundation and the Song Foundation, because housing is foundational to the wellbeing of every resident in Washtenaw County. We know that when people have access to quality, affordable housing, they have a stronger chance to build stable lives, pursue opportunity, and contribute to a thriving community.

This work is rooted in our AAACF core values. Pursuing Equity compels us to ensure that housing solutions are inclusive and just. Earning Trust calls us to be transparent and community-centered in our efforts. Leveraging Knowledge pushes us to base our actions on data and lived experience. And Embracing Collaboration reminds us that no single entity can address this challenge alone. The data expertly provided by Elizabeth Martin, Associate Broker and Realtor®, Howard Hanna Ann Arbor was key to the report.

Everyone has an important role: advocates, developers, realtors, funders, architects, planners, policy makers, community members, and community leaders. It will take all of us, working together, informed by facts and inspired by compassion, to make lasting change. Our shared efforts can ensure that affordability and quality are not trade-offs, but part of a broader vision where housing is interwoven with vitality, stability, and belonging.

We offer this study as a tool, and an invitation. Together, we can shape a Washtenaw County where housing is not a privilege, but a promise we keep to one another.

With appreciation,

Dr. Shannon Polk, President & CEO

Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation

In its entirety, this document constitutes a data-driven picture of the Washtenaw County housing market as it functioned in the mid-2020s. It is meant to inform the reader and bring attention to key issues. It does not tell the reader which issues matter more than others, nor does it offer detailed solutions to any identified issues.

It includes three parts:

The Washtenaw Housing Market is a “just the facts” overview of the county market, using the entire county as the unit of analysis. A reader seeking only to grasp the county’s facts and figures could stop here.

Key Issues and Strategic Considerations distills the findings into a collection of the most important issues in the county market, and what interested parties should keep in mind if they hope to address any of those issues.

Community Profiles extends selected pieces of the Part 1 analysis into the county’s individual municipalities. A reader only seeking information about one part of the county, or a single municipality could start here.

If a reader wants only to understand the county as a whole, and potentially pressing policy issues, he or she can focus on Parts 1 and 2 and skip Part 3.

If a reader wants only to understand facts and figures at the county level and for individual municipalities, he or she can focus on Parts 1 and 3 and skip Part 2.

If a reader wants to skip over all the facts and figures in Parts 1 and 3 to get to the heart of the matter, he or she can focus on Part 2.

The Washtenaw Housing Market

In the mid-2020s, Washtenaw County was in a transition decades in the making. Its economy had been changing, doubling down on Eds and Meds while moving on from manufacturing. At the same time, a generation of Baby Boomers was slowly making way for a large group of Millennials and Gen Z residents whose demand for housing was making itself felt in no uncertain terms. These changes were shifting housing market dynamics as the highly-educated and well-compensated increasingly drove the housing market, leaving lower-income households, especially single-earners, on the outside looking in.

Demographics, Economy and Incomes

The county’s population has grown consistently for many decades. The county’s population has increased at every Decennial Census since 1910. The county has increased its population in recent decades through both migration and natural increase.

Migration is positive when the number of people moving into the county exceeds the number moving out of the county. This was the case in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2010s. Net migration was negative in the 1970s and essentially neutral in the 2000s. A number of factors influence net migration, but economic circumstances are often involved.

Natural increase occurs when the number of births in the county exceeds the number of deaths. Births were still exceeding deaths in the early 2020s though the gap was closing as the number of annual births trended downwards and the number of annual deaths rose. The increase in deaths was related to the aging of the county’s population.

The most common household types in Washtenaw County are married couple families and people living alone. In 2020, married couple families represented over 40% of all county households. One-quarter of those were households headed by someone aged 65 or older. Those living alone represented over 30% of county households. Roughly one-third of those living alone were people aged 65 or older. The remaining 25% of county households were divided between other families, which are those households with related people but no marriage, and roommate households, which are those with more than one person but where no one is related to each other.

Demographics, Economy and Incomes

The number of small households has been growing faster than the number of larger households. In 2000 and 2010, households of three or more people were more common than households of one or two people. These larger households included both families, in which at least two of the members of the household are related, and non-families, in which no members are related. However, the numbers of smaller households with fewer than three people grew more between 2000 and 2020 than did the number of larger households.

The county’s population is aging. The county’s population has been getting older, driven by a growing number of residents over age 45. Between 2000 and 2020, the population aged 45-64 increased by 25% and the population aged 65 or older more than doubled. The under 45 population has not been growing, though it is relatively stable over time. What is new for the county is the addition of so many older people. The county’s median age has been rising as the older population grows.

In 1990, more households were headed by someone aged 25-44 than 45 or older. The county generally had younger householders at that time. The situation changed by 2000 when the number of households headed by someone aged 45 or older exceeded the number headed by someone aged 25-44. This imbalance grew for each of the next two decades as the county’s householders aged.

Demographics, Economy and Incomes

Washtenaw County is an “Eds and Meds” economy. The University of Michigan has long been a major driver of the Washtenaw County economy. Total enrollment in 1970 was well over 35,000 students. This meant that employment in state and local government—the university is a state institution—was always a significant portion of the jobs base. But so too was manufacturing, which employed over 40% of Washtenaw workers.

Since that time, the number of Washtenaw residents employed in manufacturing has declined, and now the industry only accounts for 8% of county employment. In the meantime, the state and local government industry, along with healthcare and social assistance, grew their combined share of county employment from 29% in 1970 to 49% in 2024. No doubt the presence of Eastern Michigan University has played a contributing role as well. Washtenaw County is an “eds and meds” economy.

The county is well educated, and becoming more so. The major university presence has long meant that Washtenaw County’s adult population has had a higher rate of college degree attainment than the U.S. as a whole. In 2000, about 24% of U.S. adults aged 25 or older had a four-year degree while the figure was nearly 50% in Washtenaw County. As of the latest data in 2022, the four-year degree attainment rate was pushing 60% and nearly a third of all adults had graduate or professional degrees. In fact, the number of adults without a college degree has been falling and those with advanced degrees represent the largest increase in the population during the 2010s.

COUNTY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY, 1969-2024

Demographics, Economy and Incomes

Educational attainment differences contribute to income inequality. As of 2023, just under half of all county households had incomes of at least $100,000. Over a quarter of households had incomes of $150,000 or more. Nearly 30% of households had incomes of less than $50,000. Income categories only tell a part of the story however. The county has been experiencing worsening income inequality. In 2012, households in the top 20% of the income distribution had, on average, incomes over 15 times greater than those of households in the bottom 20%. By 2022, the top 20% had an average income 19 times that of the bottom 20%.

The county’s increasing educational attainment likely plays a role in this phenomenon. College educated people have higher earnings and larger absolute increases over time. As the number of college grads grow, and an ever-greater number of householders have college degrees, the disparities between those households and non-college educated households grow. As the county becomes more educated, and well-educated workers do better economically, the gap between those doing well and those struggling appears to be widening.

MEDIAN EARNINGS IN WASHTENAW COUNTY BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Housing Stocks

Washtenaw County’s housing stocks are predominantly single-family homes constructed between World War II and the 2000s. As of the 2020 Census, Washtenaw County was home to 147,847 households living in 156,882 housing units. The county’s vacancy rate was a healthy 5.8%, which was down from 7.0% experienced during challenging economic times in 2010.

The county’s most important era for housing unit construction was the period of time from 1950 to the late 2000s. During these years, the county added about 20,000 new housing units each decade. The pace of construction slowed in the 21st Century as only about 16,000 new units were built during the 2000s and fewer than 10,000 units were built during the 2010s. Changing rates of housing unit production correlated with relatively lower rates of population growth after 2000.

The county’s housing supply is overwhelmingly comprised of single-family homes. More than two out of every three housing units was estimated in 2023 to be single-family. Fewer than 20% of units were estimated to be in structures of 2-9 units, and about 15% of units were estimated to be in structures with ten or more units.

Ownership Market

Existing owners in the county have a good deal, but new buyers face challenges.

As of the 2020 Census, about 60% of all households in the county were owner households. Washtenaw County is generally an expensive place to buy a home. A good rule of thumb for a wellbalanced housing market is that the median home value is about three times the median household income. As the ratio begins to rise, a market becomes unaffordable. As of 2023, Washtenaw County’s ratio was estimated to be 4.1 suggesting the county is facing affordability issues. For comparison, strong markets such as those on the west coast, or in Boulder, or in Boston, often have ratios exceeding 6 or 7 while softer markets often struggle to reach 3.0.

A gap analysis measures the difference between the number of households at various income levels and the number of units affordable to those income levels, based on the common affordability metric that an owner-occupied unit is affordable when it is about three times the household’s income.

The gap analysis shows that as of 2022 data, there were more owner households with incomes between $20,000 and $50,000 than there were homes valued from about $60,000 to $150,000. Lower-income homeowners in this range likely purchased their homes at some point in the past when their incomes and home prices were a better match. This group could include retirees for example. The analysis also shows there were more houses valued from about $225,000 to $450,000 than there were households with corresponding incomes of $75,000 to $150,000. This “surplus” of homes in this value range was occupied by households with incomes both lower and higher. Despite generally high prices in the county, there were not enough homes valued at over $450,000 to absorb all the purchasing power of the many thousands of owner households with incomes over $150,000. Generally speaking, existing owners are getting a good deal in the county in the 2020s, and are building equity.

RATIO OF MEDIAN HOME VALUE TO MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, SELECTED COUNTIES, 2023

“Surplus” of houses valued $225,000 to $450,000. Many households live in these

who could not afford to repurchase their home today, and many households could afford to pay even more.

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Ownership Market

Aspiring homebuyers, however, face a different situation. The 2024 average sale price of a single-family home in the county was about $475,000 which is not affordable to any household with an income of less than about $150,000. The average sale price of a condo was about $380,000, which is not affordable to any household with an income of less than about $125,000. Recall the affordability ratio discussion from above. If the county’s ratio of median household income to median home value was 4.1, the ratio for the 2024 average sale price was more like 4.4 for condos and 5.5 for single-family homes. This reinforces the affordability advantages for existing owners and the struggles for new buyers.

With such high purchase prices in the mid-2020s, and incomes far in excess of $100,000 required to become homeowners, many households struggle to access the ownership market. First and foremost, this includes single-income households who, on average, have incomes that would struggle to afford average or median rents let alone average home sale prices. On average, married couple families are the households most likely to have incomes high enough to access the ownership market. It is impossible to know what role marriage itself plays here, but the implication is that two incomes are at least possible if not highly likely. Across other household types, some number of higher-income households will be homeowners already, and some will have incomes high enough to buy, but the average incomes suggest that generally speaking many will not become homeowners.

Ownership Market

New construction has been on the rise but high costs and interest rates affect the market.

Sales of new homes in the county rose fairly steadily after 2012, peaking at more than 360 sales in 2021, up from fewer than 100 in the years 2010-2012. This suggests that a lack of building has not been afflicting the county’s for-sale market in recent years. However, new home sales began to fall in 2022 and continued the downward trend in 2023 and 2024, likely influenced at least in part by mortgage rate hikes that began in late 2022. The highest mortgage interest rates in over two decades no doubt impacted demand for new homes, which are often the most expense options on the market.

2017 was the last year that new homes in Washtenaw County sold for an average price under $400,000. By 2024, the average sale price of a new home was over $550,000, which is generally not affordable until a household has an annual income of at least $175,000.

The county has a large and growing number of senior homeowners.

As discussed previously, the county’s population is aging and the number of older households has been rising. This is especially true amongst the county’s homeowners. The number of owner households headed by someone aged 55 or older nearly doubled from 2000 to 2020. The number of these older homeowner households grew by about 23,000 during that period, with roughly 8,000 of those in the age category 55-64 and 15,000 aged 65 or older.

The rates at which homeowners of various ages exit the ownership market is fairly stable over decades, which enables speculation about the future of older homeowners. The number of 55+ homeowners is likely to increase somewhat by 2040, but the growth is likely to occur in those households specifically headed by someone aged 65 or older. Owner households aged 5564 are projected to decline as the youngest owners of the large Baby Boom generation reach and exceed age 65, with relatively fewer Gen X owners in line to replace them in the 55-64 age group.

The growing number of senior owners is also a growing number of owners that will inevitably become sellers. The county is likely to see nearly three times the number of owners aged 55 or more exiting their homes in the 2030s as it did in in the 2000s. Like the overall growth in the number of older households, this rising homeowner disposition will be concentrated amongst those aged 65 and older. Rates of owner market exit grow with each decade of age. Those Baby Boomers born in the 1950s will surpass age 80 during the 2030s, meaning the disposition of many Boomer-owned homes is inevitable by 2040.

NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME SALES, 2010-2024

Source: Multiple Listing Service

MEDIAN GROSS RENT, 2012-2023

Rental affordability is a challenge for some households.

As of the 2020 Census, about 40% of all households in the county—just under 60,000 in total—were renter households. The estimated median renter household income as of 2023 data was about $50,000 but the median gross rent of $1,400 required a household income of about $56,000 to be affordable. The median renter household has not been able to afford the median gross rent since at least the early 2010s.

County renters face affordability challenges at high rates. A significant majority of all renter households with incomes less than $50,000 were cost burdened as of 2022 data, meaning they paid at least 30% of their gross income toward housing costs. This is the official federal government definition of unaffordability. More than nine out of every ten renter households with incomes under $35,000 were cost burdened.

For those renter households with incomes a bit higher, between $50,000 and $75,000, nearly 40% were cost burdened. The rates of cost burden fall as income goes up. The cost burden rate falls by nearly half as a household moves from the range $35,000 to $49,999 up to the range $50,000 to $74,999. Relatively few renter households with incomes of $75,000 or more faced a cost burden.

There is limited rental supply for the top and bottom of the market. Based on 2022 estimates, there was a shortage of about 11,000 units priced for households with incomes under $35,000 and a shortage of over 8,700 units priced for households with incomes of at least $75,000. The lower-income renters face a cost burden while the higher-income renters get a good deal, paying less than they could afford. MEDIAN

RENTER AFFORDABILITY, 2012-2023

Rental Market

The county is adding rental units, but affordability remains a problem for low-income renters.

The yearly addition of new multifamily units has varied since 2019, but an unusually large number of new units came online in 2024, no doubt at least partially in response to the clear shortage of rental units for higher-income renters. Between 2019 and 2024, multifamily vacancy rates were generally 5% or less. Multifamily vacancy rates jumped to 7% at the end of 2024 as a large number of new units came online but were not yet leased.

Multifamily rents trended upwards from 2019 through 2024 resulting in decreasing affordability. The median multifamily unit was affordable to a household with an income of just over $50,000 per year. By 2024, the median multifamily unit required a household income of just over $60,000 to be affordable.

Single-earner households will generally struggle to pay the rent, unless they have incomes in excess of $50,000 per year, and they will have better options the higher the income goes up from there. Estimated average incomes as of 2022 data, by household type, illustrate which kinds of households are most at risk. All households that could plausibly have two earners had estimated average incomes that could afford the median gross rent of $1,400 or the median multifamily rent of $1,546. On average, those living alone, whether elderly or not, were on the edge of being able to afford the median rent. For those living alone with below average incomes, housing affordability challenges were undoubtedly an issue. Single mother families in particular tend to have incomes that create significant affordability challenges.

The number of senior renters is expected to grow in the coming decades.

From 2000 to 2020, the number of renter households headed by someone aged 55 or older more than doubled. Demographic trends suggest these numbers will grow. The county could be home to another 5,000 55+ renter households by 2040. A major contributing factor to this likely future growth is a larger number of mid-life renters than existed in previous decades. In 1990, there were just over 5,000 renter households headed by someone aged 45-64. In 2000, that number had grown to nearly 8,000. By 2020, the figure was nearly 12,000. A larger number of mid-life renters will inevitably become a larger number of late-life renters. Expected growth in the number of older renters by 2040 is projected to occur amongst households headed by someone aged 65 or older. Renter households headed by someone aged 55 to 64 are not expected to increase.

NEW MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND Q4 VACANCY RATES IN MULTIFAMILY UNITS, BY YEAR, 2019-2024

HOUSEHOLD TYPES BY AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, 2022

RENTER AFFORDABILITY IN MULTIFAMILY UNITS, 2019-2024

Source: Costar and czb analysis

Other Key Market Phenomena in the Mid-2020s

By the mid-2020s, there is no doubt the housing market was presenting challenges to many households. The nature of the market was changing due to a number of key phenomena, most likely relating to the changing nature of the county’s economy, traceable to the shift into “Eds and Meds.” These phenomena, in their combination, had important effects on housing demand in the county.

A growing number of young people eventually turn into householders, boosting future demand.

Since 1990, there has been a relationship between the number of college-aged people in the county and the number of householders aged 25-34 ten years later. In the three decades between 1990 and 2020, about 40% of people aged 15-24 in any given year show up in the data as householders aged 25-34 ten years later. At each decennial Census, the number of people aged 15-24 has increased in the county. Related to this increase, the number of householders aged 25-34 has also grown, reaching its highest point in 2020 at 74,531, and the 2023 ACS 1-year estimate for this population was just a bit higher at 75,058. The county can be confident that a growing number of college-aged people at any time will convert to increased housing demand among 25-34 year-olds ten years later. Based on the number of people aged 15-24 in 2020, and applying the average conversion rate, the county can expect to have an even higher number of households headed by someone aged 25-34 by 2030. This group would be forming households and putting pressure on the market in the 2020s.

The data are less clear about the extent to which householders aged 25-34 remain householders as they age into the next period of life (aged 3544). Because the county’s young population is so connected to university life, and thus transient, young households do not all remain in the county as they get older. But the rates of attrition have varied in past decades. Based on the number of households headed by someone aged 25-34 in 2020, and applying the average attrition rate for the most recent three decades, the county can expect to have an even higher number of households headed by someone aged 35-44 by 2030. This group would be forming households and putting pressure on the market in the 2020s.

If all these households do in fact form, Washtenaw County is on track by 2030 to have the greatest number of households headed by someone aged 25-44 since the year 2000. This household formation pressure is a substantial contributor to market tightness in the 2010s and 2020s. And so long as the county continues to sustain or increase the number of young people in their college-aged years, they will remain an important source of housing demand over time.

CONVERSION OF POPULATION AGED 15-24 TO HOUSEHOLDERS AGED 25-34 AND 35-44, 1990-2030

As the county becomes better educated overall, the housing market is impacted.

As the county’s economy has shifted, and it has become better educated, its households have increasingly been headed by those with college degrees. In the ten-year period between 2012 and 2022, the county was estimated to have added over 8,100 owner households, but well over 10,000 owner households headed by someone with a four-year college degree. The county was estimated to have added over 5,700 renter households, but nearly 7,000 households headed by someone with a four-year college degree. This means not only was every additional household during that time period headed by a college graduate, but thousands of former households headed by a non-college graduate were replaced by a better educated household.

This phenomenon represents a significant transformation of the county’s educational attainment profile, and its housing market. The housing market has become more expensive in response to increasing demand by the welleducated and well-compensated and, as that continues, it likely also will further increase the appeal of the county to those households.

The county’s families are increasingly highincome married couples, both with kids at home, and without.

Recent data indicate that the county’s family household composition is in transition. A family household is one in which at least two occupants are related. Amongst married couple families with children at home, those with incomes under $150,000 were estimated to have declined in number between 2013 and 2023. Meanwhile, those with incomes of $150,000 or more nearly doubled. Amongst married couple families without children at home, which includes both the childless and empty nesters who once had children at home, those with incomes under $75,000 were estimated to have declined in number between 2013 and 2023 as higherincome couples grew in number. In particular, those with incomes of at least $150,000 more than doubled. Single parent families were estimated to have declined in number overall during this time period, led by lower-income families with incomes under $75,000.

Married couple families are homeowners at a rate of about 85%, meaning that changes in married couple families have significant impacts on the homeownership market. Given the changing income profile of married couple families, it is reasonable to expect this has contributed to higher home sale prices.

It is not possible to know whether the changes related to families result from income changes, from households forming or changing within the county, or from families moving into or out of the county. All of these options could be part of the explanation.

SELECTED FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS BY MARRIAGE STATUS, PRESENCE OF CHILDREN, AND INCOME, 2013 VS 2023

CHANGE IN OWNER HOUSEHOLDS BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF HOUSEHOLDER, 2012-2022

Source: ACS Five-Year Estimates

Source: ACS Five-Year Estimates

”Housing space” is not used efficiently in the county.

As described previously, Washtenaw County’s housing stocks are nearly 70% single-family structures. These units generally were built to serve a market of married couple families with children. However, at least as early as 2000, more than half of all single-family units were home to only one or two people. By 2023, it was estimated that about 60% of single-family units had only one or two occupants, and just over 20% of those had just a single occupant.

Washtenaw County is a place where the largest housing units have a better than even chance of containing small households. As some households struggle to find and afford the space they need, others have a generous amount of space per occupant. If the average house has three bedrooms, and over 20,000 single-family houses were occupied by only a single person in 2023, that means that about 40,000 bedrooms were going unused.

This phenomenon is at least partially attributable to older homeowners aging in place, either married couples or those living alone. Many may have raised families in their single-family houses, but have no desire or are not yet ready to leave them.

What is the bottom line for a changing Washtenaw County housing market?

Increasingly dominated by a powerful set of Eds and Meds industries driven by the University of Michigan and its spillover effects.

Attracting growing numbers of young people who impact housing demand both in the short- and medium-term as they get older.

An economy and quality of life attractive to highly-educated people who can command good salaries in the 21st century economy.

A large number of underserved high-income renters putting pressure on rents for lower-income households.

A large number of low-income renters facing limited options and paying more than they can afford.

A growing number of high-income families, both with kids and without, bidding up prices in the homebuyer market.

A supply of housing stocks better matched to the middle of the 20th Century than to the 2020s and beyond, including a large supply of single-family houses that are home to only one or two people.

A growing number of senior renters.

A large number of non-student low-income renters and aspiring homebuyers at various incomes left on the outside looking in.

SOME HOUSEHOLD ARRANGEMENTS HAVE MORE OPTIONS

In a regional economy dominated by Eds and Meds that attracts a growing number of highly educated upwardly mobile young professionals and also with a large number of underserved high income renters, the pressure on low income renters is significant. A serious issue in Washtenaw County is that households with one or fewer working adults earning $50,000 or less have very few options outside of Ypsilanti. At the same time, households with more than one working adult or an annual income for the household of more than $50,000 do have options. For the former, the lack of options translates into almost no geographic mobility, but for those on the other side of this line, there is actually significant fluidity in the market.

For decision-makers in Washtenaw County, every new housing development will be a chance to diversify Ypsilanti directly or indirectly.

Key Issues and Strategic Considerations

The Washtenaw County housing market was facing a number of potentially critical issues in the mid-2020s. The market worked very well for many households, but not for all. There was not a clear path to the top of the housing ladder for many households, many small households were taking up larger single-family units, the housing production system was racing to catch up to unmet market-rate rental housing demand, and the number of senior renters was rising without a clear answer as to how their needs would be met in the future. At the same time, substantial amounts of subsidy were already at play in the county, both for seniors and for non-senior households. Addressing any of the potential issues would require the county to understand these realities, and begin to organize planning, regulatory, and incentive and subsidy efforts in a more strategic direction.

Key Housing Issues

The bottom line findings of the housing market analysis can be further distilled into a handful of key issues.

The Washtenaw market is not a traditional housing ladder.

There may have been a time in memory in Washtenaw County where a traditional housing ladder existed. This means that a young person could rent, either alone or with at least one other person, then grow his or her household income over time, next moving up to better rental options, and eventually to homeownership. By the mid-2020s, this traditional understanding had been scrambled into something new and unrecognizable to many.

A person working a lower-wage job and living on one income of no more than $50,000 found himself or herself facing middling options in the rental market, at best, and had no chance at homeownership.

One way to improve options in the rental market is to grow household income by advancing in the job market—this is dependent in most cases on higher education—or by doubling up with a roommate, partner, or spouse. But the housing ceiling for such a household of two $50,000 wage-earners with a total household income of $100,000 was a first choice rental, not homeownership. The same frustration would face a single person earning $100,000 who had done well for herself in her career, but for whom homeownership remained elusive.

A bit more income, around $125,000 would begin to put homeownership within reach in the mid-2020s, but it would be for a house that was some combination of smaller and older and in a different location than such a household would have expected in the past. Or, perhaps, a condo would have been the best option.

The only reliable route to the top of the housing ladder in Washtenaw County in the mid-2020s was for a household to generate an annual income of at least $150,000 which was achievable for some number of well-paid professionals living alone. But, the more likely path was the partnering of two well-paid professionals.

Each potential rung on the housing ladder that a household hoped to climb in the mid-2020s required some kind of partnering and/or higher education. This was not always the case in the past, and created a bar too high to clear for many households. For workers without much upward earning potential, or who would not find a suitable partner with whom to share housing costs, the market of the mid-2020s was challenging to navigate. By contrast, those workers with strong educational credentials and earning potential, especially if partnered with another similar person, were able to crack the code and would be on the fast track to a lot of housing choice in Washtenaw County.

Single-earner households face limited choices. The ways to move up to the next category: either increased earning potential dependent on education, or add another earner to the household.

INCOMES

Dual earner households do ok in the rental market, but cannot buy. The way to move up to the next category: increased earning potential dependent on education.

Dual earner households have first choice in the rental market or can purchase an entrylevel house or condo. The way to move up to the next category is increased earning potential dependent on education.

Highly-paid singleearners or dual income professional households have good choice in the market.

In the absence of either, they are stuck.

In the absence of this, they are stuck.

Single-earner households do ok in the rental market, but cannot buy. The ways to move up to the next category: either increased earning potential dependent on education, or add another earner to the household.

In the absence of this, they are stuck.

Single-earner households have first choice in the rental market or can purchase an entry-level house or condo. The ways to move up to the next category: either increased earning potential dependent on education, or add another earner to the household.

In the absence of either, they are stuck.

In the absence of either, they are stuck.

Renter households with incomes of at least $75,000 are underserved, with implications for lower-income households.

The gap analysis discussed previously estimated that as of 2022 data, there were about 8,800 renter households with annual incomes of at least $75,000 who were paying less than they could afford in rent. When there are not enough rental units to absorb the incomes of such households, they rent less expensive units, both depriving lower-income renter households of those units and also placing pressure on rents lower down the rent spectrum.

The number of higher-income renters was estimated to have risen steadily over the ten-year period 2013-2023, from about 8,000 households to about 18,000 households. Those 10,000 net new households were able to afford about $2,000 per month in rent, which generally constituted the market for new market-rate multifamily rental units during the time period. However, according to data from Costar, the number of new market-rate multifamily rental units placed into service during the same period was only about 3,400. This left the Washtenaw County development community playing catch-up in the mid-2020s with about 1,600 new market-rate units placed in service in 2024, another 1,000 under construction in early 2025, and another 3,000 ”in the pipeline” at some stage.

RENTER HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES OF $75,000+, 2013-2023

Source: ACS Five-Year Estimates

3,400 NEW MARKET RATE MULTIFAMILY RENTAL UNITS NEW HIGHER-INCOME RENTER HOUSEHOLDS

1,6001,000

ISSUE #3

Non-student renter households with incomes under $50,000 have few options, and single parents are hardest hit.

In the mid-2020s, the private market did not provide quality residential options for much less than $1,500 per month, but the maximum affordable monthly rent for a $50,000 household is $1,250. This left such households with two options: 1) accept low-quality housing they could afford, assuming they could find it; or 2) pay the going rate and face a cost burden. To parse the true impact of this reality on the vulnerable households of Washtenaw County, it is critically important to acknowledge the challenges of extracting student households from the data on incomes and cost burdens of renter households.

24,000 COST-BURDENED RENTER HOUSEHOLDS

The gap analysis discussed previously estimated that there were about 24,000 cost burdened renter households with incomes of less than $50,000 as of 2022 data. But the prevalence of student households confuses the issue and there is no sure way to know how many student households are included. A review of various data sources leads to a possible conclusion that there are about 25,000 student households in the county, and some number of those will not be cost burdened, but it is impossible to know how many.

Another way to suss out non-student households who may be struggling to pay the rent is to focus on household types unlikely to

include students. For example, as of 2023 data there were approximately 4,500 single parent families, with children under age 18 in the household, with incomes under $50,000. Given the realities of the Washtenaw market, in the 2010s and 2020s, it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of these households were renters. Why the focus on single parents? Surely there are other low-income renter households besides single parents, such as people living alone or fixed-income seniors. But those living alone have the option of adding a roommate or living in a small unit, and senior renters can do the same, or possibly access age-restricted affordable housing options (see Issue #4). Low-income single parent families are stuck between a rock and a hard place with none of those options. Single parent families generally need two bedrooms, at minimum, and need to account for the welfare of children, which means the quality of a unit and its access to schools both matter. Once these are factored in, it can be assumed that a single parent family would have sought a unit renting for at least $1,500 per month in the mid-2020s, hundreds of dollars more than an annual income under $50,000 could have afforded. Per the discussion in Issue #1, some number of these households might be able to climb the housing ladder due to advanced educational credentials, but it cannot be assumed that the introduction of another earner into the household is a viable option. The solution of doubling up is less often the right one for a single parent family.

ISSUE #4

The county will likely have thousands more senior renters by 2040.

As discussed previously, in 2020 the county was home to about 5,500 renter households headed by someone aged 55-64 and about 7,000 households headed by someone aged 65 or older. The analysis above forecasts that the 55-64 renter household figure is unlikely to change much, but the 65 and older figure could increase by about 5,000 households. Some of this growth in senior renter households may come from owners becoming renters, but a bigger factor is likely the growth during the 21st Century of mid-life renters who will become senior renters by 2040.

In the year 2000, the county had about 7,700 renter households headed by someone aged 45-64. By 2020, that number had increased to about 11,500. Because mid-life renters are unlikely to become owners as they get older, and because the likelihood of migration decreases as households age, the county can feel confident that the relatively larger number of mid-life renters in 2020 will translate to a relatively larger number of senior renters aged 65 or older by 2040.

12,500

In total, the county had about 12,500 renter households headed by someone aged 55 or older in 2020. By 2040, that figure is projected to be over 17,300. As people age, their needs change, and this will have implications across healthcare, transportation, and, also housing. The rental units in which young and middleaged renters live may not be able to meet the needs of older people. And, unlike senior homeowners, renters do not have the same home equity to tap for housing needs, nor can they generally make changes and upgrades to their homes to support aging in place.

17,300+

Strategic Considerations for Addressing Key Issues

If Washtenaw County’s policy makers, housing practitioners, philanthropic partners, and private sector housing development community want to take action on the county’s most pressing housing issues, they will have to consider the following…

ISSUE #1

The Washtenaw market is not a traditional housing ladder.

ISSUE #2

Renter households with incomes of at least $75,000 are underserved, with implications for lowerincome households.

Public policy, especially through land use regulation, has a role to play in helping the private sector build toward a housing market that could become, if not a perfect housing ladder, then at least a better one.

First, it must be noted that the private sector in the mid-2020s could not on its own feasibly deliver a new ownership unit—even a condo—for any household with an income of less than about $125,000. Nor could it deliver a new two-bedroom rental unit of decent quality affordable to a household with an income of much less than $100,000. New construction is not an affordability solution for low-income renters nor for entry-level buyers, but new construction does have a role to play in supporting a healthier housing ladder and relieving pricing pressure downladder. New construction can be shaped both by regulations and by incentives and subsidies.

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION 1: Ownership market tightness is likely to ease somewhat over the coming decades.

As discussed previously, Washtenaw County’s homeowners are aging. During the 2010s, about 7,600 owners aged 65 or older exited the ownership market. By the 2030s, that figure will nearly double, meaning that on average the county should expect about 750 additional sellers each year during the 2030s over the 2010s average. This means a significant increase in the number of houses for sale at any given time is likely to occur at some point between 2025 and 2040. Unless the county increases the number of owners accordingly, market easing at some level should be expected.

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION 2:

New owner stocks need to be more diverse.

The county’s ownership stocks are overwhelmingly single-family detached homes. This is not the right homeownership option for many households, for a variety of reasons. Attached ownership housing, including stacked flat condos, should be an increasing proportion of county ownership units. Trying to match demographics to housing stocks is a fools errand—a single 70 year-old woman may remain in a four-bedroom house because it has been her home for

decades and she likes to garden, while a young married childless couple may choose a new single-story attached patio home because they like to travel and want no maintenance obligations— but increased options for buyers can help unstick the market for a variety of household types. The costs of new construction confines detached singlefamily houses to only a small slice of the market, and the coming disposition of senior-owned houses mean that more single-family detached supply will be on the way in any event.

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION 3: The county needs to continue to add new market-rate rental supply.

In the mid-2020s, the market was short thousands of units that rent for $2,000 or more, which would have been affordable to a rapidly growing group of renter households with incomes of $75,000 or more. This lack of upper end supply created downladder pressure on rents for lower-income households. The housing needs of a changing Washtenaw County are disproportionately pointed toward rental housing, and those with good

incomes are no exception. The county and its municipalities should welcome new rental supply.

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION 4:

Demand for new housing creates redevelopment opportunities.

Demographic and economic forecasting firm Woods and Poole projects that Washtenaw County could add about 16,000 net new households between 2025 and 2045. It begs the question as to where new housing is best located, and where it can help meet a variety of community goals. For example, Washtenaw Avenue between Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti features hundreds of acres of suburban real estate that could be ready for a new use. In addition, Ypsilanti is a community in need of revitalization and new investment, which could be spurred by the addition of new market-rate housing. New housing development, subject to good public policy through the use of regulations, incentives, and subsidies, can be shaped to help meet public goals.

12,000 units

Majority

Ownership products should be attached, built at higher densities than the norm.

+16,000 households by 2045

Intermunicipal land use cooperation is required.

On net, the county may add 16,000 households by 2045.

About 12,000 could be absorbed on underutilized land along Washtenaw Ave.

of housing needed is rental, which should be allowed by-right.

ISSUE #3

Non-student renter households with incomes under $50,000 have few options, and single parents are hardest hit.

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION 5:

Washtenaw County in the mid-2020s is already partially addressing this need.

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION 6:

ISSUE

#4

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION 7: Senior renters will not be monolithic.

As of 2023, there were roughly 4,500 single parent families with incomes of less than $50,000 who were likely to be struggling in the housing market. According to data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there were about 4,400 subsidized housing units in the county— either Low Income Housing Tax Credit or HUD Multifamily—that were not for senior citizens. There were also about 3,600 Housing Choice Vouchers in use in the county, though it is difficult to know exactly who was using them, and whether they were in use in the subsidized units or in the private market. Whether or not housing subsidies are exactly matched to the households in need, the reality is that there is a substantial amount of non-senior housing subsidy deployed in relation to the amount of potential need indicated in the data.

4,500 Single Parent Families

Unmet need could be addressed through inclusionary mechanisms in newly constructed rental housing. Assuming some substantial amount of non-senior housing affordability gaps are being closed by existing subsidy, and assuming that some substantial portion likely is not, new housing has a role to play in the latter. Either through requirement, or new subsidy, or both, the thousands of units in the pipeline in 2025 and those projects not yet on the board could offer an opportunity if they are mixed-income projects. The break-even rent on a new multi-family unit was about $2,500 in the mid-2020s, which was about $1,250 more than the households in question could pay. Reducing the rents to an affordable level would require at least $125,000 per unit up front, or a monthly subsidy of $1,250. Some amount of this gap could be closed without subsidy in the project, though not all of it. Enhanced affordability for some portion of new units should be a policy consideration for the cities and townships in the county, likely requiring a combination of regulation and new funding sources.

The county will likely have thousands more senior renters by 2040.

In total, the county had about 12,500 renter households headed by someone aged 55 or older in 2020. By 2040, that figure is projected to be over 17,300. The senior renter population in the mid-2020s was, and will be in the future, diverse. Some renters will have good incomes from retirement planning. Others may have low incomes but strong assets if they sold a home. Yet others may be living on the margins financially. Some will be healthy and active, and seek a rental lifestyle that is independent, while others will need more services nearby or on-site. Accommodating a diverse population of senior renters will mean preparing for seniors-only facilities—both market-rate and affordable—as well as preparing non-seniors-only projects.

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION 8:

New rental units should be for all-ages.

It is inevitable that thousands of senior renters will end up in the private market alongside renters of all ages. Not everyone will be in a seniors-only facility. As such, local regulations must ensure that accessibility standards are high so that senior renters could be accommodated even if they are not necessarily the target market at the time of construction and leasing.

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION 9:

Supporting senior rental affordability will require deep subsidy.

As of 2023 data, 56% of the county’s renter households headed by someone aged 65 or older were cost burdened. The elderly have lower incomes than

the working age population, yet they compete for rental housing in the market just like anyone else. The natural result, all things being equal, is that they spend more of their income on rent than working people.

The baseline multifamily break-even rent in the mid-2020s was about $2,500. If a senior renter household cannot afford this rent, then he or she likely will need financial assistance to live in a new seniors-only project. This is before considering the various additional costs for a senior rental project, which may include specialized amenities, services, transportation, and other features that add cost to the development and to the eventual rent.

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION 10: Washtenaw County in the mid-2020s is already partially addressing this need.

According to data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), there were about 2,300 subsidized housing units in the county—either Low Income Housing Tax Credit or HUD Multifamily—specifically for senior citizens. This suggests that about 20% of the county’s senior renters are already living in subsidized units.

Community Profiles

Washtenaw County’s housing market is not monolithic because its communities are not monolithic. In the eastern part of the county, only a small handful of the county’s more than two dozen municipalities represent about threequarters of the market. Meanwhile, the county’s smaller cities have distinctly different conditions from both the larger urbanized area and the more rural townships by which they are surrounded. The county can be more deeply understood by examining these distinct sub-market types, and by diving deeper into each individual municipality.

County Core

County Core is home to roughly 75% of the county’s households and 90% of its renter households. It represents the majority of the county’s urbanized area.

Small Cities

The Small Cities are

to about 7% of all

Small Townships

County Core

In many ways, County Core is the Washtenaw market.

County Core is home to roughly 75% of the county’shouseholds and 90% of its renter households. In 2020, the area had over 111,000 households living in about 118,000 housing units. County Core represents the majority of the county’s urbanized area. Because County Core so dominates the Washtenaw County market, many of its data points will mostly match those of the county’s. For example, the income distribution is roughly similar.

County Core’s households differ from the county’s overall.

There are some notable differences, however, between County Core and the rest of the county. County Core has relatively fewer married couple families and relatively more non-elderly people

living alone and households living in roommate arrangements. This reflects the area’s urban university-dominated environment.

County Core continues to specialize in renting.

It also has a substantially lower homeownership rate than the county as a whole. As of 2020, slightly more than half of Core County households were homeowners, while 60% were homeowners countywide. County Core has been closely split between ownership and rental dating at least back to 2000, but the difference in trends over the last few decades is worth noting. In the 2000s, two-thirds of household growth was amongst homeowners but in the 2010s, only about 28% of new households were homeowners. Renter household growth dominated in the 2010s.

COMMUNITY PROFILES

County Core has most of the county’s housing units.

County Core has the vast majority of the county’s housing units, but a decreasing share over time. In 2000, the area had 78% of the county’s housing units, but by 2020 the share had dropped to 75% as housing unit production occurred in greater numbers elsewhere. County Core’s units tend to be occupied or vacant about in line with the rest of the county.

County Core has a rental affordability challenge.

County Core is home to 90% of the county’s renter households, inclusive of renters of all kinds. Thousands of renter households face a cost burden, meaning they spend at least 30% of their gross income on housing. The rates of cost burden are especially steep for households with incomes of less than $50,000. For higher-income renters with incomes of $75,000 or more, the rate of cost burden falls to fewer than one in ten.

County Core’s home sale prices have increased steadily since 2010.

In the wake of the 2008 housing crash and the Great Recession, a household with an income of only $60,000 could afford to purchase the average house in County Core. The market recovered during the 2010s, and then prices jumped again after 2020. As of 2024, the average house in County Core generally requires an income of about $150,000 to purchase.

County Core’s householders are aging.

County Core’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented about 37% of all area households in 2020, up from a little less than one-quarter in 2000.

In the 2000s, on average, about 380 senior homeowners aged 65+ exited the ownership market each year. That figure grew to about 540 in the 2010s, and should continue to grow throughout the 2020 and 2030s. The rates at which homeowners of various ages exit the ownership market is fairly stable over decades, which enables speculation about the future of older homeowners.

Headed by Someone Aged 55 or Older, 2000-2020

Renter Households by Cost Burden and Income, 2022

Households

City of Ann Arbor

The City of Ann Arbor is considered part of Washtenaw’s County Core. In 2020, Ann Arbor was home to nearly 50,000 total households across more than 53,000 housing units. The city was majority renter-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively fewer families of all kinds, and relatively more non-family households—especially non-elderly people living alone and roommate arrangements. The city’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented about one-third of all city households in 2020, up from less than a quarter in 2000.

The city’s household income distribution was somewhat different from the county’s in 2023, with a greater proportion of households with incomes under $20,000 and relatively fewer households with incomes between $50,000 and $149,999. Ann Arbor historically has a lower vacancy rate than the rest of the county, though city and county rates converged by the time of the 2020 Census (possibly impacted by the effect of Covid-19 on the presence of college students). Ann Arbor’s 2024 average single-family sale price of over $600,000 was substantially higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

$608,229

$475,290

COMMUNITY PROFILES COUNTY CORE

City of Ann Arbor Washtenaw County

City of Ypsilanti

The City of Ypsilanti is considered part of Washtenaw’s County Core. In 2020, Ypsilanti was home to 8,600 total households across more than 9,000 housing units. The city was majority renter-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively fewer married couple families of all kinds, and relatively more families without a marriage, as well as non-elderly people living alone and roommate arrangements. The city’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented nearly 30% of all city households in 2020, up from less than 20% in 2000.

The city’s household income distribution was very different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes under $75,000—especially under $50,000—and relatively far fewer higher-income households. Ypsilanti historically has a higher vacancy rate than the rest of the county, though the city’s vacancy rate plummeted between 2010 and 2020. Ypsilanti’s 2024 average single-family sale price of about $277,000 was substantially lower than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024 $475,290

$277,088 City of Ypsilanti Washtenaw County

Source: Multiple Listing Service

Ann Arbor Charter Township

Ann Arbor Charter Township is considered part of Washtenaw’s County Core. In 2020, Ann Arbor Charter Township was home to nearly 1,800 total households across more than 2,000 housing units. The township was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively more married couple families of all kinds, relatively fewer families without a marriage, and relatively fewer non-family households including non-elderly people living alone and roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented close to one-half of all township households in 2020, up from about 36% in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes of $150,000 or more and a much smaller proportion of households with incomes under $75,000. The vacancy rate jumped to over 10% at the time of the 2020 Census, close to double the rate for the county as a whole. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of over $1.1M was substantially higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

Ypsilanti Charter Township

Ypsilanti Charter Township is considered part of Washtenaw’s County Core. In 2020, the township was home to over 23,000 total households across more than 24,000 housing units. The township was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively fewer married couple families of all kinds, and relatively more families without a marriage. Its proportions of non-family households, those living alone or with roommates, roughly matched the county’s. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented about 40% of all township households in 2020, up from less than a quarter in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a greater proportion of households with incomes between $20,000 and $149,999 and only half the proportion of county households with incomes of $150,000 or more.

Ypsilanti Charter Township’s vacancy rate was higher than the rest of the county’s in 2010, but it fell to less than 5% by 2020, which was lower than the county’s at that time. The township’s 2024 average singlefamily sale price of about $270,000 was substantially lower than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

Ypsilanti Charter Township Washtenaw County

$269,749

$475,290

Pittsfield Charter Township

Pittsfield Charter Township is considered part of Washtenaw’s County Core. In 2020, Pittsfield Charter Township was home to over 15,000 total households across more than 16,000 housing units. The township was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed only somewhat from that of the county with relatively more non-elderly married couple families and relatively fewer households featuring roommate arrangements.The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented about 38% of all township households in 2020, up from about 17% in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was more or less similar to the county’s in 2023, with a somewhat smaller proportion of households with incomes under $50,000 and a higher proportion of households with incomes of $150,000 or more. The township’s vacancy rate roughly matched the county’s at the time of the 2020 Census. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of almost $540,000 was higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000. COMMUNITY PROFILES COUNTY CORE

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

Pittsfield Charter Township Washtenaw County

$537,119

Source: Multiple Listing Service

$475,290

Superior Charter Township

Superior Charter Township is considered part of Washtenaw’s County Core. In 2020, Superior Charter Township was home to about 5,500 total households across more than 5,700 housing units. The township was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively more families and relatively fewer non-family households. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented about 45% of all township households in 2020, up from roughly a quarter in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was more or less similar to the county’s in 2023, with a somewhat smaller proportion of households with incomes under $50,000 and a higher proportion of households with incomes of $100,000 or more. The township’s vacancy rate roughly matched the county’s at the time of the 2010 Census but it fell below the county’s by 2020. The township’s 2024 average singlefamily sale price of just over $420,000 was lower than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

Source: Multiple Listing Service

$475,290

Scio Township

Data Note: Scio Township lost households between the 2010 Census and 2020 Census due to the incorporation of the City of Dexter.

Scio Township is considered part of Washtenaw’s County Core. In 2020, Scio Township was home to nearly 7,000 total households across more than 7,000 housing units. The township was majority owneroccupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively more married couple families of all kinds, and relatively fewer non-family households including non-elderly people living alone and roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented half of all township households in 2020, up from about 28% in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes of $150,000 or more. Close to half of all township households had incomes in this range. Scio Township had a much smaller proportion of households with incomes under $100,000 than the rest of the county. The township’s vacancy rate has consistently been below the rate for the county as a whole. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of about $650,000 was substantially higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

Scio Township

$650,519

Source: Multiple Listing Service

Washtenaw County

$475,290

COMMUNITY PROFILES COUNTY CORE

Small Cities

Data Note: Data for all years include Chelsea, Dexter, and Manchester, both pre- and postincorporation.

The Small Cities are a small piece of the overall county market.

The Small Cities are home to about 7% of all county households. In 2020, the cities were home to over 10,000 households living in about 11,000 housing units.

The Small Cities’ households differ from the county’s overall

The Small Cities have relatively more married couple families and elderly people living alone than the county. And they have relatively fewer non-elderly people living alone and households living in roommate arrangements.

This is attributable in particular to the difference from the urban university-dominated market in Core County. The Small Cities also have a larger proportion of households with incomes between $35,000 and $149,999 and a smaller proportion of households at the very bottom and very top of the income distribution.

Rates of homeownership have been growing in the Small Cities.

The Small Cities have been majority ownership since at least 2000, but household growth has been disproportionately in that direction. The collected cities added about 1,500 owners in the 2000s alongside over 300 renter households. But in the 2010s, the Small Cities added over 600 new owners without adding any renters at all.

Small Cities housing unit growth tracks the county’s.

The Small Cities had about 6.5% of the county’s housing units in 2000 and about 7% in 2020. The cities are adding units at roughly the same pace as the rest of the county.

Small Cities housing stocks are not diverse. Perhaps it is no surprise for a collection of jurisdictions that collectively boast almost a 75% homeownership rate, but the same proportion of housing units are single-family structures. Less than a quarter of all Small Cities housing units are in structures with two or more units. The overwhelming single-family nature of the stocks makes it difficult to support much of a rental market.

Small Cities home sale prices lag the county’s.

The average home sale price in the Small Cities has consistently been around 70% of the county’s, making them a more affordable option for homebuyers. (The one exception is the City of Dexter. See individual Community Profiles for more information.)

In the wake of the 2008 housing crash and the Great Recession, a household with an income of less than $50,000 could afford to purchase the average house in the Small Cities. The market recovered during the 2010s, and then prices jumped again after 2020. As of 2024, the average house in the Small Cities generally requires an income of at least $100,000 to purchase.

Small Cities householders are aging.

The Small Cities’ number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented half of all area households in 2020, up from about one-third in 2000.

In the 2000s, on average, about 47 senior homeowners aged 65+ exited the ownership market each year. That figure grew to about 57 in the 2010s, and should continue to grow throughout the 2020 and 2030s. In the 2030s, the figure is expected to increase to about 125 per year on average. The rates at which homeowners of various ages exit the ownership market is fairly stable over decades, which enables speculation about the future of older homeowners.

Units by Number of Units in Structure, 2023

Source: Multiple Listing Service:

COMMUNITY PROFILES SMALL CITIES

City of Chelsea

The City of Chelsea is one of Washtenaw’s Small Cities. In 2020, Chelsea was home to over 2,300 total households living in nearly 2,500 housing units. The city was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively more elderly married couple families and more elderly people living alone. It had relatively fewer non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The city’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented over 55% of all city households in 2020, up from 44% in 2000.

The city’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes between $20,000 and $74,999 and a smaller proportion of households with incomes of $75,000 or more.

Chelsea’s vacancy rate was higher than the rest of the county’s in 2010, but it fell to less than 5% by 2020, which was lower than the county’s at that time.

Chelsea’s 2024 average single-family sale price of just over $360,000 was substantially lower than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

$363,625 City of Chelsea Washtenaw County

$475,290

City of Dexter

The city’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a smaller proportion of households with incomes under $50,000 and a greater proportion of households with incomes of $100,000 or more. Dexter’s vacancy rate was roughly in line with that of the county in 2010 and 2020. Dexter’s 2024 average single-family sale price of just over $490,000 was slightly higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000. COMMUNITY PROFILES SMALL CITIES

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

$475,290 $492,286 City of Dexter Washtenaw County

The City of Dexter is one of Washtenaw’s Small Cities. In 2020, Dexter was home to about 1,800 total households across about 1,900 housing units. The city was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively more non-elderly married couple families and more elderly people living alone. It had relatively fewer non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The city’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented about 45% of all city households in 2020, up from one-quarter in 2000.

COMMUNITY PROFILES SMALL CITIES

City of Manchester

The City of Manchester is one of Washtenaw’s Small Cities. In 2020, Manchester was home to nearly 1,000 total households living in slightly more than 1,000 housing units. The city was majority owneroccupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively fewer non-elderly married couple families, and more elderly married couple families, more families without a marriage, and more elderly people living alone. The city’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented just over half of all city households in 2020, up from one-third in 2000.

The city’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes between $75,000 and $99,999 and a smaller proportion of households with incomes of $100,000 or more.

Manchester’s vacancy rate was higher than the rest of the county’s in 2010, but it fell to less than 4% by 2020, which was lower than the county’s at that time. Manchester’s 2024 average single-family sale price of just under $270,000 was substantially lower than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

$475,290 $266,600

City of Milan

Data Note: The data included here are only for the portion of the City of Milan that is inside Washtenaw County.

The City of Milan is one of Washtenaw’s Small Cities. In 2020, Milan was home to over 1,500 total households living in over 1,600 housing units. The city was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively more non-elderly married couple families and more other families without a marriage. It had relatively fewer non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The city’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented 42% of all city households in 2020, up from about 30% in 2000.

The city’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes between $75,000 and $149,999 and a smaller proportion of households with incomes of $150,000 or more. Milan’s vacancy rate matched the rest of the county’s in 2010, but it fell to about 3% by 2020, which was lower than the county’s at that time. Milan’s 2024 average single-family sale price of just over $260,000 was substantially lower than that of the county’s at about $475,000. COMMUNITY

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024 $475,290

$263,937 City of Milan

City of Saline

The City of Saline is one of Washtenaw’s Small Cities. In 2020, Saline was home to nearly 3,900 total households across about 4,200 housing units. The city was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively more elderly married couple families and more elderly people living alone. It had relatively fewer non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The city’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented just over half of all city households in 2020, up from less than 30% in 2000.

The city’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a greater proportion of households with incomes between $75,000 and $149,999. Saline’s vacancy rate has historically been lower than the county’s, but it rose to over 7% by 2020, which was higher than the county’s at that time. Saline’s 2024 average single-family sale price of just about $370,000 was substantially lower than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

$475,290

City of Saline Washtenaw County

$369,898

Small Townships

Data Note: Data for all years exclude cities of Chelsea, Dexter, and Manchester, both pre- and post-incorporation.

The Small Townships are a small piece of the overall county market.

The Small Cities are home to about 18% of all county households. In 2020, the townships were home to over 25,000 households living in just over 27,000 housing units.

The Small Townships’ households differ from the county’s overall.

Compared to the county as a whole, the Small Townships have relatively far more married couple families of all ages and far fewer nonfamily households, whether people living alone or households living in roommate arrangements. This is attributable in particular to the difference

from the urban university-dominated market in Core County. The Small Townships have a larger proportion of households with incomes above $100,000 and a smaller proportion of households with incomes under $50,000.

The Small Townships have very little rental market to speak of.

The Small Townships have been 90% ownership since at least 2000, and household growth has been fully aimed in that direction. Despite having only about 16% of all county households in 2010, the townships were responsible for over 50% of all owner household growth from 2010 to 2020.

This collection of jurisdictions added over 2,600 new owner households during the 2000s and over 3,100 in the 2010s. During each of those decades, the number of renter households only grew by about 500.

Small Townships housing unit growth outpaces the county’s.

The Small Townships had about 15% of the county’s housing units in 2000 and more than 17% in 2020. The townships are adding units at a faster pace than the rest of the county.

Small Townships housing stocks are not diverse.

Perhaps it is no surprise for a collection of jurisdictions that collectively boast almost a 90% homeownership rate, but the same proportion of housing units are single-family structures. Only a few hundred Small Townships housing units are in structures with two or more units. The overwhelming single-family nature of the stocks makes it difficult to support much of a rental market.

Small Townships average sale prices are somewhat higher than the county’s overall.

The average home sale price in the Small Townships has consistently been a bit higher than the county’s, though there is significant diversity in the market strength of fourteen different jurisdictions. (See individual Community Profiles for more information.)

In the wake of the 2008 housing crash and the Great Recession, a household with an income of less than $75,000 could afford to purchase the average house in the Small Townships. The market recovered during the 2010s, and then prices jumped again after 2020. As of 2024, the average house in the Small Townships generally requires an income of more than $150,000 to purchase.

Small Townships householders are aging.

The Small Townships’ number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented over half of all area households in 2020, up from less than one-third in 2000.

In the 2000s, on average, about 100 senior homeowners aged 65+ exited the ownership market each year. That figure grew to about 175 in the 2010s, and should continue to grow throughout the 2020s and 2030s. The rates at which homeowners of various ages exit the ownership market is fairly stable over decades, which enables speculation about the future of older homeowners.

Housing Units by Number of Units in Structure, 2023

Source: Multiple Listing Service:

COMMUNITY PROFILES SMALL TOWNSHIPS

Augusta Charter Township

Augusta Charter Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Augusta Charter Township was home to about 2,650 total households across nearly 2,800 housing units. The township was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds and relatively far fewer non-family households including non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented just over half of all township households in 2020, up from about 35% in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a greater proportion of households with incomes of $100,000 or more and a smaller proportion of households with incomes under $35,000. Augusta Charter Township’s vacancy rate has been consistently lower than the county’s dating back to at least 2000. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of just under $375,000 was substantially lower than the county’s at about $475,000.

COMMUNITY PROFILES SMALL TOWNSHIPS

Bridgewater Township

Bridgewater Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Bridgewater Township was home to almost 650 total households across nearly 700 housing units. The township was majority owneroccupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds and relatively far fewer non-family households including non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented just under 60% of all township households in 2020, up from about 38% in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes from $100,000 to $149,999 and smaller proportions of households with incomes under $50,000 or of $150,000 or more. Bridgewater Township’s vacancy rate has been consistently lower than the county’s dating back to at least 2000. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price was roughly the same as the county’s at about $475,000.

Household Types, 2020

Households by Tenure, 2000-2020

Households by Income, 2023

Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

Dexter Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Dexter Township was home to almost 2,500 total households living in about 2,800 housing units. The township was majority owneroccupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds and relatively far fewer non-family households including non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented over half of all township households in 2020, up from about 30% in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes of $100,000 or more and a much smaller proportion of households with incomes under $100,000. Dexter Township’s vacancy rate has been consistently higher than the rate for the county as a whole at each Census since 2000, likely due to seasonal residences. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of just under $520,000 was somewhat higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Households by Tenure, 2000-2020

5-Year Average Sale Price, 2020-2024

Dexter Township

Washtenaw County

$475,290 $519,329

Freedom Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Freedom Township was home to almost 600 total households across about 650 housing units. The township was majority owneroccupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds and relatively far fewer non-family households including non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented twothirds of all township households in 2020, up from about 35% in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes of $100,000 or more and a much smaller proportion of households with incomes under $35,000. Freedom Township’s vacancy rate has been consistently higher than the rate for the county as a whole at each Census since 2000, likely due to seasonal residences. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of about $495,000 was somewhat higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Household Types, 2020

Households by Tenure, 2000-2020

Households by Income, 2023

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

Data Note: Due to data limitations across years, data include part of City of Chelsea for the year 2000.

Lima Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Lima Township was home to over 1,400 total households living in nearly 1,500 housing units. The township was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds and relatively far fewer non-family households including non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented just over half of all township households in 2020, up from 37% in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a greater proportion of households with incomes of $100,000 or more and a smaller proportion of households with incomes under $75,000. Lima Township’s vacancy rate has been consistently lower than the county’s dating back to at least 2000. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of about $530,000 was somewhat higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Household Types, 2020

Households by Income, 2023

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

Lodi Township

Lodi Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Lodi Township was home to almost 2,300 total households living in nearly 2,400 housing units. The township was majority owneroccupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds and relatively far fewer non-family households including non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented just under 60% of all township households in 2020, up from about one-third in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a greater proportion of households with incomes of $150,000 or more and a smaller proportion of households with incomes under $75,000. Lodi Township’s vacancy rate has been consistently lower than the county’s dating back to at least 2000. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of about $600,000 was substantially higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Lyndon Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Lyndon Township was home to nearly 1,000 total households across more than 1,100 housing units. The township was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds and relatively far fewer non-family households including nonelderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s proportion of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented about 60% of all township households in 2020, up from about 30% in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes of $100,000 or more and a much smaller proportion of households with incomes under $75,000. Lyndon township’s vacancy rate has been consistently higher than the rate for the county as a whole at each Census since 2000, likely due to seasonal residences. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of $490,000 was somewhat higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Household Types, 2020

Households by Tenure, 2000-2020

Households by Income, 2023

Average Single-Family Sale Price,

Data Note: Data exclude Manchester Village and City for all years.

Manchester Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Manchester Township was home to 960 total households living in a few more than 1,000 housing units. The township was majority owneroccupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds and relatively far fewer non-family households including non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented over half of all township households in 2020, up from about 35% in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a greater proportion of households with incomes of $100,000 or more and a smaller proportion of households with incomes between $50,000 and $99,999. Manchester Township’s vacancy rate was higher than the rest of the county’s at the time of the 2000 and 2010 Censuses, but was lower in 2020. The township’s 2024 average singlefamily sale price of just over $420,000 was somewhat lower than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

COMMUNITY PROFILES SMALL TOWNSHIPS

Northfield Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Northfield Township was home to about 3,500 total households living in a bit more than 3,700 housing units. The township was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively more nonelderly married couple families and relatively fewer non-family households including people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented almost half of all township households in 2020, up from less than one-quarter in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a greater proportion of households with incomes of $75,000 to $149,999 and a smaller proportion of households with incomes under $50,000. Northfield Township’s vacancy rate has been consistently higher than the county’s dating back to at least 2000. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of about $450,000 was somewhat lower than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Salem Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Salem Township was home to over 2,500 total households living in nearly 2,700 housing units. The township was majority owneroccupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds and relatively far fewer non-family households including people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented just under 60% of all township households in 2020, up from about one-third in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a greater proportion of households with incomes of $100,000 or more and a smaller proportion of households with incomes under $50,000. Salem Township’s vacancy rate was lower than the county’s at the time of the 2010 and 2020 Censuses. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of about $800,000 was substantially higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

COMMUNITY PROFILES SMALL TOWNSHIPS

Saline Township

Saline Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Saline Township was home to just under 900 total households living in a few more than 900 housing units. The township was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds and relatively far fewer non-family households including non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented just under 60% of all township households in 2020, up from about 37% in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a greater proportion of households with incomes of $150,000 or more and a smaller proportion of households with incomes under $35,000. Saline Township’s vacancy rate has varied widely at each Census since 2000, and was lower than the county’s in 2020. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of just over $490,000 was somewhat higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

COMMUNITY PROFILES SMALL TOWNSHIPS

Sharon Township

Sharon Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Sharon Township was home to about 700 total households across a bit more than 700 housing units. The township was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds and relatively far fewer non-family households including non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented just over 60% of all township households in 2020, up from about 35% in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes from $100,000 to $149,999 and a much smaller proportion of households with incomes under $50,000. The township’s vacancy rate has been consistently lower than the rate for the county as a whole at each Census since 2000. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of just over $490,000 was somewhat higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Sylvan Township

Data Note: Due to data limitations across years, data include part of City of Chelsea for the year 2000.

Sylvan Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Sylvan Township was home to over 1,200 total households across nearly 1,400 housing units. The township was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds and relatively far fewer nonfamily households including non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s proportion of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented about 60% of all township households in 2020, up from about 40% in 2000.

The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes of $50,000 or more and a much smaller proportion of households with incomes under $50,000. The township’s vacancy rate has been consistently higher than the rate for the county as a whole at each Census since 2000, likely due to seasonal residences. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of just over $500,000 was somewhat higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

COMMUNITY PROFILES SMALL TOWNSHIPS

Webster Township

Data Note: Due to data limitations across years, data include part of City of Dexter for 2000 and 2010. Webster Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, Webster Township was home to over 2,300 total households across nearly 2,500 housing units. The township was majority owneroccupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds, relatively far fewer other families without a marriage, and relatively far fewer non-family households including people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented over half of all township households in 2020, up from just under 30% in 2000. The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes of $150,000 or more and a much smaller proportion of households with incomes under $100,000. The township’s vacancy rate was lower than the rate for the county as a whole in both 2010 and 2020. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of more than $680,000 was substantially higher than that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Households Headed by Someone Aged 55 or Older, 2000-2020 Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

COMMUNITY PROFILES SMALL TOWNSHIPS

York Charter Township

York Charter Township is one of Washtenaw’s Small Townships. In 2020, York Charter Township was home to just over 2,500 total households living in a few more than 2,600 housing units. The township was majority owner-occupied. Its household composition differed from that of the county with relatively far more married couple families of all kinds and relatively far fewer non-family households including non-elderly people living alone and households in roommate arrangements. The township’s number of households headed by someone aged 55 or older has increased in recent decades. These households represented over half of all township households in 2020, up from about 31% in 2000. The township’s household income distribution was different from the county’s in 2023, with a much greater proportion of households with incomes of $150,000 or more and smaller proportions of households with incomes under $50,000 and between $75,000 and $149,999. York Charter Township’s vacancy rate has been consistently lower than the rate for the county as a whole at each Census since 2000. The township’s 2024 average single-family sale price of about $480,000 was similar to that of the county’s at about $475,000.

Headed by Someone Aged 55 or Older, 2000-2020 Average Single-Family Sale Price, 2024

Addenda to Washtenaw County Housing Study

czb for AAACF :: June 13, 2025

Addendum 1: Who are the struggling households in Washtenaw County?

As of 2022, about 34% of US adults aged 25 or older had a four-year degree while the figure was nearly 60% in Washtenaw County (p.12). The figure was even higher for Ann Arbor, where nearly 80% of the 25+ population had a four-year degree, including close to 50% who had an advanced degree. This makes Ann Arbor, by some estimates, the most educated city in America; higher than Silicon Valley, Northern Virginia/DC, the Research Triangle Park, the Bay Area, Boston-Cambridge, and Seattle.

In such an economy, households without this level of education earn far less, and, owing to assortative mating, differences in per capita earnings become compounded at the household level which in turn has impacts on the homebuying power of households with only one earner. For twoincome, highly educated households, timing, education and partnering tendencies mean that, as expensive as housing is across Washtenaw County, it is both within reach and, once reached, remunerative. But for single-earner households and especially non-college-educated single-earner households, the housing market is expensive. Households with incomes below $50,000 have few options, and the options they have tend to be both geographically and financially confining.

But what is true and remarkably stable across Washtenaw County is that when a household has two working adults, that household tends to do well in the housing market; it has options. According to data from the American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates (ACS) the 2023 median earnings for a worker with a high school education was about $35,000. As challenged as a $35,000 a year single-earner household is, two $35,000 workers pooling their incomes makes the market accessible. And when a household has a college education in Washtenaw County, that household tends to do really well economically. ACS reports the median earnings in 2023 as over $60,000 for a worker with a four-year degree and nearly $90,000 for a worker with an advanced degree. And when a household is comprised of two working, college-educated adults, the county’s housing market works spectacularly well, as the options available to such households usually translate into equity.

The inverse is also true. When a household is comprised of just one working adult, the housing market can be unrewarding. When that household’s one working adult lacks a college education, the housing market is unforgiving. To the degree that there is a way to distinguish those with options in Washtenaw County from those without, households with more than one working adult and an annual income of more than $50,000 have options and mobility, and those with only one working adult earning less than $50,000 are in a bind with most of the options found either in substandard conditions or low value areas, or both (p. 33). It is these households with incomes of less than $50,000 that are at risk in the mid-2020s housing market, and specifically renter households.

ACS represents the best data source available for understanding the demographic and housing picture in the county. These data indicate that there are roughly 29,000 renter households in the county with annual household incomes under $50,000. Unfortunately, the data are not available to tell us exactly who these households are. This is more or less true for the full suite of indicators that

would paint the picture—tenure, family household type, nonfamily household type, age of householder, household income, etc. The necessary crosstabs simply do not exist. However, some inferences can be drawn from the data that are available.

First, we assume that all cost-burdened renter households headed by someone aged 65 or older have incomes of $50,000 or less. (It is possible some of these households could be double counted in the households described below, but if so, it is not likely enough to make a material difference at the policy level.)

Next, we assume that all family households with incomes under $50,000 are renters in the Washtenaw County market, with one exception. The exception is married couple families without their own children in the household. Why is this an exception? Because it is likely this includes many senior homeowner couples who fall outside our target population of low-income renters. The family households with incomes under $50,000 who we assume to be renters are:

• Married couple families with their own children in the household.

• Female headed families, no spouse present, with their own children in the household.

• Male headed families, no spouse present, with their own children in the household.

• Other female headed family households without their own children in the household. This could include siblings living together, or adult mother and adult child, or grandmothers raising grandchildren, etc.

• Other male headed family households without their own children in the household. This could include siblings living together, or adult father and adult child, or grandfathers raising grandchildren, etc.

When we make these assumptions, the numbers stack up as follows:

Finally, we conclude that the unexplained remaining balance must consist of the following:

• Other senior (aged 65+) renter households with incomes under $50,000 not facing a cost burden, not assumed to be an affordability concern.

• Student households, not assumed to be an affordability concern.

• Non-student person living alone, under age 65, not assumed to be an affordability concern because finding a roommate is an option which could result in two able-bodied adult workers earning sufficient income.

• Non-student roommates, any age, not assumed to be an affordability concern because they almost certainly represent two able-bodied adult workers with potential to earn sufficient income.

The overall housing market in Washtenaw County is not inexpensive; quality of life is high, and for those households able to access the market as buyers by pooling incomes, the county’s market is financially rewarding. Most renters are able to secure excellent quality homes for reasonable income to rent ratios, and the majority of renter households are on an upward trajectory in the early years of adult household formation. The market is generally quite healthy. It generates wealth and its benefits are accessible to the roughly 85% of the county’s households who are either current owners or renters paying less than 30% of their income toward rent.

Indeed, a paradox of the American housing market is that its central promise—a home as a household wealth-building mechanism—comes at the expense of general affordability. The more affordable a market, the less overall home equity, and vice versa. To be sure, for markets where 1 the ratio of household income to home value is between 3:1 and 4:1, there is both general affordability and some equity building taking place. At just north of 4:1 (4.1), Washtenaw County has been moving away from general affordability, but not excessively so (p.18). While Washtenaw County is at 4.1, King County, WA is 6.6 and Boulder County, CO is 6.9.

This does not mean that real hardships do not exist for thousands of Washtenaw County households with incomes below $50,000, nor that new housing products coming on line today can be affordable without either extensive subsidy or greatly reduced size and quality. But it does mean the overall market, all else being equal, is strong without being anywhere near overheated. Still, the point remains: the county’s market leaves many households in a bind, some in very severe straits.

Households with incomes below $50,000 will not find a home to buy that they can afford, and so they will rent, and add to pressure on rental supplies, raising rents. Additionally, rental units in their price range will often be wanting, either in terms of condition or location, or both.

Without question, Washtenaw County households with incomes below $35,000 face a genuine crisis. It is also true, however, that the county’s supply and quality of subsidized housing is rather robust. Public, tax-credit, and other subsidized housing, in the County is far from perfect, but overall it is, in general, responsive.

If there is a criticism of the response to the housing needs of lower-income households in Washtenaw County, it is less that there is too little supply, than that the locations of a large percentage of subsidized supplies are problematic. The City of Ypsilanti, for example, has 12.6% of all the county’s subsidized housing units, but just 5.4% of the county’s population.

Conventional housing advocacy and traditional funding formulas will ‘say’ that “you have to put the subsidies where the people are, and you have to put the subsidies where the services are, and you have to go where need is greatest.”

But, in actuality, conventional subsidy and conventional thinking on this subject tends to respond to affordability problems in ways that often compound matters. More housing for low-income households is only part of the work. Equally if not more important is making sure that affordable housing supplies are in the right location, and for households with incomes below $35,000, that means near jobs. It also means, to the greatest extent possible, that the housing should be distributed widely so that poor children are not growing up in concentrated poverty, and poverty does not metastasize into a multigenerational reality.

1 affordable, the lower the incentive for private capital to invest in housing markets.

This is also true of rental property ownership. The lower the margin, the more affordable; but the more

Page of / czb AAACF Addenda 3 5

Achieving such goals as geographic distribution is one of the most difficult housing problems in the country. The mere hint of inclusive development is plenty enough to provoke resistance. Yet for Ypsilanti to become a viable market, and for the county’s poor households to have a chance for upward mobility, development and redevelopment have to be inclusive on a countywide basis. Taking action therefore means tangible steps on both the volume and location of supply.

Of course, affordability is just one of the housing issues the county must contend with. Senior housing is another that merits serious attention. Seniors who want to age in place invariably confront the limitations of both the homes they live in to accommodate their abilities, and their financial capacity to sell those homes without incurring losses. Moreover, the senior population stuck in their current homes but otherwise open to moving, have too few options. Successfully unsticking this can produce multiple wins. Creating housing for seniors to move into from their current homes can begin to reduce pressure on the inventory of existing homes, and have a positive impact on overall pricing. Seniors win by being freed of the complexities and other burdens of taking care of a house, often too large by 30% by the time they are in their 70s. Young households win by having more inventory and lower prices.

In addition to the range of affordability and senior challenges that deserve attention, none of the long-term housing market questions that are a function of projected growth in the context of demographic change can be answered without consideration of land use. Most of the projected demand the next two decades will be for multifamily, but multifamily housing is not easily developed across all of the county. Many Washtenaw communities will prefer traditional suburban development patterns, which will tend to segregate by use, consume significant volumes of land, exacerbate jobs-housing spatial mismatches, result in exclusionary settlement patterns, be fiscally dubious in terms of infrastructure, and consume farmland in the process (one of the great contributors of the

county’s quality of life proposition). These and other issues co-mingle as needed elements in a countywide growth management strategy.

Altogether, the current market suggests four main categories of work require attention on the housing front, to address cost and locational issues of affordable supplies, senior housing, and countywide land use matters in the context of the need to manage growth.

1. Making sure there are sufficient resources and a regulatory framework to facilitate the development of mixed income, multifamily rental housing production throughout the county, but disproportionately where jobs are.

2. Providing assistance to senior households in their move from current homes to senior living facilities.

3. Prioritizing the economic diversification of the housing stocks in the City of Ypsilanti and in Ypsilanti Township to become more market-rate oriented, and stronger.

4. Redeveloping Washtenaw Avenue into a high-performing, mixed use corridor able to absorb 15,000-20,000 housing units the next several decades.

To accomplish a combination of robust multifamily production in the right places with a mix of incomes, the transition of thousands of senior households to high quality living facilities the next few decades, the revitalization of Ypsilanti, and the proper redevelopment of Washtenaw Avenue requires a number of significant resources.

One is immense subsidy, either in cash or a combination of density and height. Another is a large, market-oriented, flexible fund with patient capital to seed a number of interconnected initiatives. A third is significant multi-jurisdictional cooperation on land use. And a fourth is skilled curation to oversee and capably orchestrate the four lines of work. The following are therefore recommended:

- Establishment of a county-wide housing trust fund able to receive private donations and public resources via levy or other means, and distribute them in a strategic manner towards objectives implicit in the four lines of work stated above. It is estimated for Washtenaw County, this fund should be capitalized at $250M. It is recommended that within this fund, the capacity to carve out a revolving loan fund to facilitate development, redevelopment, and senior transitions will be invaluable.

- Establishment of a county-wide land use agreement on multifamily by-right development regulations. It is estimated this agreement would include provisions on the transfer of development rights in exchange for open space/farmland preservation, efficient use of infrastructure, revenue sharing, and inclusionary provisions.

- Establishment of a robust incentive package to strengthen the Ypsilanti submarket, to be resourced by a new housing trust fund. With twice the amount of subsidized units in Ypsilanti than would be the city’s fair share based on equal distribution across the county, it is virtually impossible for Ypsilanti to obtain fiscal strength in any durable, meaningful way unless this changes. It is estimated that as many as 3,000 new market-rate units in Ypsilanti would be the amount needed to begin properly rebalancing the city, so an additive approach is recommended.

- Establishment of a Washtenaw Avenue Redevelopment Corporation empowered by multiple jurisdictions to creatively up-zone and otherwise incentivize and redevelop the Avenue. The work is to redevelop the corridor to absorb significant multifamily housing production and related commercial real estate in a transit-oriented manner, and do so using both resources from a new trust fund, and negotiated development rights transferred from throughout the county. The active pursuit of a proper transect into each of the county’s cities will help to preserve farmland and also maintain the character of small communities as they transition to open countryside.

Washtenaw County HOUSING STUDY