» Articles » PMID: 33013148

Does Large-Scale Neighborhood Reinvestment Work? Effects of Public-Private Real Estate Investment on Local Sales Prices, Rental Prices, and Crime Rates

Overview
Date 2020 Oct 5
PMID 33013148
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

During the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded more than $6 billion in competitive grants called HOPE VI to spur neighborhood redevelopment. We add to HOPE VI research by examining the impacts of a large set of public-private real estate investments, including HOPE VI, made over a 16-year period in a distressed Pittsburgh neighborhood called the Hill District. Specifically, we estimate the effects of the $468 million additional public-private investments that Hill District received compared to a demographically similar neighborhood on sale prices, rental prices, and crime. We find large and statistically significant impacts of the public-private investments on residential sales prices, commercial sales prices, and on rental prices, but only a marginally significant yet meaningful decline in non-violent arrests. For each additional $10 million of public-private investment, we find a 0.95 percent increase in residential sales prices, 2.7 percent increase in commercial sales prices, and 0.55 percent increase in rental prices. Because there was an accumulated difference over 16 years of $468 million in the amount of public-private investment across the two neighborhoods we examine, these percentage increases amount to large changes in real estate prices over that time. Commercial real estate investors and homeowners benefited the most, followed by residential landlords. Our analyses imply cities should anticipate the potential impacts of major neighborhood investment on low-income households, especially unsubsidized renters that most directly experience the brunt of rising rents.

Citing Articles

Do Publicly Funded Neighborhood Investments Impact Individual-Level Health-Related Outcomes? A Longitudinal Study of Two Neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, PA from 2011 to 2018.

Smith R, Baird M, Hunter G, Ghosh-Dastidar B, Richardson A, Cantor J Hous Policy Debate. 2024; 34(4):489-507.

PMID: 39157451 PMC: 11328983. DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2024.2309952.


Design of the think PHRESH longitudinal cohort study: Neighborhood disadvantage, cognitive aging, and alzheimer's disease risk in disinvested, black neighborhoods.

Rosso A, Troxel W, Gary-Webb T, Weinstein A, Butters M, Palimaru A BMC Public Health. 2023; 23(1):636.

PMID: 37013498 PMC: 10069058. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-15381-9.


Revisiting revitalization: exploring how structural determinants moderate pathways between neighborhood change and health.

Mui Y, Headrick G, Chien J, Pollack C, Saleem H Int J Equity Health. 2022; 21(1):165.

PMID: 36401246 PMC: 9675168. DOI: 10.1186/s12939-022-01771-9.


Mixed Effects of Neighborhood Revitalization on Residents' Cardiometabolic Health.

Troxel W, Bogart A, Brooks Holliday S, Dubowitz T, Ghosh-Dastidar B, Baird M Am J Prev Med. 2021; 61(5):683-691.

PMID: 34226093 PMC: 8541899. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.04.023.


Does investing in low-income urban neighborhoods improve sleep?.

Dubowitz T, Haas A, Ghosh-Dastidar B, Collins R, Beckman R, Brooks Holliday S Sleep. 2021; 44(6).

PMID: 33417708 PMC: 8193558. DOI: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa292.


References
1.
Dubowitz T, Zenk S, Ghosh-Dastidar B, Cohen D, Beckman R, Hunter G . Healthy food access for urban food desert residents: examination of the food environment, food purchasing practices, diet and BMI. Public Health Nutr. 2014; 18(12):2220-30. PMC: 4457716. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980014002742. View

2.
Dubowitz T, Ghosh-Dastidar M, Cohen D, Beckman R, Steiner E, Hunter G . Diet And Perceptions Change With Supermarket Introduction In A Food Desert, But Not Because Of Supermarket Use. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015; 34(11):1858-68. PMC: 4977027. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0667. View