Asheville, North Carolina Region
Housing Needs Assessment

Prepared For

City of Asheville Community and Economic Development Department
70 Court Plaza, 5th Floor
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Effective Date

December 24, 2014
Revised: January 15, 2015
Job Reference Number

14-462

Author: Patrick M. Bowen, President & Lead Contact
155 E. Columbus Street, Ste. 220   Pickerington, Ohio 43147
Phone: (614) 833-9300   patrickb@bowennational.com
www.bowennational.com

DRAFT 2

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Electronic Users: Click on the link below for desired section or page)

Introduction
Executive Summary
Regional Analysis
A. Scope of Work ............................................................................ Page 1
B. Demographics............................................................................. Page 3
1. Population Trends.................................................................. Page 8
2. Household Trends.................................................................. Page 14
3. Income Trends ....................................................................... Page 26
4. Area Analysis (Access to Community Services)................... Page 33
5. Transportation Analysis......................................................... Page 35
6. Special Needs Populations .................................................... Page 41
7. Thematic Maps ...................................................................... Page 52
C. Economics .................................................................................. Page 62
D. Housing Supply Analysis ........................................................... Page 67
1. Rental Housing ...................................................................... Page 73
Multifamily Rental Housing ............................................ Page 73
Non-Conventional Rental Housing ................................. Page 83
Vacation Rental Housing ................................................. Page 86
Home Stay Rentals........................................................... Page 87
2. Mobile Home Rental Units ................................................... Page 88
3. Owner For-Sale Housing....................................................... Page 91
4. Senior Care Facilities ............................................................ Page 102
5. Planned & Proposed Residential Development .................... Page 110
E. Housing Gap/Needs Estimates................................................... Page 111
F. Stakeholder Interviews ............................................................... Page 119
G. Case Studies ............................................................................... Page 121

TOC

 Individual County Assessment Chapters
Buncombe County
Henderson County
Madison County
Transylvania County
Asheville Citywide

Addendum A – Sources
Addendum B – Qualifications
Addendum C – Stakeholder Interview Instrument
Addendum D – Glossary

TOC

 INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
The City of Asheville Community and Economic Development Department retained
Bowen National Research in October of 2014 for the purpose of conducting a
regional Housing Needs Assessment. The region includes the counties of Buncombe,
Henderson, Madison, and Transylvania.
Additional analysis was conducted
exclusively on Asheville, the region’s largest city.
With changing demographic and employment characteristics and trends expected
over the years ahead, it is important for both public and private sectors to understand
the current market conditions and projected changes that are expected to occur that
will influence future housing needs. Toward that end, this report intends to:


Present and evaluate past, current and projected detailed demographic
characteristics of the region.



Present and evaluate key employment characteristics and trends of region.



Determine current characteristics of all major housing components within the
region (for-sale/ownership, rental and senior care housing alternatives).



Calculate housing gap and housing needs estimates by tenure and income segment
for each county and Asheville.



Present and evaluate key special needs population data and identify housing
options available to these populations.



Compile local stakeholder perceptions of housing market conditions and trends,
opinions on future housing needs, and identify barriers to residential development
in region.

The preceding study elements were evaluated for each of the four counties in the
region and for Asheville individually.
By accomplishing the study’s objectives, area stakeholders, local public officials,
area employers, and private housing developers can: 1) better understand the region’s
evolving housing market, 2) modify or expand region’s housing policies, and 3)
enhance and/or expand region’s housing market to meet future housing needs.

Intro-1

 B. METHODOLOGIES
The following methods were used by Bowen National Research to collect and
analyze data for this study:
Study Area Delineation
The primary geographic scope of this study is the four-county region that surrounds
the city of Asheville. The region, which includes the counties of Buncombe,
Henderson, Madison, and Transylvania, encompasses a total of 1,867.27 square
miles.
This study presents and analyzes the overall region, each individual county
and the city of Asheville within individual sections of this report.
Demographic Information
Demographic data for population, households, housing, and income was secured from
ESRI, Incorporated, the 2000 and 2010 United States Census, Applied Geographic
Solutions, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the American Community Survey.
Projections for 2015 and 2020 are also provided. This data has been used in its
primary form and by Bowen National Research for secondary calculations. All
sources are referenced throughout the report and in Addendum A of this report.
Employment Information
Employment information was obtained and evaluated for various geographic areas
that are part of this overall study. This information included data related to
employment by job sector, total employment, unemployment rates, identification of
top employers, and identification of large-scale job expansions or contractions. Most
information was obtained through the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. However, Bowen National Research also conducted numerous interviews
with local stakeholders familiar with employment characteristics and trends
throughout the region.
Housing Component Definitions
This study is concerned with three major housing components: 1) rental (multifamily
apartments, non-conventional units, vacation rentals, home stays, and mobile homes);
2.) for-sale/ownership (both single-family and multifamily) and 3) senior care
facilities.
For-sale/ownership housing includes single-family homes and
condominiums. Multifamily rentals include single-family homes and multifamily
apartments (generally 20+ units per building). Note that for the purposes of this
analysis, we have also evaluated special needs populations and housing.

Intro-2

 Housing Supply Documentation
During October and November of 2014, Bowen National Research conducted
telephone and on-site research, as well as on-line research, of the region’s housing
supply. When available, the following data was collected on each property:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Property Information: Name, address, total units, and number of floors
Owner/Developer and/or Property Manager: Name and telephone number
Population Served (i.e. seniors vs. family, low-income vs. market-rate, etc)
Available Amenities/Features: Both in-unit and within the overall project
Years Built and Renovated (if applicable)
Vacancy Rates
Distribution of Units by Bedroom Type
Square Feet and Number of Bathrooms by Bedroom Type
Gross Rents or Price Points by Bedroom Type
Property Type
Quality Ratings*
GPS Locations

*Quality ratings used in this study were established after a careful examination of the
housing properties and their surrounding neighborhoods. Factors influencing the
ratings include curb appeal, unit and property amenities, age, interior and exterior
building conditions, parking arrangements, architectural design, landscaping and
grounds, management presence, accessibility, visibility, signage, public
infrastructure, condition of adjacent properties, neighborhood interviews, and area
services.
Information regarding for-sale single-family homes was collected by Bowen National
Research in-office staff during the aforementioned research period. Home listings
were obtained from realtor.com and MLS listings.
Stakeholder/Interviews
During November of 2014, Bowen National Research staff conducted interviews and
on-line surveys of area stakeholders. These stakeholders included individuals from a
variety of trades including public officials, private residential developers,
neighborhood and civic association leaders, education providers, non-profit
representatives, and other community leaders. Questions were structured to elicit
opinions on a variety of matters including current housing conditions, housing
challenges for area residents, barriers to housing development, future housing needs
and recommendations to improve housing in the region. These interviews afforded
participants an opportunity to voice their opinions and provide anecdotal insights
about the study’s subject matter. Overall, more than 20 individual interviews were
completed and evaluated. Please note that individual names and organizations have
not been disclosed in order to protect the confidentiality of participants and encourage
their candor. The aggregate results from these interviews are presented and evaluated

Intro-3

 in each county’s analysis section of this report, while the actual stakeholder interview
questions are included in Addendum C.
Housing Demand
Based on the demographic data for both 2015 and 2020, and taking into consideration
the housing data from our field survey of area housing alternatives, we are able to
project the housing needs of region and each of its individual counties and the city of
Asheville.
Specific Demand Components are summarized below:











Housing Gap Analysis Components
Owner Housing
Rental Housing
Renter Household Growth
 Owner Household Growth
Rent Overburdened Households
 Cost Overburdened Households
Overcrowded Housing
 Overcrowded Housing
Housing Lacking Complete Indoor Plumbing
 Housing Lacking Complete Indoor Plumbing
Pipeline Development*
 Pipeline Development*
Senior Care Housing
Senior Household Growth
Households Requiring ADL Assistance
Existing Senior Care Beds
Pipeline Development*

*Units under construction, permitted, planned or proposed
ADL – Activities with Daily Living

C. REPORT LIMITATIONS
The intent of this report is to collect and analyze significant levels of housing data for
the subject four-county region. Bowen National Research relied on a variety of data
sources to generate this report (see Addendum A). These data sources are not always
verifiable; however, Bowen National Research makes a concerted effort to assure
accuracy. While this is not always possible, we believe that our efforts provide an
acceptable standard margin of error. Bowen National Research is not responsible for
errors or omissions in the data provided by other sources.
We have no present or prospective interest in any of the properties included in this
report, and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
Our compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses,
opinions, or use of this study.

Intro-4

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to conduct a Housing Needs Assessment of the four-county
region that includes and surrounds the city of Asheville, North Carolina. The four
counties evaluated in this report are Buncombe, Henderson, Madison, and Transylvania.
This evaluation takes into account the demographics, economics and housing supply of
the region, along with the input of area stakeholders, and estimates the housing gaps and
needs of the study area between 2015 and 2020 for the subject region. The research and
analysis, which includes a collection of primary data, analysis of secondary data and onsite market research, was conducted between October and December of 2014. This
executive summary addresses key highlights from the full Housing Needs Assessment.

REGION STUDY AREA

Executive Summary-1

 Demographics

Percent Change

The subject region is projected to experience a population increase of 5.8% between 2010
and 2015 and a 5.5% growth rate between 2015 and 2020. These growth rates are
comparable to North Carolina statewide growth trends. Between 2015 and 2020, the
overall
region
is
Region Household Trends (2015-2020)
projected to add 10,506
(5.9%)
households.
8.0%
Counties
with
the
7.6%
7.0%
greatest
projected
6.7%
6.0%
percent
growth
of
5.9%
households from 2015
5.0%
5.2%
to
2020
include
4.0%
Buncombe (6.7%) and
3.0%
3.4%
3.2%
Henderson (5.2%). The
2.0%
7,219 new households
1.0%
projected to be added to
Buncombe
County
0.0%
Asheville
Buncombe
Henderson
Madison County
Transylvania
Region
between 2015 and 2020
County
County
County
represent over twoMarket
thirds (68.7%) of the
household growth for the overall region during this time. Regardless, new household
growth is projected to occur among all four of the region’s counties, adding to growing
need for more housing in each county. The city of Asheville is projected to experience a
7.6% household growth rate, outpacing each of the subject counties and the region.

Households

It is projected that most of the growth in the region between 2015 and 2020 will occur
among households age 55 and older. This age group is projected to increase by 10,342
(11.3%) households during this five-year period. The largest increase within a single age
group will be among seniors between the ages of 65 and 74, which is projected to add
4,996 (16.4%) households. These senior growth trends are primarily attributed to seniors
aging in place, and essentially moving from the non-senior household segment and into
the senior (age
Region Households by Age (2015-2020)
55+)
household
segment. Modest
2015 2020
regional growth is
40,000
projected to occur
35,000
among households
30,000
between the ages
of 25 and 34 (319,
25,000
1.4%)
and
20,000
between 35 and 44
15,000
(186, 0.7%). As
10,000
such,
housing
5,000
needs will be
0,000
diverse.
<25
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
Age Range

Executive Summary-2

75+

 Among renter households in the region, the greatest share of household sizes in 2015 will
be one-person households, which will represent 40.3% of the total households in the
region. Two-person households will represent the second largest share (28.3%). Threeperson or larger households will represent nearly one-third (31.4%) of the households.
The share of households by size will change slightly between 2015 and 2020, with the
greatest increase occurring among one-person households (increasing from 40.3% to
40.7% and adding 1,797 one-person households). Two-person households will increase
by 928 (5.6%) through 2020, while three-person and larger households will increase by
1,098 (6.0%). These growth trends indicate that while smaller units (e.g. studio to twobedrooms) will likely be needed to accommodate the disproportionate growth of oneand two-person households, with more than 1,000 three-person households expected to
be added to the region, there will also need to be larger bedroom types added to the
region’s housing stock over the next several years. In 2015, it is projected that the largest
share of owner-occupied households by size within the region will consist of two-person
households, representing 42.3% of all owner households. One- and two-person
households will represent a combined share of 67.9% of all households in 2015. It is
projected that between 2015 and 2020 the greatest household growth will be among twoperson households, which will add 2,400 (4.6% increase) households. Three-person or
larger households are also projected to grow by 2,153 (5.5%) during this time, increasing
the likely need for additional larger housing units such as three-bedroom or larger units
for the foreseeable future.
Between 2015 and 2020, all income household segments within the region are projected
to increase. The greatest of the household growth within the region is projected to occur
among households that make between $35,000 and $49,999 a year, which are projected to
increase by 2,725 (9.7%) during this five-year period. Notable growth is projected to
occur among households with incomes between $15,000 and $24,999 (1,453 households,
6.6% growth), between $50,000 and $74,999 (1,371, 4.0%), and between $100,000 and
$149,999 (1,734, 10.6%). As such, a variety of housing needs by price point and rent
will grow.
Region Households by Income (2015-2020)
2015

2020

40,000
35,000

Households

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0,000
<$15,000

$15,000 $24,999

$25,000 $34,999

$35,000 $49,999

$50,000 $74,999

Household Income

Executive Summary-3

$75,000 $99,999

$100,000 $149,999

$150,000+

 The specific distribution of households by income and tenure for 2015 and 2020 are
illustrated in the tables on the following page.
Renter Households by Income
$35,000 $50,000 $75,000 <$15,000
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999
15,446
8,525
8,674
2,908
2015
(26.5%)
(14.7%)
(14.9%)
(5.0%)
15,532
10,165
8,767
3,070
Region
2020
(25.0%)
(16.4%)
(14.1%)
(5.0%)
86
1,641
93
161
Change
(0.6%)
(19.2%)
(1.1%)
(5.5%)
Owner Households by Income
$15,000 $25,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999
<$15,000
11,528
11,824
13,478
19,692
25,417
16,526
2015
(9.5%)
(9.7%)
(11.1%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.6%)
12,116
12,314
13,889
20,777
26,694
17,156
Region
2020
(9.5%)
(9.6%)
(10.8%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.4%)
588
491
411
1,085
1,278
630
Change
(5.1%)
(4.1%)
(3.1%)
(5.5%)
(5.0%)
(3.8%)
Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research
$15,000 $24,999
10,300
(17.7%)
11,262
(18.2%)
962
(9.3%)

$25,000 $34,999
9,758
(16.8%)
11,262
(18.2%)
411
(4.2%)

$100,000 $149,999
$150,000+
1,919
656
(3.3%)
(1.1%)
2,135
910
(3.4%)
(1.5%)
216
255
(11.2%)
(38.8%)

Total
58,185
(100.0%)
62,011
(100.0%)
3,826
(6.6%)

$100,000 $149,999
$150,000+
14,515
8,357
(12.0%)
(6.9%)
16,033
9,044
(12.5%)
(7.1%)
1,519
687
(10.5%)
(8.2%)

Total
121,336
(100.0%)
128,024
(100.0%)
6,688
(5.5%)

Region Household Income by Tenure (2015)
Renter Households

Owner Households

30.0%
25.0%

Share

20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
<$15,000

$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 $24,999
$34,999
$49,999

$50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000 - $150,000+
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999

Household Income

As the preceding tables illustrate, while all renter household income segments are
projected to grow, the greatest renter household growth between 2015 and 2020 within
the region is projected to occur among those with annual incomes between $35,000 and
$49,999. Notable renter households by income growth is projected to occur among
households with incomes between $15,000 and $24,999, as well as between $25,000 and
$34,999. All owner household income segments are projected to grow between 2015 and
2020, with the greatest projected growth among homeowners expected to occur among
households with income between $100,000 and $149,999, though notable owner
household growth is projected to occur among those with income between $35,000 and
$49,999, and between $50,000 and $74,999. These renter and owner household income
trends are fairly consistent in each of the four counties and within Asheville. As a result,
there will likely be an increase in demand for more housing that is affordable to lower
income households, as well as more affluent households.

Executive Summary-4

 Cost burdened households are those paying over 30% of their income towards housing
costs, while severe cost burdened households are considered as those paying over 50% of
their income towards housing costs. Among the region’s renter households, a total of
23,317 (44.2%) are cost burdened and 10,926 (20.7%) are severe cost burdened. The
greatest number and share of severe cost burdened renter households is in Buncombe
County. A total of 28,131 (24.4%) owner households in the region are cost burdened
while 11,187 (9.7%) are severe cost burdened. While the region’s shares of cost burdened
and severe cost burdened households are slightly below state averages, they remain
significant and indicate that large shares of regional households are paying high portions
of their income towards housing. As such, the affordability of area housing is an
important factor that should be considered in future housing plans for the region.

Percent

Region Cost Burdened Households by Tenure
Renter Cost Burdened

Renter Severe Cost Burdened

Owner Cost Burdened

Owner Severe Cost Burdened

50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Asheville

Buncombe
County

Henderson
County

Madison
County

Transylvania
County

Region

Market

Overcrowded housing is considered a housing unit with 1.01 or more persons per room,
while severe overcrowding housing is considered a unit with 1.51 or more persons per
room. In the region, 1,783 (3.4%) renter households and 1,517 (1.3%) owner households
are experiencing overcrowded housing situations. A total of 485 (0.9%) renter
households and 385 (0.3%) owner households in the region are experiencing severe
overcrowded housing conditions. Buncombe County has the region’s highest share of
severe overcrowded renter households, while the share of owner households with severe
overcrowding is relatively even among the counties. Generally, the city of Asheville has
slightly higher shares of people living in overcrowded and severe overcrowded housing
units than the overall region.

Executive Summary-5

 Share

It is estimated that 56,739 people in the region live in poverty, representing 14.2% of the
region’s population. Of those living in poverty, over one-half (58.7%) are between the
ages of 18 and 64. It should be noted that 17,106 people living in poverty are children
under the age of
Region Population w/ Income Below Poverty Level
18, representing
20.8% of all
22.0%
children.
As
20.0%
such, one in five
20.4%
18.0%
children
is
16.0%
16.9%
14.0%
believed to be
14.7%
14.3%
12.0%
14.0%
living
in
12.7%
10.0%
poverty.
Over
8.0%
6.0%
one in 11 seniors
4.0%
age 65 or older
2.0%
live in poverty.
0.0%
Asheville
Buncombe
Henderson
Madison
Transylvania
Region
These ratios are
County
County
County
County
slightly below
Market
the state of
North Carolina
averages.
Special Needs Populations
The following table summarizes the various special needs populations within the region
that were considered in this report. It should be noted that county level data, when
available, is presented and discussed in the county chapters of this report.
Asheville Region Special Needs Populations
Special Needs Group
Persons
Special Needs Group
HIV/AIDS
641
Persons with Disabilities (PD)
Victims of Domestic Violence (VDV)
731
Elderly (Age 62+) (E62)
Persons with Substance Abuse (PSA)
466
Frail Elderly (Age 62+) (FE62)
Adults with Mental Illness (MI)
16,425
Ex-offenders (Parole/Probation) (EOP)
Adults with Severe Mental Illness (SMI)
290
Unaccompanied Youth (UY)
Co-Occurring Disorders (COD)
6,857
Homeless Veterans
Multi-Generational Households (MGH)
5,068
Homeless Population

Persons
59,980
105,830
11,366
855
87
469
4,066

Note: Data sources cited in Addendum A: Sources

Excluding the homeless population, the largest number of special needs persons is among
those age 62 and older, persons with disabilities, adults with mental illness and the frail
elderly (persons age 62+ requiring some level of Assistance with Daily Living).
According to our interviews with area stakeholders, housing alternatives that meet the
specific needs of the special needs population are limited. Detailed commentary and
analysis regarding these groups is provided starting on page 41 of the Region analysis
portion of this report.

Executive Summary-6

 Housing Supply
This housing supply analysis considers both rental and owner for-sale housing.
Understanding the historical trends, market performance, characteristics, composition,
and current housing choices provide critical information as to current market conditions
and future housing potential. This is only a sample survey of the more than 200,000
housing units in the region.
The housing structures included in this analysis are:


Rental Housing – Multifamily rentals, typically with three or more units were
inventoried and surveyed. Additionally, rentals with two or fewer units, which were
classified as non-conventional rentals, were identified and surveyed. Other rentals
such as vacation rentals, mobile homes, and home stays (a single bedroom or portion
of a larger unit) were also considered in this analysis.



Owner For-Sale Housing – We identified attached and detached for-sale housing,
which may be part of a planned development or community, as well as attached
multifamily housing such as condominiums.



Senior Care Housing – Facilities providing housing for seniors requiring some level
of care, such as adult care facilities, multi-unit assisted facilities and nursing homes
were surveyed and analyzed.

Based on research conducted by Bowen National Research and secondary data sources,
an inventory of surveyed and/or evaluated housing stock was compiled. Overall, a total
of 167 multifamily rental properties, 101 non-conventional rentals (e.g. single-family
homes, duplexes, etc.), 101 home stay rentals (individual bedrooms or portions of larger
units rented), 377 vacation rentals, 171 mobile home parks, 22,330 recently sold housing
units and 3,669 currently available for-sale units, and 58 senior care facilities with 4,682
beds were identified and analyzed in the region. The region’s surveyed housing supply is
summarized as follows.
Region Surveyed Housing Supply
Total
Vacant
Vacancy
Product Type
Units
Units
Rate
Multifamily Apartments
14,198
137
1.0%***
Non-Conventional Rentals
25,835*
101
5.2%*
Home Stays
N/A
101
N/A
Vacation Rentals
N/A
377
N/A
Mobile Home Rentals
10,477*
N/A
N/A
Owner For-Sale Housing
22,330**
3,669
2.4%*
Senior Care Housing
4,682
236
5.0%
Independent Living
1,041
37
3.6%
Multi-Unit Assisted Housing
643
13
2.0%
Adult Care Homes
1,176
97
8.3%
Nursing Homes
1,822
89
4.9%
*Based on 2011-2013 American Community Survey
**Units sold between 2010 and 2014
***Vacancy rate based on physical vacancies, not economic vacancies

Executive Summary-7

Price/Rent Range
$222 - $2,550
$380 - $3,800
$150 - $1,136
$1,620-$75,705
$425-$795
$5,500-$10,750,000
$1,060-$4,273
$1,060-$4,273
$1,525-$5,978
$1,298-$5,295
$5,322-$12,318

 Bowen National Research identified and studied 71,898 total housing units among the
various housing segments studied in this report. Our research identified 4,857 vacant
/available units (Note: vacant units include units in apartments, available for-sale
housing, and vacant beds or units in senior care housing). While there are likely other
vacancies in the region such as shelter housing, institutional housing such as student
dormitory units, for-sale housing by owner, vacant/abandoned or other short-term
housing units that are vacant, the 4,857 identified vacant/available units are likely a
reasonable representation of the overall market’s conditions of available housing.
Based on Bowen National Research’s analysis of the region’s housing supply, it is
evident that the demand for housing in the region is very strong and that there is limited
availability. The inventoried supply has vacancy rates by product type ranging from 1.0%
(multifamily apartments) to 8.3% (adult care homes). Although the standards used for
defining the health of a housing market vary to some degree, vacancy rates generally
between 4.0% to 6.0% for rental housing and for-sale housing markets and generally
between 9.0% and 11.0% for senior care housing are considered representative of healthy
and stable markets. As such, vacancy rates for the various housing segments in the
region are considered very low and are clear indications that demand for each housing
segment is strong.
Multifamily Rental Housing – A total of 167 multifamily housing properties with a total
of 14,198 units were identified and inventoried within the region. These rentals have a
combined vacancy rate of 1.0%. It is critical to point out that this 1.0% vacancy rate is
based on physical vacancies, which are considered vacant units that are available for
immediate occupancy. This differs from economic vacancies, which are considered units
that are not being rented due to being uninhabitable, being renovated or prepared for rent
or other reasons that prevent them from immediate occupancy. Economic vacancies are
generally two percentage points higher than physical vacancies. Therefore, it is likely
that multifamily rentals are operating at a 3.0% economic vacancy rate. As such, the
region’s multifamily housing supply has an extremely low vacancy rate which is an
indication that there is very limited availability among multifamily apartments in the
region. While market-rate housing offers the largest number of surveyed multifamily
units in the region, these particular units appear to remain in high demand as evidenced
by the 1.5% vacancy rate among the 9,379 market-rate units in the region. More
importantly, all 3,706 government-subsidized units and all 1,113 Tax Credit units
surveyed in the market are fully occupied. Additionally, of the 50 fully occupied
subsidized projects surveyed in the region, 46 (92.0%) maintain wait lists ranging from
150 households to up to eight years in duration. Among the 33 fully occupied Tax Credit
projects surveyed in the region, 30 (90.9%) maintain wait lists with up to 150 households.
Besides the inventory of affordable housing units, there are approximately 2,223 Housing
Choice Vouchers issued to very low income households in the region and an estimated
1,071 households on the local housing authorities’ wait lists for the next available
vouchers. This Voucher wait list, combined with the limited available governmentsubsidized units and wait list for these units, indicate the significant pent-up demand and
need for affordable rentals within the region. Median rents by bedroom/bathroom type
range from $832 to $3,300 for the market-rate units and from $583 to $1,187 for Tax
Credit units.

Executive Summary-8

 Non-Conventional Rental Housing – Non-conventional rentals are considered one- or
two-unit structures, such as single-family homes, duplexes, units over store fronts or
other alternatives not contained within a multifamily development. Based on data
provided by the American Community Survey, it is estimated that the region’s nonconventional supply is operating at a vacancy rate of around 5.2%. This is considered a
fair vacancy rate. Bowen National Research identified and evaluated 101 vacant nonconventional rental units, which is considered a sample survey of such properties. The
collected rents for non-conventional rentals identified range from $380 to $3,800. The
median rents were $625 for a one-bedroom unit, $850 for a two-bedroom unit, $1,200 for
a three-bedroom unit and $1,500 for a four-bedroom or larger unit. Generally, the highest
non-conventional rents are within Buncombe and Henderson counties.
Vacation Rentals – Bowen National Research conducted a sample survey of vacation
rentals within the region. Overall, a total of 377 individual units were identified and
inventoried. The base rents for the identified vacation rentals range from $1,620 to
$3,750, depending upon bedroom type. The median rents are $4,470 for a one-bedroom
unit, $4,500 for a two-bedroom unit, $6,000 for a three-bedroom unit, and $10,313 for a
four-bedroom or larger unit. The rental rates of vacation rentals are significantly higher
than most conventional multifamily apartments surveyed in the market. Generally, such
rentals are four times higher than conventional rentals, essentially eliminating this type of
housing as a viable long-term housing alternative to most area renters. However, due to
this rent differential, such housing may appeal to owners of traditional, long-term
conventional rentals who may want to convert their housing to vacation rentals. This is
addressed in the case study analysis, near the end of the Region section.
Home Stay Rentals – A home stay rental is generally considered a bedroom or a few
rooms that are rented to tenants on a short-term basis and typically represents a portion of
a full rental unit. Tenants in a home stay rental often have shared access to common
areas such as bathrooms and kitchens. Overall, a total of 101 individual home stay rental
“units” were identified and surveyed. The rents for home stay rentals identified range
from $150 to $1,136 per month. The median rent is $450 per unit/room. The rental rates
of home stay rentals are generally lower than most multifamily apartments surveyed in
the market, which is not surprising since such rentals are typically limited to a single
room with shared access to common areas (e.g. bathrooms, kitchens, etc.). While home
stay rentals represent a viable option for low-income households, such rentals likely only
primarily accommodate one-person households, limiting their ability to serve couples and
families.
Mobile Home Rentals – Based on information from the American Community Survey,
there are a total of 27,906 occupied mobile home units in the region, of which 17,429
(62.5%) are owner-occupied units and 10,477 (37.5%) are renter-occupied units. Bowen
National Research identified more than 170 mobile home parks in the four-county region
through secondary resources. Based on a sample survey of mobile home park operators,
typical vacancy rates average around 10%, though some parks are reporting no vacancies.
Reported lot rents range from $110 to $410 per month, while actual mobile home units
rent from $425 to $795 per month depending on size and condition of the unit. Based on
this data, it appears that mobile homes provide an affordable rental housing option for
area residents. Although the quality of the mobile homes varies, they are generally
considered to be of lower quality than many of the area’s other rental alternatives.

Executive Summary-9

 For-Sale Housing – Bowen National Research identified 22,330 homes sold since
January 2010 and 3,669 homes currently available for purchase in the region. Excluding
the partial year of 2014, annual residential for-sales activity within the subject region has
ranged between 3,529 in 2010 and 5,480 in 2013. The annual sales activity has grown
each of the past three full years, with above 20 percent growth in each of the past two
years. The region is currently on pace to sell over 5,650 residential units for all of 2014,
which will be a five-year high. The region has experienced positive increases in median
sales prices in the past three years. The median sales price of $202,950 through
November of 2014 is a five-year high for the region. The positive trends among sales
volume and sales prices are good indications of a healthy and stable for-sale housing
market in the region. Within the region, the available homes have a median list price by
county ranging from $270,445 in Madison County to $300,000 in Buncombe County,
with a regional median list price of $290,418. In order for a typical household to be able
to afford such a home priced at or above the median home price they would generally
need to have a minimum income of around $100,000. Within the region, only 12.1% of
owner households have an income of $100,000 or higher. As such, there appears to be a
mismatch between household prices and affordability.
Senior Care Housing – Within the region there are a total of 87 senior care facilities
identified, including a mix of independent living facilities, multi-unit assisted housing,
adult care homes, and nursing homes. In October and November of 2014, Bowen
National Research surveyed a total of 58 of these facilities containing a total of 4,682
units/beds. The senior care facilities have vacancy rates by product type ranging from
2.0% to 8.3%, with an overall vacancy rate of 5.0%. Nationally, depending on the type
of senior care product, vacancy rates for senior care housing range from 9.9% to 11.0%.
As such, the region’s senior facilities are performing at levels similar to or better than
national standards. Regionally, the median base monthly fees are $1,250 for independent
living facilities, $2,663 for multi-unit assisted facilities, $2,550 for adult care homes, and
$6,782 for nursing care. Generally, it appears the highest senior care housing fees are
within Madison and Transylvania counties, while the lowest housing fees are within
Buncombe County. With relatively limited availability among the region’s senior care
facilities and a large growing base of seniors, it is anticipated that the region will need
additional senior care housing in the years ahead.
Housing Gap Estimates
Bowen National Research conducted housing gap/need analyses for rental and for-sale
housing for the subject region. The housing needs estimates include growth, cost
burdened households, households living in substandard housing, and units in the
development pipeline. These estimates are considered a broad evaluation of the needs of
the market. The housing gap analysis includes all of the same metrics used in the
housing needs analysis except for cost burdened households, but includes units required
for a balanced market. Cost burdened households are excluded from the housing gap
analysis as they are considered to have their housing needs met, even though they are
paying a disproportionately high share of their income towards housing expenses. The
housing gap estimates are considered a more conservative representation of the housing
shortage in the market and indicative of the more immediate housing requirements of the
market. Only the housing gap estimates are included in this Executive Summary.

Executive Summary-10

 A housing needs analysis was also conducted for senior care facilities in the region.
While senior care facilities can range widely in prices, levels of care, physical
accommodations, quality and other factors, and be diverse in the populations they serve
due the varying needs of seniors, we have used national standards to establish the
potential housing needs estimates for senior care housing. We have applied national
standard disability rates associated with households requiring assistance with Activities
of Daily Living (e.g. dressing, bathing, medicine reminders, etc.). It is important to
understand that because the various housing facilities differ greatly in the types of
services they offer and typical age groups they serve, we have assumed that any resident
living in a senior care facility will require assistance with a minimum of three Activities
of Daily Living and be age 62 or older.
Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below illustrate the region’s rental housing gap, assuming the housing gap
originates exclusively from new household growth, units required for a balanced market,
and replacement of substandard housing only.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

<30%
(<$15,000)
-61
492
365
-102
694

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
595
204
1,100
345
350
484
265
276
447
-102
-136
-990
1,103
694
1,041

Total
1,838
1,671
1,353
-1,330
3,532

<30%
(<$15,000)
148
200
152
-39
461

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
368
207
633
142
128
198
110
100
179
-40
-54
-389
580
381
621

Total
1,356
668
541
-522
2,043

Based on the preceding analysis, the housing gaps by income level range from 694 to
1,103 for the family units and from 381 to 621 for the senior units. Rental housing
priorities should consider the housing segments demonstrating the greatest housing gaps.
It should be noted that despite the fact that more than 1,000 units that would be affordable
to households with incomes between 80% and 120% of AMHI are currently within the
development pipeline, the housing gap remains significant among this household income
segment. This is primarily attributed to the large number of new renter households that
are projected to be added to this income segment between 2015 and 2020.

Executive Summary-11

 Region Rental Housing Gap by Income

Housing Gap

Family Households
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Senior Households

1,103

1,041

694

694

621

580
461

<30%

381

30% - 50%

50% - 80%

80% - 120%

Percent of Median Household Income

Owner Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below illustrate the owner for-sale housing gap estimates, assuming the
housing gaps originate exclusively from new household growth, units required for a
balanced market, and replacement of substandard housing only.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

<30%
(<$15,000)
75
98
67
0
240

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999)
($25,000-$34,999)
($35,000-$75,000)
36
138
266
98
111
381
68
76
262
0
0
0
202
325
909

Total
515
688
473
0
1,676

<30%
(<$15,000)
513
128
89
0
730

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999)
($25,000-$34,999)
($35,000-$75,000)
454
415
2,096
130
147
488
92
103
351
0
0
0
676
665
2,935

Total
3,478
893
635
0
5,006

Based on the preceding analysis, the housing gaps by income level range from 202 to 909
for the family units and from 665 to 2,935 for the senior units. The relatively large
household growth projected for the 80% to 120% AMHI income band between 2015 and
2020 is the primary driver behind this income band’s housing gap. It is important to note
that while there are likely seniors (e.g. empty nesters, retirees, etc.) relocating to the
region due to its desirability, it is likely that a large portion of the projected senior growth

Executive Summary-12

 is attributed to seniors aging in place. The Asheville region, like most parts of the
country, has a large base of baby boomers that have been and will continue to age in
place, essentially staying in the area as they age. This will result in a shift of households
from one age segment to an older age segment. As such, this trend is likely contributing
to the large growth numbers for senior homeowners. While many of these households are
already in the market, the large housing gaps for senior housing indicate that these older
households will likely want or require different housing to meet their changing housing
needs as they age. This should be considered in future housing planning strategies for the
region.
Region Owner Housing Gap by Income

Housing Gap

Family Households
3,000
2,750
2,500
2,250
2,000
1,750
1,500
1,250
1,000
750
500
250
0

Senior Households

2,935

909

730
240

665

676
202

<30%

30% - 50%

325
50% - 80%

80% - 120%

Percent of Median Household Income

Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior care housing encompasses a variety of alternatives including multi-unit assisted
housing, adult care homes, and nursing homes. Such housing typically serves the needs
of seniors requiring some level of care to meet their personal needs, often due to medical
or other physical issues. The following attempts to quantify the estimated senior care
housing need in the overall study region.
Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior Care Housing Demand Component
Demand Estimates
Elderly Population Age 62 and Older by 2020
121,707
Times Share* of Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
7.40%
Equals Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
9,006
Plus External Region Support (20%)
1,801
Equals Total Senior Care Support Base
10,808
Less Existing Supply
-6,611
Less Development Pipeline
-203
Potential Senior Care Beds Needed by 2020
3,994
ADL – Activities of Daily Living
*Share of ADL was based on data provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Population National Health Interview Survey 2011

Executive Summary-13

 Based upon age 62 and older population characteristics and trends, and applying the ratio
of persons requiring ADL assistance and taking into account the existing and planned
supply, we estimate that there will be 3,994 households with a senior (age 62+) requiring
assisted services that will not have their needs met by existing or planned senior care
facilities by the year 2020.
It is important to understand that not all of these estimated households with persons age
62 and older requiring ADL assistance will want to move to a senior care facility, as
many may choose home health care services or have their needs taken care of by a family
member. Typically, institutionalization rates (the share of seniors seeking senior care
housing) is around 50%. Applying this share to the 3,994 seniors requiring ADL
assistance yields an estimated 1,997 senior care housing beds that will likely be
needed in the region by the year 2020. Such housing will likely need to be in the form
of a variety of housing options ranging from independent living with optional services to
nursing home facilities.
Conclusions
Housing markets are dynamic and there are many factors that contribute to the housing
challenges and needs of a community or region. While individual issues should be
addressed, successful housing planning strategies should be broad to meet the diverse
needs of a community and flexible to meet the often changing dynamics of a market. The
following is a summary of findings for the local public and private entities to consider, as
they relate to meeting the housing needs of the Asheville region.
1) Insufficient Rental Housing Supply: As shown in the housing supply portion of this
report, there are very few available rental alternatives within the region, with the
surveyed multifamily housing supply reporting an overall 1.0% physical vacancy rate
(with an estimated 3.0% economic vacancy rate). However, with all surveyed affordable
rental properties (e.g. government-subsidized and Tax Credit) fully occupied and over
90% of these properties maintaining wait lists, very few multifamily options are available
for low-income households. Although not as pronounced, vacancies are also low among
market-rate rentals, indicating that even market-rate renters have relatively limited
multifamily options in the region. As a result, additional multifamily housing is needed to
meet both current housing needs and to respond to the future renter household growth
projected for the region. While a variety of product types are needed, due to the projected
growth of senior households and one- and two-person households, the development of
smaller bedroom types (one- and two-bedroom units) should be an area of emphasis.

Executive Summary-14

 2) Emerging Need for Senior Housing and/or Efforts to Enable Seniors to Age in
Place: With the region’s greatest household growth projected to occur among seniors age
65 to 74 (4,996 households projected to be added between 2015 and 2020), and
significant growth projected to occur among those between the ages of 55 and 64 and
among those age 75 and older during this same time, the region’s base of senior
households will increase significantly. Due to the lack of available housing, particularly
multifamily rental housing alternatives, the region will need to expand its supply of
senior-oriented housing to meet this growth. This will include independent living
alternatives as well as senior care housing product. Efforts should also be made to
promote pre-emptive actions that lead to the removal of physical barriers and encourages
property modifications that would enable seniors to age in place longer. This includes
supporting home repair and home maintenance efforts to extend the usefulness of existing
housing.
3) Insufficient Supply of Homes for Sale for Moderate-Income Households: Based on
the Housing Gap Estimates provided in this report, the largest gap among the owner forsale housing supply appears to be among units affordable to households with incomes
between 80% and 120% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI). This household
income segment is projected to increase significantly between 2015 and 2020. Efforts
should be made to increase the supply of for-sale homes that are affordable to moderate
income households, including land zoned for efficient densities, and promoting
townhouse and other lower-cost for-sale housing development options.
4) Utilization of Affordable Rental Housing Programs – With a region wide rental
housing gap estimate of nearly 4,000 units affordable to households with incomes below
80% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI), combined with the fact that there are
no vacancies but long wait lists for affordable housing in the region, there is clear and
pent-up demand for affordable housing in the subject region. Continued and possibly
expanded support for various state and federal programs used to develop or maintain
affordable housing in the region, particularly programs focused on low income renter
households, will be critical to meeting current and future housing needs of the region. As
such, the region is in need of additional affordable multifamily housing, with the greatest
need for units affordable to households with incomes below 80% of Area Median
Household Income (AMHI).
5) Need for Home Repair/Maintenance Programs (with Emphasis on Senior
Housing): As shown in the housing supply analysis, a majority of region’s existing rental
and owner housing supply is more than 30 years old, much of the region’s housing stock
is considered old. Based on Bowen National Research’s on-site exterior evaluations of
much of the region’s housing stock, it was determined that a notable portion of the
housing stock is in need of repairs and modernization. The aging population’s housing
needs may be mitigated if seniors are able to stay in their homes longer and age in place.

Executive Summary-15

 REGIONAL ANALYSIS
A. SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work included in this report includes:


A housing survey and/or inventory of nearly 170 multifamily rental properties
with over 14,000 total rental units, inventory of over 100 non-conventional rentals
(e.g. single-family homes, duplexes, etc.), inventory of over 100 home stay rentals
(bedrooms or other portions of units rented), inventory of over 375 vacation
rentals, analysis of approximately 171 mobile home parks, evaluation of for-sale
housing data on 22,330 homes sold and 3,669 currently available for-sale housing
units, and a survey of 58 senior care facilities (e.g. adult care facilities, nursing
homes, etc.). The housing data evaluated includes rents/price points, vacancy
levels, wait lists, year built, and quality.



An evaluation of numerous demographic trends and characteristics of the
individual counties and Asheville was completed and compared with the state.
Data is presented for the population, households and incomes for each study area
with an emphasis on 2010, 2015 and 2020.



Economic metrics associated with employment by job sector, total employment
and unemployment rates of each county and the overall state were evaluated.



An evaluation of the homeless population and other special needs populations was
conducted. The housing alternatives provided to these special needs groups was
also considered.



Stakeholder interviews were conducted with nearly 40 representatives across all
four counties in the region to obtain local perspectives and insights on housing
issues at the county and/or local level.



Case studies and analysis of other areas that have a prominent vacation rental
market.



Housing gap/needs estimates for both rental and for-sale housing by various
income levels.



We provided our opinion on the housing priorities of the region and provided
recommendations for general strategies for meeting the overall housing needs of
area residents.



Nearly 200 individuals and organizations were personally contacted by Bowen
National Research to obtain information required to conduct this housing needs
assessment.

The four counties that comprise the subject region that were evaluated in this report
are delineated on the map that follows this page.

Regional-1

 Hamblen County

Asheville, NC
Region Study
Area
Greene County

Washington County

Watauga County
Region Study Area

Carter County

Unicoi County
Mitchell County

Jefferson County

Avery County
Caldwell County

Cocke County

Yancey County
Madison County

Burke County

Sevier County
McDowell County
Buncombe County
Swain County

Haywood County

Rutherford County
Cleveland County

Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County
Transylvania County

Macon County

N

Greenville County

1:780,667

Rabun County

Oconee County

Pickens County

Spartanburg County

Cherokee County
0

2.75

5.5

11

16.5
Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 B. DEMOGRAPHICS
Each subject county and the city of Asheville was evaluated based on various
demographic characteristics and trends. Data sources used in this demographic
analysis include ESRI, Ribbon Demographics, 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census, American
Community Survey, Nielson Claritas, Urban Decision Group and Bowen National
Research. The data was illustrated for various points in time and include 2000, 2010,
2015 and 2020.
Demographic characteristics and trends considered in this analysis include:














Total Population and Population Growth Trends
Population by Age
Population Density
Total Households and Household Growth Trends
Households by Age
Population by Education Attainment
Population by Race
Households by Tenure
Households by Income and Tenure
Households by Cost Burden
Households Living in Overcrowded Housing
Population by Poverty Status
Special Needs Populations:
o Homeless Population
o HIV/AIDS
o Victims of Domestic Violence
o Persons with Substance Abuse
o Adults with Severe Mental Illness
o Co-Occurring Disorders
o Persons with Disabilities
o Elderly (Age 62+)
o Frail Elderly (Persons Age 62+ Requiring Assistance with Daily Living)
o Ex-Offenders (On Parole/Probation)
o Unaccompanied Youth

When available, all data is presented both on a county and city (Asheville) level and
for the overall state of North Carolina. Detailed county and Asheville data and
analysis is provided for each area in individual county and city of Asheville profiles
included later in this report.

Regional-3

 Key Demographic Findings
Significant population demographic findings include the following:
Total Population – Historical (2000 to 2010) population growth in the region has
been very positive. The four county study region experienced a population growth
rate of 15.8% between 2000 and 2010, adding 54,440 people during this time. It is
projected to experience a population increase of 5.8% between 2010 and 2015 and a
5.5% growth rate between 2015 and 2020. These growth rates are comparable to
North Carolina statewide growth trends. While Henderson County’s population grew
the fastest (19.7%) of the four counties in the region between 2000 and 2010, it is
projected that Buncombe County will grow the fastest between 2010 and 2015,
increasing by 6.5%. Buncombe County is also projected to experience the fastest
population growth between 2015 and 2020, adding another 6.3% to its population
during this time. The city of Asheville is projected to experience population growth
that will outpace each county in the region, with a projected population growth rate of
7.4% between 2010 and 2015 and a 7.1% growth rate between 2015 and 2020.
Population by Age – Regionally, the greatest growth in population between 2010
and 2015 is projected to occur among the population between the ages of 65 and 74,
which are expected to grow by 9,793 (24.9%). The population between the ages of
55 and 64 is projected to grow by 4,954 (8.8%) during this time. It is projected that
between 2015 and 2020 the greatest population growth will occur among persons
between the ages of 65 and 74, which is projected to increase by 8,661 (17.6%). This
growth among the senior population is primarily attributed persons aging in place.
Excluding the population under the age of 25, which includes children, the largest
share of population will be between the ages of 55 and 64, which will represent
14.7% of the region’s population in 2020. On a county level between 2015 and 2020,
the greatest projected growth within Buncombe, Henderson and Madison counties
will be among seniors between the ages of 65 and 74, while the greatest growth in
Transylvania County will be among people ages 75 and older. The city of Asheville
is projected to experience population growth among all age segments between 2015
and 2020, with the greatest increase among persons between the ages of 65 and 74.
Population Living in Poverty – It is estimated that 56,739 people in the region live
in poverty, representing 14.2% of the region’s population. Of those living in poverty,
over one-half (58.7%) are between the ages of 18 and 64. It should be noted that
17,106 people living in poverty are children under the age of 18, representing 20.8%
of all children. As such, one in five children is believed to be living in poverty. Over
one in 11 seniors age 65 or older live in poverty. These ratios are slightly below the
state of North Carolina averages.

Regional-4

 Mobility Patterns – Approximately 85% of the region’s population has lived with in
the same residence during the preceding year, while nearly 15% moved to a new
residence. This is very similar to the state’s averages. Among the four counties in
the region, annual movership rates are similar to each other, ranging from 83.1%
(Buncombe County) to 88.9% (Madison County) of residents living in the same
residence in the prior year. Residents coming to the area from other states to the
subject counties range from 2.8% (Transylvania County) to 4.3% (Madison County).
The city of Asheville has less resident stability, as evidenced by the fact that 77.1% of
its residents have lived in the same residence during the past year, 12.8% have moved
within the city and 5.3% have moved from out of state. However, the higher annual
turnover rate is not unusual in more populated areas like Asheville, as such areas
typically offer a greater number and more diverse mix of housing alternatives, greater
employment opportunities, and higher shares of renter households, which often lead
to greater resident mobility than more rural areas.
Significant household and income-related findings include:
Total Households – Between 2015 and 2020, the overall region is projected to add
10,506 (5.9%) households. This is nearly identical to the projected growth for region
between 2010 and 2015, which is the result of an expected increase of 10,773
households or an increase of 6.4%. Counties with the greatest projected percent
growth from 2015 to 2020 include Buncombe (6.7%) and Henderson (5.2%). The
7,219 new households projected to be added to Buncombe County between 2015 and
2020 represent over two-thirds (68.7%) of the household growth for the overall
region during this time. Regardless, new household growth is projected to occur
among all four of the region’s counties, adding to growing need for more housing in
each county.
Households by Age – It is projected that most of the growth in the region between
2015 and 2020 will occur among households age 55 and older. This age group is
projected to increase by 10,342 (11.3%) households during this five-year period. The
largest increase within a single age group will be among seniors between the ages of
65 and 74, which is projected to add 4,996 (16.4%) households. These trends indicate
that senior-oriented housing needs will likely increase over the next several years.
Modest regional growth is projected to occur among households between the ages of
25 and 34 (319, 1.4%) and between 35 and 44 (186, 0.7%). Growth within these
segments will likely lead to increase need for family-oriented housing within the
region.

Regional-5

 Households by Tenure – Regionally, it is projected by 2015 that nearly 70% of all
occupied housing units will consist of owners, while just over 30% will consist of
renters. These shares are not expected to change significantly by 2020, though they
are expected to trend towards an increase in the share of owner households. In terms
of household growth by tenure, between 2015 and 2020, the number of owner
households is projected to increase by 6,682 (5.5%), while renters will increase by
3,824 (6.6%). As such, owner household growth is projected to outpace renter
household growth by nearly a two-to-one margin. This growth in households will
affect the future housing needs of the region.
Households by Size and Tenure - Among renter households in the region, the
greatest share of household sizes in 2015 will be one-person households, which will
represent 40.3% of the total households in the region. Two-person households will
represent the second largest share (28.3%). Three-person or larger households will
represent nearly one-third (31.4%) of the households. The share of households by
size will change slightly between 2015 and 2020, with the greatest increase occurring
among one-person households (increasing from 40.3% to 40.7% and adding 1,797
one-person households). Two-person households will increase by 928 (5.6%)
through 2020, while three-person and larger households will increase by 1,098
(6.0%). These growth trends indicate that while smaller units (e.g. studio to twobedroom) will likely be needed to accommodate the disproportionate growth of oneand two-person households, with more than 1,000 three-person households expected
to be added to the region, there will also need to be larger bedroom types added to the
region’s housing stock over the next several years. In 2015, it is projected that the
largest share of owner-occupied households by size within the region will consist of
two-person households, representing 42.3% of all owner households. One- and twoperson households will represent a combined share of 67.9% of all households in
2015. It is projected that between 2015 and 2020 the greatest household growth will
be among two-person households, which will add 2,400 (4.6% increase) households.
Three-person or larger households are also projected to grow by 2,153 (5.5%) during
this time, increasing the likely need for additional larger housing units such as threebedroom or larger units for the foreseeable future.
Households by Income - Between 2015 and 2020, all income household segments
within the region are projected to increase. The greatest of the household growth
within the region is projected to occur among households that make between $35,000
and $49,999 a year, which are projected to increase by 2,725 (9.7%) during this fiveyear period. Notable growth is projected to occur among households with incomes
between $15,000 and $24,999, between $50,000 and $74,999, and between $100,000
and $149,999. As such, a variety of housing needs by price point will grow.

Regional-6

 Cost Burdened Households - Cost burdened households are those paying over 30%
of their income towards housing costs, while severe cost burdened households are
considered as those paying over 50% of their income towards housing costs. Among
the region’s renter households, a total of 23,317 (44.2%) are cost burdened and
10,926 (20.7%) are severe cost burdened. The greatest number and share of severe
cost burdened renter households is in Buncombe County. A total of 28,131 (24.4%)
owner households are cost burdened while 11,187 (9.7%) are severe cost burdened.
While the region’s shares of cost burdened and severe cost burdened households are
slightly below state averages, they remain significant and indicate that large shares of
regional households are paying high portions of their income towards housing.
Overcrowded Housing - Overcrowded housing is considered a housing unit with
1.01 or more persons per room, while severe overcrowding housing is considered a
unit with 1.51 or more persons per room. In the region, 1,783 (3.4%) renter
households and 1,517 (1.3%) owner households are experiencing overcrowded
housing situations. Additionally, in the region, 485 (0.9%) renter households and 385
(0.3%) owner households are experiencing severe overcrowded housing conditions.
Buncombe County has the region’s highest share of severe overcrowded renter
households, while the share of owner households with severe overcrowding is
relatively even among the counties. While the share of overcrowded households in
the region is comparable to state averages and appears to be small, the more than
2,000 households living in overcrowded housing indicate that a notable segment of
the existing housing supply is not meeting the needs of many of the region’s
residents.
A comparison of the four study counties and statewide data, for various demographic
metrics is included on the following pages.

Regional-7

 Region, County and Asheville Comparisons
Demographic data for each study area is compared in the following tables.
1. POPULATION TRENDS
Year

City of Asheville

Buncombe County

Henderson County

Madison County

Transylvania County

Region

North Carolina

Population
Population Change
Percent Change
Population
Population Change
Percent Change
Population
Population Change
Percent Change
Population
Population Change
Percent Change
Population
Population Change
Percent Change
Population
Population Change
Percent Change
Population
Population Change
Percent Change

2000
73,909
206,318
89,173
19,647
29,334
344,472
8,048,929
-

2010
83,393
9,484
12.8%
238,318
32,000
15.5%
106,740
17,567
19.7%
20,764
1,117
5.7%
33,090
3,756
12.8%
398,912
54,440
15.8%
9,535,016
1,486,087
18.5%

2015
89,571
6,178
7.4%
253,915
15,597
6.5%
112,242
5,502
5.2%
21,498
734
3.5%
34,243
1,153
3.5%
421,899
22,987
5.8%
10,020,644
485,628
5.1%

2020
95,945
6,374
7.1%
269,995
16,080
6.3%
117,928
5,686
5.1%
22,134
636
3.0%
35,225
982
2.9%
445,283
23,384
5.5%
10,557,571
536,927
5.4%

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Overall, the region experienced a population growth rate of 15.8% between 2000
and 2010, adding 54,440 people during this time. It is projected to experience a
population increase of 5.8% between 2010 and 2015 and a 5.5% growth rate
between 2015 and 2020. These growth rates are comparable to North Carolina
statewide growth trends.
While Henderson County’s population grew the fastest (19.7%) of the four
counties in the region between 2000 and 2010, it is projected that Buncombe
County will grow the fastest between 2010 and 2015, increasing by 6.5%.
Buncombe County is also projected to experience the fastest population growth
between 2015 and 2020, adding another 6.3% to its population during this time.
The city of Asheville is projected to experience population growth that will
outpace each county in the region, with a projected population growth rate of
7.4% between 2010 and 2015 and a 7.1% growth rate between 2015 and 2020.
The following graph compares the percent change in population from 2015 to
2020 for the study areas.

Regional-8

 Region Population Change (2015-2020)
8.0%
7.0%

7.1%
Percent Change

6.0%

6.3%

5.0%

5.5%
5.1%

4.0%
3.0%

3.0%

2.9%

Madison County

Transylvania
County

2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
Asheville

Buncombe
County

Henderson
County

Region

Market

The population bases by age are summarized as follows:

2010
City of Asheville

2015
2020
2010

Buncombe County

2015
2020
2010

Henderson County

2015
2020
2010

Madison County

2015
2020

<25
24,408
(29.3%)
25,482
(28.4%)
26,433
(27.6%)
69,332
(29.1%)
71,639
(28.2%)
73,866
(27.4%)
28,559
(26.8%)
29,465
(26.3%)
30,368
(25.8%)
6,124
(29.5%)
6,035
(28.1%)
6,015
(27.2%)

25 to 34
13,655
(16.4%)
14,014
(15.6%)
14,612
(15.2%)
31,883
(13.4%)
32,824
(12.9%)
33,974
(12.6%)
11,226
(10.5%)
11,301
(10.1%)
11,244
(9.5%)
2,079
(10.0%)
2,159
(10.0%)
2,177
(9.8%)

Population by Age
35 to 44
45 to 54
11,084
10,754
(13.3%)
(12.9%)
11,834
11,054
(13.2%)
(12.3%)
12,228
11,529
(12.7%)
(12.0%)
31,739
34,599
(13.3%)
(14.5%)
32,597
34,588
(12.8%)
(13.6%)
33,488
34,977
(12.4%)
(13.0%)
13,058
14,827
(12.2%)
(13.9%)
12,971
14,599
(11.6%)
(13.0%)
12,980
14,657
(11.0%)
(12.4%)
2,647
3,066
(12.7%)
(14.8%)
2,614
3,031
(12.2%)
(14.1%)
2,514
3,014
(11.4%)
(13.6%)

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Regional-9

55 to 64
10,326
(12.4%)
11,478
(12.8%)
12,552
(13.1%)
32,669
(13.7%)
36,101
(14.2%)
38,813
(14.4%)
15,205
(14.2%)
16,410
(14.6%)
17,630
(14.9%)
3,182
(15.3%)
3,339
(15.5%)
3,377
(15.3%)

65 to 74
6,237
(7.5%)
8,216
(9.2%)
9,961
(10.4%)
20,133
(8.4%)
26,292
(10.4%)
31,890
(11.8%)
12,478
(11.7%)
14,851
(13.2%)
16,840
(14.3%)
2,070
(10.0%)
2,626
(12.2%)
3,137
(14.2%)

75+
6,929
(8.3%)
7,493
(8.4%)
8,630
(9.0%)
17,963
(7.5%)
19,874
(7.8%)
22,987
(8.5%)
11,387
(10.7%)
12,647
(11.3%)
14,211
(12.1%)
1,596
(7.7%)
1,695
(7.9%)
1,901
(8.6%)

 2010
Transylvania County

2015
2020
2010

Region

2015
2020
2010

North Carolina

2015
2020

<25
8,610
(26.0%)
8,397
(24.5%)
8,221
(23.3%)
112,625
(28.2%)
115,536
(27.4%)
118,470
(26.6%)
3,220,127
(33.8%)
3,284,303
(32.8%)
3,365,274
(31.9%)

25 to 34
2,949
(8.9%)
3,214
(9.4%)
3,320
(9.4%)
48,137
(12.1%)
49,497
(11.7%)
50,714
(11.4%)
1,246,548
(13.1%)
1,313,417
(13.1%)
1,393,720
(13.2%)

Population by Age
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
3,372
4,493
5,127
(10.2%)
(13.6%)
(15.5%)
3,333
4,241
5,287
(9.7%)
(12.4%)
(15.4%)
3,394
3,893
5,482
(9.6%)
(11.1%)
(15.6%)
50,816
56,985
56,183
(12.7%)
(14.3%)
(14.1%)
51,515
56,458
61,137
(12.2%)
(13.4%)
(14.5%)
52,376
56,540
65,302
(11.8%)
(12.7%)
(14.7%)
1,327,090 1,368,570 1,138,686
(13.9%)
(14.4%)
(11.9%)
1,314,246 1,366,113 1,268,446
(13.1%)
(13.6%)
(12.7%)
1,337,816 1,352,380 1,369,865
(12.7%)
(12.8%)
(13.0%)

65 to 74
4,636
(14.0%)
5,342
(15.6%)
5,905
(16.8%)
39,317
(9.9%)
49,110
(11.6%)
57,771
(13.0%)
697,515
(7.3%)
883,531
(8.8%)
1,057,336
(10.0%)

75+
3,903
(11.8%)
4,429
(12.9%)
5,010
(14.2%)
34,849
(8.7%)
38,645
(9.2%)
44,109
(9.9%)
536,481
(5.6%)
590,588
(5.9%)
681,180
(6.5%)

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Regionally, the greatest growth in population between 2010 and 2015 is projected
to occur among the population between the ages of 65 and 74, which are expected
to grow by 9,793 (24.9%). The population between the ages of 55 and 64 is
projected to grow by 4,954 (8.8%) during this time. It is projected that between
2015 and 2020 the greatest population growth will occur among persons between
the ages of 65 and 74, which is projected to increase by 8,661 (17.6%). This
growth among the senior population is primarily attributed persons aging in place.
Excluding the population under the age of 25, which includes children, the largest
share of population will be between the ages of 55 and 64, which will represent
14.7% of the region’s population in 2020. On a county level between 2015 and
2020, the greatest projected growth within Buncombe, Henderson and Madison
counties will be among seniors between the ages of 65 and 74, while the greatest
growth in Transylvania County will be among people ages 75 and older. The city
of Asheville is projected to experience population growth among all age segments
between 2015 and 2020, with the greatest increase among persons between the
ages of 65 and 74.

Regional-10

 The graph below demonstrates the share of population by age group for each
study area for 2015 and 2020.

Region Population by Age (2015-2020)
2015

2020

30.0%
25.0%

27.4% 26.6%

Share

20.0%
15.0%
11.7% 11.4% 12.2% 11.8%

10.0%

13.4%

14.5% 14.7%
12.7%

11.6%

13.0%
9.2% 9.9%

5.0%
0.0%
<25

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 - 64

65 - 74

75+

Age Range

The population density for each study area is summarized below:
Year
2000

2010

Population
73,909
83,393
Area in Square Miles
City of Asheville
45.23
45.23
Density
1,634.0
1,843.7
Population
206,318
238,318
Area in Square Miles
Buncombe County
660.14
660.14
Density
312.5
361.0
Population
89,173
106,740
Area in Square Miles
Henderson County
375.23
375.23
Density
237.6
284.5
Population
19,647
20,764
Area in Square Miles
Madison County
451.39
451.39
Density
43.5
46.0
Population
29,334
33,090
Transylvania County Area in Square Miles
380.51
380.51
Density
77.1
87.0
Population
344,472
398,912
Area in Square Miles
Region
1,867.27
1,867.27
Density
184.5
213.6
Population
8,048,929
9,535,017
Area in Square Miles
North Carolina
49,364.54
49,364.54
Density
163.1
193.2
Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Regional-11

2015

2020

89,571
45.23
1,980.2
253,915
660.14
384.6
112,242
375.23
299.1
21,498
451.39
47.6
34,243
380.51
90.0
421,899
1,867.27
225.9
10,020,644
49,364.54
203.0

95,945
45.23
2,121.2
269,995
660.14
409.0
117,928
375.23
314.3
22,134
451.39
49.0
35,225
380.51
92.6
445,283
1,867.27
238.5
10,557,571
49,364.54
213.9

 The region’s overall population density of 225.9 persons per square mile in 2015
is not expected to change much by 2020. Counties with the largest projected
2015 population densities include Buncombe (384 people per square mile) and
Henderson (299). Asheville’s 2015 population density is significantly larger than
the subject counties and is projected to increase faster than the counties through
2020.

North Carolina

Total

Region

Graduate
Degree

Transylvania County

Bachelor
Degree

Madison County

Associate
Degree

Henderson County

Some College,
No Degree

Buncombe County

Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent

High School
Graduate

City of Asheville

No High School
Diploma

The population by highest educational attainment within each study area, based
on the 2010 estimates, is distributed as follows

6,762
10.7%
21,245
11.8%
10,691
13.1%
3,008
19.6%
2,966
11.6%
37,910
12.5%
1,016,560
15.3%

12,591
20.0%
45,098
25.1%
21,324
26.1%
5,123
33.4%
7,835
30.6%
79,380
26.3%
1,802,704
27.1%

13,129
20.8%
39,010
21.7%
19,271
23.6%
3,052
19.9%
5,380
21.0%
66,713
22.1%
1,452,911
21.9%

4,711
7.5%
15,012
8.4%
7,403
9.0%
1,410
9.2%
2,378
9.3%
26,203
8.7%
572,485
8.6%

16,570
26.3%
38,130
21.2%
14,566
17.8%
1,798
11.7%
4,300
16.8%
58,794
19.5%
1,195,378
18.0%

9,243
14.7%
21,010
11.7%
8,566
10.5%
941
6.1%
2,756
10.8%
33,273
11.0%
605,113
9.1%

63,006
100.0%
179,505
100.0%
81,821
100.0%
15,332
100.0%
25,615
100.0%
302,273
100.0%
6,645,151
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Nearly 90% of the region’s residents are at least high school graduates.
Approximately 39.2% of the region’s residents have college degrees. The county
with the highest share of non-high school graduates is Madison (19.6%). As a
result, the earning capability and potential for a large portion of residents in this
particular county may be more limited than the residents in other counties.

Regional-12

 Region
North Carolina

Total

Transylvania County

Two or More
Races

Madison County

Some Other
Race Alone

Henderson County

Asian Alone

Buncombe County

Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Black or African
American Alone

City of Asheville

White Alone

The population by race within each study area, based on the 2010 Census, is
distributed as follows.

66,355
79.6%
208,192
87.4%
94,914
88.9%
20,035
96.5%
30,577
92.4%
353,718
88.7%
6,528,512
68.5%

10,941
13.1%
15,211
6.4%
3,224
3.0%
240
1.2%
1,292
3.9%
19,967
5.0%
2,048,619
21.5%

1,108
1.3%
2,417
1.0%
1,022
1.0%
70
0.3%
144
0.4%
3,653
0.9%
208,958
2.2%

2,820
3.4%
7,503
3.1%
5,561
5.2%
150
0.7%
518
1.6%
13,732
3.4%
542,734
5.7%

2,168
2.6%
4,995
2.1%
2,019
1.9%
269
1.3%
559
1.7%
7,842
2.0%
206,194
2.2%

83,392
100.0%
238,318
100.0%
106,740
100.0%
20,764
100.0%
33,090
100.0%
398,912
100.0%
9,535,017
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Nearly 90% of the region’s population is “White Alone”, which is well above the
state’s average of 68.5%.

Region
North Carolina

Total

Transylvania County

Moved from
Abroad

Madison County

Different State

Henderson County

Different
County
In Same State

Buncombe County

Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Different House
in Same County

City of Asheville

Same House

The population migration information within each study area based on 2006-2010
American Community Survey estimates is distributed as follows (where people
lived one year prior to being surveyed).

64,265
77.1%
198,030
83.1%
93,308
87.4%
18,465
88.9%
28,158
85.1%
337,961
84.7%
7,953,063
83.4%

10,655
12.8%
22,869
9.6%
6,507
6.1%
631
3.0%
2,442
7.4%
32,441
8.1%
866,775
9.1%

3,628
4.4%
7,542
3.2%
3,184
3.0%
699
3.4%
1,554
4.7%
12,985
3.3%
339,151
3.6%

4,431
5.3%
8,845
3.7%
3,354
3.1%
901
4.3%
911
2.8%
14,015
3.5%
319,380
3.3%

414
0.5%
1,032
0.4%
387
0.4%
68
0.3%
25
0.1%
1,510
0.4%
56,646
0.6%

83,393
100.0%
238,318
100.0%
106,740
100.0%
20,764
100.0%
33,090
100.0%
398,912
100.0%
9,535,016
100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Regional-13

 A total of 84.7% of the region’s population has lived with in the same residence
during the preceding year, while nearly 15% moved to a new residence. This is
very similar to the state’s averages. Among the four counties in the region,
annual movership rates are similar to each other, ranging from 83.1% (Buncombe
County) to 88.9% (Madison County) of residents living in the same residence in
the prior year. Residents coming to the area from other states to the subject
counties range from 2.8% (Transylvania County) to 4.3% (Madison County). The
city of Asheville has less stability, as evidenced by the fact that only 77.1% of its
residents have lived in the same residence during the past year, 12.8% have
moved within the city and 5.3% have moved from out of state.
2. HOUSEHOLD TRENDS
Household trends are summarized as follows:
Year
2000

2010

Households
32,957
37,380
Household Change
City of Asheville
4,423
Percent Change
13.4%
Households
85,771
100,412
Household Change
Buncombe County
14,641
Percent Change
17.1%
Households
37,414
45,448
Household Change
Henderson County
8,034
Percent Change
21.5%
Households
8,005
8,494
Household Change
Madison County
489
Percent Change
6.1%
Households
12,320
14,394
Household Change
Transylvania County
2,074
Percent Change
16.8%
Households
143,510
168,748
Household Change
Region
25,238
Percent Change
17.6%
Households
3,130,839
3,744,941
Household Change
North Carolina
614,102
Percent Change
19.6%
Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

2015

2020

40,503
3,123
8.4%
107,695
7,283
7.3%
47,918
2,470
5.4%
8,835
341
4.0%
15,073
679
4.7%
179,521
10,773
6.4%
3,947,432
202,491
5.4%

43,589
3,086
7.6%
114,914
7,219
6.7%
50,413
2,495
5.2%
9,116
281
3.2%
15,584
511
3.4%
190,027
10,506
5.9%
4,164,465
217,033
5.5%

Between 2015 and 2020, the overall region is projected to add 10,506 (5.9%)
households. This is nearly identical to the projected growth for region between
2010 and 2015, which is the result of an expected increase of 10,773 households
or an increase of 6.4%. Counties with the greatest projected percent growth from
2015 to 2020 include Buncombe (6.7%) and Henderson (5.2%). The 7,219 new
households projected to be added to Buncombe County between 2015 and 2020
represent over two-thirds (68.7%) of the household growth for the overall region
during this time. Regardless, new household growth is projected to occur among
all four of the region’s counties, adding to growing need for more housing in each
county.

Regional-14

 A graph showing the change in households from 2015 to 2020 for the study areas
follows:
Region Household Trends (2015-2020)
8.0%
7.0%

7.6%
6.7%

Percent Change

6.0%

5.9%

5.0%

5.2%
4.0%
3.0%

3.2%

3.4%

2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
Asheville

Buncombe
County

Henderson
County

Madison County

Transylvania
County

Region

Market

The household bases by age are summarized as follows (Note: the “change”
reflected in the table represents 2015 to 2020 change):

2010
2015
City of Asheville
2020
Change
2010
2015
Buncombe County
2020
Change
2010
2015
Henderson County
2020
Change

<25
2,410
(6.4%)
2,441
(6.0%)
2,446
(5.6%)
5
(0.2%)
4,459
(4.4%)
4,417
(4.1%)
4,397
(3.8%)
-20
(-0.5%)
1,175
(2.6%)
1,187
(2.5%)
1,193
(2.4%)
6
(0.5%)

25 to 34
6,833
(18.3%)
7,102
(17.5%)
7,343
(16.8%)
241
(3.4%)
14,979
(14.9%)
15,342
(14.2%)
15,709
(13.7%)
367
(2.4%)
4,999
(11.0%)
4,989
(10.4%)
4,910
(9.7%)
-79
(-1.6%)

Households by Age
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
6,355
6,468
6,499
(17.0%)
(17.3%)
(17.4%)
6,736
6,529
7,187
(16.6%)
(16.1%)
(17.7%)
6,907
6,759
7,783
(15.8%)
(15.5%)
(17.9%)
171
230
596
(2.5%)
(3.5%)
(8.3%)
17,165
19,575
19,548
(17.1%)
(19.5%)
(19.5%)
17,511
19,391
21,380
(16.3%)
(18.0%)
(19.9%)
17,815
19,400
22,708
(15.5%)
(16.9%)
(19.8%)
304
9
1,328
(1.7%)
(0.0%)
(6.2%)
6,913
8,208
8,805
(15.2%)
(18.1%)
(19.4%)
6,837
8,012
9,408
(14.3%)
(16.7%)
(19.6%)
6,790
7,973
9,984
(13.5%)
(15.8%)
(19.8%)
-47
-39
576
(-0.7%)
(-0.5%)
(6.1%)

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Regional-15

65 to 74
4,151
(11.1%)
5,422
(13.4%)
6,526
(15.0%)
1,104
(20.4%)
12,799
(12.7%)
16,553
(15.4%)
19,850
(17.3%)
3,297
(19.9%)
7,661
(16.9%)
9,031
(18.8%)
10,137
(20.1%)
1,106
(12.2%)

75+
4,663
(12.5%)
5,086
(12.6%)
5,826
(13.4%)
740
(14.5%)
11,887
(11.8%)
13,101
(12.2%)
15,035
(13.1%)
1,934
(14.8%)
7,687
(16.9%)
8,453
(17.6%)
9,425
(18.7%)
972
(11.5%)

 2010
2015
Madison County
2020
Change
2010
Transylvania
County

2015
2020
Change
2010
2015

Region
2020
Change
2010
2015
North Carolina
2020
Change

<25
255
(3.0%)
249
(2.8%)
246
(2.7%)
-3
(-1.2%)
463
(3.2%)
427
(2.8%)
389
(2.5%)
-38
(-8.9%)
6,352
(3.8%)
6,281
(3.5%)
6,226
(3.3%)
-55
(-0.9%)
192,966
(5.2%)
187,350
(4.7%)
184,756
(4.4%)
-2,594
(-1.4%)

25 to 34
937
(11.0%)
958
(10.8%)
950
(10.4%)
-8
(-0.8%)
1,359
(9.4%)
1,482
(9.8%)
1,521
(9.8%)
39
(2.6%)
22,274
(13.2%)
22,772
(12.7%)
23,091
(12.2%)
319
(1.4%)
588,688
(15.7%)
614,048
(15.6%)
643,651
(15.5%)
29,603
(4.8%)

Households by Age
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
1,396
1,697
1,849
(16.4%)
(20.0%)
(21.8%)
1,356
1,647
1,907
(15.3%)
(18.6%)
(21.6%)
1,280
1,612
1,900
(14.0%)
(17.7%)
(20.8%)
-76
-35
-7
(-5.6%)
(-2.1%)
(-0.4%)
1,700
2,480
2,914
(11.8%)
(17.2%)
(20.2%)
1,654
2,316
2,975
(11.0%)
(15.4%)
(19.7%)
1,659
2,095
3,038
(10.6%)
(13.4%)
(19.5%)
5
-221
63
(0.3%)
(-9.5%)
(2.1%)
27,174
31,960
33,116
(16.1%)
(18.9%)
(19.6%)
27,357
31,366
35,669
(15.2%)
(17.5%)
(19.9%)
27,543
31,080
37,629
(14.5%)
(16.4%)
(19.8%)
186
-286
1,960
(0.7%)
(-0.9%)
(5.5%)
712,152
771,232
673,798
(19.0%)
(20.6%)
(18.0%)
699,083
759,985
739,731
(17.7%)
(19.3%)
(18.7%)
704,879
742,650
787,105
(16.9%)
(17.8%)
(18.9%)
5,796
-17,335
47,374
(0.8%)
(-2.3%)
(6.4%)

65 to 74
1,300
(15.3%)
1,619
(18.3%)
1,907
(20.9%)
288
(17.8%)
2,836
(19.7%)
3,235
(21.5%)
3,540
(22.7%)
305
(9.4%)
24,596
(14.6%)
30,438
(17.0%)
35,434
(18.6%)
4,996
(16.4%)
443,529
(11.8%)
553,387
(14.0%)
653,047
(15.7%)
99,660
(18.0%)

75+
1,060
(12.5%)
1,099
(12.4%)
1,221
(13.4%)
122
(11.1%)
2,642
(18.4%)
2,985
(19.8%)
3,343
(21.4%)
358
(12.0%)
23,276
(13.8%)
25,638
(14.3%)
29,024
(15.3%)
3,386
(13.2%)
362,758
(9.7%)
393,817
(10.0%)
448,346
(10.8%)
54,529
(13.8%)

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

It is projected that most of the growth in the region between 2015 and 2020 will
occur among households age 55 and older. This age group is projected to
increase by 10,342 (11.3%) households during this five-year period. The largest
increase within a single age group will be among seniors between the ages of 65
and 74, which is projected to add 4,996 (16.4%) households. These trends
indicate that senior-oriented housing needs will likely increase over the next
several years. It is important to note that while there are likely seniors (e.g. empty
nesters, retirees, etc.) relocating to the region due to its desirability, it is likely that
a large portion of the projected senior growth is attributed to seniors aging in
place. The Asheville region, like most parts of the country, has a large base of
baby boomers that have been and will continue to age in place, essentially staying
in the area as they age. This will result in a shift of households from one age
segment to an older age segment. As such, this trend is likely contributing to the
large growth numbers for senior homeowners. While many of these households
are already in the market, the large housing gaps for senior housing indicate that
these older households will likely want or require different housing to meet their

Regional-16

 changing housing needs as they age. Modest regional growth is projected to
occur among households between the ages of 25 and 34 (319, 1.4%) and between
35 and 44 (186, 0.7%). Growth within these segments will likely lead to
increased need for family-oriented housing within the region.
On a county level, notable household growth between 2015 and 2020 is projected
to occur among households between the ages of 65 and 74 within Buncombe
(3,297 new households, 19.9% increase) and Henderson (1,106, 12.2%) counties.
Notable growth among the age 55 to 64 cohorts is projected to occur within
Buncombe County (1,934 new households, 14.8% increase) and Henderson
County (972, 11.5%). It should be noted that senior household growth is
projected to occur in each of the region’s counties from 2015 to 2020. The senior
growth tends projected for counties in the region will increase the need for senior
housing that meets the needs of older households.
Within the city of Asheville, the greatest projected household growth by age
between 2015 and 2020 is expected to occur among households between the ages
of 65 and 74, which are projected to increase by 1,104 (20.4%). Other than
households under the age of 25, which will remain virtually unchanged from 2015
to 2020, all household segments by age will increase by 171 or more during this
time. This growth will likely increase the demand for a variety of products.
Certainly, the disproportionately high growth among households age 55 and older
will increase the demand for senior-oriented housing.
The graph below illustrates the share of households by age in the study areas for
2015 and 2020.

Region Households by Age (2015-2020)
2015

2020

40,000
35,000

Households

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0,000
<25

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

Age Range

Regional-17

55 - 64

65 - 74

75+

 The renter household by size by tenure for each county follows:

2010
City of Asheville

2015
2020
2010

Buncombe County

2015
2020
2010

Henderson County

2015
2020
2010

Madison County

2015
2020
2010

Transylvania County

2015
2020
2010

Region

2015
2020
2010

North Carolina

2015
2020

1-Person
8,081
(44.6%)
9,295
(45.2%)
10,207
(45.8%)
13,744
(39.9%)
15,900
(40.5%)
17,244
(40.9%)
4,426
(39.1%)
5,041
(39.5%)
5,375
(39.9%)
759
(38.3%)
847
(38.7%)
885
(39.0%)
1,432
(40.7%)
1,641
(41.3%)
1,724
(41.8%)
20,359
(39.7%)
23,427
(40.3%)
25,224
(40.7%)
442,913
(35.5%)
504,447
(36.1%)
541,544
(36.6%)

2-Person
5,405
(29.8%)
6,052
(29.5%)
6,504
(29.2%)
10,243
(29.7%)
11,543
(29.4%)
12,274
(29.1%)
2,933
(25.9%)
3,270
(25.6%)
3,419
(25.4%)
556
(28.1%)
609
(27.8%)
627
(27.6%)
950
(27.0%)
1,063
(26.7%)
1,094
(26.5%)
14,680
(28.7%)
16,488
(28.3%)
17,416
(28.1%)
335,657
(26.9%)
372,401
(26.7%)
392,401
(26.5%)

Persons Per Renter Household
3-Person
4-Person
2,451
1,324
(13.5%)
(7.3%)
2,789
1,466
(13.6%)
(7.1%)
3,022
1,561
(13.6%)
(7.0%)
5,106
3,124
(14.8%)
(9.1%)
5,826
3,492
(14.8%)
(8.9%)
6,253
3,694
(14.8%)
(8.8%)
1,670
1,235
(14.8%)
(10.9%)
1,892
1,378
(14.8%)
(10.8%)
2,012
1,430
(14.9%)
(10.6%)
302
218
(15.3%)
(11.0%)
335
236
(15.3%)
(10.8%)
348
242
(15.3%)
(10.7%)
475
389
(13.5%)
(11.0%)
536
434
(13.5%)
(10.9%)
556
443
(13.5%)
(10.7%)
7,554
4,965
(14.7%)
(9.7%)
8,593
5,537
(14.8%)
(9.5%)
9,175
5,806
(14.8%)
(9.4%)
203,323
143,819
(16.3%)
(11.5%)
226,975
157,252
(16.3%)
(11.3%)
240,591
164,305
(16.2%)
(11.1%)

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Regional-18

5-Person
850
(4.7%)
945
(4.6%)
1,002
(4.5%)
2,214
(6.4%)
2,505
(6.4%)
2,673
(6.3%)
1,041
(9.2%)
1,172
(9.2%)
1,236
(9.2%)
145
(7.3%)
160
(7.3%)
169
(7.4%)
276
(7.8%)
304
(7.6%)
308
(7.5%)
3,679
(7.2%)
4,140
(7.1%)
4,387
(7.1%)
121,492
(9.7%)
134,576
(9.6%)
142,066
(9.6%)

Total
18,110
(100.0%)
20,548
(100.0%)
22,296
(100.0%)
34,431
(100.0%)
39,266
(100.0%)
42,138
(100.0%)
11,305
(100.0%)
12,754
(100.0%)
13,473
(100.0%)
1,980
(100.0%)
2,187
(100.0%)
2,272
(100.0%)
3,521
(100.0%)
3,978
(100.0%)
4,126
(100.0%)
51,237
(100.0%)
58,185
(100.0%)
62,009
(100.0%)
1,247,204
(100.0%)
1,395,650
(100.0%)
1,480,907
(100.0%)

 Among renter households in the region, the greatest share of household sizes in
2015 will be one-person households, which will represent 40.3% of the total
households in the region. Two-person households will represent the second
largest share (28.3%). Three-person or larger households will represent nearly
one-third (31.4%) of the households. The share of renter households by size will
change slightly between 2015 and 2020, with the greatest increase occurring
among one-person households (increasing from 40.3% to 40.7% and adding 1,797
one-person households). Two-person households will increase by 928 (5.6%)
through 2020, while three-person and larger households will increase by 1,098
(6.0%). These growth trends indicate that while smaller units (e.g. studio to twobedroom) will likely be needed to accommodate the disproportionate growth of
one- and two-person households, with more than 1,000 three-person households
expected to be added to the region, there will also need to be larger bedroom types
added to the region’s housing stock over the next several years.
The study area’s renter household sizes for 2015 and 2020 are illustrated in the
graph below:

Region Persons per Renter Household (2015-2020)
2015

2020

45.0%
40.0%
35.0%

40.3% 40.7%

Share

30.0%

28.3% 28.1%

25.0%
20.0%
15.0%

14.8% 14.8%

10.0%
5.0%

9.5% 9.4%

7.1% 7.1%

4-Persons

5-Persons

0.0%
1-Person

2-Persons

3-Persons

Household Size

Regional-19

 Owner household sizes for each study area follow:

2010
City of Asheville

2015
2020
2010

Buncombe County

2015
2020
2010

Henderson County

2015
2020
2010

Madison County

2015
2020
2010

Transylvania County

2015
2020
2010

Region

2015
2020
2010

North Carolina

2015
2020

1-Person
5,756
(29.9%)
6,101
(30.6%)
6,629
(31.1%)
16,831
(25.5%)
17,770
(26.0%)
19,145
(26.3%)
8,532
(25.0%)
8,838
(25.1%)
9,369
(25.4%)
1,538
(23.6%)
1,599
(24.1%)
1,663
(24.3%)
2,750
(25.3%)
2,894
(26.1%)
3,060
(26.7%)
29,657
(25.2%)
31,101
(25.6%)
33,231
(26.0%)
569,308
(22.8%)
586,000
(23.0%)
621,646
(23.2%)

2-Person
7,507
(39.0%)
7,679
(38.5%)
8,131
(38.2%)
26,782
(40.6%)
27,486
(40.2%)
29,030
(39.9%)
15,407
(45.1%)
15,657
(44.5%)
16,322
(44.2%)
2,838
(43.6%)
2,867
(43.1%)
2,934
(42.9%)
5,299
(48.7%)
5,348
(48.2%)
5,484
(47.9%)
50,304
(42.8%)
51,336
(42.3%)
53,736
(42.0%)
953,152
(38.2%)
960,455
(37.6%)
1,000,693
(37.3%)

Persons Per Owner Household
3-Person
4-Person
2,891
2,026
(15.0%)
(10.5%)
3,002
2,057
(15.0%)
(10.3%)
3,206
2,154
(15.1%)
(10.1%)
10,472
7,511
(15.9%)
(11.4%)
10,916
7,678
(16.0%)
(11.2%)
11,636
8,071
(16.0%)
(11.1%)
4,589
3,490
(13.4%)
(10.2%)
4,858
3,584
(13.8%)
(10.2%)
5,155
3,734
(14.0%)
(10.1%)
1,028
751
(15.8%)
(11.5%)
1,057
755
(15.9%)
(11.4%)
1,092
770
(16.0%)
(11.3%)
1,326
934
(12.2%)
(8.6%)
1,354
939
(12.2%)
(8.5%)
1,398
950
(12.2%)
(8.3%)
17,419
12,690
(14.8%)
(10.8%)
18,195
12,962
(15.0%)
(10.7%)
19,298
13,538
(15.1%)
(10.6%)
423,757
341,670
(17.0%)
(13.7%)
437,375
346,716
(17.1%)
(13.6%)
462,308
362,025
(17.2%)
(13.5%)

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Regional-20

5-Person
1,090
(5.7%)
1,115
(5.6%)
1,174
(5.5%)
4,385
(6.6%)
4,578
(6.7%)
4,894
(6.7%)
2,125
(6.2%)
2,227
(6.3%)
2,360
(6.4%)
360
(5.5%)
371
(5.6%)
385
(5.6%)
564
(5.2%)
561
(5.1%)
566
(4.9%)
7,441
(6.3%)
7,742
(6.4%)
8,216
(6.4%)
209,849
(8.4%)
221,236
(8.7%)
236,885
(8.8%)

Total
19,270
(100.0%)
19,956
(100.0%)
21,294
(100.0%)
65,981
(100.0%)
68,428
(100.0%)
72,775
(100.0%)
34,143
(100.0%)
35,164
(100.0%)
36,940
(100.0%)
6,514
(100.0%)
6,648
(100.0%)
6,844
(100.0%)
10,873
(100.0%)
11,096
(100.0%)
11,459
(100.0%)
117,511
(100.0%)
121,336
(100.0%)
128,018
(100.0%)
2,497,736
(100.0%)
2,551,781
(100.0%)
2,683,557
(100.0%)

 In 2015, it is projected that the largest share of owner-occupied households by
size within the region will consist of two-person households, representing 42.3%
of all owner households. One- and two-person households will represent a
combined share of 67.9% of all households in 2015. It is projected that between
2015 and 2020 the greatest household growth will be among two-person
households, which will add 2,400 (4.6% increase) households. Three-person or
larger households are also projected to grow by 2,153 (5.5%) during this time,
increasing the likely need for additional larger housing units such as threebedroom or larger units for the foreseeable future.
The study area’s owner household sizes for 2015 and 2020 are illustrated in the
graph below:

Region Persons per Owner Household (2015-2020)
2015

2020

45.0%
40.0%

42.3% 42.0%

35.0%

Share

30.0%
25.0%
20.0%

25.6% 26.0%

15.0%

15.0% 15.1%

10.0%

10.7% 10.6%

5.0%

6.4% 6.4%

0.0%
1-Person

2-Persons

3-Persons

Household Size

Regional-21

4-Persons

5-Persons

 Households by tenure by study area and year are distributed as follows:

City of Asheville

Buncombe County

Henderson County

Madison County

Transylvania County

Region

North Carolina

Household Type
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total

2010
Number
Percent
19,270
51.6%
18,110
48.4%
37,380
100.0%
65,981
65.7%
34,431
34.3%
100,412
100.0%
34,143
75.1%
11,305
24.9%
45,448
100.0%
6,514
76.7%
1,980
23.3%
8,494
100.0%
10,873
75.5%
3,521
24.5%
14,394
100.0%
117,511
69.6%
51,237
30.4%
168,748
100.0%
2,497,736
66.7%
1,247,204
33.3%
3,744,940
100.0%

2015
Number
Percent
19,956
49.3%
20,548
50.7%
40,503
100.0%
68,428
63.5%
39,266
36.5%
107,695
100.0%
35,164
73.4%
12,754
26.6%
47,918
100.0%
6,648
75.2%
2,187
24.8%
8,835
100.0%
11,096
73.6%
3,978
26.4%
15,073
100.0%
121,336
67.6%
58,185
32.4%
179,521
100.0%
2,551,781
64.6%
1,395,650
35.4%
3,947,432
100.0%

2020
Number
Percent
21,294
48.9%
22,296
51.1%
43,589
100.0%
72,775
63.3%
42,138
36.7%
114,914
100.0%
36,940
73.3%
13,473
26.7%
50,413
100.0%
6,844
75.1%
2,272
24.9%
9,116
100.0%
11,459
73.5%
4,126
26.5%
15,584
100.0%
128,018
67.4%
62,009
32.6%
190,027
100.0%
2,683,557
64.4%
1,480,907
35.6%
4,164,465
100.0%

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Regionally, it is projected by 2015 that nearly 70% of all occupied housing units
will consist of owners, while just over 30% will consist of renters. These shares
are not expected to change significantly by 2020, though they are expected to
trend towards an increase in the share of renter households. In terms of household
growth by tenure, between 2015 and 2020, the number of owner households is
projected to increase by 6,682 (5.5%), while renters will increase by 3,824
(6.6%). As such, owner household growth is projected to outpace renter
household growth by nearly a two-to-one margin. This growth in households will
affect the future housing needs of the region.
Buncombe County will experience the greatest household growth among the
region’s four counties between 2015 and 2020. Of the county’s 7,219 new
households added during this time, 4,347 (60.2%) will be homeowners and 2,872
(39.8%) will be new renter households. Within the city of Asheville, 1,338 new
homeowner households are projected to be added to the city, while an additional
1,748 new renter households will be added between 2015 and 2020. As such, it
appears that Asheville’s future housing that will be needed to meet projected
growth will have to involve both for-sale housing and rental housing.

Regional-22

 The graph below illustrates the share of owner-occupied households and renteroccupied households within the study areas for 2010, 2015 and 2020.

Region Households by Tenure (2015-2020)
2015 Owner

2020 Owner

Buncombe
County

Henderson
County

2015 Renter

2020 Renter

80.0%
70.0%

Share

60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Asheville

Madison
County

Transylvania
County

Region

Market

Cost burdened households are those paying over 30% of their income towards
housing costs, while severe cost burdened households are considered as those
paying over 50% of their income towards housing costs. The following table
illustrates the cost burdened households by study area and overall North Carolina.
Cost Burdened
Renter

Severe Cost Burdened
Renter
Owner

Owner

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

City of Asheville

7,892

43.6%

5,663

29.4%

3,819

21.1%

2,208

11.5%

Buncombe County

15,930

44.5%

16,934

26.0%

7,774

21.7%

6,428

9.9%

Henderson County

5,429

46.7%

7,824

23.3%

2,327

20.0%

3,178

9.4%

Madison County

636

30.8%

1,404

22.9%

199

9.6%

726

11.8%

Transylvania County

1,322

39.9%

1,969

18.5%

626

18.9%

855

8.0%

Region

23,317

44.2%

28,131

24.4%

10,926

20.7%

11,187

9.7%

634,033

25.7%

291,141

23.3%

248,290

10.1%

574,369
46.0%
North Carolina
Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey

Among the region’s renter households, a total of 23,317 (44.2%) are cost
burdened and 10,926 (20.7%) are severe cost burdened. Within the region, a total
of 28,131 (24.4%) owner households are cost burdened while 11,187 (9.7%) are
severe cost burdened. The greatest number and share of severe cost burdened
renter households is in Buncombe County (7,774, 21.7%), while the greatest
number of severe cost burdened owner households is in Buncombe County and
the highest share of severe cost burdened owner households is within Madison
County (11.8%). The city of Asheville generally has higher shares of cost
burdened and severe cost burdened households than the overall region.

Regional-23

 Percent

Region Cost Burdened Households by Tenure
Renter Cost Burdened

Renter Severe Cost Burdened

Owner Cost Burdened

Owner Severe Cost Burdened

50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Asheville

Buncombe
County

Henderson
County

Madison
County

Transylvania
County

Region

Market

Overcrowded housing is considered a housing unit with 1.01 or more persons per
room, while severe overcrowding housing is considered a unit with 1.51 or more
persons per room. The following table illustrates the overcrowded households by
tenure for each study area and the state of North Carolina.
Overcrowded
Renter

Severe Overcrowded
Owner

Renter

Owner

County

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

City of Asheville

644

3.6%

211

1.1%

229

1.3%

119

0.6%

Buncombe County

1,197

3.3%

878

1.3%

394

1.1%

257

0.4%

Henderson County

422

3.6%

471

1.4%

74

0.6%

80

0.2%

Madison County

102

4.9%

65

1.1%

12

0.6%

0

0.0%

Transylvania County

62

1.9%

103

1.0%

5

0.2%

48

0.4%

Region

1,783

3.4%

1,517

1.3%

485

0.9%

385

0.3%

31,950

1.3%

15,225

1.2%

6,976

0.3%

56,657
4.5%
North Carolina
Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey

In the region, 1,783 (3.4%) renter households and 1,517 (1.3%) owner households
are experiencing overcrowded housing situations. A total of 485 (0.9%) renter
households and 385 (0.3%) owner households in the region are experiencing
severe overcrowded housing conditions. Buncombe County has the region’s
highest share of severe overcrowded renter households, while the share of owner
households with severe overcrowding is relatively even among the counties.
Generally, the city of Asheville has slightly higher shares of people living in
overcrowded and severe overcrowded housing units than the overall region.

Regional-24

 According to IDIS ConPlan Housing Summary Table MA-10, included in
Addendum B: Consolidated Plan Tables, the distribution of pre-1980 housing is
as follows.
Risk of Lead-Based Paint Hazard - Region
Owner-Occupied
Category

Renter-Occupied

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Total Number of Units Built Before 1980

50,431

45%

23,960

50%

Housing Units Built Before 1980 w/ Children

8,176

7%

4,201

9%

Source: 2007-2011 ACS and 2007-2011 CHAS (Units with Children Present)

Approximately 45% of owner-occupied households and 50% of renter-occupied
households in the region were built prior to 1980 and have the risk of having a
lead-based paint hazard.
Substandard housing is often defined as a unit that lacks complete indoor kitchen
or bathroom plumbing. Based on data reported by the 2006-2010 American
Community Survey, the number of substandard housing units by county is
reported as follows:

Asheville
Buncombe County
Henderson County
Madison County
Transylvania County
Region
North Carolina

Substandard Housing by County
Lack of Indoor Plumbing
Rental Units
Owner Units
Total Units
(Percent)
(Percent)
(Percent)
115 (0.6%)
37 (0.2%)
152 (0.4%)
216 (0.6%)
157 (0.2%)
373 (0.4%)
67 (0.6%)
28 (0.1%)
95 (0.2%)
0 (0.0%)
32 (0.5%)
32 (0.4%)
0 (0.0%)
35 (0.3%)
35 (0.3%)
283 (0.5%)
252 (0.2%)
535 (0.3%)
8,441 (0.7%)
7,175 (0.3%)
15,616 (0.4%)

Source: 2006-2010 American Community Survey

Approximately 283 rental housing units, or 0.5% of the entire region’s rental
housing supply, are considered substandard (lacking complete indoor kitchen or
bathroom plumbing). A total of 252 (0.2%) of the region’s owner-occupied
households live in substandard housing. Within the city of Asheville, these shares
are slightly lower than the North Carolina averages and are indications that a
small share of households are living in substandard units.

Regional-25

 3. INCOME TRENDS
The distribution of households by income within each study area is summarized
as follows:
Households by Income
$15,000 $25,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999
<$15,000
7,403
4,887
5,091
6,234
7,462
3,799
2015
(18.3%)
(12.1%)
(12.6%)
(15.4%)
(18.4%)
(9.4%)
City of
7,775
5,462
5,305
6,705
8,064
3,818
2020
Asheville
(17.8%)
(12.5%)
(12.2%)
(15.4%)
(18.5%)
(8.8%)
372
574
214
471
602
19
Change
(5.0%)
(11.8%)
(4.2%)
(7.6%)
(8.1%)
(0.5%)
16,711
12,794
13,644
17,151
20,494
11,114
2015
(15.5%)
(11.9%)
(12.7%)
(15.9%)
(19.0%)
(10.3%)
Buncombe
17,065
13,587
14,337
18,777
21,393
11,591
2020
County
(14.9%)
(11.8%)
(12.5%)
(16.3%)
(18.6%)
(10.1%)
354
792
694
1,625
899
477
Change
(2.1%)
(6.2%)
(5.1%)
(9.5%)
(4.4%)
(4.3%)
6,248
5,977
6,329
7,274
9,364
5,535
2015
(13.0%)
(12.5%)
(13.2%)
(15.2%)
(19.5%)
(11.6%)
Henderson
6,635
6,627
6,392
8,014
9,596
5,662
2020
County
(13.2%)
(13.1%)
(12.7%)
(15.9%)
(19.0%)
(11.2%)
387
649
63
740
232
127
Change
(6.2%)
(10.9%)
(1.0%)
(10.2%)
(2.5%)
(2.3%)
1,561
1,402
1,063
1,271
1,701
1,107
2015
(17.7%)
(15.9%)
(12.0%)
(14.4%)
(19.2%)
(12.5%)
Madison
1,701
1,343
1,112
1,344
1,797
1,017
2020
County
(18.7%)
(14.7%)
(12.2%)
(14.7%)
(19.7%)
(11.2%)
140
-59
49
74
96
-90
Change
(9.0%)
(-4.2%)
(4.7%)
(5.8%)
(5.7%)
(-8.1%)
2,454
1,950
2,200
2,521
2,532
1,679
2015
(16.3%)
(12.9%)
(14.6%)
(16.7%)
(16.8%)
(11.1%)
Transylvania
2,246
2,021
2,216
2,808
2,676
1,957
2020
County
(14.4%)
(13.0%)
(14.2%)
(18.0%)
(17.2%)
(12.5%)
-207
71
16
287
144
277
Change
(-8.4%)
(3.6%)
(0.7%)
(11.4%)
(5.7%)
(16.5%)
26,973
22,124
23,236
28,217
34,090
19,434
2015
(15.0%)
(12.3%)
(12.9%)
(15.7%)
(19.0%)
(10.8%)
27,648
23,576
24,058
30,943
35,461
20,226
Region
2020
(14.5%)
(12.4%)
(12.7%)
(16.3%)
(18.7%)
(10.6%)
674
1,453
823
2,725
1,371
792
Change
(2.5%)
(6.6%)
(3.5%)
(9.7%)
(4.0%)
(4.1%)
Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Regional-26

$100,000 $149,999
$150,000+
3,508
2,120
(8.7%)
(5.2%)
4,060
2,401
(9.3%)
(5.5%)
552
281
(15.7%)
(13.2%)
9,938
5,848
(9.2%)
(5.4%)
11,437
6,726
(10.0%)
(5.9%)
1,499
878
(15.1%)
(15.0%)
4,757
2,434
(9.9%)
(5.1%)
4,990
2,497
(9.9%)
(5.0%)
234
63
(4.9%)
(2.6%)
501
230
(5.7%)
(2.6%)
543
259
(6.0%)
(2.8%)
42
28
(8.4%)
(12.3%)
1,238
500
(8.2%)
(3.3%)
1,198
473
(7.7%)
(3.0%)
-41
-28
(-3.3%)
(-5.6%)
16,434
9,012
(9.2%)
(5.0%)
18,169
9,954
(9.6%)
(5.2%)
1,734
942
(10.6%)
(10.5%)

Total
40,504
(100.0%)
43,590
(100.0%)
3,086
(7.6%)
107,694
(100.0%)
114,913
(100.0%)
7,219
(6.7%)
47,918
(100.0%)
50,413
(100.0%)
2,495
(5.2%)
8,835
(100.0%)
9,116
(100.0%)
281
(3.2%)
15,074
(100.0%)
15,593
(100.0%)
519
(3.4%)
179,521
(100.0%)
190,035
(100.0%)
10,514
(5.9%)

 Between 2015 and 2020, all income household segments within the region are
projected to increase. The greatest of the household growth within the region is
projected to occur among households that make between $35,000 and $49,999 a
year, which are projected to increase by 2,725 (9.7%) during this five-year period.
Notable growth is projected to occur among households with incomes between
$15,000 and $24,999, between $50,000 and $74,999, and between $100,000 and
$149,999. As such, a variety of housing needs by price point will grow.
The graph below illustrates the region’s share of households by annual income
level for 2015 and 2020:

Region Households by Income (2015-2020)
2015

2020

40,000
35,000

Households

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0,000
<$15,000

$15,000 $24,999

$25,000 $34,999

$35,000 $49,999

$50,000 $74,999

Household Income

Regional-27

$75,000 $99,999

$100,000 $149,999

$150,000+

 The distribution of households by income and tenure for 2015 and 2020 are
illustrated in the tables below.
Renter Households by Income
$15,000 $25,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 $24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999
<$15,000
5,588
3,202
3,086
3,121
3,323
1,208
2015
(27.2%)
(15.6%)
(15.0%)
(15.2%)
(16.2%)
(5.9%)
City of
5,929
3,525
3,525
3,641
3,571
1,221
2020
Asheville
(26.6%)
(15.8%)
(15.8%)
(16.3%)
(16.0%)
(5.5%)
341
323
-35
519
248
13
Change
(6.1%)
(10.1%)
(-1.1%)
(16.6%)
(7.5%)
(1.1%)
10,484
6,636
6,322
5,929
5,851
2,081
2015
(26.7%)
(16.9%)
(16.1%)
(15.1%)
(14.9%)
(5.3%)
Buncombe
10,661
7,037
7,037
7,206
6,110
2,275
2020
County
(25.3%)
(16.7%)
(16.7%)
(17.1%)
(14.5%)
(5.4%)
177
401
83
1,276
259
194
Change
(1.7%)
(6.0%)
(1.3%)
(21.5%)
(4.4%)
(9.3%)
3,059
2,353
2,431
1,900
2,012
550
2015
(24.0%)
(18.4%)
(19.1%)
(14.9%)
(15.8%)
(4.3%)
Henderson
3,140
2,899
2,899
2,063
1,993
474
2020
County
(23.3%)
(21.5%)
(21.5%)
(15.3%)
(14.8%)
(3.5%)
81
546
47
163
-19
-76
Change
(2.6%)
(23.2%)
(1.9%)
(8.6%)
(-0.9%)
(-13.8%)
681
496
262
285
322
141
2015
(31.1%)
(22.7%)
(12.0%)
(13.0%)
(14.7%)
(6.4%)
Madison
650
451
451
298
281
144
2020
County
(28.6%)
(19.9%)
(19.9%)
(13.1%)
(12.3%)
(6.3%)
-30
-45
142
13
-41
3
Change
(-4.5%)
(-9.1%)
(54.0%)
(4.6%)
(-12.8%)
(2.3%)
1,222
815
742
411
489
136
2015
(30.7%)
(20.5%)
(18.7%)
(10.3%)
(12.3%)
(3.4%)
Transylvania
1,081
876
876
598
384
176
2020
County
(26.2%)
(21.2%)
(21.2%)
(14.5%)
(9.3%)
(4.3%)
-141
61
139
188
-106
40
Change
(-11.5%)
(7.4%)
(18.8%)
(45.7%)
(-21.6%)
(29.1%)
15,446
10,300
9,758
8,525
8,674
2,908
2015
(26.5%)
(17.7%)
(16.8%)
(14.7%)
(14.9%)
(5.0%)
15,532
11,262
11,262
10,165
8,767
3,070
Region
2020
(25.0%)
(18.2%)
(18.2%)
(16.4%)
(14.1%)
(5.0%)
86
962
411
1,641
93
161
Change
(0.6%)
(9.3%)
(4.2%)
(19.2%)
(1.1%)
(5.5%)
Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Regional-28

$100,000 $149,999
$150,000+
793
227
(3.9%)
(1.1%)
963
395
(4.3%)
(1.8%)
170
168
(21.5%)
(74.2%)
1,453
510
(3.7%)
(1.3%)
1,686
758
(4.0%)
(1.8%)
233
248
(16.0%)
(48.6%)
328
121
(2.6%)
(0.9%)
274
152
(2.0%)
(1.1%)
-54
31
(-16.6%)
(25.5%)
0
0
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
44
0
(1.9%)
(0.0%)
44
0
(100.0%)
(0.0%)
139
24
(3.5%)
(0.6%)
132
0
(3.2%)
(0.0%)
-7
-24
(-4.7%)
(-100.0%)
1,919
656
(3.3%)
(1.1%)
2,135
910
(3.4%)
(1.5%)
216
255
(11.2%)
(38.8%)

Total
20,548
(100.0%)
22,296
(100.0%)
1,748
(8.5%)
39,266
(100.0%)
42,138
(100.0%)
2,872
(7.3%)
12,754
(100.0%)
13,473
(100.0%)
719
(5.6%)
2,187
(100.0%)
2,272
(100.0%)
85
(3.9%)
3,978
(100.0%)
4,126
(100.0%)
148
(3.7%)
58,185
(100.0%)
62,011
(100.0%)
3,826
(6.6%)

 Owner Households by Income
$15,000 $25,000 $35,000 $50,000 $75,000 <$15,000
$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999
1,815
1,685
2,005
3,112
4,139
2,592
2015
(9.1%)
(8.4%)
(10.0%)
(15.6%)
(20.7%)
(13.0%)
City of
1,846
1,937
2,254
3,064
4,493
2,598
2020
Asheville
(8.7%)
(9.1%)
(10.6%)
(14.4%)
(21.1%)
(12.2%)
31
251
249
-48
354
6
Change
(1.7%)
(14.9%)
(12.4%)
(-1.6%)
(8.6%)
(0.2%)
6,227
6,159
7,322
11,222
14,644
9,032
2015
(9.1%)
(9.0%)
(10.7%)
(16.4%)
(21.4%)
(13.2%)
Buncombe
6,404
6,550
7,932
11,571
15,283
9,315
2020
County
(8.8%)
(9.0%)
(10.9%)
(15.9%)
(21.0%)
(12.8%)
177
391
611
349
639
283
Change
(2.8%)
(6.4%)
(8.3%)
(3.1%)
(4.4%)
(3.1%)
3,189
3,625
3,898
5,374
7,352
4,985
2015
(9.1%)
(10.3%)
(11.1%)
(15.3%)
(20.9%)
(14.2%)
Henderson
3,495
3,728
3,914
5,950
7,603
5,188
2020
County
(9.5%)
(10.1%)
(10.6%)
(16.1%)
(20.6%)
(14.0%)
306
103
16
576
251
203
Change
(9.6%)
(2.9%)
(0.4%)
(10.7%)
(3.4%)
(4.1%)
880
906
801
986
1,379
966
2015
(13.2%)
(13.6%)
(12.0%)
(14.8%)
(20.7%)
(14.5%)
Madison
1,051
891
709
1,046
1,517
872
2020
County
(15.4%)
(13.0%)
(10.4%)
(15.3%)
(22.2%)
(12.7%)
171
-14
-92
60
138
-93
Change
(19.4%)
(-1.6%)
(-11.5%)
(6.1%)
(10.0%)
(-9.6%)
1,232
1,135
1,458
2,110
2,042
1,543
2015
(11.1%)
(10.2%)
(13.1%)
(19.0%)
(18.4%)
(13.9%)
Transylvania
1,165
1,145
1,334
2,210
2,292
1,781
2020
County
(10.2%)
(10.0%)
(11.6%)
(19.3%)
(20.0%)
(15.5%)
-66
10
-124
99
250
238
Change
(-5.4%)
(0.9%)
(-8.5%)
(4.7%)
(12.2%)
(15.4%)
11,528
11,824
13,478
19,692
25,417
16,526
2015
(9.5%)
(9.7%)
(11.1%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.6%)
12,116
12,314
13,889
20,777
26,694
17,156
Region
2020
(9.5%)
(9.6%)
(10.8%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.4%)
588
491
411
1,085
1,278
630
Change
(5.1%)
(4.1%)
(3.1%)
(5.5%)
(5.0%)
(3.8%)
Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

$100,000 $149,999
$150,000+
2,715
1,893
(13.6%)
(9.5%)
3,097
2,005
(14.5%)
(9.4%)
382
112
(14.1%)
(5.9%)
8,485
5,337
(12.4%)
(7.8%)
9,752
5,968
(13.4%)
(8.2%)
1,267
630
(14.9%)
(11.8%)
4,429
2,313
(12.6%)
(6.6%)
4,717
2,345
(12.8%)
(6.3%)
288
32
(6.5%)
(1.4%)
501
230
(7.5%)
(3.5%)
499
259
(7.3%)
(3.8%)
-2
28
(-0.4%)
(12.3%)
1,100
476
(9.9%)
(4.3%)
1,066
473
(9.3%)
(4.1%)
-34
-4
(-3.1%)
(-0.8%)
14,515
8,357
(12.0%)
(6.9%)
16,033
9,044
(12.5%)
(7.1%)
1,519
687
(10.5%)
(8.2%)

As the preceding tables illustrate, while all renter household income segments are
projected to grow, the greatest renter household growth between 2015 and 2020
within the region is projected to occur among those with annual incomes between
$35,000 and $49,999. Notable renter household income growth is projected to
occur among households with incomes between $15,000 and $24,999, as well as
between $25,000 and $34,999. All owner household income segments are
projected to grow between 2015 and 2020, with the greatest projected growth
among homeowners expected to occur among households with income between
$100,000 and $149,999, though notable owner household growth is projected to
occur among those with income between $35,000 and $49,999, and between
$50,000 and $74,999. These renter and owner household income trends are fairly
consistent in each of the four counties and within Asheville. As a result, there will
likely be an increase in demand for more housing that is affordable to lower
income households, as well as more affluent households. Detailed household
income data by tenure is provided in the individual county chapters of this report.

Regional-29

Total
19,956
(100.0%)
21,294
(100.0%)
1,338
(6.7%)
68,428
(100.0%)
72,775
(100.0%)
4,347
(6.4%)
35,164
(100.0%)
36,940
(100.0%)
1,776
(5.1%)
6,648
(100.0%)
6,844
(100.0%)
196
(2.9%)
11,096
(100.0%)
11,459
(100.0%)
363
(3.3%)
121,336
(100.0%)
128,024
(100.0%)
6,688
(5.5%)

 Region Household Income by Tenure (2015)
Renter Households

Owner Households

30.0%
25.0%

Share

20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
<$15,000

$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 $24,999
$34,999
$49,999

$50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000 - $150,000+
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999

Household Income

Given the large and growing base of older adult households in the region, it is
important to evaluate the demographic trends of households by tenure for older
adult householders. The data is presented for the overall region for 2015 and
2020 in the following tables.
Ages 55 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
4,378
26.5%
4,527
25.0%
2,927
17.7%
3,295
18.2%
2,762
16.7%
2,970
16.4%
2,420
14.7%
2,963
16.4%
2,464
14.9%
2,557
14.1%
827
5.0%
893
4.9%
537
3.3%
613
3.4%
184
1.1%
263
1.5%
16,500
100.0%
18,080
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
6,462
9.5%
6,977
9.5%
6,635
9.8%
7,089
9.7%
7,560
11.2%
7,974
10.9%
11,017
16.3%
11,962
16.3%
14,163
20.9%
15,313
20.8%
9,252
13.6%
9,887
13.5%
8,084
11.9%
9,127
12.4%
4,617
6.8%
5,122
7.0%
67,790
100.0%
73,453
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; ACS; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Regional-30

 Ages 62 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
2,998
26.5%
3,094
25.0%
2,010
17.8%
2,262
18.3%
1,897
16.8%
2,039
16.5%
1,657
14.7%
2,022
16.4%
1,689
14.9%
1,746
14.1%
565
5.0%
608
4.9%
366
3.2%
416
3.4%
126
1.1%
178
1.4%
11,308
100.0%
12,365
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
4,690
9.5%
5,072
9.5%
4,821
9.8%
5,156
9.7%
5,492
11.2%
5,788
10.9%
7,988
16.3%
8,698
16.3%
10,244
20.9%
11,105
20.8%
6,713
13.7%
7,197
13.5%
5,849
11.9%
6,599
12.4%
3,321
6.8%
3,685
6.9%
49,119
100.0%
53,301
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; ACS; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Ages 75 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent Number
Percent
1,413
26.5%
1,347
24.9%
951
17.8%
998
18.5%
901
16.9%
899
16.6%
780
14.6%
882
16.3%
797
14.9%
762
14.1%
264
5.0%
261
4.8%
172
3.2%
179
3.3%
59
1.1%
77
1.4%
5,337
100.0%
5,404
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
1,765
9.5%
1,877
9.5%
1,818
9.8%
1,912
9.7%
2,074
11.2%
2,145
10.9%
3,016
16.3%
3,230
16.4%
3,863
20.8%
4,110
20.8%
2,536
13.7%
2,676
13.6%
2,214
11.9%
2,442
12.4%
1,253
6.8%
1,355
6.9%
18,539
100.0%
19,748
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; ACS; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Based on the data from the preceding page, the primary older adult household
growth between 2015 and 2020 is projected to occur among renters age 55 and
older that make between $35,000 and $49,999. Owner household growth among
those age 55 and older is projected to occur the most among those making
between $35,000 and $74,999. As a result, there will likely be a growing need
through at least 2020 for additional renter and owner housing at a variety of price
points that meets the needs of region’s senior population.

Regional-31

 The population by poverty status is distributed as follows:

Asheville
Buncombe County
Henderson County
Madison County
Transylvania
County
Region
North Carolina

Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Income below poverty level:
<18
18 to 64
65+
4,775
10,565
1,637
5.7%
12.7%
2.0%
10,311
21,224
3,477
4.3%
8.9%
1.5%
4,588
7,290
1,718
4.3%
6.8%
1.6%
867
2,044
596
4.2%
9.8%
2.9%
1,339
2,779
516
4.0%
8.4%
1.6%
17,106
33,329
6,304
4.3%
8.4%
1.6%
504,382
848,861
127,713
5.3%
8.9%
1.3%

Income at or above poverty level:
<18
18 to 64
65+
11,641
43,787
10,989
14.0%
52.5%
13.2%
39,655
130,755
32,896
16.6%
54.9%
13.8%
17,653
54,877
20,614
16.5%
51.4%
19.3%
3,485
10,683
3,089
16.8%
51.5%
14.9%
4,375
16,098
7,982
13.2%
48.6%
24.1%
65,171
212,420
64,583
16.3%
53.2%
16.2%
1,828,964
5,162,101
1,062,994
19.2%
54.1%
11.1%

Total
83,393
100.0%
238,318
100.0%
106,740
100.0%
20,764
100.0%
33,090
100.0%
398,912
100.0%
9,535,016
100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

It is estimated that 56,739 people in the region live in poverty, representing 14.2%
of the region’s population. Of those living in poverty, over one-half (58.7%) are
between the ages of 18 and 64. It should be noted that 17,106 people living in
poverty are children under the age of 18, representing 20.8% of all children. As
such, one in five children is believed to be living in poverty. Over one in 11
seniors age 65 or older live in poverty. These ratios are slightly below the state of
North Carolina averages.
The following graph shows the percent of the population with incomes below the
poverty level in the study areas.

Share

Region Population w/ Income Below Poverty Level
22.0%
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%

20.4%
16.9%
14.7%
12.7%

10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Asheville

Buncombe
County

Henderson
County

Madison
County

Market

Regional-32

14.0%

14.3%

Transylvania
County

Region

 4. AREA ANALYSIS (ACCESS TO COMMUNITY SERVICES)
This section of the analysis addresses the general sufficiency of community
services for each of the study areas. In areas lacking certain community services
such as shopping, recreation, employment, public safety or other similar
community services, it is more difficult to support residential development.
Conversely, well served areas, with abundant and attractive community services
add to the appeal of an area and help to retain and attract residents that support
residential development. To that end, this section attempts to evaluate whether or
not the study areas have sufficient community services to support residential
development. It should be noted that given the study areas are large, an
assessment of such areas is broad. Ultimately, the success of an individual
residential project is dependent upon the proximity and sufficiency of services for
that specific site. Regardless, an overall assessment of the larger study areas
provides some insight as to the potential impact community services may have on
future housing development in each study area.
Buncombe County - The largest of the four counties, Buncombe County contains
numerous community services for residents living within its boundaries. All of
the major community services are provided within the county including, but not
limited to grocery stores, houses of worship, child care facilities, numerous
pharmacies, financial institutions, schools, restaurants and gas stations. The
Asheville Mall, Biltmore Park Town Square and River Hills Shopping Center are
located within the county. Notably, there are several Walmart Supercenters and
Ingles Markets scattered throughout Buncombe County, as well as police and fire
departments, county libraries and post offices are located throughout the county.
Asheville is the county seat of Buncombe County and is located in the central area
of the county. It contains a downtown area and central business district. The area
has numerous community services and benefits from its central location which
provides convenient access to the community services of the surrounding towns.
Notably, Mission Health Memorial Hospital, YMCA of WNC and the University
of North Carolina-Asheville are located within Asheville. There are various
recreational opportunities that exist in the Asheville area such as tourist
attractions like the Biltmore Estate, McCormick Field, Aston and Carrier Parks
along with various camping, hiking and mountain biking trails located throughout
Asheville. The central business district of the city contains numerous large
employers, including city government offices. Overall, the proximity of
community services within Asheville, as well as the surrounding areas within
Buncombe County, and the location of the central business district are believed to
positively serve the Asheville market. As Asheville grows in population and
residential housing, additional community services will be needed. As for the
current state of the county, the community services are believed to be adequate to
serve the residents of the county and will likely positively influence future
residential development.

Regional-33

 Henderson County - Henderson County contains a variety of community
services for area residents. Henderson County has numerous shopping centers,
including but not limited to the Blue Ridge Mall, Southside Square Shopping
Center, Highlands Square Shopping Center and Fletcher Plaza. All of the major
community services are provided within the county including grocery stores,
houses of worship, pharmacies, financial institutions, child care, schools,
restaurants, fitness and recreation centers, and gas stations. Notably, there are
numerous staple community services located directly in Hendersonville (the
county seat) such as Walmart Supercenter, T.J. Maxx, Belk, JC Penney, Family
Dollar, and Dollar General. Additionally, the Margaret R. Pardee Hospital, Park
Ridge Healthcare Center and FastMed Urgent Care are also located within
Hendersonville. Though there are areas of the county that are farther from
community services, they are within proximity and short commute times of
community services located in other towns within the county. As for the current
state of the community services available to residents, there are no notable
community services missing from the county that are believed to be a hindrance
to area residents or that would negatively influence housing market conditions or
discourage people from staying in or moving to this county.
Madison County - Madison County is considered a more rural county, with the
Pisgah National Forest (500,000 acres in total) occupying approximately half of
the county. Marshall is the county seat and the county government offices are
located there. Additionally there are a variety of community services for residents
residing within the delineated county borders. Madison County does not have a
full service hospital; however, each of the three major populated areas of Hot
Springs, Mars Hill and Marshall have medical centers or clinics that serve the
basic needs of its residents. Fire, police, post offices and libraries, along with
banks, gas stations, houses of worship, pharmacies, doctor’s offices, day cares and
restaurants are also located within each of these towns. The majority of services
are located within Mars Hill. While there are no traditional shopping malls, there
are various staple community services such as Ingles Market, Dollar General,
Main Street Deli, CVS Pharmacy, Asheville Savings Bank, Wells Fargo Bank,
and Mars Hill College. Though there are areas of the county that are farther from
community services, the area overall is adequately served and the distance to
community services is not believed to have a significantly negative impact on the
probability of residents desire to live in the area.
Transylvania County - Transylvania County is considered a rural county, with
the Pisgah National Forest (500,000 acres in total), Gorges State Park (7,708
acres) and the DuPont Forest State Park (10,268 acres) occupying approximately
two-thirds of the county in total. Brevard is the county seat and the county
government offices are located there. There are a variety of community services
including numerous parks and recreation opportunities for residents residing
within the delineated county borders. The majority of services are located within
Brevard, including the Transylvania Regional Hospital, which is a full service
hospital. Fire, police, post offices and libraries, banks, gas stations, houses of
worship, pharmacies, doctor’s offices, day cares and restaurants are also located
within Brevard. Notably, there are various staple community services such as a

Regional-34

 Food Lion, Ingles Market, Bi-Lo, Walmart Supercenter, Dollar Tree, Kmart,
Brevard Deli, Wendy’s, Arby’s, Zaxby’s, Walgreen’s, CVS Pharmacy, Bank of
North Carolina, First Citizens Bank, Wells Fargo, and Brevard College. While
the majority of community services are located within Brevard, community
services located in the smaller surrounding towns may appear to be lacking.
However, it is not believed to be a significant hindrance to the current population
or believed to negatively impact the probability of residents desire to live in the
area.
5. TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
The purpose of this section is to evaluate various aspects of transportation and
how it relates to housing decisions. Specific elements considered in this analysis
include public transportation, parking alternatives, drive times, modes of transit,
and transportation costs of the study areas.
Public Transit Availability
Asheville - Public Bus Service
Asheville Redefines Transit (ART) offers transportation options in the
communities of Asheville and Black Mountain within Buncombe County. ART
offers sixteen fixed bus route that operates daily from 5:30 am – 10:30 pm on
Monday through Saturday. There are eight routes that operate on
Sunday/Holidays from 8:00 am – 5:35 pm. Additionally, there is a Fare Free
Zone available within the downtown limits of Asheville. One-way fares are
available to adults for $1.00 and $0.50 for seniors while children under 5 ride
free. Discount fares are available to residents 65 and older, Medicare recipients,
and students ages 6 to 19. It should be noted that some employers participate in
the PASSport Program which allows employees to ride for free. Other fare
options include an 11-ride ticket book, monthly and annual passes which are
summarized in a table below.
11-Ride Ticket Book
Monthly Pass
Annual Pass

Adult
$9.00
$20.00
$220.00

Senior/Student
$4.50
$10.00
$110.00

It should be noted that ART provides handicap accessible services on all bus
routes. Para Transit services are also available to persons with disabilities as an
on-call service for nominal fee of $2.00 per ride through Mountain Mobility of
Buncombe County.
Furthermore, ART has regional partnerships with Mountain Mobility and Apple
County Transit to provide transit services to persons residing outside of ART’s
service area within Buncombe and Henderson counties.

Regional-35

 Buncombe County - Public Bus Service
Mountain Mobility- Trailblazer operates three fixed routes available to anyone
within Buncombe County for a nominal fee of $0.50 per ride. Each route operates
Monday through Friday at varying times between 5:50 am and 7:45 pm. It should
be noted that Mountain Mobility vehicles can only accommodate a maximum of
18 passengers at a time. These routes also serve as connections where passengers
can transfer to ART or Haywood Public Transit. Mountain Mobility also offers
an on-call service for disabled persons which was previously noted.
Henderson County - Public Bus Service
Apple Country Public Transit provides bus service throughout the city of
Hendersonville, and the towns of Fletcher and Laurel Park with three routes
which operate from 6:30 am – 6:30 pm Monday through Friday. All routes
originate at the transfer site located in downtown Hendersonville. Transit service
is not available on weekends or Holidays. One-way fares are available to adults
for $0.75 per ride and $0.35 for seniors while children under 12 ride free. Other
fare options include a 20-ride ticket book and monthly passes which are available
at a cost of $10.00 to $15.00. Apple Country Public Transit offers one route
which provides a link to Asheville’s ART at a cost of $1.00 per transfer.
It should be noted that Apple Country Transit contracts with the Western Carolina
Community Action (WCCA) to provide Para Transit services to persons with a
disability within ¾ of a mile of the Apple County Public Transits service area for
a nominal fee of $1.50 per ride. Reservations for this service must be made at
least 24 hours in advance.
Madison County - Public Bus Service
Madison County Transportation Authority (MCTA) provides on-call
transportation services to persons residing with Madison County Monday through
Friday from 6:30 am until 4:30 pm. Round trip fares vary from $5.00 (in county)
to $12.00 (Asheville).
Transylvania County - Public Bus Service
Transylvania County Transportation System provides limited on-call
transportation services to seniors, disabled persons to various designated locations
within Transylvania County such as nutrition sites, recreational centers, medical
appointments, and shopping centers at no charge. The general public may
schedule a ride anywhere within the county for a nominal fee of $1.00 per ride.
Transportation services are available Monday through Friday from 6:00 am to
6:00 pm and must be made 24 hours in advance.

Regional-36

 Parking Options
Asheville (Buncombe County)
A total of 4 notable parking structures and 3 parking lots were identified in the
City of Asheville, primarily located within the downtown area. Generally, parking
garage and lot fees range from $1.00 to $2.00 per hour with a daily maximum of
$5.00 to $10.00. While metered parking is available at a cost of $1.25 per hour.
There are approximately 700 on-street metered spaces in downtown Asheville
which are enforced from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Saturday.
Asheville also offers on- and off-street permit parking is available at a rate of
$35.00 to $55.00 per month. Parking information is presented in the following
table:
Parking Garages
Civic Center
Rankin Avenue
Wall Street
*Biltmore Avenue

Available
Spaces
550
262
232
404

Hourly
Fee
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00

Monthly
Fee
$80.00
$90.00
$100.00
$100.00-$120.00

*This garage shares space with the Aloft Hotels so space availability is dependent on hotel occupancy
All garages daily maximum fee is $10.00

Parking Lots
S. Lexington Aston Street
40 S. Lexington
Lexington Village

Hourly Fee
(Maximum Daily)
$1.00 ($5.00)
$2.00 ($5.00)

After Hours
Flat Rate
$3.00
$3.00
$5.00

Monthly
Fee
$45.00

Weekend
Fee
$2.00
-

Hendersonville (Henderson County)
A total of 4 metered parking lots were identified in the City of Hendersonville,
located exclusively within the downtown Hendersonville. All spaces within the
parking lots are metered at a cost of $0.25 per half hour with no maximum time
limit. All parking meters are enforced Monday through Saturday from 8:00 am to
6:00 pm. While metered parking is available at cost many streets within
Hendersonville offer 2 hour parking free of charge. Parking information is
presented in the following table:
Parking Garages
Azalea Parking Lot
City Hall Parking Lot
Dogwood Parking Lot
Maple Parking Lot

Location
3rd Avenue
King Avenue
Church Street
5th Avenue

*Available spaces are approximate

Regional-37

*Available
Spaces
68
43
42
28

Metered
Fee
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25
$0.25

 Madison County
Due to the rural nature of Madison County there appears to be no designated or
city-owned/operated public parking lots or metered parking within the larger
communities of Mars Hill or Marshall. The limited parking that does exist within
these communities is on-street within the town centers and is available free of
charge.
Brevard (Transylvania)
A total of 4 public parking lots were identified within the Town of Brevard,
located within Transylvania County. All spaces within these lots are free of
charge. There is also limited on-street parking within the town center, which is
also available free of charge. Due to the rural nature of Transylvania County
there appears to be no designated or county-owned/operated public parking lots or
metered parking within the larger community of Pisgah Forest or within the
county.
Transportation Modes and Drive Times
Commuting Patterns
The following table shows two commuting pattern attributes (mode and time) for
each study area:

North Carolina

Total

Region

Worked at
Home

Transylvania County

Other Means

Madison County

Walked

Henderson County

Public Transit

Buncombe County

Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Carpooled

Asheville

Drove Alone

Commuting Mode

29,180
75.6%
86,334
78.3%
35,413
80.1%
6,325
77.0%
9,671
76.1%
137,743
78.5%
3,385,847
80.5%

3,923
10.2%
12,566
11.4%
5,527
12.5%
1,091
13.3%
1,819
14.3%
21,003
12.0%
481,123
11.4%

820
2.1%
982
0.9%
42
0.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1,024
0.6%
42,731
1.0%

1,072
2.8%
2,490
2.3%
748
1.7%
249
3.0%
373
2.9%
3,860
2.2%
75,341
1.8%

1,010
2.6%
1,594
1.4%
408
0.9%
14
0.2%
310
2.4%
2,326
1.3%
55,088
1.3%

2,604
6.7%
6,314
5.7%
2,057
4.7%
535
6.5%
533
4.2%
9,439
5.4%
165,786
3.9%

38,609
100.0%
110,280
100.0%
44,195
100.0%
8,214
100.0%
12,706
100.0%
175,395
100.0%
4,205,917
100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Regional-38

 North Carolina

Total

Region

Worked at
Home

Transylvania County

60 or More
Minutes

Madison County

45 to 59
Minutes

Henderson County

30 to 44
Minutes

Buncombe County

Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent

15 to 29
Minutes

Asheville

Less Than 15
Minutes

Commuting Time

15,462
40.0%
33,487
30.4%
12,735
28.8%
1,480
18.0%
4,718
37.1%
52,420
29.9%
1,176,024
28.0%

14,945
38.7%
47,501
43.1%
19,477
44.1%
2,182
26.6%
3,625
28.5%
72,785
41.5%
1,627,693
38.7%

3,558
9.2%
16,019
14.5%
6,765
15.3%
1,990
24.2%
2,496
19.6%
27,270
15.5%
762,399
18.1%

743
1.9%
3,439
3.1%
1,779
4.0%
1,286
15.7%
838
6.6%
7,342
4.2%
258,226
6.1%

1,296
3.4%
3,520
3.2%
1,382
3.1%
741
9.0%
496
3.9%
6,139
3.5%
215,789
5.1%

2,604
6.7%
6,314
5.7%
2,057
4.7%
535
6.5%
533
4.2%
9,439
5.4%
165,786
3.9%

38,609
100.0%
110,280
100.0%
44,195
100.0%
8,214
100.0%
12,706
100.0%
175,395
100.0%
4,205,917
100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Commuting modes within the individual study areas (Asheville and the four
subject counties) are generally similar to each other. Regionally, nearly eight in
10 commuters “drive alone” to work, with an additional 12.0% carpooling to
work. While only 0.6% of the region’s commuters use public transportation,
2.1% of Asheville’s commuters use public transportation. Over 70% of the
region’s commuters have commute times of less than 30 minutes, with the
shortest commute times in Buncombe and Henderson counties. The longest
commute times appear to be in Madison County. As such, it appears that
residents in the more rural areas of the study regions have longer commutes and
likely higher commuting expenses.
Conclusions
Parking options in the city of Asheville (Buncombe County) include nearly 1,500
garage parking spaces, three parking lots, and approximately 700 metered parking
spaces. Garage parking fees range from $80 to $120 a month, while metered
parking is as low $1.00 per hour. In Hendersonville (Henderson County), parking
options include surface parking lots ($0.25 per half hour) and free on-street
parking. The town of Brevard appears to have four surface parking lots with free
parking. No other towns appear to have large scale parking options.

Regional-39

 The subject region is well served by public transportation in Buncombe and
Henderson counties, particularly within the communities of Asheville, Black
Mountain, Fletcher, Hendersonville, and Laurel Park. While there are no public
bus systems that serve the more rural Madison and Transylvania counties, these
areas are served by on-call transit services. Overall, the area’s more populated
areas are well served by public transit, while the rural areas have sufficient on-call
service. Generally, monthly public transportation costs range from around $20 to
$30 per month, with lower rates for seniors.
Depending upon the community, drive times generally range from 15 to 29
minutes in Buncombe and Henderson counties, with some of the longest commute
times within Madison County. A majority of the region’s commuters are driving
alone. While only 0.6% of the region’s residents are using public transportation to
commute to work, 2.1% of Asheville residents use public transportation to
commute to work.
Based on this analysis, persons commuting into Asheville experience direct
monthly costs ranging anywhere from $20 a month for public busing to at least
$80 for those using downtown parking garages. For commuters providing their
own transportation, additional costs for gas and maintenance will add to their
indirect costs associated with commuting. These costs will also apply to
commuters traveling to and from other parts of the region. As such, the
development of housing alternatives closer to downtown Asheville and other
employment centers will help to diminish transportation-associated costs for area
residents. This will be particularly beneficial to low-income households.

Regional-40

 6. SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS
We have presented the demographic characteristics of the special needs
populations for the overall subject region which includes Buncombe, Henderson,
Madison and Transylvania counties. Special needs populations and housing
alternatives meeting their needs are discussed in greater detail in the individual
county chapters of this report.
The special needs populations presented in this section include the following:













Homeless Population
Persons with Disabilities
Persons with HIV/AIDS
Victims of Domestic Violence
Unaccompanied Youth – Youth Aging Out of Foster Care
Ex-Offenders (On Parole/Probation) Re-Entry
Persons with a Mental Illness with Severe Mental Illness
Persons with Substance Abuse
Multi-Generational Households
Homeless Veterans
Elderly (Age 62+) and Frail Elderly (Persons Age 62+ Requiring Assistance
with Daily Living)
Co-Occurring Disorders

The data shown is for the latest period in which data is available for each special
needs population, which may vary from group to group. All data sources are cited
in Addendum A: Sources.
The following table summarizes the various special needs populations within the
region that were considered in this report. It should be noted that county level
data, when available, is presented and discussed in the county chapters of this
report.
Asheville Region Special Needs Populations
Special Needs Group
Persons
Special Needs Group
HIV/AIDS
641
Persons with Disabilities (PD)
Victims of Domestic Violence (VDV)
731
Elderly (Age 62+) (E62)
Persons with Substance Abuse (PSA)
466
Frail Elderly (Age 62+) (FE62)
Adults with Mental Illness (MI)
16,425
Ex-offenders (Parole/Probation) (EOP)
Adults with Severe Mental Illness (SMI)
290
Unaccompanied Youth (UY)
Co-Occurring Disorders (COD)
6,857
Homeless Veterans
Multi-Generational Households (MGH)
5,068
Homeless Population
Note: Data sources cited in Addendum A: Sources

Regional-41

Persons
59,980
105,830
11,366
855
87
469
4,066

 Excluding the homeless population, the largest number of special needs persons is
among those age 62 and older, persons with disabilities, adults with mental illness
and the frail elderly (persons age 62+ requiring some level of Assistance with
Daily Living). According to our interviews with area stakeholders, housing
alternatives that meet the specific needs of the special needs population are
limited. Further commentary regarding these groups is discussed on the following
pages.
Homeless Population
The Asheville region is located within two of HUD’s designated Continuums of
Care (CoC) area known as Asheville/Buncombe County CoC and North Carolina
Balance of the State CoC. CoCs around the United States are required to collect
data for a point-in-time during the last week of each year. The last published
point-in-time surveys were conducted in January 2014. This includes a count of
persons who are classified as homeless, as well as an inventory of the housing
specifically designated for the homeless population. According to the 2014 pointin-time survey for Asheville/ Buncombe County CoC and North Carolina Balance
of the State CoC, there are approximately 4,066 persons who are classified as
homeless on any given day.
Based on the North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness, there are
approximately 4,066 persons classified as homeless within the Asheville region.
The following tables summarize the sheltered and unsheltered homeless
population, as well as the homeless housing inventory within the region.
Permanent
Supportive
Housing

Rapid
Re-Housing

Unsheltered

Total
Population

Total

Transitional
Housing

Population Category
Persons in Households without Children
Persons in Households with 1 Adult & 1 Child
Persons in Household with only Children
# of Persons Chronically & Formerly Chronically Homeless
Persons with Serious Mental Illness
Persons with Substance Abuse Disorder
Persons w/ AIDS/HIV
Victims of Domestic Violence
Veterans
Ex-Offenders
Persons exiting Behavioral Health/Healthcare System

Emergency
Shelter

Homeless Population & Subpopulation–Asheville Region

253
56
4
26
76
53
1
50
35
15
27
596

212
23
2
0
104
141
0
41
184
4
37
748

538
59
0
10
326
336
12
103
239
29
51
1,703

54
140
0
430
25
26
0
34
4
1
3
717

144
18
5
47
35
24
0
5
7
9
8
302

1,201
296
11
513
566
580
13
233
469
58
126
4,066

Regional-42

 6
6
3
3
0
18

0
0
0
0
0
0

Total
Beds

AIDS/HIV

43
11
0
0
0
54

*Overflow
Beds

Youth

0
0
383
0
0
383

Seasonal Beds

Domestic
Violence

Project
Type
Emergency Shelter
132
158
0
Transitional Housing
48
208
109
Permanent Supportive Housing
86
75
0
*Rapid Re-housing
51
2
0
Safe Haven
0
0
0
Total Beds By Population
317
443
109
Source: North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness (1-2014)

Chronically
Homeless

Veteran

Single
Male & Female

Households
with Children

Homeless Housing Inventory – Asheville Region
Beds by Population Category

15
0
0
0
0
15

22
0
0
0
0
22

376
382
547
56
0
1,361

*Haven of Transylvania operates a RRH program and can provide assistance up to 34 individuals however this number is not
reflected in the count as it was not providing assistance during the PIT count.

Based on the 2014 North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness Housing
Inventory Counts, the utilization (occupancy) rate for homeless housing beds in
the Asheville region is 88.6% This utilization rate and the fact that 302 persons
remain unsheltered on a given night indicate that there still remains a need for
housing that meets the special needs of the homeless population. The Asheville
region appears to be actively engaged in assisting its local CoCs through various
outreach and housing programs that are targeted towards its homeless population.

Region Homeless Beds by Population
18

0 15
22

54

Households with Children
Single Male & Female

317

Veteran
Chronically Homeless
Domestic Violence

383

Youth
AIDS/HIV (0)

237

443

Seasonal Beds
Overflow Beds

Regional-43

 Persons with Disabilities
According to U.S. Census Data there are approximately 59,980 persons living with a
disability in the Asheville region. It should be noted that Madison and Transylvania
counties have the highest percentage (18.0%) of their population living with a
disability as compared to Buncombe (14.7%) and Henderson (15.2%) counties, both
of which are slightly lower than the overall regional average.
In 2012, a person in the Asheville MSA with a disability received SSI benefits equal
to $698 month, according to Priced Out in 2012, a study discussing severe housing
affordability problems experienced by persons with disabilities. A person with a
disability receiving SSI would have to pay 94% of their monthly income to rent a
one-bedroom apartment in Asheville. Currently, there are approximately 105 NonElderly Disabled (NED) vouchers in use within the Housing Authority of Asheville
and Western Carolina Community Action’s jurisdiction, according to the Technical
Assistance Collaborative (TAC) Database of vouchers targeted to people with
disabilities.
A representative from Disability Partners of Asheville noted that accessible housing
for disabled persons is greatly needed within Buncombe and Henderson counties as
there is approximately a two-year waitlist for these units. Accessible housing is
greatly needed in the more rural areas of Madison and Transylvania counties as it is
almost non-existent. Currently, it is unknown as to how many housing units exist
specifically for the disabled population within the subject region as this data is
currently not tracked.
As part of Bowen National Research’s survey of area multifamily apartments, the
number of units that are handicapped accessible at each project were identified (based
on estimates from property managers). Overall, 308 accessible units were identified
among the region’s 14,198 surveyed multifamily units, representing 2.2% of the
surveyed supply. While this survey does not include all multifamily rentals in the
region, and not all property managers that were interviewed knew or would provide
the number of assessable units, these estimates provide insight of the relationship
between the universe of persons with disabilities and the share of multifamily units
that are handicapped accessible.
Total Number of Accessible Units- Asheville Region
161*
City of Asheville
246
Buncombe County
25
Henderson County
6
Madison County
31
Transylvania County
Overall Total
308
*Not reflected in overall total because it is already accounted within Buncombe County

Based on this data, it appears a very small share of multifamily rental housing units
meet the specific needs of the region’s disabled population.

Regional-44

 Disability Partners of Asheville serves approximately 267 disabled persons annually
combined within Buncombe, Henderson, Madison and Transylvania counties. Of
those 267 disabled persons, it is estimated that 20 to 30 experience homelessness
annually. It should also be noted that Disability Partners also provides disabled
persons with various supportive services, skills training, peer counseling and housing
referrals.
Furthermore, there is a Key Target Program through the Department of Health &
Human Services which provides housing assistance to disabled persons of which
Disability Partners used to be a referral agency. Due to budget cuts, this program is
no longer available which has provided service providers like Disability Partners a
disadvantage when serving its clients. However, other local initiatives exist in the
Asheville region such as SOAR, which helps homeless individuals with disabilities
access SSID benefits within months instead of years.
Persons with HIV/AIDS
In 2013, it was estimated that there were approximately 28,101 persons identified as
living with HIV/AIDS within North Carolina, of which 641 persons reside within the
Asheville region. As of June 2014 there were 32 newly reported cases of HIV/AIDS
within the Asheville region, according to the North Carolina 2014 Quarterly
HIV/STD Surveillance Report.
While there is no housing or shelters specifically designated for this group, there are
various supportive services and advocacy programs available to persons living with
HIV/AIDS within the Asheville region through Western North Carolina AIDS Project
(WNCAP). A representative with WNCAP stated that there is a significant need for
affordable housing specifically targeted to persons living with HIV/AIDS as there is
currently a two-year wait list to receive any type of rental assistance through the
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program. Currently, in the
Asheville region there are approximately 55 to 60 persons receiving some type of
assistance through HOPWA. Furthermore, it was mentioned that within the next
three to five years that all funding for the HOPWA program will be cut leaving many
persons without rental assistance in the Asheville region.
According the North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness 2014 Housing
Inventory Counts within the Asheville region, there are currently no shelters or
transitional housing programs specifically targeting persons living with HIV/AIDS.
However 13 persons who were identified as living with HIV/AIDS sought refuge
within emergency shelters and permanent supportive housing within Buncombe
County. It should be noted that no persons living with HIV/AIDS were reported as
homeless within Transylvania, Henderson or Madison counties.

Regional-45

 Victims of Domestic Violence
The North Carolina Council for Women identified 57,345 victims of domestic
violence who sought services from 105 local domestic violence programs in North
Carolina from 2012 to 2013. According to this survey, there were 15,327 domestic
violence victims and children who sought refuge in emergency shelters or transitional
housing within North Carolina and 2,413 victims were referred to other area shelters
due to lack of space. The following table summarizes total victims who received
shelter and non-residential programs in the Asheville region.

Asheville/Buncombe County
Henderson County
Transylvania County
Madison County
Overall Total

Domestic Violence Program Statistics 2012-2013
Total Victims Receiving
Shelter Services
Total Victims Receiving
(Referred to area shelters)
Non-Residential Services
Total Calls Received
199
(173)
23,837
1,212
266
(0)
3,622
705
104
(0)
4,947
77
162
(9)
6,302
875
731
(182)
38,708
2,869

Source: North Carolina Council for Women 2012-2013 County Statistics

Of the 731 victims who received shelter within the Asheville region, 182 victims
were referred to other area shelters due to program overcapacity. However, according
to Helpmate, it should be noted that within Asheville/Buncombe County there is a
priority given to domestic violence victims through the Asheville Housing Authority,
which decreases the amount of time spent in shelters awaiting alternative housing.
According to various local area service providers within the Asheville region there is
a need to expand availability of emergency shelters serving victims of domestic
violence. Last year Helpmate referred 173 families to shelters in neighboring counties
due to overcapacity. Currently, there are four shelters in the Asheville region which
serve the counties (Buncombe, Henderson, Madison and Transylvania). Area
representatives also noted there is a need for a transitional housing program in
Madison and Transylvania counties which would allow many victims of domestic
violence the ability to receive continued advocacy and supportive services. Lastly,
there is a need for more rental assistance to enable victims to resettle more quickly
due to loss of income. Approximately 60% of all victims of domestic violence are
homeless within the Asheville region, which is comparable with the national average
of 63%. Furthermore, Buncombe County ranks 2nd in North Carolina in domestic
violence related death incidents.

Regional-46

 Below is a table summarizing housing options available to victims of domestic
violence within the Asheville region.

Housing Provider
(County Served)
Helpmate (Buncombe)
My Sister’s Place (Madison)
Mainstay (Henderson)
SAFE of Transylvania County/
Stacey’s House (Transylvania)
Overall Total

Supportive Housing for
Victims of Domestic Violence
Total Population
Total
Served FY 2014
Beds
205
25
N/A
N/A
238
36
232
675

20
81

Average Length
of Stay
35
N/A
30

Nights of Safe
Shelter
6,961
N/A
6,626

45
36.6

1,854
15,441

N/A- Not Available
Sources: Helpmate 2013-2014 Annual Report; SAFE of Transylvania Representative; Mainstay 2014 Annual Report

Helpmate and other area shelters also provide various outreach services and programs
to this subpopulation group within Asheville and surrounding counties. The table
below highlights the number of individuals who took advantage of these various
programs and services.
Advocacy Programs for Victims of Domestic Violence
Helpmate
Advocacy Program/Service
Total Persons Served (FY 2014)
Outreach Education Program
3,682
Legal Advocacy
1,020
Crisis Response/Hotline
2,397
Individual/Group Counseling
709
Overall Total
7,808
My Sister’s Place
Counseling Services
N/A
Legal Advocacy
N/A
Crisis Response/Hotline
N/A
Community Education
N/A
Overall Total
N/A
Mainstay
Crisis Response
461
Outreach Program
150
Education
241
Overall Total
852
SAFE of Transylvania County
Crisis Response/Hotline
45
Counseling Services
441
Legal Advocacy
114
Overall Total
600
N/A- Not Available
Sources: Helpmate 2014 Annual Report; Various representatives within each agency

Regional-47

 Unaccompanied Youth – Youth Aging Out of Foster Care
Child welfare systems throughout the country exist to seek other housing alternatives
for youth who cannot return to their current family situation. As such, many youth in
the foster care system “age out” at 18 without a place to call home and lacking many
life skills. Approximately 1,034 youth aged out of the foster care system in North
Carolina from 2012 to 2013. Additionally, the percentage of youth that aged out of
the foster care system in North Carolina has increased by 34.6% since 2001.
Specifically within the Asheville region, there were 87 youth that “aged out” of the
system from 2012 to 2013. It should be noted that Buncombe County serves
approximately 77% of youth aging out of the foster care system. It should also be
noted that in 2013 there were 11 children or (12.6%) who “aged out” who were
reported as homeless within Buncombe and Henderson counties.
While there are limited supportive services available to youth once they age out of the
foster care system in North Carolina, the LINKS program provides some support to
youth upon emancipation. Supportive services can include, but are not limited to
counseling, job training, housing assistance, and a monthly stipend to attend college
/vocational school. This program was established in 1999 in response to the Chafee
Foster Care Independence Act through federal funding. Every county in North
Carolina is required to provide LINKS services to youth from the ages of 16 to 21.
Ex-Offender Re-Entry
It is estimated that 600,000 prisoners are released each year in the United States,
according to the U.S. Department of Justice. This poses many challenges to
communities regarding such things as housing, job availability and social services.
Recently incarcerated individuals within the Asheville region who are reintegrating
back into society from prison are at 10% risk of homelessness, a representative from
the Division of Adult Correction and Rehabilitate Programs noted. However, it is
believed that the true number of formerly incarcerated individuals that are released
into homelessness is likely much greater. Additionally, transitional and permanent
housing are critical needs for formerly incarcerated individuals; however, many
affordable housing options are not available to individuals with a criminal
background and finding a living wage job for them is very difficult. Specifically, in
2013 the North Carolina Department of Corrections released 694 men and 161
women to the Asheville region. Of the 855 persons discharged approximately 0.6%
are currently homeless and 13% (116) have a chronic mental illness.

Regional-48

 The North Carolina prisoner re-entry program assists former offenders returning to
the community by providing employment, obtaining stable housing, income
assistance, education, counseling, substance abuse assistance, and transportation
services. Currently, these services are only available to ex-offenders in Buncombe
and Henderson counties within the Asheville region. However some re-entry support
is available in the more rural areas of Madison and Transylvania counties through
local churches; however, many former offenders end up relocating to Buncombe
County due the lack of supportive services in the other counties. One local service
provider in Madison County noted that due to the rural nature of the area, many
former offenders end up living with family members or seeking jobs/housing in
Buncombe County. It was noted that there may be a need for some type of permanent
housing with supportive services for this group within the rural counties much like
the current pilot program in Asheville.
In January 2013, the re-entry network in Asheville started a pilot program for
formerly incarcerated men that provides housing support while they attend classes at
the local community college. Currently, the program is supporting five former
offenders. A representative with the Asheville Re-Entry Network noted that there
was also a need for permanent supportive housing as well as affordable workforce
housing with some units designated specifically for former offenders in Buncombe
and Henderson counties. The only housing options that currently exist for former
offenders in those counties are shelter services.
Persons with a Mental Illness
According to the North Carolina Division of Mental Health, there were 306,080
persons in the state who were treated for a mental illness in 2013. Of the 306,080
persons served, 71% were being treated for a mental illness and 23% were treated for
substance abuse. Specifically, within the Western Highlands Local Management
Entity (LME), which serves the Ashville region, there were 24,038 persons served of
which 68% (16,425) were being treated for a mental illness and 19% for substance
abuse which is comparable with the state average. It should also be noted that there
were 4,864 persons who were served for a severe mental illness within state licensed
Neuro-Medical Treatment Centers and State Psychiatric Hospitals in North Carolina.
Of the 4,864 persons served with a serve mental illness, 0.6% (290) were within the
Asheville region. Since 2004, the number of persons served within these hospitals
and treatment centers has decreased by 77%. The State of North Carolina appears to
be actively engaged by providing housing within state licensed mental health
facilities to this special needs population. Specifically within the Asheville region
there is a total capacity of 820 beds located within 165 facilities.

Regional-49

 Persons with Substance Abuse
According to the North Carolina Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment Centers Annual
Statistical Report, admissions in 2013 for treatment of substance abuse in North
Carolina have increased by 1.9%, from 4,058 in 2012 to 4,136 in 2013. Specifically,
in 2013 there were 4,343 persons served in state Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment
Centers, of which 466 were within the Asheville region. It should be noted that
Buncombe County accounts for 79.6% of all persons treated for substance abuse in
the Asheville region and has the highest population served (371) within the Western
Highland LME. Henderson, Madison and Transylvania counties account for less than
10% of persons served for substance abuse in the Asheville region.
In terms of housing and rehab treatment facilities, the Asheville region appears to be
well served. According to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety
Rehabilitative Programs & Services county database there are approximately 31
facilities within the Asheville region which offer transitional or permanent
supportive housing as well as substance abuse and counseling programs either for free
or fees are based on a sliding scale.
Multi-Generational Households
The U.S. Census Bureau defines multi-generational families as those consisting of
more than two generations living under the same roof. Currently, one in six persons
living in the United States lives in a multigenerational household. Specifically, in
North Carolina there are approximately 168,564 persons living in a multigenerational household.
There are currently 5,068 multi-generational households residing within the Asheville
region, of which 47% (2,718) reside within Buncombe County. A service provider
with Council on Aging believes that most multi-generational households in the area
live together out of necessity either because they can no longer afford their home or
are “doubling up” because of lack of affordable housing options. Additionally, many
low-income families receiving subsidies in the area may want to live with or take in
family members but are unable to do so because they would lose their assistance due
to the additional income that would result from adding to their household sizes. It
was noted that if larger affordable bedroom types were developed, they may be able
to accommodate multi-generational household living. Currently, there is no
affordable housing in the area available to support multi-generational living (all lowincome multifamily projects are fully occupied). Furthermore, most multigenerational living options that are advertised in the area serve higher income
households thus making them inaccessible to low-income families.

Regional-50

 Homeless Veterans
There are an estimated 62,619 veterans who were classified as homeless on a single
night throughout the United States in 2012, according to the National Alliance to End
Homelessness Annual Assessment Report. That estimate represents a 7.2% decline
compared to HUD’s 2011 estimate.
According to the 2014 point-in-time survey for Asheville/Buncombe and North
Carolina BoS, there are approximately 469 veterans who are classified as homeless
on any given day in Asheville/Buncombe and Henderson counties. It should be noted
that Transylvania and Madison counties currently do not have a reported homeless
veteran population or facilities with a veteran set aside. The following table
summarizes the sheltered and unsheltered homeless veteran population within
Asheville/Buncombe and Henderson counties.
Homeless Population & Subpopulation– Asheville/Buncombe & Henderson Counties
Permanent
Population
Emergency
Transitional
Supportive
Rapid
Total
Category
Shelter
Housing
Housing
Re-Housing
Unsheltered
Population
Veterans
35
184
239
4
7
469
Source: North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness (2014)

Of the 469 identified veteran households in the subject region, more than half
(50.9%) are within permanent supportive housing and 39.2% are within transitional
housing. A total of seven veterans (0.1%) are unsheltered. It is important to note that
468 veterans classified as homeless in 2014 all reside within Asheville/Buncombe
County. A representative with Homeward Bound and other area shelters stated that
they do not see very many homeless veterans in the more rural areas such as Madison
and Transylvania counties as many homeless veterans tend to seek services in
Buncombe County due to the various shelter services and advocacy programs. Within
the past three years service providers in Madison and Transylvania counties estimated
that they have assisted approximately six veteran households. It should be noted that
there are currently 220 HUD-VASH vouchers that are currently in use within
Asheville. As such, the homeless veteran population appears to be well served,
though some veterans remain homeless.
Elderly and Frail Elderly
Based on data provided by the ESRI, it is projected that the study region will have
105,830 elderly persons age 62 and older. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention’s Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Population National
Health Interview Survey 2011, 3.6% of persons between the ages of 65 and 74 require
assistance with at least three Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and 11.9% of persons
over the age of 75 require ADL assistance nationally. Based on an evaluation of the
region’s elderly population, approximately 7.4% of all age 65 and older households
require ADL assistance. Applying this share to the region’s 2015 population of
persons age 62 and older yields an estimated 11,366 elderly persons requiring ADL
assistance. These 11,366 persons are categorized as “Frail Elderly” and likely require
either home health care services or senior care housing to meet their specific needs.

Regional-51

 7. THEMATIC MAPS
Based on the preceding data sets, we have developed several demographic thematic
maps on a region level, illustrating the concentration of various demographic
characteristics.










Total Population (2015)
Total Population age 55+ (2015)
Projected Population Growth (2015 to 2020)
Population Density (2015)
Total Households (2015)
Projected Household Growth (2015 to 2020)
Households by Renter Share (2015)
Median Household Income (2015)
Population by Poverty Status (2006-2010 ACS)

These maps are included on the following pages.

Regional-52

 Hamblen County

Asheville, NC
2015 Total
Population
Greene
County

Washington County

Watauga County
Asheville Region

Carter County

Unicoi County
Mitchell County

Jefferson County

Cocke County

Yancey County

Block Groups
2015 Total Pop

Avery County<= 1,000
1,001 - 1,500
1,501
- 2,000County
Caldwell
2,001 - 2,500
2,501 - 3,000
> 3,000

Madison County
Sevier County

Burke County

McDowell County
Buncombe County
Swain County

Haywood County

Rutherford County
Cleveland County

Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County
Transylvania County

Macon County

N

Greenville County

0

1:760,667

Rabun County

Spartanburg County

Oconee County

Pickens County

Cherokee County
2.75

5.5

11

16.5
Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 Hamblen County

Washington County

Mitchell County

Jefferson County

Cocke County

Watauga County
Asheville Region

Carter County

Asheville, NC
Unicoi County
2015 Total
Population
Age 55 and Over
Greene
County

Yancey County

Block Groups
2015 Pop. Age 55 and Over

Avery County
<= 200
201 - 400
401 - 600
Caldwell County
601 - 800
801 - 1,000
> 1,000

Madison County
Sevier County

Burke County

McDowell County
Buncombe County
Swain County

Haywood County

Rutherford County
Cleveland County

Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County
Transylvania County

Macon County

N

Greenville County

0

1:760,667

Rabun County

Spartanburg County

Oconee County

Pickens County

Cherokee County
2.75

5.5

11

16.5
Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 Hamblen County

Washington County

Mitchell County

Jefferson County

Cocke County

Watauga County
Asheville Region

Carter County

Asheville, NC
Unicoi County
2015-2020
Estimated
Population Growth
Greene
County

Yancey County

Block Groups
2015-2020 Pop. Growth

Avery County
< -1%
-0.9% to 0%
0.1%
to 2% County
Caldwell
2.1% to 4%
4.1% to 6%
> 6%

Madison County
Sevier County

Burke County

McDowell County
Buncombe County
Swain County

Haywood County

Rutherford County
Cleveland County

Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County
Transylvania County

Macon County

N

Greenville County

0

1:760,667

Rabun County

Spartanburg County

Oconee County

Pickens County

Cherokee County
2.75

5.5

11

16.5
Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 Hamblen County

Washington County

Asheville, NC
2015 Population
Density
Greene County

Watauga County
Asheville Region

Carter County

Unicoi County
Mitchell County

Jefferson County

Cocke County

Yancey County

Block Groups
Persons Per Sq Mile

Avery County<= 50
50.1 - 100
100.1
- 200 County
Caldwell
200.1 - 500
500.1 - 1,000
> 1,000

Madison County
Sevier County

Burke County

McDowell County
Buncombe County
Swain County

Haywood County

Rutherford County
Cleveland County

Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County
Transylvania County

Macon County

N

Greenville County

0

1:760,667

Rabun County

Spartanburg County

Oconee County

Pickens County

Cherokee County
2.75

5.5

11

16.5
Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 Hamblen County

Washington County

Asheville, NC
2015 Total
Households
Greene
County

Watauga County
Asheville Region

Carter County

Unicoi County
Mitchell County

Jefferson County

Cocke County

Yancey County

Block Groups
2015 Total Households

Avery County<= 200
201 - 400
401Caldwell
- 600 County
601 - 800
801 - 1,000
> 1,000

Madison County
Sevier County

Burke County

McDowell County
Buncombe County
Swain County

Haywood County

Rutherford County
Cleveland County

Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County
Transylvania County

Macon County

N

Greenville County

0

1:760,667

Rabun County

Spartanburg County

Oconee County

Pickens County

Cherokee County
2.75

5.5

11

16.5
Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 Hamblen County

Washington County

Mitchell County

Jefferson County

Cocke County

Watauga County
Asheville Region

Carter County

Asheville, NC
Unicoi County
2015-2020
Estimated
Household Growth
Greene
County

Block Groups
2015-2020 HH Growth

Avery County<= -2%
-1.9% to 0%
0.1%
to 5% County
Caldwell
5.1% to 10%
> 10%

Yancey County
Madison County

Sevier County

Burke County

McDowell County
Buncombe County
Swain County

Haywood County

Rutherford County
Cleveland County

Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County
Transylvania County

Macon County

N

Greenville County

0

1:760,667

Rabun County

Spartanburg County

Oconee County

Pickens County

Cherokee County
2.75

5.5

11

16.5
Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 Hamblen County

Washington County

Mitchell County

Jefferson County

Cocke County

Watauga County
Asheville Region

Carter County

Asheville, NC
Unicoi County
2015 Share
of County
Renter Households
Greene

Block Groups
2015 Renter Share

Avery County<= 10%
10.1% - 20%
20.1%
- 30%County
Caldwell
30.1% - 40%
> 40%

Yancey County
Madison County

Sevier County

Burke County

McDowell County
Buncombe County
Swain County

Haywood County

Rutherford County
Cleveland County

Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County
Transylvania County

Macon County

N

Greenville County

0

1:760,667

Rabun County

Spartanburg County

Oconee County

Pickens County

Cherokee County
2.75

5.5

11

16.5
Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 Hamblen County

Washington County

Mitchell County

Jefferson County

Cocke County

Watauga County
Asheville Region

Carter County

Asheville, NC
Unicoi County
2015 Median
Income
GreeneHousehold
County

Block Groups
2015 Median Household Income

Avery<=
County
$30,000
$30,001 - $40,000
$40,001 - $50,000
Caldwell County
$50,001- $60,000
> $60,000

Yancey County
Madison County

Sevier County

Burke County

McDowell County
Buncombe County
Swain County

Haywood County

Rutherford County
Cleveland County

Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County
Transylvania County

Macon County

N

Greenville County

0

1:760,667

Rabun County

Spartanburg County

Oconee County

Pickens County

Cherokee County
2.75

5.5

11

16.5
Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 Hamblen County

Asheville, NC

Washington County

Carter County

2006-2010 Percentage of People at or Below
Povety Level
Unicoi County
Greene County
Mitchell County

Jefferson County

Asheville Region
Watauga

County

Census Tracts
2006-2010 Pct of People in Poverty
<= 10%
10.1% - 15%
15.1% - 20%
Avery County
20.1% - 25%
> 25%

Caldwell County

Cocke County

Yancey County
Madison County

Sevier County

Burke County

McDowell County
Buncombe County
Swain County

Haywood County

Rutherford County
Cleveland County

Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County
Transylvania County

Macon County

N

Greenville County

Spartanburg County
0

1:780,704

Rabun County

Oconee County

Pickens County

Cherokee County
2.75

5.5

11

16.5
Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 C. ECONOMICS
The economic characteristics and trends of a market or region can have a significant
impact on an area’s current and potential housing needs. Therefore, we have
evaluated key economic variables of region. Relevant detailed economic data relative
to the individual counties is included in the county chapters of this report.
Specific regional and county economic data sets in this section include the following:




Employment by Job Sector
Total Annual Employment (2004 to 2014)
Annual Unemployment Rates (2004 to 2014)

Evaluating these economic data sets can provide insight as to economic strengths and
weaknesses, help identify positive and negative trends, and provide information that
can help explain current housing conditions or assist in anticipating future housing
needs. For example, areas with diverse economic bases often have a better ability to
withstand economic downturns than areas with a heavy reliance on a single industry
sector. Markets with a large base of low-wage jobs, such as service-oriented or other
blue collar jobs, often indicate that a market has a better potential opportunity to
support affordable housing. Areas with growing unemployment can also indicate an
increasing need for additional affordable housing.
Key economic findings are discussed below.
Employment by Job Sector - Generally, healthy and stable economies are those that
are balanced with the number of employees distributed among a wide range of
employment sectors. Typically, economies with a good base of employment within
Educational Services, Health Care and Social Assistance, and Public Administration
are stable and have the ability to withstand downturns in the area economy. The labor
force within the subject region is very diversified and balanced with no industry
sector representing more than 11.2% of the overall region’s employment base. The
largest employment sectors in the region include Retail Trade (11.2%), Health Care &
Social Assistance (7.9%), Administrative, Support, Waste Management &
Remediation Services (7.7%), and Accommodation & Food Services (6.5%) job
sectors.
Unemployment Rates and Job Growth – The subject region was not immune to the
national recession that began in 2007/2008. From 2004 to 2008, the region’s
unemployment rate remained below 5.0%, and was considered very healthy and
stable. As the effects of the national recession hit the region, the region’s
unemployment rate increased to 8.4% in 2009 then increased further to 8.8% in 2010.
Despite these increases, they remained below both state and national rates. Since
2009, the region’s unemployment rate has declined annually. The August 2014
regional unemployment rate of 5.1% is near pre-recession levels and 12,224 jobs have
been added in the region over the past five years. These are positive indications of a
recovered and expanding regional economy.

Regional-62

 The distribution of counties’ and region’s employment by industry sector is
summarized below.

NAICS Group
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing &
Hunting
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation & Warehousing
Information
Finance & Insurance
Real Estate & Rental & Leasing
Professional, Scientific & Technical
Services
Management of Companies &
Enterprises
Administrative, Support, Waste
Management & Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health Care & Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
Accommodation & Food Services
Other Services (Except Public
Administration)
Public Administration
Nonclassifiable
Total

Buncombe
#
%

County Employment by Industry (Employees)
Henderson
Madison
Transylvania
#
%
#
%
#
%

#

Region
%

1,192
95
418
7,279
13,729
4,558
17,066
2,697
1,975
3,518
4,112

0.8%
0.1%
0.3%
4.8%
9.1%
3.0%
11.3%
1.8%
1.3%
2.3%
2.7%

656
50
34
3,019
4,081
2,527
5,509
1,415
485
1,124
1,201

1.3%
0.1%
0.1%
6.2%
8.3%
5.2%
11.3%
2.9%
1.0%
2.3%
2.5%

154
0
72
296
574
83
501
139
75
87
123

2.4%
0.0%
1.1%
4.7%
9.1%
1.3%
7.9%
2.2%
1.2%
1.4%
2.0%

88
0
25
866
507
181
1,388
108
136
325
486

0.7%
0.0%
0.2%
7.0%
4.1%
1.5%
11.2%
0.9%
1.1%
2.6%
3.9%

2,090 1.0%
145
0.1%
549
0.3%
11,460 5.2%
18,891 8.6%
7,349 3.4%
24,464 11.2%
4,359 2.0%
2,671 1.2%
5,054 2.3%
5,922 2.7%

8,215

5.4%

1,789

3.7%

227

3.6%

523

4.2%

10,754

4.9%

171

0.1%

32

0.1%

2

0.0%

13

0.1%

218

0.1%

12,730
7,314
11,827
1,422
9,697

8.4%
4.8%
7.8%
0.9%
6.4%

2,939
2,051
4,069
533
3,519

6.0%
4.2%
8.3%
1.1%
7.2%

463
716
432
77
134

7.3%
11.4%
6.9%
1.2%
2.1%

657
771
1,043
494
838

5.3%
6.2%
8.4%
4.0%
6.8%

16,789
10,852
17,371
2,526
14,188

7.7%
5.0%
7.9%
1.2%
6.5%

7,504
5.0%
9,682
6.4%
25,852 17.1%
151,053 100.0%

3,008
2,627
8,239
48,907

6.2%
297
4.7%
644
5.2%
11,453
5.4%
505
8.0%
954
7.7%
13,768
16.8% 1,345 21.3% 2,306
18.7% 37,742
100.0% 6,302 100.0% 12,353 100.0% 218,615

*Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The labor force within the region is relatively diversified and balanced with no
classified industry sector representing more than 11.2% of the overall region’s
employment base. The largest employment sector in the region is within the Retail
Trade employment sector, which has 24,464 jobs or 11.2% of the region’s entire
employment base. Other notable employment sectors include Manufacturing (8.6%),
Health Care & Social Assistance (7.9%), and Administrative, Support, Waste
Management & Remediation Services, which represents 7.7% of the region’s
employment base. With tourism a major influence on the region’s economy, there are
14,188 jobs within the region that are under the Accommodation & Food Services job
sector, which represents 6.5% of the region’s total employment. The largest
employment sectors by county are Retail Trade in Buncombe and Henderson
counties, representing 11.3% in both counties, and Education (11.4%) in Madison
County and Retail Trade in Transylvania County (11.2%).

Regional-63

5.2%
6.3%
17.3%
100.0%

 Region Employment by Industry
Retail Trade
Manufacturing
Health Care & Social Assistance

11.2%
24.1%

8.6%

Administrative/Support/Waste
Management/Remediation Services
Accommodation & Food Services

9.4%
Public Administration

7.7%

17.3%

6.5%
5.2%

6.3%
5.2%

Construction
Other Services (Except Public
Administration)
Non-Classifiable
Other

The following illustrates the annual unemployment rates from 2004 to current
(August 2014) for each subject county, the region, North Carolina and the United
States.
Unemployment Rate
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Buncombe
4.3%
4.4%
3.7%
3.6%
4.8%
8.2%
8.6%
8.0%
7.3%
6.1%
5.0%

Henderson
4.2%
4.2%
3.6%
3.5%
4.9%
8.7%
8.6%
8.0%
7.1%
6.0%
5.0%

Madison
5.2%
5.1%
4.2%
4.0%
5.8%
9.3%
9.8%
9.6%
9.0%
7.0%
5.5%

Transylvania
7.0%
5.3%
4.2%
3.7%
5.3%
9.1%
10.4%
10.0%
9.4%
8.1%
6.7%

Region
4.5%
4.4%
3.8%
3.6%
4.9%
8.4%
8.8%
8.2%
7.5%
6.2%
5.1%

North
Carolina
5.5%
5.3%
4.8%
4.8%
6.3%
10.4%
10.8%
10.2%
9.2%
8.0%
6.5%

United
States
5.6%
5.2%
4.7%
4.7%
5.8%
9.3%
9.7%
9.0%
8.1%
7.4%
6.5%

Source: Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics
*Through August

Over the past decade, the region’s unemployment rate has remained well below the
state and national averages. From 2004 to 2008, the region’s unemployment rate
remained below 5.0%. As the effects of the national recession hit the region, the
region’s unemployment rate began to climb in 2008 and peaked at 8.8% in 2010.
Since that time, the region’s unemployment rate has declined each year. The August
2014 regional unemployment rate of 5.1% is near pre-recession levels. It appears that
the unemployment rate increased to the highest level in Transylvania County, which
reached double digit levels in 2010 and 2011. Buncombe and Henderson counties
were the least impacted, as unemployment rates reached no higher than 8.6% in 2010
in both counties.
Regional-64

 Region/State Unemployment Rate
Region

North Carolina

Unemployment Rate

11.0%
10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014*

Year

The annual employment base for each of the study areas, as well as North Carolina
and the United States, are compared on the following graph.

Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Buncombe
%
#
Change
108,879
110,997
1.9%
115,077
3.7%
115,526
0.4%
116,545
0.9%
112,362
-3.6%
114,202
1.6%
115,585
1.2%
118,028
2.1%
120,001
1.7%
121,536
1.3%

Henderson
%
#
Change
43,676
44,682
2.3%
46,489
4.0%
46,545
0.1%
47,206
1.4%
45,612 -3.4%
46,358
1.6%
46,831
1.0%
47,368
1.1%
48,160
1.7%
48,776
1.3%

Total Employment
Madison
Transylvania
%
%
#
Change
#
Change
9,199
11,386
9,338
1.5%
11,800
3.6%
9,584
2.6%
12,174
3.2%
9,406
-1.9% 12,815
5.3%
9,451
0.5%
12,661 -1.2%
9,022
-4.5% 12,065 -4.7%
9,045
0.3%
11,719 -2.9%
9,060
0.2%
11,373 -3.0%
9,103
0.5%
11,524
1.3%
9,255
1.7%
11,505 -0.2%
9,373
1.3%
11,600
0.8%

Region
#
173,140
176,817
183,324
184,292
185,863
179,061
181,324
182,849
186,023
188,921
191,285

%
Change
2.1%
3.7%
0.5%
0.9%
-3.7%
1.3%
0.8%
1.7%
1.6%
1.3%

North Carolina
%
#
Change
4,031,081
4,123,857
2.3%
4,261,325
3.3%
4,283,826
0.5%
4,280,355
-0.1%
4,107,955
-4.0%
4,138,113
0.7%
4,183,094
1.1%
4,271,315
2.1%
4,318,319
1.1%
4,368,455
1.2%

Source: Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics
*Through August

In terms of the employment base, the region lost 6,802 jobs in 2009 at the peak of the
national recession, representing a decline of 3.7% from the preceding year. However,
this was the only year during the past decade that the region experienced negative job
growth, indicating the general economic strength and stability of the overall region.
Since 2009, the region has experienced positive job growth, adding 12,224 jobs over
the past five years. This represents a healthy 6.8% employment base increase during
this time. Only Transylvania County appears to have had a slow recovery from the
recession, experiencing job losses between 2008 and 2011, and again in 2013. On a
positive note, however, Transylvania County has posted positive job gains in two of

Regional-65

 the past three years. It is important to note that as of August 2014, Buncombe and
Henderson counties’ employment bases are higher than pre-recession levels,
indicating that these areas appear to have fully recovered from the national recession.
It should also be noted that Buncombe County’s 2014 employment base of 121,536
represents nearly two-thirds (63.5%) of the entire region’s employment base. As
such, Buncombe County represents a primary economic driver within the region.

Region Total Employment
193,000

Total Employed

190,500
188,000
185,500
183,000
180,500
178,000
175,500
173,000
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014*

Year

Specific county-level economic data and noteworthy job expansions and closures are
included in the individual county chapters of this report.
Overall, recent employment trends have been positive, indicating a very healthy and
growing regional economy that is outpacing and outperforming state and national
trends. With a relatively diverse employment base and positive projected
demographic trends, it is anticipated that region will likely experience continued
economic growth for the foreseeable future. These trends will have a positive impact
on housing demand in the region for the foreseeable future.

Regional-66

 D. HOUSING SUPPLY ANALYSIS
This housing supply analysis considers both rental and owner for-sale housing.
Understanding the historical trends, market performance, characteristics, composition,
and current housing choices provide critical information as to current market
conditions and future housing potential. The housing data presented and analyzed in
this section includes primary data collected directly by Bowen National Research and
from secondary data sources including American Community Survey (ACS), U.S.
Census housing information and data provided by various government entities and
real estate professionals.
The housing structures included in this analysis are:


Rental Housing – Multifamily rentals, typically with three or more units were
inventoried and surveyed. Additionally, rentals with two or fewer units, which
were classified as non-conventional rentals, were identified and surveyed. Other
rentals such as vacation rentals, mobile homes, and home stays (a single bedroom
or portion of a larger unit) were also considered in this analysis.



Owner For-Sale Housing – We identified attached and detached for-sale
housing, which may be part of a planned development or community, as well as
attached multifamily housing such as condominiums.



Senior Care Housing – Facilities providing housing for seniors requiring some
level of care, such as adult care facilities, multi-unit assisted facilities and nursing
homes were surveyed and analyzed.

For the purposes of this analysis, the housing supply information is presented for the
overall region and when applicable for the individual study areas. This analysis
includes secondary Census housing data, Bowen National Research’s survey of area
rental alternatives and senior care facilities, and owner for-sale housing data (both
historical sales and available housing alternatives) obtained from secondary data
sources (Multiple Listing Service, REALTOR.com, and other on-line sources).
Finally, we contacted local building and planning departments to determine if any
residential units of notable scale were currently planned or under review by local
government. Any such units were considered in the housing gap estimates included
later in this section.

Regional-67

 According to data provided by the 2011-2013 American Community Survey, there
are a total of 168,272 housing units within the region. The occupied units are
comprised of 115,482 (68.6%) owner-occupied units and 52,790 (31.4%) renteroccupied units. The distribution of occupied units by number of units per structure
and by tenure is summarized below.
Distribution of Occupied Units by Structure and Tenure-Region
Owner
Renter
Structure Type
Number
Share
Number
Share
1 Unit (Detached and Attached)
95,243
82.4%
21,206
40.2%
Two Units
532
0.6%
3,352
6.3%
Three to Four Units
859
0.7%
4,406
8.3%
Five or More Units
1,370
1.2%
13,269
25.1%
Mobile Homes
17,429
15.1%
10,477
19.8%
Boat, RV, Van, Etc.
49
0.0%
80
0.2%
Total
115,482
100.0%
52,790
100.0%
Source: 2011-2013 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates

Over 80% of the owner-occupied housing supply in the region consists of two units or
less. Over 45% of the renter-occupied supply consists of two or fewer units. Because
of the large share of rental units in smaller properties, we have evaluated such
housing in the non-conventional (units consisting of one or two units in a single
structure) rental housing supply section of this report.
There are a total of 31,438 vacant housing units in the region based on the 2013
American Community Survey. These vacancies yield an overall vacancy rate of
15.7%. The following table illustrates the region’s vacancies by type.
Vacancy Status by Type – Region
Vacancy Status
Number
For Rent
2,886
Rented, Not Occupied
481
For Sale Only
2,845
Sold, Not Occupied
533
Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use
14,394
Migrant Workers
103
Other Vacant
10,196
Total
31,438

Percent
9.2%
1.5%
9.0%
1.7%
45.8%
0.3%
32.4%
100.0%

Source: 2011-2013 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates

As the preceding table illustrates, nearly half of all vacancies in the region are within
housing classified as “seasonal, recreational and occasional use” units. Due to the
nature of these short-term housing units, it is not unusual for them to experience high
vacancies. There are a total of 2,886 rentals available for rent and 2,845 vacant forsale housing units available for purchase, based on ACS data. When these vacant
units are considered with the total occupied units by tenure, the vacancy rate for the
region’s rental housing supply is 5.2% while owner housing is 2.4% vacant.

Regional-68

 Based on research conducted by Bowen National Research and secondary data
sources, an inventory of surveyed and/or evaluated housing stock was compiled.
Overall, a total of 167 multifamily rental properties, 101 non-conventional rentals
(e.g. single-family homes, duplexes, etc.), 101 home stay rentals (individual
bedrooms or portions of larger units rented), 377 vacation rentals, 171 mobile home
parks, 22,330 recently sold housing units and 3,669 currently available for-sale units,
and 58 senior care facilities with 4,682 beds were identified and analyzed in the
region. The region’s surveyed housing supply is summarized as follows.
Region Surveyed Housing Supply
Total
Vacant
Vacancy
Units
Units
Rate
Product Type
Multifamily Apartments
14,198
137
1.0%***
Non-Conventional Rentals
25,835*
101
5.2%*
Home Stays
N/A
101
N/A
Vacation Rentals
N/A
377
N/A
Mobile Home Rentals
10,477*
N/A
N/A
Owner For-Sale Housing
22,330**
3,669
2.4%*
Senior Care Housing
4,682
236
5.0%
Independent Living
1,041
37
3.6%
Multi-Unit Assisted Housing
643
13
2.0%
Adult Care Homes
1,176
97
8.3%
Nursing Homes
1,822
89
4.9%
*Based on 2011-2013 American Community Survey
**Units sold between 2010 and 2014
***Vacancies based on physical vacancies, not economic vacancies

Price/Rent Range
$222 - $2,550
$380 - $3,800
$150 - $1,136
$1,620-$75,705
$425-$795
$5,500-$10,750,000
$1,060-$4,273
$1,060-$4,273
$1,525-$5,978
$1,298-$5,295
$5,322-$12,318

Bowen National Research identified and studied 71,898 total housing units among the
various housing segments studied in this report. Our research identified 4,857 vacant
/available units (Note: vacant units include units in apartments, available for-sale
housing, and vacant beds or units in senior care housing). While there are likely other
vacancies in the region such as shelter housing, institutional housing such as student
dormitory units, for-sale housing by owner, vacant/abandoned or other short-term
housing units that are vacant, the 4,857 identified vacant/available units are likely a
reasonable representation of the overall market conditions of the housing supply in
the region.
Based on Bowen National Research’s analysis of the region’s housing supply, it is
evident that the demand for housing in the region is very strong and that there is
limited availability. The inventoried supply has vacancy rates by product type ranging
from 1.0% (multifamily apartments) to 8.3% (adult care homes). Although the
standards used for defining the health of a housing market vary to some degree,
vacancy rates generally between 4.0% to 6.0% for rental housing and for-sale housing
markets and generally between 9.0% and 11.0% for senior care housing are
considered representative of healthy and stable markets. As such, vacancy rates for
the various housing segments in the region are considered very low and are clear
indications that demand for each housing segment is strong. As a result, it appears
that region residents have relatively limited housing availability.

Regional-69

 Key Findings
Each housing segment was evaluated in greater detail on the following pages and
within the individual county chapters of this report. Significant housing supply
findings are discussed below.
Multifamily Rental Housing – A total of 167 multifamily housing properties with a
total of 14,198 units were identified and inventoried within the region. These rentals
have a combined vacancy rate of 1.0%. It is critical to point out that this 1.0%
vacancy rate is based on physical vacancies, which are considered vacant units that
are available for immediate occupancy. This differs from economic vacancies, which
are considered units that are not being rented due to inhability, down for renovations,
being prepared for rent or other reasons that prevent them from immediate occupancy.
Economic vacancies are generally two percentage points higher than physical
vacancies. As such, it is likely that multifamily rentals are operating at a 3.0%
economic vacancy rate. Typically, healthy, well-balance markets have vacancy rates
generally between 4% and 6%. As such, the region’s multifamily housing supply has
an extremely low vacancy rate which is an indication that there is very limited
availability among multifamily apartments in the region. While market-rate housing
offers the largest number of surveyed multifamily units in the region, these particular
units appear to remain in high demand as evidenced by the 1.5% vacancy rate among
the 9,379 market-rate units in the region. More importantly, all 3,706 governmentsubsidized units and all 1,113 Tax Credit units surveyed in the market are fully
occupied. Additionally, of the 50 fully occupied subsidized projects surveyed in the
region, 46 (92.0%) maintain wait lists ranging from 150 households to up to eight
years in duration. Among the 33 fully occupied Tax Credit projects surveyed in the
region, 30 (90.9%) maintain wait lists with up to 150 households. Besides the
inventory of affordable housing units, there are approximately 2,223 Housing Choice
Vouchers issued to very low income households in the region and an estimated 1,071
households on the local housing authorities’ wait lists for the next available vouchers.
This Voucher wait list, combined with the limited available government-subsidized
units and wait list for these units, indicate the significant pent-up demand and need
for affordable rentals within the region. Region wide, median rents by
bedroom/bathroom type range from $832 to $3,300 for the market-rate units and from
$583 to $1,187 for Tax Credit units.
Non-Conventional Rental Housing – Non-conventional rentals are considered oneor two-unit structures, such as single-family homes, duplexes, units over store fronts
or other alternatives not contained within a multifamily development. Based on data
provided by the American Community Survey, it is estimated that the region’s nonconventional supply is operating at a vacancy rate of around 5.2%. This is considered
a fair vacancy rate. Bowen National Research identified and evaluated 101 vacant
non-conventional rental units, which is considered a sample survey of such
properties. The collected rents for non-conventional rentals identified range from
$380 to $3,800. The median rents were $625 for a one-bedroom unit, $850 for a twobedroom unit, $1,200 for a three-bedroom unit and $1,500 for a four-bedroom or
larger unit. Generally, the highest non-conventional rents are within Buncombe and
Henderson counties. Excluding Madison County, which had a limited amount of non-

Regional-70

 conventional rental housing identified, the lowest median rents are in Transylvania
County.
Vacation Rentals – Bowen National Research conducted a sample survey of
vacation rentals within the region. Overall, a total of 377 individual units were
identified and inventoried. The base rents for the identified vacation rentals range
from $1,620 to $3,750, depending upon bedroom type. The median rents are $4,470
for a one-bedroom unit, $4,500 for a two-bedroom unit, $6,000 for a three-bedroom
unit, and $10,313 for a four-bedroom or larger unit. The rental rates of vacation
rentals are significantly higher than most conventional multifamily apartments
surveyed in the market. Generally, such rentals are four times higher than
conventional rentals, essentially eliminating this type of housing as a viable long-term
housing alternative to most area renters. However, due to this rent differential, such
housing may appeal to owners of traditional, long-term conventional rentals who may
want to convert their housing to vacation rentals. This is addressed in the case study
portion of this study.
Home Stay Rentals – A home stay rental is generally considered a bedroom or a few
rooms that are rented on a short-term basis to tenants and typically represents a
portion of a full rental unit. Tenants in a home stay rental often have shared access to
common areas such as bathrooms and kitchens. Overall, a total of 101 individual
home stay rental “units” were identified and surveyed. The rents for home stay rentals
identified range from $150 to $1,136 per month. The median rent is $450 per
unit/room. The rental rates of home stay rentals are generally lower than most
multifamily apartments surveyed in the market, which is not surprising since such
rentals are typically limited to a single room with shared access to common areas (e.g.
bathrooms, kitchens, etc.). While home stay rentals represent a viable option for lowincome households, such rentals likely only primarily accommodate one-person
households, limiting their ability to serve couples and families.
Mobile Home Rentals – Based on information from the American Community
Survey, there are a total of 27,906 occupied mobile home units in the region, of which
17,429 (62.5%) are owner-occupied units and 10,477 (37.5%) are renter-occupied
units. Bowen National Research identified more than 170 mobile home parks in the
four-county region through secondary resources. Based on a sample survey of mobile
home park operators, typical vacancy rates average around 10%, though some parks
are reporting no vacancies. Reported lot rents range from $110 to $410 per month,
while actual mobile home units rent from $425 to $795 per month depending on size
and condition of the unit. Based on this data, it appears that mobile homes provide an
affordable rental housing option for area residents, although the quality of the mobile
homes varies, they are generally considered to be of lower quality than many of the
area’s other rental alternatives.

Regional-71

 For-Sale Housing – Bowen National Research identified 22,330 homes sold since
January 2010 and 3,669 homes currently available for purchase in the region.
Excluding the partial year of 2014, annual residential for-sales activity within the
subject region has ranged between 3,529 in 2010 and 5,480 in 2013. The annual sales
activity has grown each of the past three full years, with above 20 percent growth in
each of the past two years. The region is currently on pace to sell over 5,650
residential units for all of 2014, which will be a five-year high. The region has
experienced positive increases in median sales prices in the past three years. The
median sales price of $202,950 through November of 2014 is a five-year high for the
region. The positive trends among sales volume and sales prices are good indications
of a healthy and stable for-sale housing market in the region. Within the region, the
available homes have a median list price by county ranging from $270,445 in
Madison County to $300,000 in Buncombe County, with a regional median list price
of $290,418. In order for a typical household to be able to afford such a home priced
at or above the median home price they would generally need to have a minimum
income of around $100,000. Within the region, only 12.1% of owner households
have an income of $100,000 or higher. As such, there appears to be a mismatch
between household prices and affordability.
Senior Care Housing – Within the region there are a total of 87 senior care facilities
identified, including a mix of independent living facilities, multi-unit assisted
housing, adult care homes, and nursing homes. In October and November of 2014,
Bowen National Research surveyed a total of 58 of these facilities containing a total
of 4,682 units/beds. The senior care facilities have vacancy rates by product type
ranging from 2.0% to 8.3%, with an overall vacancy rate of 5.0%. Nationally,
depending on the type of senior care product, vacancy rates for senior care housing
range from 9.9% to 11.0%. As such, the region’s senior facilities are performing at
levels similar to or better than national standards. Regionally, the median base
monthly fees are $1,250 for independent living facilities, $2,663 for multi-unit
assisted facilities, $2,550 for adult care homes, and $6,782 for nursing care.
Generally, it appears the highest senior care housing fees are within Madison and
Transylvania counties, while the lowest housing fees are within Buncombe County.
With relatively limited availability among the region’s senior care facilities and a
large growing base of seniors, it is anticipated that the region will need additional
senior care housing in the years ahead.

Regional-72

 The following subsections provide additional details of each housing supply segment
that was evaluated as part of this overall housing needs assessment.
1. RENTAL HOUSING
Multifamily Rental Housing
During October and November of 2014, Bowen National Research surveyed (both
by telephone and in-person) a total of 167 multifamily rental housing properties
within the region. These 167 surveyed projects represent over 75% of all
identified multifamily projects in the region. As such, this survey is considered
representative of the performance, conditions and trends of multifamily rental
housing in the region. Projects identified, inventoried, and surveyed operate as
market-rate and under a number of affordable housing programs including the
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) and various HUD programs.
Definitions of each housing program are included in Addendum D: Glossary of
the Housing Needs Assessment.
Housing authorities, property managers and leasing agents for each project were
surveyed to collect a variety of property information including vacancies, rental
rates, unit mixes, year built and other features. Projects were also rated based on
general quality and upkeep, and each was mapped as part of this survey.
The 167 surveyed multifamily projects contain a total of 14,198 units. These
projects operate under a variety of programs, including a combination of such
programs. As a result, we first distinguished the multifamily housing inventory
by program type (e.g. market-rate, Tax Credit and government-subsidized, or
some combination thereof). The distribution of surveyed rental housing supply by
program type is illustrated in the following table:
Surveyed Multifamily Rental Housing - Region
Projects
Total
Vacant
Project Type
Surveyed
Units
Units
Market-rate
91
9,295
137
Market-rate/Tax Credit
1
160
0
Market-rate/Government-Subsidized
1
123
0
Tax Credit
25
1,032
0
Tax Credit/Government-Subsidized
7
372
0
Government-Subsidized
42
3,216
0
Total
167
14,198
137

Regional-73

Occupancy
Rate
98.5%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.0%

 The overall vacancy rate among the 14,198 surveyed units is only 1.0%. This is
an extremely low vacancy rate and a good indication of the strong level of
demand for multifamily rental housing in the region. In fact, there appears to be a
shortage of available rentals among the multifamily supply. It should be noted
that this only includes physical vacancies (vacant units ready for immediate
occupancy) as opposed to economic vacancies (vacant units not immediately
available for rent). As such, economic vacancies are likely close to 3.0% in the
region. Typically, healthy, well-balance markets have vacancy rates generally
between 4% and 6%. As such, vacancies in the region area low. Interestingly, all
affordable rental units that operate under the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
program or under a government-subsidy are occupied. Management at most of
the 76 affordable housing projects indicated that they maintain wait lists for the
next available units. As such, there is clear pent-up demand for affordable
housing in the region. While all vacancies in the region are within the market-rate
product, these 137 vacancies only result in a 1.5% vacancy rate. This is also a
low vacancy rate. Therefore, even among non-assisted housing, demand for
rental housing is strong. Based on this survey of rental housing, there does not
appear to be any weakness or softness in the region.
The following summarizes the distribution of surveyed rental housing by county.
Surveyed Multifamily Rental Housing Supply by Area
Projects
Total
Surveyed
Units
Market
Vacant Units
80
9,232
82
City of Asheville*
113
12,069
99
Buncombe County*
30
1,444
34
Henderson County
7
178
0
Madison County
17
507
4
Transylvania County
Region Total
167
14,198
137
*Buncombe County includes Asheville supply

Vacancy Rate
0.9%
0.8%
2.4%
0.0%
0.8%
1.0%

Vacancy rates by county range from 0.0% to 2.4%. Each of the counties’ vacancy
rates are low and indicate that there is very limited availability among larger
multifamily apartments and that the demand for rental housing is strong
throughout the region.

Regional-74

 Multifamily Rental Housing Vacancy Rates
2.5%

2.4%
Vacancy Rate

2.0%
1.5%
1.0%

0.9%
0.5%

1.0%
0.8%

0.8%
0.0%

0.0%
Asheville

Buncombe
County

Henderson
County

Madison
County

Transylvania
County

Region

Market

The following tables summarize the breakdown of non-subsidized (market-rate
and Tax Credit) units surveyed within the region.
Bedroom
Studio
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Five-Bedroom
Total Market-rate

Baths
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.5
2.0
3.0

Bedroom
Baths
Studio
1.0
One-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
2.0
Three-Bedroom
1.0
Three-Bedroom
1.5
Three-Bedroom
2.0
Four-Bedroom
1.5
Four-Bedroom
2.0
Total Tax Credit

Market-rate
Distribution
Vacancy
2.2%
2
29.8%
46
11.5%
18
6.0%
3
34.6%
54
1.5%
0
1.2%
0
1.6%
0
10.4%
13
0.9%
1
0.0%
0
0.2%
0
0.2%
0
0.0%
0
100.0%
137
Tax Credit, Non-Subsidized
Units
Distribution
Vacancy
15
1.3%
0
421
37.8%
0
415
37.3%
0
52
4.7%
0
58
5.2%
0
4
0.4%
0
136
12.2%
0
10
0.9%
0
2
0.2%
0
1,113
100.0%
0
Units
202
2,793
1,078
560
3,242
139
117
146
977
87
3
18
16
1
9,379

Regional-75

% Vacant
1.0%
1.6%
1.7%
0.5%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%

Median Gross Rent
$667
$820
$785
$915
$999
$1,031
$739
$1,000
$1,215
$1,325
$1,100
$789
$1,005
$1,000
-

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Median Gross Rent
$222
$455
$515
$505
$658
$476
$577
$706
$335
-

 Median rents by bedroom/bathroom type range from $832 to $3,300 for the
market-rate units and from $583 to $1,187 for Tax Credit units across the region.
While vacancies are generally low among all bedroom types, they appear to be
particularly low among the largest bedroom types (three-bedroom or larger). As
such, it is likely that region’s larger family households have fewer available
housing options compared to other household sizes. As a result, family
households seeking three-bedroom or larger rental alternatives in the region likely
must choose from non-conventional rentals, which typically have comparable or
higher rents, fewer amenities and are usually older and of lower quality than
multifamily options.
As part of its survey of multifamily rental apartments, Bowen National Research
identified rents by both bedroom and bathroom type. From this survey we
established median rents for each of the bedroom/bathroom combinations.
Therefore, within each county and when applicable, there is a low median rent
and high median rent for each bedroom type. For the purposes of this rent
analysis, we have used the average of the low and high median rents by bedroom
and bathroom type in the table below.

City of Asheville
Buncombe County
Henderson County
Madison County
Transylvania County

Median Market-rate Rents by Bedroom Type
OneTwoThreeStudio
Bedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom +
$720
$836
$904
$1,216
$667
$830
$916
$1,021
$330
$745
$647
$1,138
$750
$525
$800
$963

Source: Bowen National Research

Overall, the median rents by bedroom type and by county within the region range
from $330 for studio units in Henderson County to $1,138 for three-bedroom or
larger units in Henderson County. Generally, the highest median rents are within
Buncombe County. Within the city of Asheville, median market-rate rents range
from $720 to $1,216.
In addition to the market-rate supply, Bowen National Research identified
collected rents by both bedroom and bathroom type for units that operate under
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. From this survey we established
median rents for each of the bedroom/bathroom combinations. The following
table illustrates the median rents by bedroom type for each of the four subject
counties and the city of Asheville.

City of Asheville
Buncombe County
Henderson County
Madison County
Transylvania County

Median Tax Credit Rents by Bedroom Type
OneTwoThreeBedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom +
Studio
$222
$467
$536
$521
$222
$467
$459
$521
$399
$548
$577
$415
$427
$521

Source: Bowen National Research

Regional-76

 Overall, the median Tax Credit rents by bedroom type and by county within the
region range from $222 for a studio units in Buncombe County to $577 for threebedroom or larger units, in Henderson County. Generally, the highest median Tax
Credit rents are within Henderson County. However, median Tax Credit rents are
generally comparable between each county. There were no non-subsidized Tax
Credit projects surveyed in Madison County. Generally, median Tax Credit rents
by bedroom are at least 15% lower than corresponding bedroom median rents for
the market-rate supply.
The following tables illustrate the Fair Market Rents and High HOME and Low
HOME rents for each county in the region.

Market
Buncombe County
Henderson County
Madison County
Transylvania County

Studio
$428
$428
$428
$491

Fair Market Rents
1-Bedroom
2-Bedroom
3-Bedroom
$606
$719
$922
$606
$719
$922
$606
$719
$922
$495
$647
$862

4-Bedroom
$1,197
$1,197
$1,197
$865

Studio
$428 / $428
$428 / $428
$428 / $428
$491 / $491

Home (Low / High) Rent
1-Bedroom
2-Bedroom
3-Bedroom
$548 / $606
$657 / $719
$759 / $922
$548 / $606
$657 / $719
$759 / $922
$548 / $606
$657 / $719
$759 / $922
$527 / $555
$632 / $691
$730 / $886

4-Bedroom
$847 / $1,044
$847 / $1,044
$847 / $1,044
$815 / $917

Source: Novogradac, Inc.

Market
Buncombe County
Henderson County
Madison County
Transylvania County
Source: Novogradac, Inc.

Generally, it appears the Fair Market Rents and HOME rents by bedroom and
county are lower than the corresponding bedroom market-rate rents from Bowen
National Research’s survey of multifamily rentals. The region’s Tax Credit rents
by bedroom and county appear to be lower than most of the Fair Market Rents
and HOME rents of the corresponding counties of the region. Given the lack of
available multifamily rental units in the region, many residents must choose from
non-conventional rental alternatives, which are evaluated in the next section of
this report. It appears that most non-conventional rentals are priced above Fair
Market Rents and HOME rents, limiting the ability of low-income households’
ability to afford most non-conventional rentals.

Regional-77

 There are 50 multifamily projects that were surveyed in the region that operate
with a government-subsidy on at least some, if not all, units. The distribution of
units and vacancies by bedroom type among government-subsidized projects
(both with and without Tax Credits) in the region is summarized as follows.
Bedroom
Baths
One-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
2.0
Three-Bedroom
1.0
Four-Bedroom
1.5
Total Subsidized Tax Credit
Bedroom
Baths
Studio
1.0
One-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
1.5
Three-Bedroom
1.0
Three-Bedroom
1.5
Three-Bedroom
2.0
Four-Bedroom
1.0
Four-Bedroom
1.5
Four-Bedroom
2.0
Five-Bedroom
1.5
Total Subsidized

Subsidized Tax Credit
Units
Distribution
188
50.5%
98
26.3%
12
3.2%
54
14.5%
20
5.4%
372
100.0%
Government-Subsidized
Units
Distribution
466
14.0%
1,082
32.5%
913
27.4%
81
2.4%
474
14.2%
113
3.4%
16
0.5%
96
2.9%
55
1.6%
16
0.5%
22
0.7%
3,334
100.0%

Vacancy
0
0
0
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Vacancy
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

The 50 surveyed government-subsidized projects in the region operate under a
variety of programs including the HUD Section 8, 202, 236, and 811, Rural
Development Section 515, and Public Housing programs. Overall, there are no
vacant units among the 3,706 surveyed government-subsidized units in the region,
resulting in a combined 0.0% vacancy rate. This is an extremely low vacancy
rate, indicating that there are limited options among the government-subsidized
rental housing alternatives in the region. Of the 50 subsidized projects surveyed in
the region, 46 (92.0%) maintain wait lists ranging from 150 households to up to
eight years in duration. As such, there is clear pent-up demand for housing for
very low-income households in the region.

Regional-78

 In addition to the project based government assistance, very low-income residents
have the opportunity to secure Housing Choice Vouchers from local housing
authorities that enable eligible households to rent housing units and only pay 30%
of their adjusted gross income towards rent. According to representatives with
the region’s various housing authority offices, there are approximately 2,223
Housing Choice Voucher holders within the housing authorities’ jurisdictions, and
1,071 people currently on the waiting list for additional vouchers. Annual
turnover of persons in the voucher program is estimated at 150 households. The
long wait lists for Housing Choice Vouchers, along with the 100.0% occupancy
rate level of and wait lists for government-subsidized properties, are clear
reflections of the strong and pent-up demand for additional government rental
housing assistance in the region.
The following is a distribution of multifamily rental projects and units surveyed
by year built in the region:
Year Built
Before 1970
1970 to 1979
1980 to 1989
1990 to 1999
2000 to 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Projects
31
27
32
20
22
2
3
4
3
1
5
5
1
3

Units
1,733
2,956
2,538
1,341
2,443
90
218
537
412
60
733
933
52
24

Vacancy Rate
1.2%
0.4%
0.5%
0.9%
1.9%
0.0%
0.5%
0.4%
1.5%
0.0%
0.8%
1.9%
0.0%
4.2%

*As of December

Approximately one-third of all apartments surveyed in the region were built prior
to 1980. A little more than one-fourth of all surveyed units were built between
1980 and 1999. With nearly 40% of the identified and surveyed product built
since 2000, the region has a good balance of modern product. Overall, the region
has a good variety of product by year built. It was determined through the survey
of these properties that vacancies are low among all development periods.

Regional-79

 Representatives of Bowen National Research personally visited a majority of the
rental projects within the region and rated the quality of each property. Based on
windshield survey, we rated each property surveyed on a scale of “A” (highest)
through “F” (lowest). All properties were rated based on quality and overall
appearance (i.e. aesthetic appeal, building appearance, landscaping and grounds
appearance). It is important to note that many of the projects personally visited
and evaluated were not the same properties that were included in our survey of
rental housing.
The following is a distribution by quality rating, units, share of units and vacancy
rates for all surveyed multifamily rental housing product in the region.
Quality Rating
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD
Quality Rating
A
AB+
B
BC
CQuality Rating
A
B+
B
BC+
C
CD-

Market-rate
Projects
Total Units
2
377
19
3,448
9
1,157
13
1,909
14
1,542
7
389
4
82
17
390
4
72
1
13
Non-Subsidized Tax Credit
Projects
Total Units
5
257
6
343
6
305
1
40
3
119
2
24
1
25
Government-Subsidized
Projects
Total Units
2
64
2
302
12
656
7
545
5
246
16
1,155
5
698
1
40

Vacancy Rate
0.0%
1.7%
1.6%
0.9%
1.2%
1.8%
3.7%
0.8%
4.2%
53.8%
Vacancy Rate
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Vacancy Rate
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

The majority of market-rate and Tax Credit units by quality level are within the
“A” and “B” rated ranges, indicating that market-rate and Tax Credit renters have
a large number of good to excellent quality rental housing from which to choose.
More than half of the government-subsidized supply is within the “C” quality
range, indicating that very low-income renters have a large base of fair quality
affordable rental supply from which they can choose. With much of this fair
quality government-subsidized product built prior to 1980, such product likely
represents candidates for renovation and rehabilitation.

Regional-80

 Bowen National Research reviewed various published resources to identify units
that have the potential to be lost from the affordable housing inventory, such as
units within projects with expiring HUD contracts or Tax Credit projects that have
reached their 15-year compliance period. The following is a summary of the 41
projects in the region that may potentially be lost from 2015 to 2020.
Affordable Housing with Expiring Subsidies/Tax Credits 2015 to 2020
Number of
Program Type
Projects
Total Units
Tax Credit
16
904
Government-Subsidized
25
1,126
Total Units
41
2,030
Sources: HUD and North Carolina Housing Finance Agency Tax Credit Lists

As the preceding table illustrates, there are 41 projects with a total of 2,030 units
that could potentially lose their subsidy or Tax Credits by 2020 and possibly no
longer serve the low-income and very low-income household segments. A total
of 1,126 of these units operate under a government-subsidy serving households
with incomes of up to 50% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI) and 1,126
Tax Credit units that serve households with incomes of up to 60% of AMHI. It is
likely that many of the subsidized projects will renew their subsidy (assuming
sufficient federal funding exists) and that Tax Credit projects will either re-apply
for credits or at least maintain their affordability requirements beyond the
expiration of the 15-year Tax Credit period. Should such loss of these units
occur, however, there will be fewer affordable housing units available to lower
income households. Given the lack of availability of affordable rental housing
currently in the region and the long wait list for such housing, the reduction of the
current supply will only exacerbate the problems facing lower income households
in the region.
A map of all 167 surveyed multifamily projects in the region follows this page.

Regional-81

 Unicoi County

Greene County

Asheville, NC

Asheville
Region
Avery
County
Apartments

Apartment Locations
Cocke County

Type

!
(
!
(

Madison County

Yancey County

!
(
!
(!
(

!
!(
(

Burke County

!
(
!
(
!
(

McDowell County

!
(
!
(

!
(!
(
Buncombe County

Swain County
Haywood County

!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( (
!
( !
(
!
( !

!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( !
!
(
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
!
(!
!
(
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(!
(
!
(!
!
!
(
(!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(!
(!
!
(
!!
(
!(
(
((
!
(!
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
(!
!
(
(!
!
(!
!
(
!
(
(
!
(!
!
((
!
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
((
(!
(!
!
(!
(!
!
(
!
( (
!
(
!
(!
( !
!
(

!
( !
!
((
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
(

!
(

Jackson County

N

1:550,073

Macon County

!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
Transylvania County !
!
(
(!
((
!
(!
!
(
(
!
(!
(
!
(!

Mitchell County
!
( Govt-sub
!
( Mkt rate
!
( Mkt rate/Tax Credit
!
( Tax Credit
!
( Tax Credit/Govt-sub

!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
(
(
Henderson County!
( (
! (
!
!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
!
(
(
(
!
(
(!
!
(!
(!
( !
(
!
((
!
(!
!
(
!
(

Rutherford County
!
(

Polk County

0

2

4

8

12
Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),
TomTom,
MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap
contributors,
and the GIS
Greenville
County
Spartanburg
County
User Community

 Non-Conventional Rental Housing
The study region has a large number of non-conventional rentals which can exist
in the form of detached single-family homes, duplexes, units over storefronts, etc.
As a result, we have conducted a sample survey of non-conventional rentals
within the region. Overall, a total of 101 individual units were identified and
surveyed across the region. Information regarding the bedrooms offered, year
built, amenities, collected rent and total square footage were collected and
evaluated when available.
Based on data provided by the American Community Survey (ACS), it is
estimated that there are 24,558 non-conventional rentals in the study region. ACS
is reporting a vacancy rate of 5.2% among the overall region’s rental housing.
Given that the largest segment of the region’s rental housing stock consists of
non-conventional rentals, it is reasonable to assume that the region’s nonconventional supply is operating at a vacancy rate at or near 5.2%. Applying this
vacancy rate to the 24,558 non-conventional rental units in the region yields 1,277
vacant units. The 101 vacant non-conventional rental units identified and
evaluated by Bowen National Research represent approximately 8% of the
region’s vacant non-conventional supply. As a result, we believe these properties
are representative of the typical non-conventional rental housing alternatives in
the region.
The following table aggregates the 101 non-conventional rental units surveyed in
the region by bedroom type.
Surveyed Non-Conventional Rental Supply

Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom+
Total

Units
7
25
51
18
101

Percent
6.9%
24.8%
50.5%
17.8%

Rent
Range
$550 - $1,000
$585 - $1,600
$380 - $3,800
$750 - $3,200

Median
Rent
$625
$850
$1,200
$1,500

Median
Rent Per
Square Foot
$0.84
$0.89
$0.79
$0.79

Sources: Bowen National Research

As the preceding table illustrates, the collected rents for non-conventional rentals
identified in the region range from $380 to $3,800. The median rents were $625
for a one-bedroom unit, $850 for a two-bedroom unit, $1,200 for a three-bedroom
unit and $1,500 for a four-bedroom or larger unit. Median rents per-square-foot
range from $0.79 to $0.89.

Regional-83

 The following table compares the median rents by bedroom type for the nonconventional rentals for Asheville and each county in the region.

County/Area
City of Asheville
Buncombe County
Henderson County
Madison County
Transylvania County

Median Rents by Bedroom Type
OneTwoThreeBedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
$950
$950
$1,200
$575
$950
$1,225
$625
$850
$1,250
$700
$750
$600
$875

FourBedroom+
$2,225
$1,750
$1,500
$1,000

Source: Bowen National Research

As the preceding table illustrates, median rents by county range from $575 to
$2,225. Generally, the highest non-conventional rents are within Buncombe and
Henderson counties. Excluding Madison County, which had a limited amount of
non-conventional rental housing identified, the lowest median rent is in
Transylvania County.
Generally, the rental rates of non-conventional rentals, depending upon the
bedroom type, are either comparable to or higher than most market-rate
multifamily apartments surveyed in the region. The rent differential is even
greater when utilities are considered, as most non-conventional rentals require
tenants to pay all utilities while the majority of multifamily apartments include
some utilities in the rent. When also considering the facts that much of the nonconventional product was built prior to 1980 and their amenity packages are
relatively limited, it would appear the non-conventional rentals represent less of a
value than most multifamily apartments in the region. However, given the lack of
vacant units among the more affordable multifamily apartments, many lowincome households are likely forced to choose from the non-conventional housing
alternatives. However, the typical rents of non-conventional rentals are likely not
affordable to most low-income and very low-income households in the region.
A map illustrating the location of the non-conventional rentals identified in the
market is on the following page.

Regional-84

 Cocke County

Mitchell
County
Asheville
Region
Non-Conventional Rentals

Asheville, NC

Non-Conventional Rental Locations

Price

Yancey County<= $800
$801 - $1,000
$1,001 - $1,200
$1,201 - $1,400
$1,401 - $1,600
> $1,600

Madison County

McDowell County

Buncombe County
Swain County

Haywood County

Rutherford County

Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County
Transylvania County

1:500,000

Macon County

0

1.75

3.5

7

10.5
Miles

Spartanburg
County
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme,
USGS, Intermap,
increment P Corp., NRCAN,
Esri Japan, METI,
Esri
Greenville
County
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 Vacation Rental Housing
Based on data from the 2010 Census, it is estimated that there are 12,050 vacant
housing units classified as “seasonal housing”, representing approximately 6.1%
of region’s total housing stock. As such, the study region has a large inventory of
housing units that are used as vacation rentals. While these units are primarily
rented as vacation rentals, it is possible that some of the area’s permanent
residents may use such housing as a long-term rental housing alternative.
Additionally, some conventional long-term rentals could be converted to vacation
rentals, thereby reducing the inventory of housing marketed to long-term local
residents (see the Case Study analysis near the conclusion of this report for
specific analysis related to this issue). As such, an analysis of vacation rentals is
relevant to the housing needs of the region.
Bowen National Research has conducted a sample survey of vacation rentals
within the region. Overall, a total of 377 individual units were identified and
inventoried. While this does not include all vacation rentals in the market, we
believe these properties are representative of the typical vacation rental housing
alternatives in the region. Information regarding the number of units by bedroom
and unit rents were collected and evaluated when available.
The following table aggregates the 377 vacation rental units surveyed in the
region by bedroom type (Note: While vacation rentals are rented on a variety of
periods, such as daily and weekly, all rents have been converted to monthly rates
to more easily compare with conventional, long-term rentals).
Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom+
Total

Surveyed Vacation Rental Supply
Units
Rent Range*
84
$1,620 - $28,500
122
$2,400 - $14,235
107
$2,985 - $31,710
64
$3,750 - $75,705
377

Median Rent
$4,470
$4,500
$6,000
$10,313

Source: www.homeaway.com; Bowen National Research
*Monthly Rents (most rentals are rented on a daily or weekly rate, but were converted to a monthly rent for
an easier comparison with long-term rentals)

As the preceding table illustrates, the base rents for vacation rentals identified
range from $1,620 to $3,750, depending upon bedroom type. The median rents
are $4,470 for a one-bedroom unit, $4,500 for a two-bedroom unit, $6,000 for a
three-bedroom unit, and $10,313 for a four-bedroom or larger unit.
The rental rates of vacation rentals are significantly higher than most conventional
multifamily apartments surveyed in the market. Generally, such rentals are four
times higher than conventional rentals, essentially eliminating this type of housing
as a viable long-term housing alternative to most area renters. However, due to
this rent differential, such housing may appeal to owners of traditional, long-term
conventional rentals who may want to convert their housing to vacation rentals.
This is addressed in the case study portion near the end of this report.

Regional-86

 Home Stay Rentals
A home stay rental is generally considered a bedroom or a few rooms that are
rented to tenants on a short-term basis and typically represents a portion of a full
rental unit. Such rentals are generally short-term (usually less than 30 days)
housing options. Tenants in the home stay rental often have shared access to
common areas such as bathrooms and kitchens. Home stay rentals typically come
in the form of apartments, detached single-family homes, duplexes,
condominiums, etc. As a result, we have conducted a sample survey of home stay
rentals within the region.
Overall, a total of 101 individual home stay rental “units” were identified and
surveyed. While this likely does not include all home stay rentals in the region,
we believe these properties are representative of the typical home stay rental
housing alternatives in the market. Information regarding the bedroom/bathroom
configuration, year built, amenities, collected rent and total square footage was
collected and evaluated when available.
The following table aggregates the 101 home stay rental units surveyed in the
region.
County
Buncombe County
Henderson County
Madison County
Transylvania County
Total

Surveyed Home Stay Rental Supply
Rooms/Units
Rent Range
77
$150 - $1,136
16
$275 - $550
4
$250 - $350
4
$350-$695
101

Median Rents
$450
$400
$315
$425

Source: Craiglist.com; Bowen National Research

As the preceding table illustrates, the rents for home stay rentals identified range
from $150 to $1,136, with virtually all rentals priced below $750. The region’s
median rent is $450 per unit. The median rents by county are very comparable to
each other, ranging from $315 to $450, with the lowest in Madison County and
the highest in Buncombe County. Over three-fourths of the home stay rentals are
within Buncombe County, with a majority of these units located in the city of
Asheville.
The rental rates of home stay rentals are generally lower than most multifamily
apartments surveyed in the market, which is not surprising since such rentals are
limited to a single room with shared access to common areas (e.g. bathrooms,
kitchens, etc.). Most home stay rentals are roommate situations where residents
have their own bedroom but must share kitchen, living and bathroom areas.
While the housing structures for such rentals vary, the majority include singlefamily homes. Some home stay rentals were within apartments, mobile homes or
hotel rooms. Most rentals include all basic utilities in the rent, with many rentals
also offering cable television and Internet as part of the rent. A large number of
the rentals are fully furnished, but offer few project amenities such as swimming
pools or other recreational features. Most rentals allow residents access to laundry
facilities. Leases are often flexible, typically month to month in duration. Unlike
Regional-87

 most conventional apartment or private non-conventional rentals, home stays have
the unique element of matching personal preferences with roommates. For
example, many properties advertise that they are looking for smoke-free/smokers,
pet friendly/no pet, male/female or other types of tenants. Such preferences or
restrictions likely limit the type of residents that can be accommodated at such
rentals. Given these preferences and restriction, along with the fact that the home
stay rentals can typically only accommodate one- or two-person households,
home stays likely have a limited ability to meet the needs of most area renters.
2. MOBILE HOME RENTAL UNITS
According to the American Community Survey, there are a total of 27,905
occupied mobile home units in the region, representing approximately 16.6% of
the region’s occupied housing supply. As a result, mobile homes are an important
segment of the region’s housing market. A total of 18,098 (64.9%) are owneroccupied units and 9,807 (35.1%) are renter-occupied units.
The following table summarizes the number of mobile home rental units and
parks by study area along with a sample survey of typical mobile home park rents.
Surveyed Mobile Home Rentals – By Area
Mobile Home
Mobile
Share
Area
Parks**
Home Units*
of Units
63
5,643
57.5%
Asheville/Buncombe County
41
2,741
28.0%
Henderson County
6
488
5.0%
Madison County
61
935
9.5%
Transylvania County
Total
171
9,807
100.0%

Unit Rent
Range**
$595-$795
$475-$550
$450-$500
$425-$610
$425-$795

*Source: 2010 Census
**Source: Bowen National Research

As the preceding table illustrates, the largest number of mobile home units are
within Buncombe County, with 5,643 occupied units, comprising 57.5% of the
region’s mobile home rentals.
Bowen National Research identified more than 170 mobile home parks in the
four-county region through secondary resources, such as www.mhvillage.com, the
county tax department/assessor, and CraigsList. Upon identification of these
parks, which is not a comprehensive list, we conducted a sample windshield
survey to evaluate the quality of select parks and their neighborhoods, and we
conducted numerous telephone interviews with park operators.
The park operators were asked what the current rent was for a lot within their
park. Respondents stated that lot rents range from $110 to $410 per month. Lot
rents vary dependent upon the need for a single-, double- or triple-wide lot. Two
mobile home parks lease mobile homes on the lot as well, ranging from $425 to
$795 per month depending on size and condition of the unit. When asked if lot
rents and occupancy rates have increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the
past few years, responses varied between “stayed the same” and “increased” for
lot rents and “stayed the same” or “decreased” for vacancies. Respondents

Regional-88

 reported typical occupancy rates of 80% to 95%, with several parks reporting
100% occupancy. Bowen National Research asked park operators to comment on
the overall quality of mobile home parks in the area. Respondents commented that
the quality varies based on the ownership/management of the park, but that
typically the parks are in fair condition. A windshield survey of select mobile
home parks in the region yielded “B” to “C-” quality ratings, indicating that these
mobile home parks and their neighborhoods are in good to fair condition.
When asked if there are any issues or problems associated with operating or
maintaining a mobile home park in the area, or what recommendations the
respondents may have that the local government could do to aid in mobile home
park living, Bowen National Research received a variety of responses. Responses
included that the city of Asheville does not allow mobile home parks within the
city limits, creating a negative stigma of parks, along with typical NIMBYism.
Park owners/operators would like more collaboration with local government and
better zoning. One respondent suggested that rules and regulations should be put
into place for the maintenance and beautification of mobile home parks, similar to
a homeowner’s association, while another believes that increased amenities such
as playgrounds would attract more families to parks. It is also believed that an
increase in Section 8 Voucher assistance would help. It was stated by multiple
respondents that mobile home living is some of the most affordable to area
residents and that more should be done to promote this type of housing.
Based on this analysis, there is a good supply of available mobile home rentals in
the region. These homes generally rent for $425 to $795, which are below most
market-rate multifamily rentals and non-conventional rentals. As such, they
represent a viable option for area renters, including low-income households.
While the quality of the observed mobile home units varies, a majority of the
units were rated fair to good.
A map illustrating the location of the mobile home parks in the region is on the
following page.

Regional-89

 Jefferson County

Greene County

Avery County

Asheville, NC

Mobile Home Parks

Mitchell County

Mobile Home Parks
Cocke County

Yancey County

Madison County

Burke County
Sevier County

McDowell County
Buncombe County

Swain County
Haywood County

Rutherford County

Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County

Transylvania County

N

Macon County

Greenville County

1:600,189

Oconee County

Pickens County

Spartanburg County
0

2

4

8

12
Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 3. OWNER FOR-SALE HOUSING
Bowen National Research, through a review of the Multiple Listing Service
information for the subject four-county region, identified both historical (sold
since 2010) for-sale residential data and currently available for-sale housing stock.
It is our opinion that an evaluation of sales activity after 2009 is representative of
true market conditions following the recession.
There were 22,330 homes sold since January 2010 and 3,669 homes currently
available for purchase in the region. Based on U.S. Census and ACS data, the
region has an estimated 2.4% vacancy rate among its for-sale/owner housing
stock. Typically, markets with vacancy rates between 4.0% and 6.0% are
considered stable markets. As such, the available inventory of for-sale product
appears to be slightly low but not uncommon for a growing market. However, as
the region continues to grow, additional for-sale housing will need to be added.
The following table summarizes the available and recently sold (since January
2010) housing stock for the region.
Type
Available
Sold

Region - Owner For-Sale/Sold Housing Supply
Homes
Median Price
3,669
$290,418
22,330
$191,000

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

The region’s overall median price of homes sold since 2010 was $191,000, while
the available product has a median price of $290,418. Based on an assessment of
MLS historical sales data, it appears that the actual sales prices of homes are
about 6.3% below the original list prices.
The following table includes a summary of annual for-sale residential transactions
that occurred within the region since 2010. It should be noted that the 2014 sales
data is through November 21st of that year.

Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Region
Owner For-Sale Housing by Year Sold
Median Price Sold
Units Sold
Number
Change
Price
Change
3,529
$194,000
3,607
2.2%
$180,000
-7.2%
4,534
25.7%
$185,000
2.8%
5,480
20.9%
$195,000
5.4%
5,180
-5.5%
$202,950
4.1%

Source: Multiple Listing and Bowen National Research
*Through Nov. 21, 2014

Regional-91

 Excluding the partial year of 2014, annual residential for-sales activity within the
subject region has ranged between 3,529 in 2010 and 5,480 in 2013. The annual
sales activity has grown each of the past three full years, with above 20 percent
growth in each of the past two years. The region is currently on pace to sell over
5,650 residential units for all of 2014, which will be a five-year high. The region
has experienced positive increases in median sales prices in the past three years.
The median sales price of $202,950 through November of 2014 is a five-year high
for the region. The positive trends among sales volume and sales prices are good
indications of a healthy and stable for-sale housing market in the region.
The following graphs illustrate the overall annual number of homes sold and
median sales prices over the past four years for the study areas from 2010 to 2013
(2014 was excluded due to the fact that only partial year data is available):

Region Annual Home Sales (2010-2013)
5,650

5,480

5,400

Homes Sold

5,150
4,900

4,534

4,650
4,400
4,150
3,900
3,650

3,529

3,607

3,400

2010

2011

2012
Year

Regional-92

2013

 Region Annual Median Sales Price (2010-2013)
$200,000

Price

$195,000

$195,000

$194,000

$190,000

$185,000
$185,000
$180,000

$180,000

$175,000

2010

2011

2012

2013

Year

Of the 22,330 units sold in the region since 2010, 2,013 (9.0%) were
condominiums. Most of these condominium units consist of two-bedroom units,
which comprise over 60% of the total sold condominium units. The tables below
compare the sold condominium units and all other sold units in the region

Bedrooms
One-Br.
Two-Br.
Three-Br.
Four-Br.
Five+-Br.
Total

Bedrooms
One-Br.
Two-Br.
Three-Br.
Four-Br.
Five+-Br.
Total

Region
Condominium Sales History by Bedrooms – (January 2010 to November 2014)
Average Average
Median
Number Average
Square
Year
Median
Price Per
Sold
Baths
Feet
Built
Price Range
Sale Price
Sq. Ft.
204
1.0
842
1991
$25,500 - $481,000
$140,000
$166.27
1,227
2.0
1,280
1992
$14,400 - $1,200,000
$121,750
$95.12
562
2.5
1,840
1994
$44,900 - $1,600,000
$170,000
$92.39
14
3.5
2,770
1994
$131,000 - $1,600,000
$234,155
$84.53
6
3.25
2,488
1996
$208,000 - $365,000
$237,950
$95.64
2,013
2.0
1,406
1992
$14,400 - $1,600,000
$137,500
$97.80

Number
Sold
236
3,831
12,528
3,132
590
20,317

Region
Sales History by Bedrooms – (January 2010 to November 2014)
Average Average
Average
Square
Year
Median
Baths
Feet
Built
Price Range
Sale Price
1.25
857
1961
$7,500 - $1,025,000
$82,750
1.75
1,294
1968
$5,500 - $1,500,000
$140,000
2.25
1,920
1985
$10,000 - $2,100,000
$196,000
3.0
2,910
1985
$17,000 - $3,400,000
$325,000
4.0
4,054
1977
$21,200 - $8,000,000
$450,000
2.25
2,004
1981
$5,500 - $8,000,000
$198,000

Regional-93

Median
Price Per
Sq. Ft.
$96.56
$108.19
$102.08
$111.68
$111.00
$98.80

Average
Days
on Market
188
235
263
597
195
240

Average
Days
on Market
153
164
170
195
257
175

 The median condominium sales price was $137,500, which is much lower than
the median sales price of the balance of sold housing which was $198,000.
Despite the roughly 30% discount of condominium sales prices, the average days
on market for such product is 240 days, which is notably longer than the 175 days
for the rest of the sold housing stock.
The following table summarizes the inventory of available for-sale housing in the
region (highest county variables shown in blue, while lowest variable shown in
red).
Available Owner For-Sale Housing

City of Asheville
Buncombe County*
Henderson County
Madison County
Transylvania County
Region

Total
Units
715
1,734
1,005
252
678
3,669

% Share
of Region
19.5%
47.2%
27.4%
6.9%
18.5%
100.0%

Low
List Price
$31,999
$31,999
$19,900
$39,900
$46,250
$19,900

High
List Price
$4,979,000
$10,750,000
$5,000,000
$2,300,000
$8,500,000
$10,750,000

Average
List Price
$486,173
$485,729
$382,273
$343,583
$506,092
$451,391

Median
List Price
$325,000
$300,000
$273,000
$270,445
$299,700
$290,418

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research
*Buncombe County includes the City of Asheville

Within the region, the available homes have a median list price by county ranging
from $270,445 in Madison County to $300,000 in Buncombe County, with a
regional median list price of $290,418. In order for a typical household to be able
to afford such a home priced at or above the median home price they would
generally need to have a minimum income of around $100,000. Within the
region, only 12.1% of owner households have an income of $100,000 or higher.
As such, there appears to be a mismatch between household prices and
affordability. The 1,734 available for-sale homes in Buncombe County represent
nearly one-half (47.2%) of the total available homes in the region.

Regional-94

Average
Days
On Market
182
189
216
339
393
244

 The graph below compares study area median list prices for available homes:
Region Available For-Sale Median List Price
$350,000
$300,000

$325,000
$299,700

Median Price

$300,000
$250,000

$273,000

$270,445

Henderson
County

Madison County

$290,418

$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
Asheville

Buncombe
County

Transylvania
County

Region

Market

Despite the fact that Buncombe County has the highest median home list price at
$300,000, it has the shortest days on market at 189. This indicates the high
demand for for-sale housing in Buncombe County. While Madison County and
Transylvania County both have average days on market that exceed 300 days, this
is not unusual for more rural markets that have a smaller base of prospective
buyers than larger markets. The median list price of available product in
Asheville is $325,000, which is higher than any of the individual counties in the
region. Even with the higher list prices, homes in Asheville have a shorter
number of days on market than the subject counties, further indicating the higher
level of demand for such housing in Asheville. Overall, average days on market
for for-sale housing within the region are longer that many similar sized markets.

Regional-95

 The graph below compares the average days on market for available for-sale
supply within each county in the region, the city of Asheville, and the overall
region:
Region Available For-Sale Average Days on Market
400

393

Days o

350

339

300
250

244

200
150

182

189

Asheville

Buncombe
County

216

100
50
0
Henderson
County

Madison County

Transylvania
County

Region

Market

The table below summarizes the distribution of available for-sale units by county
and price point (highest county share by price shown in blue, while lowest shown
in red).

City of Asheville
Buncombe County*
Henderson County
Madison County
Transylvania County
Region

<$100,000
22 (3.1%)
76 (4.4%)
57 (5.7%)
26 (10.3%)
31 (4.6%)
190 (5.2%)

Available Owner For-Sale Housing Units by List Price (Percent)
$100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $199,999
$299,999
$399,999
$499,999
178 (24.9%)
146 (20.4%)
106 (14.8%)
65 (9.1%)
384 (22.2%)
403 (23.2%)
254 (14.6%)
166 (9.6%)
235 (23.4%)
300 (29.8%)
146 (14.5%)
74 (7.4%)
63 (25.0%)
56 (22.2%)
50 (19.8%)
16 (6.4%)
139 (20.5%)
175 (25.8%)
93 (13.7%)
63 (9.3%)
821 (22.4%)
934 (25.4%)
543 (14.8%)
319 (8.7%)

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research
*Buncombe County includes the City of Asheville

Among the four study counties, Buncombe has the highest share of homes priced
at $400,000 and above and Madison County has the highest share (19.8%) of
available homes priced at $300,000 to $399,999. Conversely, the largest share of
lower priced homes (priced below $100,000, and priced between $100,000 and
$199,999) is within Madison County. Meanwhile, Buncombe County has the
lowest share of product priced under $100,000. The 22 available homes priced
under $100,000 in Asheville represent only 3.1% of all available homes in the
city. As such, lower income households seeking product that is priced under
$100,000 in Asheville will have few options among the currently available
supply.

Regional-96

$500,000+
198 (27.7%)
451 (26.0%)
193 (19.2%)
41 (16.3%)
177 (26.1%)
862 (23.5%)

 Region Available For-Sale Housing by Price
1000
900

934

800

Homes

862

821

700
600
500

543

400
300

319

200
100

190

0
Less than $100K $100k-$199,999

$200k-$299,999

$300k-$399,999

$400k-$499,000

$500,000+

Price Range

Region wide, the largest share (25.4%) of available for-sale housing product is
within the $200,000 to $299,999 price points. These homes represent nearly onefourth of all available homes listed in the region. The smallest share (5.2%) of
available product is priced below $100,000, indicating limited available for-sale
housing options that would be affordable to lower income households (those
making less than $30,000 per year). It is worth noting that nearly one-fourth of
available for-sale product has list prices at $500,000 or higher, indicating a large
base of high-end for-sale housing product.
While over two-thirds of the owner households in the region have incomes below
$75,000 a year and could generally afford product priced no higher than around
$200,000, only 27.6% of the available for-sale housing product in the region has a
list price below $200,000. As such, there is a disproportionately low share of
product affordable to households with incomes below $75,000. As a result, a
majority of area homeowners have few new housing options from which they can
afford and/or are likely forced to stay in units they do not want or cannot afford.
This may become a challenge for the region as households experience growth in
incomes and have the ability to afford higher priced product but have limited
availability of such product. This may become a challenge for seniors who are
seeking to downsize from their current residents, who may not be able to find
lower priced product to move into. Additionally, the low share of product priced
below $200,000 may limit the region’s ability to attract householders seeking to
move to the region who are specifically seeking housing product priced below
$200,000.

Regional-97

 While a total of 190 housing units (5.2% of the region’s total available supply) are
priced below $100,000 and would be affordable to lower income households,
based on our on-site evaluation of the county’s housing stock and an analysis of
secondary data on area housing, it appears that much of the housing inventory is
more than 40 years old and of fair quality. As a result, while it may be deemed
that there is an abundance of for-sale product available to lower-income
households, such product likely requires additional costs for repairs,
modernization and maintenance, which may be difficult for many low-income
households to afford.
A map illustrating the locations of available for-sale housing in the region is on
the following page.

Regional-98

 Hamblen County
Jefferson County

Washington County

Asheville, NC

Unicoi County

Greene County
Available Homes

Cocke County

Asheville Region
Homes For-Sale
Avery County
Mitchell County List Price
<= $200,000
$200,001 - $400,000
Caldwell
County
$400,001
- $600,000
$600,001 - $800,000
> $800,000
Yancey County

Madison County
Burke County
Sevier County

McDowell County
Buncombe County
Swain County

Haywood County

Rutherford County
Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County
Transylvania County

N

Macon County
Greenville County

1:700,844

Oconee County Pickens County

Spartanburg
County
0
2.5
5
10

15
Miles

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 Residential Foreclosures
The foreclosure of residential structures became prominent in markets throughout
the United States during the national recession starting in 2008. The Asheville
region was not immune to the rapid increase in foreclosures that resulted from
loss of jobs, declining household incomes, predatory lending practices, and other
factors. The following table summarizes monthly residential foreclosure activity
over the past 12 months within the four-county study area, which includes
Buncombe, Henderson, Madison, and Transylvania counties.
Residential Foreclosure Filings – Asheville Region
Month
Filings
Monthly Change
2013-December
20
2014- January
43
+23
February
16
-27
March
17
+1
April
16
-1
May
18
-2
June
42
+24
July
74
+32
August
113
+39
September
109
-4
October
91
-18
November
80
-11
Total Foreclosures
639
Avg. Monthly
53.2
Source: RealtyTrac.com
Note: The numbers of monthly filings are approximated and only includes county
foreclosure filings

Region Residential Foreclosures
120

113

109

100

91

Filings

80

74

80
60
43

42

40
20
20

16

17

16

18

Feb
'14

Mar
'14

Apr
'14

May
'14

0

Dec
'13

Jan
'14

Jun
'14

Month/Year

Regional-100

Jul
'14

Aug
'14

Sep
'14

Oct
'14

Nov
'14

 Since December 2013, there have been 639 residential foreclosure filings in the
Asheville region, with an average of 53.2 foreclosures per month. During the past
year, foreclosure filings peaked at 113 in August 2014. Since that time, the
number of filings have steadily declined within the past three months. Overall,
residential foreclosure filings are declining within the Asheville region, and it
appears to be minimal at this stage.
The overall foreclosure rates over the past 12 months for the study areas, the state
of North Carolina and the United States are compared in the following table and
graph.

Data
Annual Foreclosure Rate

Asheville
.03%

Annual Residential Foreclosure Rate by Geographic Area
Buncombe Henderson
Madison
Transylvania
North
County
County
County
County
Carolina
.04%
.05%
.03%
.04%
.10%

National
.08%

Source: RealtyTrac.com

Foreclosure Rates
0.12%
0.10%

Annual Rate

0.10%
0.08%

0.08%
0.06%
0.04%

0.05%
0.04%

0.04%
0.02%

0.03%

0.03%

0.00%
Asheville

Buncombe
County

Henderson
County

Madison
County

Transylvania
County

North
Carolina

National

Location

As the preceding table illustrates, the annual foreclosure rate for the city of
Asheville and surrounding counties has remained consistent across the region. As
such, the region’s foreclosure activity is well below much of the state and nation
and does not appear to be prevalent. Within the region, foreclosures appear to be
slightly more prevalent within Henderson County. Specifically, within each
county the highest concentrations of foreclosures are listed below.

Regional-101

 Foreclosure Concentration Areas- Asheville Region
Market
Highest Foreclosure Area
Foreclosure Ratio
28801 zip code
1 in every 1,517
City of Asheville
Black Mountain
1 in every 1,286
Buncombe County
Flat Rock
1 in every 1,060
Henderson County
Mars Hill
1 in every 2,053
Madison County
Penrose
1 in every 886
Transylvania County
Source: RealtyTrac.com

As a result, it appears that foreclosure activity is minimal in the Asheville region
and has a nominal impact on housing supply trends or characteristics.
4. SENIOR CARE FACILITIES
The subject region, like areas throughout the country, has a large senior
population that requires a variety of senior housing alternatives to meet its diverse
needs. Among seniors, generally age 62 or older, some individuals are either
seeking a more leisurely lifestyle or need assistance with Activities of Daily
Living (ADLs). As part of this analysis, we evaluated four levels of care that
typically respond to older adults seeking, or who need, alternatives to their current
living environment. They include independent living, multi-unit assisted housing,
adult care homes, and nursing care. These housing types, from least assisted to
most assisted, are summarized below.
Independent Living is a housing alternative that includes a residential unit,
typically an apartment or cottage that offers an individual living area, kitchen, and
sleeping room. The fees generally include the cost of the rental unit, some
utilities, and services such as laundry, housekeeping, transportation, meals, etc.
This housing type is also often referred to as congregate care. Physical assistance
and medical treatment are not offered at such facilities.
Multi-unit Assisted Housing With Services (referred to as multi-unit assisted
throughout this report) is a housing alternative that provides unlicensed care
services along with the housing. Such housing offers residents the ability to
obtain personal care services and nursing services through a home care or hospice
agency that visit the subject site to perform such services. Management at the
subject project arrange services that correspond to an individualized written care
plan.
Adult Care Homes are state licensed residences for aged and disabled adults who
may require 24-hour supervision and assistance with personal care needs. People
in adult care homes typically need a place to live, with some help with personal
care (such as dressing, grooming and keeping up with medications), and some
limited supervision. Medical care may be provided on occasion but is not
routinely needed. Medication may be given by designated, trained staff. This type
of facility is very similar to what is commonly referred to as “assisted living.”
These facilities generally offer limited care that is designed for seniors who need
some assistance with daily activities but do not require nursing care.

Regional-102

 Nursing Homes provide nursing care and related services for people who need
nursing, medical, rehabilitation or other special services. These facilities are
licensed by the state and may be certified to participate in the Medicaid and/or
Medicare programs. Certain nursing homes may also meet specific standards for
sub-acute care or dementia care.
We referenced the Medicare.com and North Carolina Division of Health Service
Regulation websites for all licensed senior care facilities and cross referenced this
list with other senior care facility resources. As such, we believe that we identified
most, if not all, licensed facilities in the region.
Within the region there are a total of 87 senior care facilities identified, including
a mix of independent living facilities, multi-unit assisted housing, adult care
homes, and nursing homes. In October and November of 2014, Bowen National
Research surveyed a total of 58 of these facilities containing a total of 4,682
units/beds. Specifically, the senior facilities include six independent living
facilities, six multi-unit assisted housing properties, 25 adult care homes, and 21
nursing homes. These 58 facilities represent two-thirds of the senior care facilities
in the region and are representative of the typical housing choices available to
seniors requiring special care housing. It should be noted that family adult care
homes of six units or less were not included in this inventory.
Within the subject region, a total of 58 senior care facilities were surveyed
containing a total of 4,682 beds. The following table summarizes these facilities
by property type.
Project Type
Independent Living
Multi-Unit Assisted Housing
Adult Care Homes
Nursing Homes
Total

Surveyed Senior Care Facilities
Projects
Beds
6
1,041
6
643
25
1,176
21
1,822
58
4,682

Vacant
37
13
97
89
236

Vacancy Rate
3.6%
2.0%
8.3%
4.9%
5.0%

The senior care facilities have vacancy rates by product type ranging from 2.0%
to 8.3%, with an overall vacancy rate of 5.0%. Nationally, depending on the type
of senior care product, vacancy rates for senior care housing range from 9.9% to
11.0%. As such, the region’s senior facilities are performing at levels similar to or
better than national standards. With relatively limited availability among the
region’s senior care facilities and a large growing base of seniors, it is anticipated
that the region will need additional senior care housing in the years ahead.

Regional-103

 The following graph compares the vacancy rates of the senior care facilities in the
region with national averages:
Region Senior Care Facilities Vacancy Rates
9.0%
8.0%

8.3%

Vacancy Rate

7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%

4.9%

5.0%

Nursing Homes

Total

3.6%

2.0%

2.0%

1.0%
0.0%
Independent Living

Multi-Unit
Assisted Housing

Adult Care Homes

Facility Type

The following is a distribution of unit/beds and vacancy rates by product type for
each of the study areas.

City of Asheville
Buncombe County*
Henderson County
Madison County
Transylvania County
Total

Surveyed Senior Care Housing by Area
Share of
Vacancy
Units/Beds
Region
Vacant
Rate
1,238
26.4%
57
4.6%
2,511
53.6%
143
5.7%
1,612
34.4%
48
3.0%
116
2.5%
7
6.0%
443
9.5%
38
8.6%
4,682
100.0%
236
5.0%

Source: Bowen National Research
*Buncombe County includes Asheville

Among the four subject counties, the lowest vacancy rate among all senior care
facilities is 3.0% in Henderson County, while the highest is 8.6% in Transylvania
County. The largest share of surveyed senior care product is in Buncombe
County, which has 2,511 units and represents more than half of the region’s
surveyed senior care housing supply. Despite this large share of the region’s
senior supply, the 5.7% vacancy rate is relatively low and indicates that this
market is not saturated with product.

Regional-104

 The following graph compares the vacancy rates of the senior care by area:

Region Senior Care Facilities Vacancy Rates by Area
9.0%
8.0%

8.6%

Vacancy Rate

7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%

6.0%

5.7%
4.6%

3.0%

3.0%

2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
Asheville

Buncombe County Henderson County

Madison County

Transylvania
County

Market

The following is a distribution of unit/beds and vacancy rates by product type for
each of the study areas.
Independent
Total
Vacancy
Units/Beds
Rate
364
4.1%
City of Asheville
716*
4.6%
Buncombe County
325
1.2%
Henderson County
0
Madison County
0
Transylvania County
Total
1,041
3.6%
Source: Bowen National Research
*Buncombe County includes Asheville

Multi-Unit Assisted
Total
Vacancy
Units/Beds
Rate
0
0
449
1.1%
0
194
4.3%
643
2.0%

Adult Care Homes
Total
Vacancy
Units/Beds
Rate
313
3.5%
620*
7.3%
376
8.0%
56
12.5%
124
12.1%
1,176
8.3%

Nursing Homes
Total
Vacancy
Units/Beds
Rate
561
5.5%
1,175*
5.5%
462
1.9%
60
0.0%
125
12.0%
1,822
4.9%

Generally, vacancy rates are low among most senior care facility product in each
of the study areas. However, some of the higher vacancy rates are within the
adult care homes in Madison County (12.5%) and Transylvania County (12.1%),
and within the nursing home product in Transylvania County (12.0%). While
these preceding counties have double digit vacancy rates among some of their
specific senior product types, these rates are not excessively high for senior care
product. Conversely, vacancy rates by product type and geographic area are the
lowest within Henderson County’s independent living product (1.2% vacancy),
multi-unit assisted product (1.1%) and nursing home product (1.9%) and within
Madison County’s nursing home product, which has no vacancies. As such, senior
residents seeking the aforementioned senior product in these particular counties
have limited options and typically must choose from home health care or going to
another county with the needed senior care housing alternative.

Regional-105

 The following graph compares the vacancy rates of the senior care facilities in the
study areas:
Senior Care Facilities Vacancy Rates by Type
Independent

Multi-Unit Assisted

Adult Care Homes

Nursing Homes

4.3%

0.0%

1.9%

8.0%
1.1%

4.6%

1.2%

2.0%

3.5%

4.0%

5.5%

6.0%

5.5%

7.3%

8.0%

12.1%

12.5%

10.0%

4.1%

Vacancy Rate

12.0%

12.0%

14.0%

0.0%
Asheville

Buncombe County Henderson County

Madison County

Transylvania
County

Market

The following table illustrates the low and median base rents by product type for
each of study areas.
Base Rents by Product Type and County
Multi-Unit
Adult Care
Independent
Assisted
Homes
Base
Median
Base
Median
Base
Median
$1,189
$1,189
$1,975
$2,600
City of Asheville
$1,060
$1,220
$1,500
$2,300
Buncombe County
$1,371
$1,371
$1,525
$3,200
$1,600
$2,550
Henderson County
$3,986
$3,986
Madison County
$1,925
$3,213
$2,550
$2,550
Transylvania County
Total
$1,060
$1,250
$1,525
$2,663
$1,298
$2,550
Source: Bowen National Research

Nursing Homes
Base
Median
$6,083
$6,737
$6,083
$6,600
$6,174
$6,782
$5,322
$5,322
$6,752
$6,752
$5,322
$6,782

Regionally, the median base monthly fee for independent living facilities is
$1,250, while the median base monthly fee for multi-unit assisted facilities is
$2,663. The median base fee for adult care homes is $2,550 and nursing care is
$6,782 a month. Generally, it appears the highest senior care housing fees are
within Madison and Transylvania counties, while the lowest housing fees are
within Buncombe County.

Regional-106

 Senior Care Facilities Median Rents by Type

Median Rent

Independent

Multi-Unit Assisted

Adult Care Homes

Nursing Homes

$7,000
$6,500
$6,000
$5,500
$5,000
$4,500
$4,000
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
Asheville

Buncombe County Henderson County

Madison County

Transylvania
County

Market

Representatives of Bowen National Research physically visited a majority of the
regions’ senior care facilities and rated each one based on the quality of the
facility’s exterior and the quality of its surrounding area/neighborhood separately.
Therefore, each facility received two ratings. The facilities were rated on the
general aesthetic appeal of the facility, property upkeep, landscaping and signage,
while the surrounding neighborhoods were rated on general appeal and upkeep.
The following table summarizes the number of facilities by the two different
categories considered in this on-site evaluation. It is important to note that the
properties physically evaluated represent only a portion of all senior care facilities
inventoried and may not include the same properties that were surveyed and
included on the preceding pages.
Senior Care Facilities by Quality Ratings (Share)
Quality
Surrounding
Rating
Neighborhood
Facilities
A
1 (4.5%)
1 (4.5%)
B
11 (50.0%)
13 (59.1%)
C
10 (45.5%)
8 (36.4%)
Total
22 (100.0%)
22 (100.0%)
Source: Bowen National Research

Regional-107

 Region Senior Care Facilities by Quality Rating

Share

Facilities
60.0%
55.0%
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%

Surrounding Neighborhood

59.1%
50.0%
45.5%
36.4%

4.5%

4.5%
A

B

C

Quality Rating

As illustrated above, a majority of the senior care facilities were rated “B”,
indicating that the facilities in the region are considered good, while the majority
of the remaining units were given a rating of “C”, which is considered fair. Most
of the facilities are located in neighborhoods that were rated “B”, which are
considered good areas as well. Overall, senior care facilities in the region are
considered to be of good or fair quality.
A map of all senior care facilities, both surveyed and non-surveyed, is included on
the following page.

Regional-108

 Cocke County

AshevilleMitchell
Region County
Senior Facilities

Asheville, NC

Senior Facilities

Type

Yancey County
Adult Care Homes
Multi-Unit Assisted
Independent/Congregate
Nursing Care

Madison County

McDowell County

Buncombe County
Swain County

Haywood County

Rutherford County

Henderson County
Jackson County

Polk County
Transylvania County

1:500,000

Macon County

0

1.75

3.5

7

10.5
Miles

Spartanburg
County
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme,
USGS, Intermap,
increment P Corp., NRCAN,
Esri Japan, METI,
Esri
Greenville
County
China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
User Community

 5. PLANNED & PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Bowen National Research personally contacted representatives of the various
government entities responsible for overseeing the approval of planned residential
developments throughout the study region. Understanding the number of
residential units and the type of housing being considered for development in each
county can assist in determining the degree of how these projects are expected to
meet the housing needs of each county and the region as a whole.
The following table illustrates the number of residential units that are confirmed
for development, meaning they have at least received some level of approval from
the local government jurisdiction and it is believed these units will likely be
developed. Please note, in some cases, there were mixed-use projects that were
identified as being planned for development but it was undetermined as to the
exact mix of a particular product type. In such cases, the number of units in the
development pipeline was distributed evenly among the known product types.
Confirmed Units in Development Pipeline
Market

Multifamily
Apartments

NonConventional
Rentals

Mobile
Homes

Owner
For-Sale
Housing*

Senior
Indep.

MultiUnit
Assisted

Adult
Care
Homes

Nursing
Homes

Special
Needs

City of Asheville
Buncombe County
Henderson County
Madison County
Transylvania County
Total

1,526
2,197
192
48
0
2,430

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
84
84

73
368
140
0
14
522

0
48
0
0
0
48

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
75
30
0
0
105

0
0
50
0
0
50

0
0
0
0
0
0

Source: Various Planning Departments (See: Addendum A: Sources)
Senior Indep. – Independent Living Units
*Limited to planned developments, such as single-family home subdivisions and condominium developments and does not include individual homes that
are planned or under construction.
**Buncombe County totals include units in Asheville

A total of 3,239 units of housing are currently in the development pipeline in the
region. Nearly 60% of the units in the development pipeline are within
multifamily apartment structures. It is important to note that while 522 owner forsale units were identified in the development pipeline, these were within larger
developments such as condominium or planned single-family home developments
and do not include stand alone, single units that will be built individually. As
such, there are likely a large number of single-family homes or other detached
homes that are being built individually throughout the region. Among senior care
facilities, there are 48 independent living units, 105 adult care units/beds, and 50
nursing home units/beds identified as being in the development pipeline. All of
the identified and confirmed units in the development pipeline are included in the
housing gap/needs estimates, if applicable.
Detailed information on identified residential product is included in the individual
county and city of Asheville chapters of the overall Housing Needs Assessment.

Regional-110

 E. HOUSING GAP/NEEDS ESTIMATES
Bowen National Research conducted housing gap/need analyses for rental and forsale housing for the subject region. The housing needs estimates include growth,
cost burdened households, households living in substandard housing, and units in the
development pipeline. These estimates are considered a broad evaluation of the needs
of the market. The housing gap analysis includes all of the same metrics used in the
housing needs analysis except for cost burdened households, but also includes the
number of units required for a balanced market (5.0% vacancy rate). Cost burdened
households are excluded from the gap analysis as they are considered to be having
their housing needs met, even though they are paying a disproportionately high share
of their income towards housing expenses. The housing gap estimate is considered a
more conservative representation of the housing shortage in the market and indicative
of the more immediate housing requirements of the market. Our estimates consider
four income stratifications. These stratifications include households with incomes of
up to 30% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI), households with incomes
between 31% and 50% of AMHI, between 51% and 80% of AMHI, and between 80%
and 120% of AMHI. This analysis was conducted for family households and seniors
(age 55+) separately. This analysis identifies the housing gap/needs (the number of
units that could potentially be supported) for the overall region between 2015 and
2020.
The demand components included in the housing gap/needs estimates for each of the
two housing types (rental and for-sale) are listed as follows:







Housing Gap/Needs Analysis Components
Owner Housing
Rental Housing
Renter Household Growth
 Owner Household Growth
Rent Overburdened Households**
 Cost Overburdened Households**
Overcrowded Housing
 Overcrowded Housing
Housing Lacking Complete Indoor Plumbing
 Housing Lacking Complete Indoor Plumbing
Pipeline Development*
 Pipeline Development*

*Units under construction, permitted, planned or proposed
**Included in the housing needs estimates only

The demand factors for each housing segment at the various income stratifications are
combined. Any product confirmed to be in the development pipeline is deducted
from the various demand estimates, yielding a housing gap/needs estimate. This
gap/needs analysis is conducted for both renters and owners, as well as for seniors
(age 55+) and family occupancy households. These estimates represent the number
of new households that may need housing and/or the number of existing households
that currently live in housing that needs replaced to relieve occupants of such things
as housing cost-burdens, overcrowded or substandard housing conditions. The units
required for a balanced market represents the additional or fewer units needed in the
market to achieve a 5.0% vacancy rate, which is considered a “balanced market”
vacancy rate. Data used for these various demand components originates from the
demographic analysis portion of this study.

Regional-111

 A housing needs analysis was also conducted for senior care facilities in the region.
While senior care facilities can range widely in prices, levels of care, physical
accommodations, quality and other factors, and be diverse in the populations they
serve due the varying needs of seniors, we have used national standards to establish
the potential housing needs estimates for senior care housing. We have applied
national standard disability rates associated with households requiring assistance with
Activities of Daily Living (e.g. dressing, bathing, medicine reminders, etc.). It is
important to understand that because the various housing facilities differ greatly in the
types of services they offer and typical age groups they serve, we have assumed that
any resident living in a senior care facility will require assistance with a minimum of
three Activities of Daily Living and be age 62 or older.
Note: The housing demand estimates shown below are based on aggregated data
from the individual county chapter analyses. As a result, some numbers cited in the
tables below may vary slightly from the growth numbers shown in the demographics
portion of this regional analysis due to rounding.
Rental Housing Needs Analysis
The table below summarizes the rental housing needs estimates by the various income
segments for family households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Cost Burdened Households
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Need

<30%
(<$15,000)
-61
10,718
365
-102
10,920

Rental Housing Needs Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999)
($25,000-$34,999)
($35,000-$75,000)
595
204
1100
6,081
4,021
1,135
265
276
447
-102
-136
-990
6,839
4,365
1,692

Total
1,838
21,955
1,353
-1,330
23,816

The table below summarizes the rental housing needs estimates by the various income
segments for senior (age 55+) households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Cost Burdened Households
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Need

<30%
(<$15,000)
148
3,020
152
-39
3,281

Rental Housing Needs Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999)
($25,000-$34,999)
($35,000-$75,000)
368
207
633
1,581
986
285
110
100
179
-40
-54
-389
2,019
1,239
708

Regional-112

Total
1,356
5,872
541
-522
7,247

 Overall, nearly half of the entire rental housing need for family housing within the
region is for households with incomes at or below 30% of AMHI and nearly an
additional one-third of the housing need is for households with incomes between 30%
and 50% of AMHI. A large housing need among those households with incomes at
or below 50% of AMHI is a potential indication for the need of governmentsubsidized housing targeting extremely and very low-income households. The very
low vacancy rate of 0.0% among the government-subsidized rental housing supply we
surveyed indicates that there is limited availability of affordable to lower income
households, many of which are rent burdened.
The largest housing need for rental housing among senior households age 55 and
older is among those households with income below 30% of AMHI. The housing
need among this senior household income segment represents nearly half of the
region’s senior housing needs estimates. A little more than one-quarter of the senior
rental housing need is among households with incomes between 30% and 50% of
AMHI. Combined, these extremely low and very low income household segments
represent nearly three-fourths of the entire region’s senior housing need estimates.
Government-subsidized housing, Housing Choice Vouchers and Tax Credit housing
will help to meet the needs of these households.

Region Rental Housing Need by Income
Family Households

Senior Households

11,000
10,000

10,920

Housing Need

9,000
8,000
7,000

6,839

6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000

4,365
3,281
2,019

1,000

1,239

1,692

708

0
<30%

30% - 50%

50% - 80%

Percent of Median Household Income

Regional-113

80% - 120%

 It should be noted that a large portion of the rental housing need for each income
segment shown in the preceding tables originates from households that are cost
burdened. This is particularly true among the lower income households. While these
particular households may be considered to have a housing need due to the
disproportionately high share of income they pay towards rent, they are adequately
housed. If the housing needs were limited to housing required to meet new household
growth, units required for a balanced market, and to replace housing that is
considered substandard, the housing need estimates would be much lower. This is
addressed in the housing gap estimates that follow.
Rental Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below illustrate the region’s rental housing gap, assuming the housing gap
originates exclusively from new household growth, units required for a balanced
market, and replacement of substandard housing only.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

<30%
(<$15,000)
-61
492
365
-102
694

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
595
204
1,100
345
350
484
265
276
447
-102
-136
-990
1,103
694
1,041

Total
1,838
1,671
1,353
-1,330
3,532

<30%
(<$15,000)
148
200
152
-39
461

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
368
207
633
142
128
198
110
100
179
-40
-54
-389
580
381
621

Total
1,356
668
541
-522
2,043

Based on the preceding analysis, the housing gaps by income level range from 694 to
1,103 for the family units and from 381 to 621 for the senior units. Rental housing
priorities should consider the housing segments demonstrating the greatest housing
gaps. It should be noted that despite the fact that more than 1,000 units that would be
affordable to households with incomes between 80% and 120% of AMHI are
currently within the development pipeline, the housing gap remains significant among
this household income segment. This is primarily attributed to the large number of
new renter households that are projected to be added to this income segment between
2015 and 2020.

Regional-114

 Region Rental Housing Gap by Income

Housing Gap

Family Households
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Senior Households

1,103

1,041

694

694

621

580
461

381

<30%

30% - 50%

50% - 80%

80% - 120%

Percent of Median Household Income

Owner Housing Needs Analysis
The table below summarizes the owner housing needs estimates by the various
income segments for family households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Cost Burdened Households
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Need

<30%
(<$15,000)
75
7,067
67
0
7,209

Owner Housing Needs Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999)
($25,000-$34,999)
($35,000-$75,000)
36
138
266
4,871
3,679
7,172
68
76
262
0
0
0
4,975
3,893
7,700

Total
515
22,789
473
0
23,777

The table below summarizes the owner housing needs estimates by the various
income segments for senior (age 55+) households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Cost Burdened Households
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Need

<30%
(<$15,000)
513
4,072
89
0
4,674

Owner Housing Needs Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999)
($25,000-$34,999)
($35,000-$75,000)
454
415
2,096
2,734
2,064
4,004
92
103
351
0
0
0
3,280
2,582
6,451

Regional-115

Total
3,478
12,874
635
0
16,987

 Overall, the region’s housing need for for-sale family and senior housing is greatest
among housing affordable to households with incomes between 80% and 120% of
AMHI. The for-sale family housing need is also significant among households with
incomes below 30% of AMHI, for both family and senior households. The primary
contributor to the large housing need among these household income segments is
from households that are considered cost burdened. If the housing needs were limited
to only housing required to meet new household growth, for a balanced market and to
replace housing that is considered substandard, the housing need estimates would be
much lower. This analysis is considered in the housing gap estimates portion of this
report.

Region Owner Housing Need by Income
Family Households

Senior Households

8,000
7,000

7,700

7,209

Housing Need

6,000

6,451

5,000
4,000

4,674

4,975
3,893

3,000

3,280
2,582

2,000
1,000
0
<30%

30% - 50%

50% - 80%

Percent of Median Household Income

Regional-116

80% - 120%

 Owner Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below illustrate the owner for-sale housing gap estimates, assuming the
housing gaps originate exclusively from new household growth, units required for a
balanced market, and replacement of substandard housing only.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

<30%
(<$15,000)
75
98
67
0
240

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999)
($25,000-$34,999)
($35,000-$75,000)
36
138
266
98
111
381
68
76
262
0
0
0
202
325
909

Total
515
688
473
0
1,676

<30%
(<$15,000)
513
128
89
0
730

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999)
($25,000-$34,999)
($35,000-$75,000)
454
415
2,096
130
147
488
92
103
351
0
0
0
676
665
2,935

Total
3,478
893
635
0
5,006

Based on the preceding analysis, the housing gaps by income level range from 202 to
909 for the family units and from 665 to 2,935 for the senior units. The relatively
large household growth projected for the 80% to 120% AMHI income band between
2015 and 2020 is the primary driver behind this income band’s housing gap. It is
important to note that while there are likely seniors (e.g. empty nesters, retirees, etc.)
relocating to the region due to its desirability, it is likely that a large portion of the
projected senior growth is attributed to seniors aging in place. The Asheville region,
like most parts of the country, has a large base of baby boomers that have been and
will continue to age in place, essentially staying in the area as they age. This will
result in a shift of households from one age segment to an older age segment. As
such, this trend is likely contributing to the large growth numbers for senior
homeowners. While many of these households are already in the market, the large
housing gaps for senior housing indicate that these older households will likely want
or require different housing to meet their changing housing needs as they age. This
should be considered in future housing planning strategies for the region.

Regional-117

 Region Owner Housing Gap by Income

Housing Gap

Family Households
3,000
2,750
2,500
2,250
2,000
1,750
1,500
1,250
1,000
750
500
250
0

Senior Households

2,935

909

730
240
<30%

665

676
202
30% - 50%

325
50% - 80%

80% - 120%

Percent of Median Household Income

Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior care housing encompasses a variety of alternatives including multi-unit
assisted housing, adult care homes, and nursing homes. Such housing typically
serves the needs of seniors requiring some level of care to meet their personal needs,
often due to medical or other physical issues. The following attempts to quantify the
estimated senior care housing need in the overall study region.
Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior Care Housing Demand Component
Demand Estimates
Elderly Population Age 62 and Older by 2020
121,707
Times Share* of Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
7.40%
Equals Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
9,006
Plus External Region Support (20%)
1,801
Equals Total Senior Care Support Base
10,808
Less Existing Supply
-6,611
Less Development Pipeline
-203
Potential Senior Care Beds Needed by 2020
3,994
ADL – Activities of Daily Living
*Share of ADL was based on data provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Population National Health Interview Survey 2011

Based upon age 62 and older population characteristics and trends, and applying the
ratio of persons requiring ADL assistance and taking into account the existing and
planned supply, we estimate that there will be 3,994 households with a senior (age
62+) requiring assisted services that will not have their needs met by existing or
planned senior care facilities by the year 2020.

Regional-118

 It is important to understand that not all of these estimated households with persons
age 62 and older requiring ADL assistance will want to move to a senior care facility,
as many may choose home health care services or have their needs taken care of by a
family member. Typically, institutionalization rates (the share of seniors seeking
senior care housing) is around 50%. Applying this share to the 3,994 seniors
requiring ADL assistance yields an estimated 1,997 senior care housing beds that will
likely be needed in the region by the year 2020. Such housing will likely need to be
in the form of a variety of housing options ranging from independent living with
optional services to nursing home facilities.

F. STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Associates of Bowen National Research solicited input from nearly more than 40
stakeholders throughout the region. Their input was provided in the form of an online
survey and telephone interviews. Considered leaders within their field and active in
the region, they represent a wide range of industries, including government, economic
development, real estate, and social assistance. The purpose of these interviews was
to gather input regarding the need for the type and styles of housing, the income
segments housing should target, and if there is a lack of housing or housing assistance
within the region. The following is a summary of the key input gathered.
Stakeholders were asked to rank the degree of overall housing demand in various
parts of the region. The areas receiving the highest rankings were the city of
Asheville and other areas of Buncombe County outside of the Asheville city limits.
The remaining areas of the region ranked low in comparison to the top two areas.
Multiple respondents stated that housing should be developed in both low- and highincome areas and near transit and employment opportunities. Rental housing was
overwhelmingly ranked as the type of housing having the greatest need, followed by
for-sale, single-person/young professional and senior independent living.
Respondents indicated that the housing style most needed in the area is apartments,
followed by single-family homes and duplex/triplex/townhome development.
Respondents also believe that adaptive reuse should be prioritized over new
construction and renovation/revitalization. When asked to rank the need for housing
for each income level, respondents evenly ranked incomes of less than $25,000 and
incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 with the greatest need. The most significant
housing issue within the region, as indicated by respondents, was rent
burdened/affordability, followed by limited availability.

Regional-119

 Respondents were asked to prioritize funding types that should be utilized or explored
in the region. “Other” homeowner assistance was given the highest priority, followed
by “other” rental housing assistance (such as Vouchers) and homebuyer assistance.
Respondents indicated that housing development programs that should be explored
include emergency repair, property tax incentives and support for home owners.
Other respondents noted that low-income senior, special needs and workforce
housing should be a focus. When asked what common barriers or obstacles exist as it
relates to housing development in the region, the cost of land, availability of land, and
financing received the highest rankings. Respondents provided various ways to
overcome these barriers, including increased collaboration between the local
government and developers, a land bank, a better zoning and permitting process,
improvements to public transit and infrastructure, and tax abatements. One
respondent suggested that a committee of both public and private housing
professionals should be created that is dedicated to the process of developing
affordable housing for all housing sectors within the region.
If a respondent was knowledgeable about homelessness in the region, they were
asked to rank the need for housing for various homeless groups. The most commonly
indicated groups were homeless individuals and families. Respondents indicated that
the most needed type of housing to serve the homeless population is increased
Voucher assistance, followed by emergency shelters and Single Room Occupancy
(SRO) units. The most commonly cited obstacles to developing homeless housing
were public perception/NIMBYism, and the high cost and lack of funding for
development. Respondents believe that collaboration of homeless services and
housing providers is necessary, and homeless housing should be developed closer to
transit and job cores to reduce the burden of a family having to maintain a vehicle in
order to access their employment.
If a respondent was knowledgeable about special needs groups in the region, they
were asked to rank the need for housing for various special needs groups. The most
commonly indicated groups were persons with mental illness and persons suffering
from alcohol/substance abuse. One group receiving special note by respondents as
being in need of housing is domestic violence victims. Respondents believe that
transitional housing and group homes would best serve these populations. The lack of
community support and funding were cited as the most common obstacles to
developing special needs housing.

Regional-120

 G. CASE STUDIES (AFFORDABLE RENTALS CONVERTING TO
VACATION RENTALS)
The subject study area is greatly influenced by tourism, as its various natural and
man-made attractions draw a large number of visitors to the region throughout much
the year. As a result, the region has a large offering of vacation rentals, which
include a wide range of housing products and rental rates. Because it is possible that
some local rental units that might traditionally be used as long-term rentals for more
permanent residents could be converted to vacation rentals, we have evaluated local
market data and collected stakeholder input as it relates to the possible conversion of
affordable rental housing units to vacation rentals and compared this information with
other similar regions in the southeast United States in which we conducted case
studies. The intent of this analysis is to determine the likelihood that long-term,
traditional rentals are being converted to vacation rentals and thereby reducing the
inventory of long-term rental alternatives available in the market, particularly
affordable rentals.
Three areas in the southeast United States that share similar demographic attributes to
the Asheville region and have a notable base of vacation/seasonal rental housing units
were selected as the case study communities from which we compared with the
Asheville region. These areas include: Sevier County, Tennessee; Watauga County,
North Carolina; and Hall County, Georgia. The data and information collected for
the Asheville region and within the case study communities include the following:




Demographic Data
Vacation Rental Housing Data
Stakeholder Input

The following table summarizes key data of the subject Asheville region and the
selected case studied communities. Vacation/seasonal housing is considered shortterm rentals that typically rent on a daily or weekly basis. For the purposes of this
analysis, vacation rentals rates have been converted to a monthly rate to compare with
other long-term rental options.
Asheville Region and Case Study Communities
Vacation/Seasonal Housing
Non-Seasonal Rental Housing
Vacation Percent of
Median
Rental
Percent of
Median
Area
Units
Housing
Rent
Units
Housing Gross Rent
12,050
6.0%
$5,250
52,790
31.4%
$775
Asheville Region
9,295
16.6%
$3,720
12,164
33.1%
$715
Sevier County, TN
8,373
26.1%
$4,800
8,882
43.9%
$819
Watauga County, NC
1,767
2.6%
$5,600
19,934
33.0%
$844
Hall County, GA
Sources: American Community Survey; Bowen National Research

Regional-121

Rent Differential
Dollars
$4,475
$3,005
$3,981
$4,756

Percent
85.2%
80.8%
82.9%
84.9%

 The Asheville region’s vacation/seasonal housing stock represents approximately
6.0% of the overall housing stock’s supply, which falls within the range of the other
case study communities. With the median advertised price for a vacation rental in the
Asheville region of $5,250, the subject region’s typical vacation rentals fall within the
range of the other communities. The overall market’s rental housing shares generally
range from 31.4% to 43.9%, making them very comparable to each other. As such,
the case study communities represent a good base of comparison for the subject
Asheville region.
As shown on the preceding table, the rent differentials between vacation rentals and
non-seasonal rental housing are over 80% in all communities. While the subject
Asheville region has a rent differential of 85.2%, which is the highest among the four
areas compared in the preceding table, it is very comparable to these other
communities. Because a potential incentive for converting a non-seasonal rental
housing unit to a vacation/seasonal rental is that property owners can charge greater
fees, it is clear that this incentive exists in the Asheville region as it does in the case
study communities.
The map below illustrates the concentration of seasonal/vacation rentals in relation to
median household incomes for the city of Asheville and its immediate surrounding
area.
Seasonal/Vacation Rentals and Median Household Incomes

Regional-122

 As the preceding map illustrates, with the exception of the Census Tract in the near
north central portion of Asheville (just south of I-240 and shown in red), it appears
that the concentration of vacation rentals by Census Tract are located in areas with
median household incomes above $25,000, with the greatest concentration of
vacation rentals located well outside the Asheville city limits and in higher income
areas. As such, it appears that only the previously mentioned Census Tract in the
near north portion of Asheville has both a concentration of vacation rentals and has a
concentration of low-income households.
We conducted interviews with 12 regional stakeholders within the four subject
counties in the Asheville region and 10 stakeholders in the case study communities to
obtain their insights and observations as it relates to the possibility of traditional longterm rentals (e.g. apartments, houses, duplexes, etc.) being converted into vacation
housing. The following is a summary of key findings from our stakeholder
interviews:
Asheville Region








Vacation rentals are in high demand, with the peak season ranging from April
through December, equating to a nine-month rental season; Some of the region’s
vacation rentals, most often bed and breakfast rentals, close from January to
March as a result of the decreased interest in vacation rentals during this time;
With a very strong vacation housing market, property owners may consider
converting traditional long-term rentals to vacation rentals.
While a majority of vacation rentals are in the more rural, mountain areas of the
region, some vacation rentals are within more developed areas, despite the fact
that some communities have restrictions on vacation rentals being in traditional
residential neighborhood; As such, some developed residential areas may be
considered areas from which residential conversions could occur.
It was stated by some stakeholders that while local communities have restrictions
on short-term/vacation rentals, they are typically not enforced. Additionally, it is
believed that many housing units that are converted to vacation rentals likely do
not be local code requirements. Therefore, without enforcement of regulations
and codes, properties owners considering the conversion housing units to vacation
rentals are generally not concerned about regulations or costs associated with
having the units meet local government requirements. It was suggested that better
enforcement of city regulations and codes be implemented, to either curb such
conversion activity or get units converted to meet city standards.
It appears that some homes are being converted from traditional long-term rentals
to vacation rentals, typically in the form of single-family homes as single unit
rentals or, at times, into a bed and breakfast rental alternative; While sources
could not estimate the frequency such conversions occur, they believe it happens
on an occasional basis and could diminish the available inventory for traditional,
long-term renters;

Regional-123

 

While the majority of stakeholders indicated that there is some activity of
converting housing to vacation rentals, it appears that these are typically not
homes or housing units that would be considered affordable to most low-income
households. Stakeholders believe that a majority of the homes being converted to
vacation rentals are the second homes of individuals seeking the opportunity to
make additional money and typically were never long-term rentals.
Case Study Regions








Vacation rentals in the each of the case study areas are in high demand;
Seasonal/Short-term rental’s peak seasons in the case study areas appear to be
much shorter than the Asheville region, generally from May to September. As
such, it appears that the financial viability of relying on seasonal rentals may be
less beneficial in the case study areas than the Asheville area.
Vacation rentals are generally higher quality product in unique setting (i.e.
mountains, near water or other outdoor recreation areas, etc.), which may make it
difficult for many homes to be converted from traditional long-term rentals and
into higher-end vacation rentals.
Market demand for traditional long-term rentals are generally high and while
conversions of existing housing to vacation rentals do occur, they are not on a
scale that is greatly impacting their markets.

In addition to individual interviews in the Asheville region, we also conducted an
online survey, of which approximately 40 area stakeholders provided responses
relating to a variety of topics. The survey questions and results are included in
Addendum C: Stakeholder Instrument within the overall Housing Needs Assessment.
However, one area of focus included questions relative to long-term rentals being
converted to vacation rentals. The following is a summary of key findings:
In your opinion, how frequently do you believe area rentals (apartments, single-family homes,
etc.) are being rented to vacationers (AirBnB, etc.) rather than as permanent housing?
Response
Response
Answer Options
Percent
Count
0.0%
0
Never
27.0%
10
Rarely
54.1%
20
Occasionally
18.9%
7
Often
answered question
37

A majority (54.1%) of stakeholder respondents indicated that area long-term rentals
are being rented as vacation units on an occasional basis, with over a quarter
indicating that it “rarely” occurs and 18.9% indicating that it occurs “often”. Despite
the variety of responses, it appear that area stakeholders believe such conversions to
vacation rentals is occasionally occurring.

Regional-124

 Respondents were asked to indicate the mostly likely motivation behind conversions
of long-term rentals to vacation rentals. Their responses are below.
Why do you believe people are renting their accessory units and apartments as vacation
rentals? (Select all that apply)
Response
Answer Options
Response Count
Percent
55.6%
20
Prospect of Increased Rental Income Profit
Prospect of Increased Rental Income Needed to Afford
16.7%
6
Their Primary Residence
16.7%
6
Fewer Problems than with Permanent Tenants
11.1%
4
More Demand
4
Other (please specify)
answered question
36

Based on the preceding responses, it appears that the primary driver of the conversion
from traditional, long-term housing to vacation housing is the “prospect of increased
rental income profit.”
Conclusions: Based on local market data, vacation rental rates are generally four
times higher than traditional long-term rentals. As such, there appears to be an
incentive for property owners to consider converting traditional long-term housing
into vacation rentals. While this report does not attempt to quantify the number of
such conversions, according to area stakeholders there appears to be “occasional”
conversions of traditional rentals to vacation rentals. While this reduces the region’s
housing inventory for long-term or permanent residents, it is believed that such
conversions are not being done on a large scale. Further, based on a demographic
analysis of the concentration of vacation rentals and median household incomes, it
appears that most existing vacation rentals are not within low income areas.
Regardless, in a market with limited availability among its traditional long-term rental
housing supply, particularly among its low-income multifamily apartments,
conversions of housing to vacation rentals reduces the supply available to long-term
residents, thereby exacerbating the challenges households have in finding housing
they want and can afford.

Regional-125

 Buncombe County
Housing Needs Assessment

Author: Patrick M. Bowen, President & Lead Contact
155 E. Columbus Street, Ste. 220   Pickerington, Ohio 43147
Phone: (614) 833-9300   patrickb@bowennational.com
www.bowennational.com

 BUNCOMBE COUNTY
A. INTRODUCTION
The focus of this analysis is to assess the market characteristics of, and to determine
the housing needs for, Buncombe County. To accomplish this task, Bowen National
Research evaluated various socio-economic characteristics, inventoried and analyzed
the housing supply (rental and owner/for-sale product), conducted stakeholder
interviews, evaluated special needs populations and provided housing gap estimates to
help identify the housing needs of the county.
To provide a base of comparison, various metrics of Buncombe County were
compared with overall region. A comparison of the subject county in relation with
other counties in the region is provided in the regional analysis portion of the overall
Housing Needs Assessment.
B. COUNTY OVERVIEW
Buncombe County is located within the central portion of the study region. It
encompasses a total of 656 square miles. Primary thoroughfares within the county
include U.S. Highways 23, 25 and 74, and Interstate Highways 26, 40 and 240.
Notable natural landmarks and public attractions include the Blue Ridge Parkway, the
Pisgah National Forest,
Biltmore Estate and
North
Carolina
Arboretum. The county
had
a
2010
total
population of 238,318
(7th largest in the state)
and
100,412
total
households. Asheville,
with a 2010 population
of 83,393, is the largest
community
in
the
county. The primary
employment sectors and
their
corresponding
shares of the county’s
total employment are
Retail Trade (11.3%),
Manufacturing (9.1%), and Administrative, Support, Waste Management &
Remediation Services (8.4%). Additional details regarding demographics, economics,
housing, and other pertinent research and findings are included on the following
pages.

Buncombe-1

 C. DEMOGRAPHICS
This section of the report evaluates key demographic characteristics for Buncombe
County. Through this analysis, unfolding trends and unique conditions are revealed
regarding populations and households residing in the county. Demographic
comparisons provide insights into the human composition of housing markets.
This section is comprised of three major parts: population characteristics, household
characteristics, and income data. Population characteristics describe the qualities of
individual people, while household characteristics describe the qualities of people
living together in one residence.
It is important to note that 2000 and 2010 demographics are based on U.S. Census data
(actual count), while 2015 and 2020 data are based on calculated projections provided
by ESRI, a nationally recognized demography firm and the American Community
Survey. The accuracy of these projections depends on the realization of certain
assumptions:


Economic projections made by secondary sources materialize;



Governmental policies with respect to residential development remain consistent;



Availability of financing for residential development (i.e. mortgages, commercial
loans, subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) remains consistent;



Sufficient housing and infrastructure is provided to support projected population
and household growth;

Significant unforeseen changes or fluctuations among any of the preceding
assumptions could have an impact on demographic projections.
Population and household numbers for selected years within Buncombe County and
the region are shown in the following table:

2000 Census
2010 Census
Change 2000-2010
Percent Change 2000-2010
2015 Projected
Change 2010-2015
Percent Change 2010-2015
2020 Projected
Change 2015-2020
Percent Change 2015-2020

Total Population
Buncombe
County
Region
206,318
344,472
238,318
398,912
32,000
54,440
15.5%
15.8%
253,915
421,899
15,597
22,987
6.5%
5.8%
269,995
445,283
16,080
23,384
6.3%
5.5%

Total Households
Buncombe
County
Region
85,771
143,510
100,412
168,748
14,641
25,238
17.1%
17.6%
107,695
179,521
7,283
10,773
7.3%
6.4%
114,914
190,027
7,219
10,506
6.7%
5.9%

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Buncombe-2

 Buncombe County/Region Population & Household Trends
Buncombe Population

Region Population

Buncombe Households

Region Households

18.0%

17.1% 17.6%

Percent Change

16.0%
14.0%

15.5% 15.8%

12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%

6.5%

4.0%

7.3%
5.8%

6.4%

6.3%

5.5%

6.7% 5.9%

2.0%
0.0%
2000-2010

2010-2015

2015-2020

Year

Buncombe County experienced an increase in both population and households
between 2000 and 2010. They are projected to increase by 15,597 (6.5%) and 7,283
(7.3%), respectively, between 2010 and 2015. Between 2015 and 2020, it is projected
that they will increase by 16,080 (6.3%) and 7,219 (6.7%), respectively. These
positive projected demographic trends are expected to slightly outpace the projected
trends within the region.
The distribution of households by age for Buncombe County is compared with the
overall region in the table below.

2010
Buncombe
County

2015
2020
Change
2015-2020
2010
2015

Region
2020
Change
2015-2020

<25
4,459
(4.4%)
4,417
(4.1%)
4,397
(3.8%)
-20
(-0.5%)
6,352
(3.8%)
6,281
(3.5%)
6,226
(3.3%)
-55
(-0.9%)

25 to 34
14,979
(14.9%)
15,342
(14.2%)
15,709
(13.7%)
367
(2.4%)
22,274
(13.2%)
22,772
(12.7%)
23,091
(12.2%)
319
(1.4%)

Household Heads by Age
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
17,165
19,575
19,548
(17.1%)
(19.5%)
(19.5%)
17,511
19,391
21,380
(16.3%)
(18.0%)
(19.9%)
17,815
19,400
22,708
(15.5%)
(16.9%)
(19.8%)
304
9
1,328
(1.7%)
(0.0%)
(6.2%)
27,174
31,960
33,116
(16.1%)
(18.9%)
(19.6%)
27,357
31,366
35,669
(15.2%)
(17.5%)
(19.9%)
27,543
31,080
37,629
(14.5%)
(16.4%)
(19.8%)
186
-286
1,960
(0.7%)
(-0.9%)
(5.5%)

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Buncombe-3

65 to 74
12,799
(12.7%)
16,553
(15.4%)
19,850
(17.3%)
3,297
(19.9%)
24,596
(14.6%)
30,438
(17.0%)
35,434
(18.6%)
4,996
(16.4%)

75+
11,887
(11.8%)
13,101
(12.2%)
15,035
(13.1%)
1,934
(14.8%)
23,276
(13.8%)
25,638
(14.3%)
29,024
(15.3%)
3,386
(13.2%)

 It is projected that by 2015, the largest share (19.9%) of households by age in
Buncombe County will be within the 55 to 64 age cohort. Between 2015 and 2020, it
is projected that the greatest household growth by age will be among those between
the ages of 65 and 74. This age group will grow by 3,297, an increase of 19.9%
during this time. Notable growth in the county is also projected to occur among
households between the ages of 55 and 64, and among those households age 75 and
older. While this growth is attributed to households aging in place, these projected
growth trends indicate a likely growing need for senior-oriented housing within the
county.

Buncombe County/Region Household Heads by Age (2015)
Buncombe County

Region

20.0%
18.0%

Share

16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
<25

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

Age Range

Buncombe-4

55 - 64

65 - 74

75+

 Households by income for selected years are shown in the following table:

2015
Buncombe
County

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
16,711
(15.5%)
17,065
(14.9%)
354
(2.1%)
26,973
(15.0%)
27,648
(14.5%)
674
(2.5%)

Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999 $150,000+
12,794
13,644
17,151
20,494
11,114
9,938
5,848
(11.9%)
(12.7%)
(15.9%)
(19.0%)
(10.3%)
(9.2%)
(5.4%)
13,587
14,337
18,777
21,393
11,591
11,437
6,726
(11.8%)
(12.5%)
(16.3%)
(18.6%)
(10.1%)
(10.0%)
(5.9%)
792
694
1,625
899
477
1,499
878
(6.2%)
(5.1%)
(9.5%)
(4.4%)
(4.3%)
(15.1%)
(15.0%)
22,124
23,236
28,217
34,090
19,434
16,434
9,012
(12.3%)
(12.9%)
(15.7%)
(19.0%)
(10.8%)
(9.2%)
(5.0%)
23,576
24,058
30,943
35,461
20,226
18,169
9,954
(12.4%)
(12.7%)
(16.3%)
(18.7%)
(10.6%)
(9.6%)
(5.2%)
1,453
823
2,725
1,371
792
1,734
942
(6.6%)
(3.5%)
(9.7%)
(4.0%)
(4.1%)
(10.6%)
(10.5%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

In 2015, it is projected that approximately 40% of Buncombe County households will
have annual incomes below $50,000, while the largest share (19.0%) of households
will have incomes between $50,000 and $74,999. It is projected that between 2015
and 2020, the greatest increase in households by income level in Buncombe County
will be among those with incomes between $35,000 and $49,999, though notable
growth is projected to occur among all income segments. As such, the broad growth
will add to a diverse mix of housing needs by income level.

Buncombe County/Region Households by Income (2015)
Buncombe County

Region

20.0%
18.0%
16.0%

Share

14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
<$15,000

$15,000 $24,999

$25,000 $34,999

$35,000 $49,999

$50,000 $74,999

Household Income

Buncombe-5

$75,000 $99,999

$100,000 $149,999

$150,000+

Total
107,694
(100.0%)
114,913
(100.0%)
7,219
(6.7%)
179,521
(100.0%)
190,035
(100.0%)
10,514
(5.9%)

 Households by income and tenure for selected years are shown below:

2015
Buncombe
County

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
10,484
(26.7%)
10,661
(25.3%)
177
(1.7%)
15,446
(26.5%)
15,532
(25.0%)
86
(0.6%)

Renter Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999 $150,000+
Total
6,636
6,322
5,929
5,851
2,081
1,453
510
39,266
(16.9%)
(16.1%)
(15.1%)
(14.9%)
(5.3%)
(3.7%)
(1.3%)
(100.0%)
7,037
7,037
7,206
6,110
2,275
1,686
758
42,138
(16.7%)
(16.7%)
(17.1%)
(14.5%)
(5.4%)
(4.0%)
(1.8%)
(100.0%)
401
83
1,276
259
194
233
248
2,872
(6.0%)
(1.3%)
(21.5%)
(4.4%)
(9.3%)
(16.0%)
(48.6%)
(7.3%)
10,300
9,758
8,525
8,674
2,908
1,919
656
58,185
(17.7%)
(16.8%)
(14.7%)
(14.9%)
(5.0%)
(3.3%)
(1.1%)
(100.0%)
11,262
11,262
10,165
8,767
3,070
2,135
910
62,011
(18.2%)
(18.2%)
(16.4%)
(14.1%)
(5.0%)
(3.4%)
(1.5%)
(100.0%)
962
411
1,641
93
161
216
255
3,826
(9.3%)
(4.2%)
(19.2%)
(1.1%)
(5.5%)
(11.2%)
(38.8%)
(6.6%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

2015
Buncombe
County

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
6,227
(9.1%)
6,404
(8.8%)
177
(2.8%)
11,528
(9.5%)
12,116
(9.5%)
588
(5.1%)

Owner Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999 $150,000+
Total
6,159
7,322
11,222
14,644
9,032
8,485
5,337
68,428
(9.0%)
(10.7%)
(16.4%)
(21.4%)
(13.2%)
(12.4%)
(7.8%)
(100.0%)
6,550
7,932
11,571
15,283
9,315
9,752
5,968
72,775
(9.0%)
(10.9%)
(15.9%)
(21.0%)
(12.8%)
(13.4%)
(8.2%)
(100.0%)
391
611
349
639
283
1,267
630
4,347
(6.4%)
(8.3%)
(3.1%)
(4.4%)
(3.1%)
(14.9%)
(11.8%)
(6.4%)
11,824
13,478
19,692
25,417
16,526
14,515
8,357
121,336
(9.7%)
(11.1%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.6%)
(12.0%)
(6.9%)
(100.0%)
12,314
13,889
20,777
26,694
17,156
16,033
9,044
128,024
(9.6%)
(10.8%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.4%)
(12.5%)
(7.1%)
(100.0%)
491
411
1,085
1,278
630
1,519
687
6,688
(4.1%)
(3.1%)
(5.5%)
(5.0%)
(3.8%)
(10.5%)
(8.2%)
(5.5%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The largest share (26.7%) of renter households in 2015 is projected to be among
households with incomes below $15,000. Meanwhile, the largest share (21.4%) of
owner-occupied households at this same time will be among those with incomes
between $50,000 and $74,999. Between 2015 and 2020, the greatest renter household
growth is projected to occur among households with incomes between $35,000 and
$49,999, while significant growth is also projected to occur among renter households
with incomes between $15,000 and $24,999. It is projected that the greatest
homeowner household growth during this time will be among homeowners with
incomes between $25,000 and $34,999.
Given the large and growing base of older adult households in the region, it is
important to evaluate the demographic trends of households by tenure for different
senior householder segments. The senior household by income data is presented for
county for 2015 and 2020 in the following tables.

Buncombe-6

 Ages 55 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
2,925
26.7%
3,043
25.3%
1,851
16.9%
2,009
16.7%
1,764
16.1%
1,828
15.2%
1,654
15.1%
2,057
17.1%
1,632
14.9%
1,744
14.5%
581
5.3%
650
5.4%
405
3.7%
481
4.0%
142
1.3%
217
1.8%
10,955
100.0%
12,030
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
3,276
9.1%
3,485
8.8%
3,240
9.0%
3,564
9.0%
3,852
10.7%
4,317
10.9%
5,904
16.4%
6,297
15.9%
7,704
21.4%
8,317
21.0%
4,752
13.2%
5,069
12.8%
4,464
12.4%
5,307
13.4%
2,808
7.8%
3,248
8.2%
36,000
100.0%
39,604
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Ages 62 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
1,961
26.7%
2,034
25.3%
1,241
16.9%
1,342
16.7%
1,182
16.1%
1,222
15.2%
1,109
15.1%
1,375
17.1%
1,094
14.9%
1,166
14.5%
389
5.3%
434
5.4%
272
3.7%
322
4.0%
95
1.3%
145
1.8%
7,343
100.0%
8,039
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
2,272
9.1%
2,425
8.8%
2,247
9.0%
2,480
9.0%
2,672
10.7%
3,004
10.9%
4,095
16.4%
4,382
15.9%
5,343
21.4%
5,787
21.0%
3,296
13.2%
3,527
12.8%
3,096
12.4%
3,693
13.4%
1,947
7.8%
2,260
8.2%
24,968
100.0%
27,558
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Ages 75 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
886
26.7%
846
25.3%
561
16.9%
559
16.7%
534
16.1%
509
15.2%
501
15.1%
572
17.1%
495
14.9%
485
14.5%
176
5.3%
181
5.4%
123
3.7%
134
4.0%
43
1.3%
60
1.8%
3,319
100.0%
3,346
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
830
9.1%
856
8.8%
821
9.0%
875
9.0%
977
10.7%
1,060
10.9%
1,497
16.4%
1,546
15.9%
1,953
21.4%
2,042
21.0%
1,205
13.2%
1,245
12.8%
1,132
12.4%
1,303
13.4%
712
7.8%
797
8.2%
9,126
100.0%
9,725
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Based on the data from the preceding page, the primary older adult household growth
between 2015 and 2020 is projected to occur among most household income segments.
As a result, there will likely be a growing need through at least 2020 for additional
renter and owner housing at a variety of price points that meets the needs of the
county’s senior population.

Buncombe-7

 Population by race for 2010 (latest race data available) is shown below:

Asian
Alone

Some
Other Race
Alone

Two or
More
Races

Total

Region

Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Black or
African
American
Alone

Buncombe
County

White
Alone

Population by Race

208,192
87.4%
353,718
88.7%

15,211
6.4%
19,967
5.0%

2,417
1.0%
3,653
0.9%

7,503
3.1%
13,732
3.4%

4,995
2.1%
7,842
2.0%

238,318
100.0%
398,912
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The largest share of population by race within the county is among the “White Alone”
segment, which represents 87.4% of the county’s population. “Black or African
American” represents the next largest share in the county at 6.4%. These shares are
similar to region shares.
Population by poverty status for years 2006-2010 is shown in the following table:

Buncombe
County
Region

Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Population by Poverty Status
Income below poverty level:
Income at or above poverty level:
<18
18 to 64
65+
<18
18 to 64
65+
10,311
21,224
3,477
39,655
130,755
32,896
4.3%
8.9%
1.5%
16.6%
54.9%
13.8%
17,106
33,329
6,304
65,171
212,420
64,583
4.3%
8.4%
1.6%
16.3%
53.2%
16.2%

Total
238,318
100.0%
398,912
100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Over 14.7% of the county’s population lives in poverty. One in five children (under
the age of 18) within the county live in poverty. Approximately 14.0% of the county’s
population between the ages of 18 and 64 lives in poverty, while 10.6% of seniors age
65 and older live in poverty. With 35,012 people living in poverty in Buncombe
County, the affordability of housing remains an important issue.

Buncombe-8

 The following graph compares the share of population by age group with incomes
below the poverty level for the county and state:

Population Below Poverty Level by Age (2006-2010)
Buncombe County

Region

9.0%

8.9%

8.0%

8.4%

7.0%

Share

6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%

4.3%

4.3%

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

1.6%

0.0%
Under 18

18 to 64

65 & Over

Age

Households by tenure for selected years for the county and state are shown in the
following table:

Buncombe
County
Region

Household Type
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total

2000
Number
Percent
60,291
70.3%
25,480
29.7%
85,771
100.0%
105,693
73.6%
37,817
26.4%
143,510
100.0%

Households by Tenure
2010
2015
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
65,981
65.7%
68,428
63.5%
34,431
34.3%
39,266
36.5%
100,412
100.0%
107,695
100.0%
117,511
69.6%
121,336
67.6%
51,237
30.4%
58,185
32.4%
168,748
100.0%
179,521
100.0%

2020
Number Percent
72,775
63.3%
42,138
36.7%
114,914
100.0%
128,018
67.4%
62,009
32.6%
190,027
100.0%

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Within the county, the share of owner-occupied households was over 70% in 2000
and declined to less than two-thirds by 2010. Conversely, the share of renteroccupied units increased from 29.7% in 2000 to over one-third in 2010. This shift
in the share of occupied housing units by tenure is attributed to the renter
household growth that has outpaced the owner household growth by two to one.
This trend is projected to continue through 2015. However, the number of owneroccupied households is projected to increase at a greater amount than renter
households between 2015 and 2020. It is projected that between 2015 and 2020,
the number of renter-occupied households will increase by 2,872 (4.2%) while
owner-occupied households will increase by 4,347 (6.4%). These growth trends
will greatly influence the future needs of Buncombe County.

Buncombe-9

 The following graph compares household tenure shares for 2000, 2010, 2015 and
2020:

Buncombe County/Region Households by Tenure
Buncombe Owner

Region Owner

Buncombe Renter

Region Renter

80.0%
70.0%

Share

60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2000

2010

2015

2020

Year

Renter households by size for selected years are shown in the following table:
Persons Per Renter Household

2010
Buncombe
County

2015
2020
2010

Region

2015
2020

1-Person
13,744
(39.9%)
15,900
(40.5%)
17,244
(40.9%)
20,359
(39.7%)
23,427
(40.3%)
25,224
(40.7%)

2-Person
10,243
(29.7%)
11,543
(29.4%)
12,274
(29.1%)
14,680
(28.7%)
16,488
(28.3%)
17,416
(28.1%)

3-Person
5,106
(14.8%)
5,826
(14.8%)
6,253
(14.8%)
7,554
(14.7%)
8,593
(14.8%)
9,175
(14.8%)

4-Person
3,124
(9.1%)
3,492
(8.9%)
3,694
(8.8%)
4,965
(9.7%)
5,537
(9.5%)
5,806
(9.4%)

5-Person
2,214
(6.4%)
2,505
(6.4%)
2,673
(6.3%)
3,679
(7.2%)
4,140
(7.1%)
4,387
(7.1%)

Total
34,431
(100.0%)
39,266
(100.0%)
42,138
(100.0%)
51,237
(100.0%)
58,185
(100.0%)
62,009
(100.0%)

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

In 2015, the share of the county’s renter households with one- and two-persons is
projected to be just under 70% of all renter households, while three-person or larger
renter households will represent slightly more than 30% of the total renter households.
Note that one-person households are projected to experience the greatest growth
between 2015 and 2020, increasing by 1,344, or 8.5%. This coincides with the
projected decrease in the median household size from 1.68 in 2010 to 1.62 in 2020.

Buncombe-10

Median
Household
Size
1.68
1.65
1.62
1.72
1.69
1.66

 The following graph compares renter household size shares for the county and state in
2015:
Buncombe County/Region Persons per Renter Household (2015)
Buncombe County

Region

45.0%
40.0%
35.0%

40.5% 40.3%

Share

30.0%

29.4% 28.3%

25.0%
20.0%
15.0%

14.8% 14.8%

10.0%

8.9% 9.5%

5.0%

6.4% 7.1%

0.0%
1-Person

2-Persons

3-Persons

4-Persons

5-Persons

Household Size

Owner households by size for selected years are shown on the following table:
Persons Per Owner Household

2010
Buncombe
County

2015
2020
2010

Region

2015
2020

1-Person
16,831
(25.5%)
17,770
(26.0%)
19,145
(26.3%)
29,657
(25.2%)
31,101
(25.6%)
33,231
(26.0%)

2-Person
26,782
(40.6%)
27,486
(40.2%)
29,030
(39.9%)
50,304
(42.8%)
51,336
(42.3%)
53,736
(42.0%)

3-Person
10,472
(15.9%)
10,916
(16.0%)
11,636
(16.0%)
17,419
(14.8%)
18,195
(15.0%)
19,298
(15.1%)

4-Person
7,511
(11.4%)
7,678
(11.2%)
8,071
(11.1%)
12,690
(10.8%)
12,962
(10.7%)
13,538
(10.6%)

5-Person
4,385
(6.6%)
4,578
(6.7%)
4,894
(6.7%)
7,441
(6.3%)
7,742
(6.4%)
8,216
(6.4%)

Total
65,981
(100.0%)
68,428
(100.0%)
72,775
(100.0%)
117,511
(100.0%)
121,336
(100.0%)
128,018
(100.0%)

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National

Generally, one- and two-person owner-occupied households are projected to represent
a combined two-thirds of the owner-occupied household base within the county by
2015. At the same time, approximately 16.0% of the county’s owner-occupied
households will consist of three-persons, over 11% will be four-persons, and over 6%
will be five-person or larger. These shares are not expected to change much through
2020.

Buncombe-11

Median
Household
Size
2.21
2.20
2.19
2.16
2.15
2.15

 The following graph compares owner household size shares for the county and state in
2015:
Buncombe County/Region Persons per Owner Household (2015)
Buncombe County

Region

45.0%
40.0%

40.2%

35.0%

42.3%

Share

30.0%
25.0%

26.0% 25.6%

20.0%
15.0%

16.0% 15.0%

10.0%

11.2% 10.7%

5.0%

6.7% 6.4%

0.0%
1-Person

2-Persons

3-Persons

4-Persons

5-Persons

Household Size

Residents of the county face a variety of housing issues that include such things as
lacking complete kitchen and/or indoor plumbing, overcrowding (1.01 or more
persons per room), severe overcrowding (1.51 or more persons per room), cost
burdened (paying over 30% of their income towards housing costs), severe cost
burdened (paying over 50% of their income towards housing costs), and potentially
containing lead paint (units typically built prior to 1980).
The following table summarizes the housing issues by tenure for Buncombe County.
It is important to note that some occupied housing units have more than one housing
issue.
Housing Issues by Tenure
Housing Issue
Incomplete Plumbing
Overcrowded
Severe Overcrowded
Cost Burdened
Severe Cost Burdened

Renter-Occupied
Number
Percent
216
0.6%
1,197
3.3%
394
1.1%
15,930
44.5%
7,774
21.7%

Owner-Occupied
Number
Percent
157
0.2%
878
1.3%
257
0.4%
16,934
26.0%
6,428
9.9%

Sources: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Notes: Some housing issues overlap with other issues

Buncombe-12

 The greatest housing issue facing residents appears to be associated with cost burden.
The high share of cost burdened households indicates that many area residents are
paying a disproportionately high share of their income towards housing costs, which is
likely due to a lack of affordable housing.

D. ECONOMICS
As economic conditions and trends can influence the need for housing within a
particular market, the following is an overview of various economic characteristics
and trends within Buncombe County.
The distribution of employment by industry sector in Buncombe County is compared
with the region in the following table.

NAICS Group
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation & Warehousing
Information
Finance & Insurance
Real Estate & Rental & Leasing
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services
Management of Companies & Enterprises
Administrative, Support, Waste Management & Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health Care & Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
Accommodation & Food Services
Other Services (Except Public Administration)
Public Administration
Nonclassifiable
Total

Employment by Industry (Employees)
Buncombe County
Region
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
1,192
0.8%
2,090
1.0%
95
0.1%
145
0.1%
418
0.3%
549
0.3%
7,279
4.8%
11,460
5.2%
13,729
9.1%
18,891
8.6%
4,558
3.0%
7,349
3.4%
17,066
11.3%
24,464
11.2%
2,697
1.8%
4,359
2.0%
1,975
1.3%
2,671
1.2%
3,518
2.3%
5,054
2.3%
4,112
2.7%
5,922
2.7%
8,215
5.4%
10,754
4.9%
171
0.1%
218
0.1%
12,730
8.4%
16,789
7.7%
7,314
4.8%
10,852
5.0%
11,827
7.8%
17,371
7.9%
1,422
0.9%
2,526
1.2%
9,697
6.4%
14,188
6.5%
7,504
5.0%
11,453
5.2%
9,682
6.4%
13,768
6.3%
25,852
17.1%
37,742
17.3%
151,053
100.0%
218,615
100.0%

*Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research
E.P.E. - Average Employees Per Establishment
Note: Since this survey is conducted of establishments and not of residents, some employees may not live within the County. These
employees, however, are included in our labor force calculations because their places of employment are located within the County.

The labor force within the county is very diversified and balanced with no industry
sector representing more than 11.3% of the overall county’s employment base. The
largest employment sectors in the county are within Retail Trade (11.3%),
Manufacturing (9.1%), and Administrative, Support, Waste Management &
Remediation Services (8.4%). Overall, Buncombe County has a distribution of
employment by job sector that is similar to the region.

Buncombe-13

 The following illustrates the total employment base for Buncombe County, the region
North Carolina, and the United States.

Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Total Employment
Region
North Carolina
Total
Percent
Total
Percent
Number
Change
Number
Change
173,140
4,031,081
176,817
2.1%
4,123,857
2.3%
183,324
3.7%
4,261,325
3.3%
184,292
0.5%
4,283,826
0.5%
185,863
0.9%
4,280,355
-0.1%
179,061
-3.7%
4,107,955
-4.0%
181,324
1.3%
4,138,113
0.7%
182,849
0.8%
4,183,094
1.1%
186,023
1.7%
4,271,315
2.1%
188,921
1.6%
4,318,319
1.1%
191,285
1.3%
4,368,455
1.2%

Buncombe County
Total
Percent
Number
Change
108,879
110,997
1.9%
115,077
3.7%
115,526
0.4%
116,545
0.9%
112,362
-3.6%
114,202
1.6%
115,585
1.2%
118,028
2.1%
120,001
1.7%
121,536
1.3%

United States
Total
Percent
Number
Change
139,967,126
142,299,506
1.7%
145,000,043
1.9%
146,388,369
1.0%
146,047,748
-0.2%
140,696,560
-3.7%
140,457,589
-0.2%
141,727,933
0.9%
143,566,680
1.3%
144,950,662
1.0%
146,735,092
1.2%

Source: Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics
*Through August

Buncombe County Total Employment
122,000

Total Employed

120,000
118,000
116,000
114,000
112,000
110,000
108,000
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014*

Year

Buncombe County lost approximately 3.6% of its employment base in 2009, which is
slightly less than the decrease experienced in the overall region.
The county’s
employment base has increased in each of the past five years, increasing by a total of
9,174 (8.2%) in the county now than there were immediately prior to the most recent
recession.

Buncombe-14

 Unemployment rates for Buncombe County, the region, North Carolina and the United
States are illustrated as follows:
Unemployment Rate
Buncombe
County
4.3%
4.4%
3.7%
3.6%
4.8%
8.2%
8.6%
8.0%
7.3%
6.1%
5.0%

Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Region
4.5%
4.4%
3.8%
3.6%
4.9%
8.4%
8.8%
8.2%
7.5%
6.2%
5.1%

North Carolina
5.5%
5.3%
4.8%
4.8%
6.3%
10.4%
10.8%
10.2%
9.2%
8.0%
6.5%

United States
5.6%
5.2%
4.7%
4.7%
5.8%
9.3%
9.7%
9.0%
8.1%
7.4%
6.5%

Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
*Through August

The county’s unemployment rate has generally mirrored that of the region over the
past 10 years. The county’s unemployment rate increased to a high of 8.6% in 2010,
before declining in each of the past four years. This is a sign of an improving and
expanding economy.

Buncombe County/Region Unemployment Rate
Buncombe County

Region

Unemployment Rate

9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

Buncombe-15

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014*

 The ten largest employers within the Buncombe County are summarized as follows:
Employer Name
Business Type
Memorial Mission Hospital
Health Care
Buncombe County Board of Education
Education
Ingles Markets, Inc.
Grocery
Veterans Administration
Public Administration
County of Buncombe
County Government
Walmart
Retail/Grocery
City of Asheville
City Government
Eaton Corporation
Power Management Company
Asheville Buncombe Technical
Education
Community CarePartners, Inc.
Health Services
Source: ACESSNC, North Carolina Economic Data and Site Information, 2014 1st quarter

According to the representative with the Asheville Chamber of Commerce and
Economic Development Coalition of Asheville/Buncombe County, the area economy
is healthy and growing. Employment has grown over the past few years at a notable
rate and is expected to do so for the foreseeable future.
The River Arts District (RAD) consists of many artists and working studios in 22
former factories and historical buildings nestled along the French Broad River. There
are more than 180 working studios with showrooms and galleries open every day, all
year round.
In October of 2014, Linemar Corporation announced plans to invest $115 million in its
Arden plant near Asheville with plans to add 150 positions. The expansion stems
from a new product line for the plant. A building renovation will start this year with
hiring expected to begin early 2015. Linamar plans to make transmission gears for the
automotive industry at the plant, which now employs about 200 people.
GE Aviation, a global leader in jet engine and aircraft system production, hosted a
grand opening ceremony on October 15, 2014 at the site of its new advanced
composites factory near Asheville. The new 170,000 square-foot facility will be the
first in the world to mass produce engine components made of advanced ceramic
matrix composite (CMC) materials. The plant’s current workforce of 300 will be
expanded by 52 new jobs.
Highland Brewing Company announced expansion plans in September 2014 to add 15
jobs and invest $5 million in new equipment and facilities over the next three years.
The expansion, which includes tanks and a new bottling line, will increase its brewing
capacity to over 60,000 barrels or 828,000 cartons and enable the company to expand
their distribution over time. Highland Brewery Company is Asheville’s oldest
brewery.

Buncombe-16

 In August 2014, Wicked Weed Brewing announced expansion plans for a new
brewing facility to be located in western Buncombe County. The company’s
expansion would add 82 new jobs and invest $5 million in facilities and equipment
over the next three years. The brewery has been in existence since 2011.
In June 2014, Transportation Safety Apparel, a family-owned apparel company based
in Hilton Head, South Carolina announced they will bring 25 jobs to Buncombe
County. The multi-million dollar safety apparel company was to open a 10,000
square-foot distribution facility in Weaverville in June 2014 and plans to gradually
consolidate its operations there by 2017.
BorgWarner, a global technology leader and top automotive industry supplier,
announced in May 2014 a plan to expand its Turbo Systems manufacturing facility in
Arden. The expansion will create 154 new engineering and manufacturing jobs in
Buncombe County and will invest $55 million in facilities and equipment over the
next five years.
Kearfott Corporation, announced a plan in March 2014 to expand its manufacturing
facility in Black Mountain, North Carolina, with an investment of up to $11.9 million
in facilities and equipment. Kearfott’s investment in Buncombe County will create 75
new positions including engineering, quality control, production and management
roles over the next three years. Kearfott Corporation is a defense equipment
manufacturer founded in 1917.
In February 2014, Jacob Holm Industries, a global nonwoven manufacturer,
announced the expansion of its manufacturing facility in Candler with over $45.9
million investment in facilities and equipment. The total project could exceed $60
million when it is complete. The investment will bring 66 new positions to
accommodate the addition of a new product line. The company originally located to
Buncombe County in 2005 and currently employs 82 workers. Jacob Holm Industries
offers high quality products for personal care, home care, hygiene, packaging and
industrial markets.
Also in February 2014, Sport Hansa LLC, a premier importer and distributor of
European outdoor product brands, announced its relocation to Asheville. The firm’s
expanded distribution center will allow for continued growth and expansion of product
lines that include Helle knives of Norway, Kupika camping dishware of Finland,
Montana technical outwear, Terra Nova tents of the United Kingdom, and Wetterlings
Axe Works of Sweden. The company is relocating its headquarters and distribution
operations from Longmont, Colorado.

Buncombe-17

 Tourism:
According to North Carolina Tourism Department of Commerce, domestic tourism in
Buncombe County generated an economic impact of $901.28 million in 2013. This
was an 8.04% change from 2012. Also in 2013, Buncombe County ranked 5th in travel
impact among North Carolina’s 100 counties. More than 9,700 jobs in Buncombe
County were directly attributable to travel and tourism. Travel generated a $190.21
million payroll in 2013. State and local tax revenues from travel to Buncombe County
amounted to $74.0 million.
The Buncombe County Tourism Development Authority, through the Tourism Product
Development Fund (TPDF), has awarded $15 million for sixteen community tourism
projects since 2001 when the occupancy tax rate in Buncombe County was increased
from three cents to four cents. The additional cent generates approximately $1.8
million of room tax revenue per year, of which 100 percent is dedicated to the TPDF.
The purpose of the TPDF is to provide financial assistance for major tourism projects
in order to substantially increase patronage of lodging facilities in Buncombe County.
TDPF funds can be awarded to for-profit and non-profit entities as a grant, pledge of
debt service or loan guaranty.
In October of 2014, the Buncombe County Tourism Development Authority (BCTDA)
voted to award five grants, totaling $4,825,000 to five community projects. The grants
are made from the TPDF and mark the largest amount awarded since the Fund’s
inception in 2001. The recipients of the 2014 funding cycle were:








The Enka Center Ball Fields project was awarded $2 million (the largest single
amount ever awarded to one project in the history of the fund) to construct
seven new ball fields and facilities in the Enka-Candler area that will enable the
region to host traveling youth baseball and college softball tournaments and
provide space for local youth sports.
Highland Brewing Company will receive $850,000 for expansion and
improvements that will enhance the guest experience, including roof top access,
event space and upgraded tour amenities.
The Riverfront Destination Development Project in the city of Asheville was
granted $1.8 million for capital improvements along the French Broad River,
including a network of visitor amenities such as a Riverfront Arts and Culture
Dispensary, pedestrian walkway connections, greenways, boat ramps and trainviewing platform.
Riverlink will receive $25,000 for establishment of commercial-grade river
access at the Pearson Bridge to facilitate usage of river experiences and
activities.
The Collider, a project of the Asheville-Buncombe Sustainable Community
Initiatives, was awarded $150,000 for creation of a state-of-the-art business and
conference facility in downtown which will host primarily mid-week corporate
events and leverage the growing demand for expertise from the nearby National
Climatic Data Center.

Buncombe-18

 Much of the tourism in Buncombe County is in the Asheville area, including the
Biltmore Estate. However, there are other areas in Buncombe County where tourism
is popular. The Black Mountain-Swannoa Valley area is popular for its quaint shops,
galleries and Appalachian-style craft stores with local craftsmen demonstrating their
trades. It is also popular because of its outdoor activities such as hiking, biking and
Black Mountain’s famous 747 yard par 6 golf course, which has been called one of the
longest in the world.
There are also renowned festivals in the area such as the Sourwood Festival, L.E.A.F.
Festival, Black Mountain Art and Crafts Show and Art in Bloom. There is also the
Swannanoa Valley Museum and Black Mountain Center for the Arts. The small
township of Montreat is known for being the home of the Reverend Billy Graham and
it abuts the city limits of Black Mountain. It is a unique village and has a small liberal
arts college, Montreat College, and the Montreat Conference Center.
Weaverville is located in the mountains of Western North Carolina in the northern
section of Buncombe County. Weaverville borders Reem’s Creek Valley, is
shadowed by the Blue Ridge Mountains and is home to the Zebulon B. Vance
birthplace. There is a restored childhood homestead of the late North Carolina Civil
War Governor and Reconstructionist Senator located there. Weaverville also offers
outdoor recreation in the mountains such as hiking, mountain biking, fishing, golfing
and skiing. The Blue Ridge Parkway, which is called “Americas Favorite Drive”, is
just 15 minutes from Weaverville’s Main Street. Weaverville also has cabin rentals
and other area lodging to accommodate tourists. The Town of Weaverville and the
surrounding area is home to a very active art community. Each spring and fall, local
artists welcome the public to their studios to show off their crafts during the
Weaverville Art Safari. Also in September, the local artists host Art in Autumn.
WARN (layoff notices):
According to the North Carolina Workforce Development website
(www.nccommerce.com), there have been no WARN notices of large-scale layoffs or
closures reported for the Buncombe County area since January 2013.

E. HOUSING SUPPLY
This housing supply analysis considers both rental and owner for-sale housing.
Understanding the historical trends, market performance, characteristics, composition,
and current housing choices provide critical information as to current market
conditions and future housing potential. The housing data presented and analyzed in
this section includes primary data collected directly by Bowen National Research and
from secondary data sources including American Community Survey (ACS), U.S.
Census housing information and data provided by various government entities and real
estate professionals.

Buncombe-19

 While there are a variety of housing alternatives offered in Buncombe County, we
focused our analysis on the most common alternatives. The housing structures
included in this analysis are:


Rental Housing – Multifamily rentals, typically with three or more units were
inventoried and surveyed. Additionally, rentals with two or fewer units, which
were classified as non-conventional rentals, were identified and surveyed. Other
rentals such as vacation rentals, mobile homes, and home stays (a single bedroom
or portion of a larger unit) were also considered in this analysis.



Owner For-Sale Housing – We identified attached and detached for-sale housing,
which may be part of a planned development or community, as well as attached
multifamily housing such as condominiums.



Senior Care Housing – Facilities providing housing for seniors requiring some
level of care, such as adult care facilities, multi-unit assisted facilities and nursing
homes were surveyed and analyzed.

For the purposes of this analysis, the housing supply information is presented for
Buncombe County and compared with the region. This analysis includes secondary
Census housing data, Bowen National Research’s survey of area rental alternatives
and senior care facilities, and owner for-sale housing data (both historical sales and
available housing alternatives) obtained from secondary data sources (Multiple Listing
Service, REALTOR.com, and other on-line sources). Finally, we contacted local
building and planning departments to determine if any residential units of notable
scale were currently planned or under review by local government. Any such units
were considered in the housing gap/needs estimates included later in this section.
The following table summarizes the surveyed/inventoried housing stock in the county.
This is a sample survey/inventory and does not represent all housing in the county.
However, we believe this housing survey/inventory is representative of a majority of
the most common housing categories offered in the county.

Buncombe-20

 Surveyed Housing Supply Overview
Housing Type
Units
Vacant Units
Multifamily Apartments
12,069
99
Non-Conventional Rentals
N/A
52
Home Stays
N/A
77
Vacation Rentals
N/A
227
Mobile Home Rentals
5,643*
N/A
Owner For-Sale Housing
13,577**
1,734
Senior Care Housing
2,478
143
Independent Living
683
33
Multi-Unit Assisted Housing
0
Adult Care Homes
620
45
Nursing Homes
1,175
143
*Based on 2011-2013 American Community Survey
**Units sold between 2010 and 2014
N/A – Not Available

Vacancy
0.8%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.9%*
5.8%
4.8%
7.3%
5.5%

Price Range
$222-$2,550
$500-$,3200
$150-$1,136
$1,620-$75,705
$595-$795
$9,900-$10.7 Mil.
$1,060+
$1,060+
$1,500+
$6,083+

All housing segments appear to have vacancy rates of 7.3% or lower. This indicates
that these housing segments are in high demand. While the adult care homes and
nursing homes have vacancy rates of 7.3% and 5.5% respectively, these are not
considered unusually high vacancy rates for these types of senior care housing.
Overall, the county’s housing market is performing well, as demand is strong for
virtually all housing alternatives. The 0.8% vacancy rate of surveyed multifamily
rental housing likely indicates that there is a shortage of such housing within the
county.
a. Rental Housing
Multifamily Rental Housing
We identified and personally surveyed 113 multifamily housing projects
containing a total of 12,069 units within the county. This survey was conducted to
establish the overall strength of the rental market and to identify trends in the
multifamily rental market. These rentals have a combined occupancy rate of
99.2% (0.8% vacant), a high rate for rental housing. Among these projects, 84 are
non-subsidized (market-rate and Tax Credit) projects containing 9,142 units. These
non-subsidized units are 98.9% occupied. The remaining 29 projects contain 2,927
government-subsidized units, which are 100.0% occupied.
Managers and leasing agents for each project were surveyed to collect a variety of
property information including vacancies, rental rates, design characteristics,
amenities, utility responsibility, and other features. Projects were also rated based
on quality and upkeep, and each was mapped as part of this survey.

Buncombe-21

 The inventory of 113 surveyed multifamily rental housing projects contain a total
of 12,069 units within Buncombe County. Of these units, 8,259 of the units are
market-rate, 718 are Tax Credit and 2,609 are government-subsidized. The
remaining units are within mixed-income projects. The distribution of surveyed
rental housing supply by product type is illustrated in the following table:
Surveyed Multifamily Apartments
Projects
Total
Project Type
Surveyed
Units
Market-rate
68
8,259
Market-rate/Tax Credit
1
160
Market-rate/Government-Subsidized
1
123
Tax Credit
16
718
Tax Credit/Government-Subsidized
2
200
Government-Subsidized
25
2,609
Total
113
12,069

Vacant
Units
99
0
0
0
0
0
99

Occupancy
Rate
98.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.2%

As the preceding table illustrates, these rentals have a combined occupancy rate of
99.2%. This is an extremely high occupancy rate and an indication that there is
very limited availability among larger multifamily apartments in Buncombe
County. In fact, these projects have wait lists of up to 197 households or two years
in duration, which provides evidence that there is pent up demand for multifamily
rental housing in the Buncombe County area.
The following tables summarize the breakdown of non-subsidized units surveyed
by program type and bedroom within the county.
Market-rate
Bedroom
Studio
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Five-Bedroom
Total Market-rate

Baths
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.5
2.0
3.0

Units
193
2,366
1,015
542
2,860
125
115
146
863
76
3
18
16
1
8,339

Distribution
2.3%
28.4%
12.2%
6.5%
34.3%
1.5%
1.4%
1.8%
10.3%
0.9%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
100.0%

Buncombe-22

Vacancy
2
28
17
3
39
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
99

% Vacant
1.0%
1.2%
1.7%
0.6%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%

Median Gross
Rent
$667
$830
$800
$915
$1,022
$1,031
$739
$1,000
$1,242
$1,303
$1,100
$789
$1,005
$1,000
-

 Tax Credit, Non-Subsidized
Bedroom
Baths
Studio
1.0
One-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
2.0
Three-Bedroom
1.0
Three-Bedroom
2.0
Four-Bedroom
1.5
Four-Bedroom
2.0
Total Tax Credit

Units
15
330
310
12
58
66
10
2
803

Distribution
1.9%
41.1%
38.6%
1.5%
7.2%
8.2%
1.2%
0.2%
100.0%

Vacancy
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Median Gross
Rent
$222
$467
$531
$388
$658
$580
$706
$335
-

Median collected rents by bedroom type range from $667 to $1,303 for the marketrate units and from $222 to $706 for Tax Credit units. It is important to note that
few of the identified multifamily projects offered four-bedroom or larger units. As
such, there appear to be limited multifamily rental options for most family
households, particularly larger families, seeking housing within Buncombe
County. As a result, family households seeking four-bedroom rental alternatives
in Buncombe County choose from non-conventional rentals, which typically have
higher rents, fewer amenities and are of lower quality than multifamily options.
There are 29 multifamily projects that were surveyed in Buncombe County that
operate with a government-subsidy. The distribution of units and vacancies by
bedroom type among government-subsidized projects (both with and without Tax
Credits) in Buncombe County is summarized as follows.
Bedroom
Baths
One-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
1.0
Three-Bedroom
1.0
Four-Bedroom
1.5
Total Subsidized Tax Credit
Bedroom
Studio
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Five-Bedroom
Total Subsidized

Baths
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.5

Subsidized Tax Credit
Units
Distribution
37
18.5%
89
44.5%
54
27.0%
20
10.0%
200
100.0%
Government-Subsidized
Units
Distribution
442
16.2%
873
32.0%
691
25.3%
53
1.9%
426
15.6%
74
2.7%
92
3.4%
50
1.8%
4
0.1%
22
0.8%
2,727
100.0%

Buncombe-23

Vacancy
0
0
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Vacancy
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

 The subsidized Tax Credit units and the government-subsidized units are 100.0%
occupied.
The 29 surveyed government-subsidized projects in Buncombe County operate
under a variety of programs including the HUD Section 8, 202 and 811 programs
and the Rural Development Section 515 program. Of the 29 surveyed subsidized
projects in the market, 23 maintain waiting lists of up to 197 households. As such,
there is clear pent-up demand for housing for very low-income households in
Buncombe County.
The following is a distribution of multifamily rental projects and units surveyed by
year built for Buncombe County:
Year Built
Before 1970
1970 to 1979
1980 to 1989
1990 to 1999
2000 to 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Projects
22
21
19
12
17
1
2
3
3
1
4
3
1
2

Units
1,538
2,727
2,127
1,188
2,020
50
178
507
412
60
671
517
52
22

Vacancy Rate
0.6%
0.4%
0.6%
1.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.6%
0.2%
1.5%
0.0%
0.9%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%

*As of December

The largest number of apartments surveyed were built between 1970 and 1979.
These older apartments have a vacancy rate of only 0.4%. A total of approximately
2,500 multifamily apartment units have been added to the market since 2005. As
such, the existing rental housing stock is considered to have a good balance of
rental product by age. It should be noted that vacancies are low among all
development periods. The low vacancy rates among the market’s newest product
indicate that the market has responded well to new product.
Representatives of Bowen National Research personally visited each of the
surveyed rental projects within Buncombe County and rated the quality of each
property. We rated each property surveyed on a scale of "A" (highest) through "F"
(lowest). All properties were rated based on quality and overall appearance (i.e.
aesthetic appeal, building appearance, landscaping and grounds appearance).

Buncombe-24

 The following is a distribution by quality rating, units, and vacancies for all
surveyed rental housing product in Buncombe County.
Quality Rating
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CQuality Rating
A
AB+
BC
Quality Rating
B+
B
BC+
C
C-

Market-Rate
Projects
Total Units
2
377
16
3,056
6
802
11
1,901
12
1,540
5
263
3
80
10
268
2
52
Non-Subsidized Tax Credit
Projects
Total Units
4
201
5
279
4
203
1
96
2
24
Government-Subsidized
Projects
Total Units
2
302
6
448
5
469
2
128
10
964
3
616

Vacancy Rate
0.0%
1.4%
1.4%
0.8%
1.2%
2.7%
3.8%
0.4%
1.9%
Vacancy Rate
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Vacancy Rate
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Vacancies are low among all program types and quality levels. More importantly,
there does not appear to be a direct correlation between quality level and vacancy
rates. This is not unusual in markets with limited available product.
Non-Conventional Rental Housing
Buncombe County has a large number of non-conventional rentals which can come
in the form of detached single-family homes, duplexes, units over storefronts, etc.
As a result, we have conducted a sample survey of non-conventional rentals within
the county. Overall, a total of 52 individual units were identified and surveyed.
While this does not include all non-conventional rentals in the market, we believe
these properties are representative of the typical non-conventional rental housing
alternatives in the market.

Buncombe-25

 The following table aggregates the 52 non-conventional rental units surveyed in
Buncombe County by bedroom type.
Surveyed Non-Conventional Rental Supply

Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom+
Total

Units
5
15
24
8
52

Rent
Range
$500 - $1,000
$800 - $1,600
$500 - $2,500
$1,295 - $3,200

Median
Rent
$575
$950
$1,225
$1,750

Median
Rent Per
Square Foot
$0.89
$1.01
$0.87
$0.85

As the preceding table illustrates, the rents for non-conventional rentals identified
range from $500 to $3,200. The median rents are $575 for a one-bedroom unit,
$950 for a two-bedroom unit, $1,225 for a three-bedroom unit, and $1,750 for a
four-bedroom (or larger) unit. The median rent per square foot by bedroom type
ranges from $0.85 to $1.01.
The rental rates of non-conventional rentals are generally comparable to most
market-rate multifamily apartments surveyed in the county. However, when
utilities are considered, as most non-conventional rentals require tenants to pay all
utilities, the rental housing costs of non-conventional rentals are generally higher
than multifamily apartments. When also considering that a much larger share of
the non-conventional product was built prior to 1980 and their amenity packages
are relatively limited, it would appear the non-conventional rentals represent less
of a value than most multifamily apartments in the market. However, given the
relatively limited number of vacant units among the more affordable multifamily
apartments, many low-income households are likely forced to choose from the
non-conventional housing alternatives.
Vacation Rental Housing
Buncombe County has a large number of vacation rentals which can come in the
form of cabins, detached single-family homes, condominiums, etc. As a result, we
have conducted a sample survey of vacation rentals within the county. Overall, a
total of 227 individual units were identified and surveyed. While this does not
include all vacation rentals in the market, we believe these properties are
representative of the typical vacation rental housing alternatives in the market.
The following table aggregates the 227 vacation rental units surveyed in the
county by bedroom type. It should be noted that while most rents are charged on a
daily or weekly basis, rents are shown and analyzed on a monthly basis.

Buncombe-26

 Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom+
Total

Surveyed Vacation Rental Supply
Units
Rent Range
58
$1,620 - $28,500
67
$2,400 - $12,720
61
$3,750 - $16,260
41
$4,320 - $75,705
227

Median Rent
$4,575
$5,250
$6,300
$10,965

As the preceding table illustrates, the rents for vacation rentals identified range
from $1,620 to $75,705. The median monthly rents are $4,575 for a one-bedroom
unit, $5,250 for a two-bedroom unit, $6,300 for a three-bedroom unit, and $10,965
for a four-bedroom or larger unit.
The rental rates of vacation rentals are significantly higher than most multifamily
apartments and non-conventional rentals surveyed in the county. Generally, such
rentals are roughly four times higher than the other rental alternatives, essentially
eliminating this type of housing as a viable long-term housing alternative to most
area renters. However, due to this rent differential, such housing may appeal to
owners of traditional, long-term rentals who may want to convert their housing to
vacation rentals. This is addressed in the case study portion of the Asheville, North
Carolina Region Housing Needs Assessment.
Home Stay Rentals
A home stay rental is generally considered a bedroom or a few rooms that are
rented to tenants on a short-term basis and typically represents a portion of a full
rental unit. Such rentals are generally short-term (usually less than 30 days)
housing options. Tenants in the home stay rental often have shared access to
common areas such as bathrooms and kitchens. Home stay rentals typically come
in the form of apartments, detached single-family homes, duplexes,
condominiums, etc. We have conducted a sample survey of home stay rentals
within the county.
Overall, a total of 77 individual home stay rental “units” were identified and
surveyed. While this likely does not include all home stay rentals in the county,
we believe these properties are representative of the typical home stay rental
housing alternatives in the market. The following table aggregates the 77 home
stay rental units surveyed in the county.
Surveyed Home Stay Rental Supply
Units
77

Rent Range
$150 - $1,136

Median Rent
$460

As the preceding table illustrates, the monthly rents for home stay rentals
identified range from $150 to $1,136. The median rent is $460 per unit.

Buncombe-27

 The rental rates of home stay rentals are generally lower than most multifamily
apartments surveyed in the county, which is not surprising since such rentals are
limited to a single room with shared access to common areas (e.g. bathrooms,
kitchens, etc.). Most home stay rentals are roommate situations where residents
have their own bedroom but must share kitchen, living and bathroom areas. Most
rentals include all basic utilities in the rent, with many rentals also offering cable
television and Internet as part of the rent. A large number of the rentals are fully
furnished, but offer few project amenities such as swimming pools or other
recreational features. Most rentals allow residents access to laundry facilities.
Leases are often flexible, typically month-to-month in duration. Unlike most
conventional apartments or private non-conventional rentals, home stays have the
unique element of matching personal preferences with roommates. For example,
many properties advertise that they are looking for smoke-free/smokers, pet
friendly/no pet, male/female or other types of tenants. Such preferences or
restrictions likely limit the type of residents that can be accommodated at such
rentals. Given these preferences and restrictions, along with the fact that the home
stay rentals can typically only accommodate one- or two-person households, home
stays likely have a limited ability to meet the needs of most area renters.
Mobile Home Rentals
Bowen National Research identified 63 mobile home parks in Buncombe County
through secondary resources, such as www.mhvillage.com, the county tax
department/assessor, and CraigsList. Upon identification of these parks, which is
not a comprehensive list, we conducted a sample windshield survey to evaluate the
quality of select parks and their neighborhoods, and we attempted to conduct
telephone interviews with park operators to gather rental property data.
Surveyed park operators stated that lot rents range from $260 to $410 per month.
Lot rents vary dependent upon the need for a single-, double- or triple-wide lot.
One mobile home park leases mobile homes on the lot as well, ranging from $595
to $795 per month, depending on size. Most park operators reported that lot rents
have increased, while occupancies have generally stayed the same. Respondents
reported typical occupancy rates of 80% to 90%, with two parks reporting a 100%
occupancy rate. Park operators commented that the quality varies based on the
ownership/management of the park, but that typically the parks are in fair
condition. A windshield survey of select mobile home parks in the county yielded
“C” to “C-” quality and neighborhood ratings, indicating that these mobile home
parks and their neighborhoods are in fair condition.

Buncombe-28

 When asked if there are any issues or problems associated with operating or
maintaining a mobile home park in the area, or what recommendations the
respondents may have that the local government could do to aid in mobile home
park living, Bowen National Research received a variety of responses. Responses
included that the city of Asheville does not allow mobile home parks within the
city limits, creating a negative stigma of parks. Better zoning and rules and
regulations should be put into place for the maintenance and beautification of
mobile home parks, similar to a homeowner’s association. Respondents stated that
mobile home living is some of the most affordable to area residents and that more
should be done to promote this type of housing.
b.

Owner For-Sale Housing
Bowen National Research, through a review of the Multiple Listing Service
information for Buncombe County, identified both historical (sold since 2010) forsale residential data and currently available for-sale housing stock.
There were 13,577 homes sold and 1,734 homes currently available in Buncombe
County. Approximately, an average of 2,630 homes are sold each year within
Buncombe County. The 1,734 available homes in Buncombe County represent
nearly one-half (47.2%) of all identified available for-sale homes in the study
region. The following table summarizes the available and recently sold (since
January 2010) housing stock for Buncombe County.
Type
Available
Sold

Owner For-Sale/Sold Housing Supply
Homes
1,734
13,577

Median Price
$300,000
$200,000

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

The historical data includes any home sales that occurred within the county from
January 2010 to November 2014. It is our opinion that an evaluation of sales
activity after 2009 is representative of true market conditions following the
recession.
The following table includes a summary of annual for-sale residential transactions
that occurred within Buncombe County since 2010. It should be noted that the
2014 sales data is only through November of that year.

Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Owner For-Sale Housing by Year Sold
Units Sold
Median Price Sold
Number
Change
Price
Change
2,175
$199,900
2,262
4.0%
$188,000
-6.0%
2,716
20.1%
$196,000
4.3%
3,364
23.9%
$206,608
5.4%
3,060
-9.0%
$215,000
4.1%

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research
*Through Nov. 21, 2014

Buncombe-29

 Excluding the partial year of 2014, annual residential for-sale activity within the
county has ranged between 2,175 in 2010 and 3,364 in 2013. The annual sales
activity has grown each of the past four full years. The county is currently on pace
to sell approximately 3,340 residential units for all of 2014, which is slightly above
the 2013 total sales. The county has experienced fluctuations in median sales
prices over the past four years, but has trended upward over the past three years.
The positive trends among sales volume and sales prices are good indications of a
healthy and stable for-sale housing market in Buncombe County.
The following graphs illustrate the overall annual number of homes sold and
median sales prices over the past four years for Buncombe County from 2010 to
2013 (2014 was excluded due to the fact that only partial year data is available).

Buncombe County Annual Home Sales (2010-2013)
3,600

3,364

Homes Sold

3,350
3,100
2,850

2,716

2,600
2,350

2,175

2,262

2,100

2010

2011

2012
Year

Buncombe-30

2013

 Buncombe County Annual Median Sales Price (2010-2013)
$207,000
$204,500
$202,000

$206,608
$199,900

Price

$199,500

$196,000

$197,000
$194,500
$192,000

$188,000

$189,500
$187,000

2010

2011

2012

2013

Year

The following table summarizes the inventory of available for-sale housing in
Buncombe County and the region.
Available Owner For-Sale Housing

Buncombe County
Region

Total
Units
1,734
3,669

% Share
of Region
47.2%
100.0%

Low
List Price
$31,999
$19,900

High
List Price
$10,750,000
$10,750,000

Average
List Price
$485,729
$451,391

Median
List Price
$300,000
$290,418

Average
Days
On Market
189
244

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

Within Buncombe County, the available homes have a median list price of
$300,000, which is more than the region median list price of $290,418. The
average number of days on market for available product in Buncombe County is
189, which is lower than the region average of 244, and the lowest of the four
subject counties.

Buncombe-31

 The table below summarizes the distribution of available for-sale residential units
by price point for Buncombe County.

List Price
<$100,000
$100,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $499,999
$500,000+

Available Owner For-Sale Housing by Price Point
Buncombe County
Region
Median
Median
Price
Units
Share
Price
Units
$80,000
76
4.4%
$79,700
190
$159,950
384
22.2%
$159,900
821
$249,900
403
23.2%
$249,900
934
$349,950
254
14.6%
$350,000
543
$450,000
166
9.6%
$450,000
319
$825,000
451
26.0%
$797,200
862

Share
5.2%
22.4%
25.4%
14.8%
8.7%
23.5%

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

Buncombe County Available For-Sale Housing by Price
500
450

451

400

Homes

350

403

384

300
250

254

200
150

166

100
50

76

0
Less than $100K

$100k-$199,999

$200k-$299,999

$300k-$399,999

$400k-$499,000

$500,000+

Price Range

Over one-quarter of the available for-sale supply in Buncombe County is priced
over $500,000. These homes would generally be affordable to households with
incomes of $150,000 and higher. Nearly a quarter of the available product is
priced between $100,000 and $199,999, as well as between $200,000 and
$299,999. As such, there is a good base of homes generally affordable to
households with incomes between $30,000 and $100,000. Only 4.4% of all
available homes are priced below $100,000, which would be generally affordable
to households with incomes under $30,000 Based on our on-site evaluation of the
county’s housing stock and an analysis of secondary data on such housing, it
appears that much of the housing inventory was built prior to 1970 and is of fair
quality. As a result, while it may be deemed that there is some for-sale product
available to lower-income households, such product likely requires additional
costs for repairs, modernization and maintenance, which my be difficult for many
low-income households to afford.

Buncombe-32

 c. Senior Care Facilities
The subject county, like areas throughout the country, has a large senior
population that requires a variety of senior housing alternatives to meet its diverse
needs. Among seniors, generally age 62 or older, some individuals are either
seeking a more leisurely lifestyle or need assistance with Activities of Daily
Living (ADLs). As part of this analysis, we evaluated four levels of care that
typically respond to older adults seeking, or who need, alternatives to their current
living environment. They include independent living, multi-unit assisted housing,
adult care homes, and nursing care. These housing types, from least assisted to
most assisted, are summarized below.
Independent Living is a housing alternative that includes a residential unit,
typically an apartment or cottage that offers an individual living area, kitchen, and
sleeping room. The fees generally include the cost of the rental unit, some utilities,
and services such as laundry, housekeeping, transportation, meals, etc. This
housing type is also often referred to as congregate care. Physical assistance and
medical treatment are not offered at such facilities.
Multi-unit Assisted Housing With Services (referred to as multi-unit assisted
throughout this report) is a housing alternative that provides unlicensed care
services along with the housing. Such housing offers residents the ability to obtain
personal care services and nursing services through a home care or hospice agency
that visit the subject site to perform such services. Management at the subject
project arrange services that correspond to an individualized written care plan.
Adult Care Homes are state licensed residences for aged and disabled adults who
may require 24-hour supervision and assistance with personal care needs. People
in adult care homes typically need a place to live, with some help with personal
care (such as dressing, grooming and keeping up with medications), and some
limited supervision. Medical care may be provided on occasion but is not routinely
needed. Medication may be given by designated, trained staff. This type of facility
is very similar to what is commonly referred to as “assisted living.” These
facilities generally offer limited care that is designed for seniors who need some
assistance with daily activities but do not require nursing care.
Nursing Homes provide nursing care and related services for people who need
nursing, medical, rehabilitation or other special services. These facilities are
licensed by the state and may be certified to participate in the Medicaid and/or
Medicare programs. Certain nursing homes may also meet specific standards for
sub-acute care or dementia care.
We referenced the Medicare.com and North Carolina Division of Health Service
Regulation websites for all licensed senior care facilities and cross referenced this
list with other senior care facility resources. As such, we believe that we identified
most, if not all, licensed facilities in the county.

Buncombe-33

 Within the county, a total of 32 senior care facilities were surveyed containing a
total of 2,478 beds. These facilities are representative of the typical housing
choices available to seniors requiring special care housing. It should be noted that
family adult care homes of six units or less were not included in this inventory.
The following table summarizes the surveyed facilities by property type.
Surveyed Senior Care Facilities
Project Type
Projects
Beds
Independent Living
5
683
Multi-Unit Assisted Housing
0
0
Adult Care Homes
15
620
Nursing Homes
12
1,175
Total
32
2,478

Vacant
33
45
65
143

Vacancy Rate
4.8%
7.3%
5.5%
5.8%

The Buncombe County senior care market is reporting overall vacancy rates
between 4.8% (independent living) to 7.3% (adult care homes). All of the vacancy
rates among surveyed senior housing is relatively low and indicates that there is a
good level of demand for such housing in the county. As such, demand for these
types of senior care housing facilities within the county is typical. Overall,
demand for senior care housing in the county appears to be strong and indicates
that there may be an opportunity to develop additional senior care housing in this
county, particularly when considering the projected senior household growth for
the next few years.
The base monthly fee for independent living units is $1,060 a month, adult care
homes start at $1,500, and nursing care facilities have a base monthly fee starting
near $6,083. These fees are slightly lower than most senior care housing fees in
the region.
d. Planned & Proposed Residential Development
In order to access housing development potential, we evaluated recent residential
building permit activity and identified residential projects in the development
pipeline for Buncombe County. Understanding the number of residential units and
the type of housing being considered for development in the county can assist in
determining how these projects are expected to meet the housing needs of the area.
Based on our interviews with local building and planning representatives, it was
determined that there are multiple housing projects planned within Buncombe
County. It should also be noted that there are no large single-family home
subdivisions planned in Asheville as there is not much land available for large
subdivisions. These planned developments, by location, are summarized as
follows.

Buncombe-34

 Project Name & Location
Biltmore Village Apts.
Fairview Road
White Oak Apts.
275 Hazel Mill
Greystone Village Apts.
Sardis Road
Chrysler Lofts
150 Coxe Ave.
Dillingham Woods
Dillingham rd./Thrones
Ln.
Haywood Village
919 Haywood Rd.
182 Cumberland Group
Home
182 Cumberland
Klepper Drive Subdivision
Klepper Drive
Mountain Song Lane
Subdivision
Mountain Song Lane
Bridle Path Subdivision
Bridle Path
Brynne Drive Subdivision
Brynne Drive
Burk Street Subdivision
Burk Street
Palisades Apartments
15 Mills Gap Road
Givens Gerber Park Apts.
40 Gerber Road
Carmel Ridge
711 Leichester Way
Retreat at Hunt Hill
32 Ardmion Park
Creekside Apartments II
Wesley Drive
Aventine Apartments
Long Shoals Road
Villas at Fallen Spruce
15 Fallen Spruce
Eagle Market Place Apts.
19 Eagle Street
RAD Lofts
Roberts St./Clingman Ave.
Ansley at Roberts Lake
100 Roberts Lake Circle
Audubon Place Apts. II
Rockwood Rd.
The Avalon Apts.
3883 Sweeten Creek Rd.

City

Units/Lots

Type

Developer

Status

Asheville

N/A

Fairview Land, LLC

Under Review

Asheville

104
108

Asheville

48

White Oak Grove, LLC
Winston-Salem Industry
for the Blind
Coxe Avenue Properties,
LLC

Under Review

Asheville

Rental
Rental
Garden-Style
Rental,
Affordable
Rental,
Market-Rate

Asheville

22

Asheville

12

For-Sale,
Townhomes
For-Sale,
Townhomes

Hill Ventures, LLC
Village of Haywood
Developers

Asheville

N/A

Asheville

6

Asheville

2

Asheville

7

Asheville

14

Asheville

10

Asheville

224

Asheville

120

Asheville

80

Asheville

180

Asheville

24

Asheville

312

Asheville

55

Asheville

62

Asheville

209

Arden

296

Arden

86

Arden

192

Supportive
Housing
For-Sale,
Single-Family
For-Sale,
Single-Family
For-Sale,
Single-Family
For-Sale,
Single-Family
For-Sale,
Single-Family
Rental,
Market-Rate
Rental,
Affordable
Rental,
Affordable
Rental,
Market-Rate
Rental,
Senior Living
Rental,
Market-Rate
Rental,
Affordable
Rental,
Affordable
Rental,
Market-Rate
Rental,
Market-Rate
1-3 Bedrooms
Rental,
Market-Rate
Rental,
Market-Rate

Buncombe-35

Under Review
Under Review

Under Review
Under Review

Flynn Christian Fellowship
Homes

Under Review

N/A

Under Review

N/A

Under Review

N/A

Under Review

N/A

Under Review

Farmbound Holdings, LLC

Under Review
Under
Construction
Begin Construction
3/2015
Under
Construction
Under
Construction

Southwood Realty
Opportunities South, LLC
Greenway Residential
Development
Kassinger Development
Givens Estates

Delphi Development

Planned
Under
Construction
Under
Construction
Under
Construction
Begin Construction
Spring 2014

Hathaway Development
Properties

Approved,
Complete 3q 2015

N/A

Planned

Southwood Realty

Planned

Flournoy Construction
Mountain Housing
Opportunities
Mountain Housing
Opportunities

 (Continued)
Project Name & Location
Hickory Knolls
Aiken Road
Reems Creek Cottages
Reems Creek Rd.
Lakeside Meadows
Merrimon Ave.
Creekside Village
Merrimon Ave./Aiken Rd.
Greenwood Park
Union Chapel Road
Reems Creek Village
Governor Thomson
Terrace
Ventana Homes
Bair Cove/Weaverville
Hwy
Crossing at Reynolds
Mountain

City

Units/Lots

Type

Weaverville

121 Apts.
62 SFH/TH

Weaverville

17

Weaverville

25

Weaverville

145

Weaverville

60

Rental,
Market-Rate
For-Sale,
Single-Family
For-Sale,
Single-Family
For-Sale
Single-Family/TH
For-Sale,
Single-Family

Weaverville

14

For-Sale,
Single-Family

Woodfin

35

Woodfin

75

For-Sale,
Single-Family
Senior Assisted
Living

Developer

Status

Harlan Hensley
Windsor-Aughtry
Company
Windsor-Aughtry
Company

Not Yet Approved

Serrus Capital Partners

Approved

Greenwood Park, LLC

Not Yet Approved

Rabbit Ridge Properties,
LLC

Approved

N/A

Under
Construction

Smith Packet

Approved

Approved
Approved

SFH – Single-Family Homes
TH – Townhomes

F. HOUSING GAP ESTIMATES
Bowen National Research conducted housing gap analyses for rental and for-sale
housing for the subject county. The housing gap estimates include new household
growth, units required for a balanced market, households living in substandard
housing (replacement housing), and units in the development pipeline. This estimate
is considered a representation of the housing shortage in the market and indicative of
the more immediate housing requirements of the market. Our estimates consider four
income stratifications. These stratifications include households with incomes of up to
30% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI), households with incomes between
31% and 50% of AMHI, between 51% and 80% of AMHI, and between 80% and
120% of AMHI. This analysis was conducted for family households and seniors (age
55+) separately. This analysis identifies the housing gap (the number of units that
could potentially be supported) for the county between 2015 and 2020. Broader
housing needs estimates, which include household growth, cost burdened households,
households living in substandard housing, and units in the development pipeline, were
provided for the overall region and is included in the Asheville, North Carolina
Region Housing Needs Assessment.

Buncombe-36

 The demand components included in the housing gap estimates for each of the two
housing types (rental and for-sale) are listed as follows:






Housing Gap Analysis Components
Owner Housing
Rental Housing
Renter Household Growth
 Owner Household Growth
Units Required for a Balanced Market
 Units Required for a Balanced Market
Replacement of Substandard Housing
 Replacement of Substandard Housing
Pipeline Development*
 Pipeline Development*

*Includes units that lack complete indoor plumbing and overcrowded housing
**Units under construction, permitted, planned or proposed

The demand factors for each housing segment at the various income stratifications are
combined. Any product confirmed to be in the development pipeline is deducted from
the various demand estimates, yielding a housing gap estimate. This gap analysis is
conducted for both renters and owners, as well as for seniors (age 55+) and family
households. These gaps represent the number of new households that may need
housing and/or the number of existing households that currently live in housing that
needs replaced to relieve occupants of such things as overcrowded or substandard
housing conditions. Data used for these various demand components originates from
the demographic analysis portion of this study.
Rental Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below summarize the rental housing gap estimates by the various income
segments for family and senior households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

<30%
(<$15,000)
59
381
251
-102
589

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
243
19
1,020
251
260
362
166
172
314
-102
-102
-856
558
349
840

Total
1,341
1,254
903
-1,162
2,336

<30%
(<$15,000)
118
152
100
-39
331

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
158
64
515
101
91
144
66
60
125
-40
-40
-331
285
175
453

Total
855
488
351
-450
1,244

Buncombe-37

 Asheville/Buncombe County Rental Housing Gap by Income
Family Households

Senior Households

900
800

840

Housing Gap

700
600
500

589

558

400
300

453
331

200

349
285
175

100
0
<30%

30% - 50%

50% - 80%

80% - 120%

Percent of Median Household Income

Based on the preceding analysis, the largest rental housing gap by income level is
within the 80% to 120% AMHI level among both families and seniors. However,
notable housing gaps exist within the under 30% AMHI level and between the 30%
and 50% AMHI level. The overall rental housing gap for families is nearly double the
senior housing gap.
Owner Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below summarize the owner housing gap estimates by the various income
segments for family and senior households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

<30%
(<$15,000)
-32
61
38
0
67

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
67
146
-18
62
76
257
39
47
159
0
0
0
168
269
398

Total
163
456
283
0
902

<30%
(<$15,000)
209
73
45
0
327

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
324
465
1,006
75
91
307
46
56
190
0
0
0
445
612
1,503

Total
2,004
546
337
0
2,887

Buncombe-38

 Asheville/Buncombe County Owner Housing Gap by Income
Family Households

Senior Households

1,600
1,400

1,503

Housing Gap

1,200
1,000
800
600

612

400
200

445
67

327
168

0
<30%

30% - 50%

398
269
50% - 80%

80% - 120%

Percent of Median Household Income

As shown in the preceding owner housing gap analysis, the greatest housing gap for
families and seniors with incomes between 80% and 120% of AMHI. While the
housing gap estimates show a larger gap for housing for seniors, this is primarily
attributed to seniors aging in place. This likely indicates that many senior households
aging in place will ultimately require housing that would enable them to downsize at
some point.
Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior care housing encompasses a variety of alternatives including multi-unit assisted
housing, adult care homes, and nursing homes. Such housing typically serves the
needs of seniors requiring some level of care to meet their personal needs, often due to
medical or other physical issues. The following attempts to quantify the estimated
senior care housing need in the county.
Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior Care Housing Demand Component
Demand Estimates
Elderly Population Age 62 and Older by 2020
66,476
Times Share* of Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
X 7.4%
Equals Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
= 4,919
Plus External Market Support (20%)
+ 984
Equals Total Senior Care Support Base
= 5,903
Less Existing Supply
- 3,803
Less Development Pipeline
- 123
Potential Senior Care Beds Needed by 2020
= 1,977
ADL – Activities of Daily Living
*Share of ADL was based on data provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Population National Health Interview Survey 2011

Buncombe-39

 Based upon age 62 and older population characteristics and trends, and applying the
estimated ratio of persons requiring ADL assistance and taking into account the
existing and planned senior housing supply, we estimate that there will be 1,977
households with a person requiring assisted services that will not have their needs met
by existing or planned senior care facilities by the year 2020. Not all of these
estimated households with persons age 62 and older requiring ADL assistance will
want to move to a senior care facility, as many may choose home health care services
or have their needs taken care of by a family member. Regardless, the 1,977 seniors
estimated above represent the potential need for additional senior care housing in the
county.

G. STAKEHOLDER SURVEY & INTERVIEWS
Associates of Bowen National Research solicited input from nearly more than 40
stakeholders throughout the study region. Their input was provided in the form of an
online survey and telephone interviews. Of these respondents, 32 serve the Buncombe
County area. Considered leaders within their field and active in the community, they
represent a wide range of industries, including government, economic development,
real estate, and social assistance. The purpose of these interviews was to gather input
regarding the need for the type and styles of housing, the income segments housing
should target, and if there is a lack of housing or housing assistance within the county.
The following is a summary of the key input gathered.
Stakeholders were asked is there is a specific area of the county where housing should
be developed. Respondents indicated that housing should be developed within the city
limits of Asheville, and along major transit corridors or close to transit with access to
the downtown for employment. Rental housing was overwhelmingly ranked as the
type of housing having the greatest need, followed by housing for the homeless and
single-person/young professionals. Respondents indicated that the housing style most
needed in the area is apartments, followed by single-family homes and duplex/triplex/
townhome development. Respondents also believe that adaptive reuse should be
prioritized over new construction and renovation/revitalization. When asked to rank
the need for housing for each income level, respondents evenly ranked incomes of less
than $25,000 and incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 as the household segments
with the greatest need. The most significant housing issue within the county, as
indicated by respondents, was rent burdened/affordability, followed by limited
availability, substandard housing, and lack of public transportation.
Respondents were asked to prioritize funding types that should be utilized or explored
in the county. “Other” homeowner assistance was given the highest priority, followed
by “other” rental housing assistance (such as Vouchers) and homebuyer assistance.
Respondents indicated that housing development programs that should be explored
include emergency repair, and property tax incentives and support for home owners, as
well as increased LIHTC and other affordable housing options, such as CDBG
funding. When asked what common barriers or obstacles exist as it relates to housing
development in the county, the cost of land and availability of land were most

Buncombe-40

 commonly cited, followed by financing. Respondents provided various ways to
overcome these barriers, including increased collaboration between the local
government and developers, creating a land bank, a better zoning and permitting
process, improvements to public transit and infrastructure, and tax abatements. One
respondent suggested that a committee of both public and private housing
professionals should be created that is dedicated to the process of developing
affordable housing for all housing sectors.
If a respondent was knowledgeable about homelessness in the county, they were asked
to rank the need for housing for various homeless groups. The most commonly
indicated groups were homeless individuals and families. Respondents indicated that
the most needed type of housing to serve the homeless population is increased
Voucher assistance, followed by emergency shelters and Single Room Occupancy
(SRO). The most commonly cited obstacles to developing homeless housing were
public perception/NIMBYism, and the high cost and lack of funding for development.
Respondents believe that collaboration of homeless services and housing providers is
necessary, and homeless housing should be developed closer to transit and job cores to
reduce the burden of a family having to maintain a vehicle in order to access their
employment.
If a respondent was knowledgeable about special needs groups in the county, they
were asked to rank the need for housing for various special needs groups. The most
commonly indicated groups were persons with mental illness, persons suffering from
alcohol/ substance abuse, and persons with physical/developmental disabilities. One
group receiving special note by respondents as being in need of housing is domestic
violence victims. Respondents believe that transitional housing and group homes
would best serve these populations. The lack of community support and funding were
cited as the most common obstacles to developing special needs housing.

H. SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
Besides the traditional demographics and housing supply evaluated on the preceding
pages of this section, we also identified special needs populations within Buncombe
County. This section of the report addresses demographic and housing supply
information for the homeless population and the other special needs populations
within the county.
Asheville is located within HUD’s designated Continuum of Care (CoC) area known
as Asheville/Buncombe County CoC. CoCs around the United States are required to
collect data for a point-in-time during the last week of each year. The last published
Asheville/Buncombe County point-in-time survey was conducted in January 2014.
This includes counts of persons who are classified as homeless, as well as an inventory
of the housing specifically designated for the homeless population.
According to the 2014 point-in-time survey for Asheville/Buncombe County there are
approximately 3,801 persons who are classified as homeless on any given day in

Buncombe-41

 Asheville and Buncombe County. The following tables summarize the sheltered and
unsheltered homeless population, as well as the homeless housing inventory within the
county.
Homeless Population & Subpopulation– Asheville/Buncombe County
Permanent
Emergency
Transitional
Supportive
Rapid
Population Category
Shelter
Housing
Housing
Re-Housing
200
211
538
52
Persons in Households without Children
Persons in Households with 1 Adult & 1
37
15
59
105
Child
3
2
0
0
Persons in Household with only Children
# of Persons Chronically & Formerly
7
0
10
430
Chronically Homeless
76
104
326
23
Persons with Serious Mental Illness
53
141
336
25
Persons with Substance Abuse Disorder
1
0
12
0
Persons w/ AIDS/HIV
38
41
103
27
Victims of Domestic Violence
35
184
239
3
Veterans
15
4
29
1
Ex-Offenders
Persons exiting Behavioral
27
37
51
3
Health/Healthcare System

Total

492

739

1,703

669

Unsheltered

Total
Population

65

1,066

0
5

216
10

40
35
24
0
5
7
9

487
564
579
13
214
468
58

8
198

126
3,801

Seasonal
Beds

*Overflow
Beds

Total
Beds

Veteran
0
109
0
0
0
109

AIDS/HIV

Single
Male &
Female
73
208
68
0
0
349

Youth

Households with
Children
102
46
72
16
0
236

Domestic
Violence

Project
Type
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Rapid Re-housing
Safe Haven
Total Beds By Population

Chronically
Homeless

Homeless Housing Inventory – Asheville/Buncombe County
Beds by Population Category

0
0
371
0
0
371

19
0
0
0
0
19

6
6
3
3
0
18

0
0
0
0
0
0

15
0
0
0
0
15

21
0
0
0
0
21

236
369
514
19
0
1,138

Source: North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness (1-2014)

Based on the 2014 Asheville/Buncombe County CoC Housing Inventory Count
Summary, the utilization (occupancy) rate for homeless housing beds in
Asheville/Buncombe County CoC is 92.7%. This utilization rate and the fact that 198
remain unsheltered on a given night indicate that there still remains a need for housing
that meets the special needs of the homeless population. Homeward Bound of
Asheville and other local service providers appear to be actively engaged in assisting
the homeless population in Asheville/Buncombe County through various outreach and
housing programs.
Specifically, within Asheville/Buncombe County one area service provider noted, on
average there are approximately 500 to 550 individuals living in emergency shelters or
transitional housing on any given night. There are enough emergency shelters in
Asheville/Buncombe County to meet the demand as with plenty of seasonal and

Buncombe-42

 overflow beds in the winter months. However it was mentioned that there is a
significant need for transitional housing for families. Additionally, local sources
indicated there needs to be more permanent housing options available to the homeless
population in Asheville/ Buncombe County. The current affordable housing
developments available in Asheville are not accessible to the homeless population due
to stringent credit restrictions and high AMHI income qualifications. It was also noted
that the rate of current affordable housing development in the area is not keeping up
with the demand as another 50 to 100 units could be developed and still not meet the
need. Regardless, with an estimated population of 3,801 and over a hundred homeless
persons unsheltered, homelessness remains a challenge in Asheville/Buncombe
County and is an ongoing housing need.
The following table summarizes the various special needs populations within the
county that were considered in this report. It should be noted that county level data
was not available for certain special needs groups, which is denoted as “N/A” in the
following table.
Special Needs Populations
Special Needs Group
HIV/AIDS
Victims of Domestic Violence (VDV)
Persons with Substance Abuse (PSA)
Adults with Mental Illness (MI)
Adults with Severe Mental Illness (SMI)
Co-Occurring Disorders (COD)
Multi-Generational Households (MGH)

Persons
542
1,368
371
10,794
200
5,068
2,718

Special Needs Group
Persons with Disabilities (PD)
Elderly (Age 62+) (E62)
Frail Elderly (Age 62+) (FE62)
Ex-offenders (Parole/Probation) (EOP)
Unaccompanied Youth (UY)
Veterans

Persons
34,440
66,476
4,919
622
67
19,614

Excluding the homeless population, the largest number of special needs persons is
among those with disabilities, the elderly (age 62+), veterans, and persons with a
mental illness. According to our interviews with area stakeholders, housing
alternatives that meet the distinct demands of the special needs population are limited.
Notable facilities are offered by Homeward Bound, Disability Partners, Western North
Carolina AIDS Project, Helpmate, Eliada Homes Black Mountain Home for Children
& Youth, Asheville Re-Entry Network, NC TASC Services-Asheville, Western
Highland LME, Oxford House Asheville-Buncombe Christian Ministry, Buncombe
County Council on Aging, and various mental health facilities as well as nursing and
residential care homes. According to various services provides knowledgeable about
housing for various homeless and special needs groups in Buncombe County the most
needed was transitional housing and single-room occupancy. It was also noted that
housing for persons with mental illnesses, persons with substance abuse problems, and
persons with physical/developmental disabilities have the greatest housing needs.

Buncombe-43

 I. CONCLUSIONS
Recent county economic trends have been positive and overall demographic trends are
projected to be positive within Buncombe County over the next five years, which are
expected to contribute to the continued strength of the housing market within the
county during the foreseeable future. Some key findings based on our research of
Buncombe County are summarized as follows:


Population & Households – Between 2015 and 2020, the population is projected
to grow by 16,080 (6.3%), which is slightly faster than the growth rate (5.5%) of
the overall region. During this same time, household growth of 7,219 (6.7%) is
projected to occur in the county, which is also slightly faster than the region’s
projected growth rate of 5.9%.



Household Heads by Age –The county’s senior households age 55 and older will
increase by 6,559 (11.5%) between 2015 and 2020, adding to its anticipated need
for senior-oriented housing. It is projected that households between the ages of 25
and 44 will increase by approximately 671 (1.8%) households, which will likely
lead to a need for additional family-oriented and/or workforce housing.



Households by Income and Tenure – While the greatest projected renter
household growth between 2015 and 2020 will be among those with incomes
between $35,000 and $49,999, the largest share of renter households will be
among those making less than $15,000 by 2020. The greatest owner household
growth during this time is projected to occur among those making between
$100,000 and $149,000. As such, the county will have diverse housing needs.



Rental Housing – Buncombe County has a well-balanced supply of rental
alternatives. However, it is noteworthy that the multifamily rental housing supply
is operating at an overall 99.2% occupancy rate, which is very high. More
importantly, there are no vacancies among the 3,730 surveyed affordable (Tax
Credit and government-subsidized) rental units in the county. This occupancy rate
and the long wait lists maintained at these projects indicate that there is pent-up
demand for affordable housing in the county. Based on the housing gap estimates,
the largest rental housing gap by income level is within the 80% to 120% AMHI
level among both families and seniors. However, notable housing gaps exist
within the under 30% AMHI level and between the 30% and 50% AMHI level.
The overall rental housing gap for families is nearly double the senior housing gap.

Buncombe-44

 

Owner Housing (for-sale) – For-sale housing prices have increased over the past
two years, while the number of homes sold annually has increased in each of the
past three years. The for-sale housing market is considered to be strong. Nearly
one-fourth of available for-sale housing is among product priced between
$200,000 and $399,999, with a nearly equal share of all available product priced
between $100,000 and $199,999. These shares of available supply are similar to
the entire region. Based on the housing gap estimates, it appears that the greatest
housing gap for owner housing will be for households with incomes between 80%
and 120% of AMHI.



Senior Care Facilities – Senior housing reported an overall occupancy rate of
94.2% (5.8% vacant). This is a relatively high occupancy rate. As shown in the
housing needs estimates, it is believed that an additional 1,977 senior care beds
will be needed to meet the future needs of are seniors.



Special Needs Populations: While there are many special needs populations
within the county that likely require housing assistance, it appears that the largest
special needs populations in the county are the elderly (age 62+), those with
disabilities, veterans, and persons with mental illness.

J. SOURCES
See the Asheville, North Carolina Region Housing Needs Assessment for a full listing
of all sources used in this report.

Buncombe-45

 Henderson County
Housing Needs Assessment

Author: Patrick M. Bowen, President & Lead Contact
155 E. Columbus Street, Ste. 220   Pickerington, Ohio 43147
Phone: (614) 833-9300   patrickb@bowennational.com
www.bowennational.com

 HENDERSON COUNTY
A. INTRODUCTION
The focus of this analysis is to assess the market characteristics of, and to determine
the housing needs for, Henderson County. To accomplish this task, Bowen National
Research evaluated various socio-economic characteristics, inventoried and analyzed
the housing supply (rental and owner/for-sale product), conducted stakeholder
interviews, evaluated special needs populations and provided housing gap estimates to
help identify the housing needs of the county.
To provide a base of comparison, various metrics of Henderson County were
compared with overall region. A comparison of the subject county in relation with
other counties in the region is provided in the regional analysis portion of the overall
Housing Needs Assessment.

B. COUNTY OVERVIEW
Henderson County is located within the southeast portion of the study region. It
encompasses a total of 375 square miles. Primary thoroughfares within the county
include Interstate Highway 26 and U.S. Routes 25, 64, 74, 74A, and 76. Notable
natural landmarks and public attractions include Historic Downtown Hendersonville,
Flat
Rock
Playhouse,
Dupont State Forest, The
Western North Carolina Air
Museum, Pisgah National
Forest, Historic Johnson
Farm,
and
Bullington
Gardens. The county had a
2010 total population of
106,740 and 45,180 total
households. Hendersonville,
with a 2010 population of
106,740, is the largest
community in the county.
The primary employment
sectors
and
their
corresponding shares of the
county’s total employment
are Retail Trade (11.3%), Manufacturing (8.3%), and Health Care & Social Assistance
(8.3%). Additional details regarding demographics, economics, housing, and other
pertinent research and findings are included on the following pages.

Henderson-1

 C. DEMOGRAPHICS
This section of the report evaluates key demographic characteristics for Henderson
County. Through this analysis, unfolding trends and unique conditions are revealed
regarding populations and households residing in the county. Demographic
comparisons provide insights into the human composition of housing markets.
This section is comprised of three major parts: population characteristics, household
characteristics, and income data. Population characteristics describe the qualities of
individual people, while household characteristics describe the qualities of people
living together in one residence.
It is important to note that 2000 and 2010 demographics are based on U.S. Census data
(actual count), while 2015 and 2020 data are based on calculated projections provided
by ESRI, a nationally recognized demography firm, and the American Community
Survey. The accuracy of these projections depends on the realization of certain
assumptions:


Economic projections made by secondary sources materialize;



Governmental policies with respect to residential development remain consistent;



Availability of financing for residential development (i.e. mortgages, commercial
loans, subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) remains consistent;



Sufficient housing and infrastructure is provided to support projected population
and household growth.

Significant unforeseen changes or fluctuations among any of the preceding
assumptions could have an impact on demographic projections.

Henderson-2

 Population and household numbers for selected years within Henderson County and
the region are shown in the following table:
Total Population
Henderson
County
Region
89,173
344,472
106,740
398,912
17,567
54,440
19.7%
15.8%
112,242
421,899
5,502
22,987
5.2%
5.8%
117,928
445,283
5,686
23,384
5.1%
5.5%

2000 Census
2010 Census
Change 2000-2010
Percent Change 2000-2010
2015 Projected
Change 2010-2015
Percent Change 2010-2015
2020 Projected
Change 2015-2020
Percent Change 2015-2020

Total Households
Henderson
County
Region
37,414
143,510
45,448
168,748
8,034
25,238
21.5%
17.6%
47,918
179,521
2,470
10,773
5.4%
6.4%
50,413
190,027
2,495
10,506
5.2%
5.9%

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Henderson County/Region Population & Household Trends

Percent Change

Henderson Population
22.0%
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%

Region Population

Henderson Households

Region Households

21.5%
19.7%
17.6%
15.8%

6.4%
5.2% 5.8% 5.4%

5.9%
5.1% 5.5% 5.2%

2010-2015

2015-2020

2000-2010

Year

Henderson County experienced an increase in both population and households
between 2000 and 2010. They are projected to increase by 5,502 (5.2%) and 2,470
(5.4%), respectively, between 2010 and 2015. Between 2015 and 2020, it is projected
that they will increase by 5,686 (5.1%) and 2,495 (5.2%), respectively. These positive
projected demographic trends are generally similar to the projected trends within the
region.

Henderson-3

 The distribution of households by age for Henderson County is compared with the
overall region in the table below.

2010
Henderso
n
County

2015
2020
Change
2015-2020
2010
2015

Region
2020
Change
2015-2020

<25
1,175
(2.6%)
1,187
(2.5%)
1,193
(2.4%)
6
(0.5%)
6,352
(3.8%)
6,281
(3.5%)
6,226
(3.3%)
-55
(-0.9%)

25 to 34
4,999
(11.0%)
4,989
(10.4%)
4,910
(9.7%)
-79
(-1.6%)
22,274
(13.2%)
22,772
(12.7%)
23,091
(12.2%)
319
(1.4%)

Household Heads by Age
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
6,913
8,208
8,805
(15.2%)
(18.1%)
(19.4%)
6,837
8,012
9,408
(14.3%)
(16.7%)
(19.6%)
6,790
7,973
9,984
(13.5%)
(15.8%)
(19.8%)
-47
-39
576
(-0.7%)
(-0.5%)
(6.1%)
27,174
31,960
33,116
(16.1%)
(18.9%)
(19.6%)
27,357
31,366
35,669
(15.2%)
(17.5%)
(19.9%)
27,543
31,080
37,629
(14.5%)
(16.4%)
(19.8%)
186
-286
1,960
(0.7%)
(-0.9%)
(5.5%)

65 to 74
7,661
(16.9%)
9,031
(18.8%)
10,137
(20.1%)
1,106
(12.2%)
24,596
(14.6%)
30,438
(17.0%)
35,434
(18.6%)
4,996
(16.4%)

75+
7,687
(16.9%)
8,453
(17.6%)
9,425
(18.7%)
972
(11.5%)
23,276
(13.8%)
25,638
(14.3%)
29,024
(15.3%)
3,386
(13.2%)

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

It is projected that by 2015, the largest share (19.6%) of households by age in
Henderson County will be within the 55 to 64 age cohort. Between 2015 and 2020, it
is projected that the number of households between the ages of 65 and 74 will increase
the most, adding 1,106 (12.2%) households during this time. Henderson County will
also experience notable growth among householders between the ages of 55 and 64,
and among those age 75 and older between 2015 and 2020.

Henderson County/Region Household Heads by Age (2015)
Henderson County

Region

20.0%
18.0%

Share

16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
<25

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

Age Range

Henderson-4

55 - 64

65 - 74

75+

 Households by income for selected years are shown in the following table:

2015
Henderson
County

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
6,248
(13.0%)
6,635
(13.2%)
387
(6.2%)
26,973
(15.0%)
27,648
(14.5%)
674
(2.5%)

Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999 $150,000+
5,977
6,329
7,274
9,364
5,535
4,757
2,434
(12.5%)
(13.2%)
(15.2%)
(19.5%)
(11.6%)
(9.9%)
(5.1%)
6,627
6,392
8,014
9,596
5,662
4,990
2,497
(13.1%)
(12.7%)
(15.9%)
(19.0%)
(11.2%)
(9.9%)
(5.0%)
649
63
740
232
127
234
63
(10.9%)
(1.0%)
(10.2%)
(2.5%)
(2.3%)
(4.9%)
(2.6%)
22,124
23,236
28,217
34,090
19,434
16,434
9,012
(12.3%)
(12.9%)
(15.7%)
(19.0%)
(10.8%)
(9.2%)
(5.0%)
23,576
24,058
30,943
35,461
20,226
18,169
9,954
(12.4%)
(12.7%)
(16.3%)
(18.7%)
(10.6%)
(9.6%)
(5.2%)
1,453
823
2,725
1,371
792
1,734
942
(6.6%)
(3.5%)
(9.7%)
(4.0%)
(4.1%)
(10.6%)
(10.5%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

In 2015, it is projected that 19.5% of Henderson County households will have annual
incomes between $50,000 and $74,999. It is projected that between 2015 and 2020,
the greatest increase in households by income level in Henderson County will be
among those with incomes between $35,000 and $49,999. Most household income
segments below $50,000 are projected to experience noticeable growth between 2015
and 2020. As such, the low-income household segment is projected to experience the
greatest growth, adding to the need for affordable housing.

Henderson County/Region Households by Income (2015)
Henderson County

Region

20.0%
18.0%
16.0%

Share

14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
<$15,000

$15,000 $24,999

$25,000 $34,999

$35,000 $49,999

$50,000 $74,999

Household Income

Henderson-5

$75,000 $99,999

$100,000 $149,999

$150,000+

Total
47,918
(100.0%)
50,413
(100.0%)
2,495
(5.2%)
179,521
(100.0%)
190,035
(100.0%)
10,514
(5.9%)

 Households by income and tenure for selected years are shown below:

2015
Henderson
County

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
3,059
(24.0%)
3,140
(23.3%)
81
(2.6%)
15,446
(26.5%)
15,532
(25.0%)
86
(0.6%)

Renter Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999 $150,000+
2,353
2,431
1,900
2,012
550
328
121
(18.4%)
(19.1%)
(14.9%)
(15.8%)
(4.3%)
(2.6%)
(0.9%)
2,899
2,899
2,063
1,993
474
274
152
(21.5%)
(21.5%)
(15.3%)
(14.8%)
(3.5%)
(2.0%)
(1.1%)
546
47
163
-19
-76
-54
31
(23.2%)
(1.9%)
(8.6%)
(-0.9%) (-13.8%) (-16.6%)
(25.5%)
10,300
9,758
8,525
8,674
2,908
1,919
656
(17.7%)
(16.8%)
(14.7%)
(14.9%)
(5.0%)
(3.3%)
(1.1%)
11,262
11,262
10,165
8,767
3,070
2,135
910
(18.2%)
(18.2%)
(16.4%)
(14.1%)
(5.0%)
(3.4%)
(1.5%)
962
411
1,641
93
161
216
255
(9.3%)
(4.2%)
(19.2%)
(1.1%)
(5.5%)
(11.2%)
(38.8%)

Total
12,754
(100.0%)
13,473
(100.0%)
719
(5.6%)
58,185
(100.0%)
62,011
(100.0%)
3,826
(6.6%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

2015
Henderson
County

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
3,189
(9.1%)
3,495
(9.5%)
306
(9.6%)
11,528
(9.5%)
12,116
(9.5%)
588
(5.1%)

Owner Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 $24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999
3,625
3,898
5,374
7,352
4,985
(10.3%)
(11.1%)
(15.3%)
(20.9%)
(14.2%)
3,728
3,914
5,950
7,603
5,188
(10.1%)
(10.6%)
(16.1%)
(20.6%)
(14.0%)
103
16
576
251
203
(2.9%)
(0.4%)
(10.7%)
(3.4%)
(4.1%)
11,824
13,478
19,692
25,417
16,526
(9.7%)
(11.1%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.6%)
12,314
13,889
20,777
26,694
17,156
(9.6%)
(10.8%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.4%)
491
411
1,085
1,278
630
(4.1%)
(3.1%)
(5.5%)
(5.0%)
(3.8%)

$100,000$149,999 $150,000+
4,429
2,313
(12.6%)
(6.6%)
4,717
2,345
(12.8%)
(6.3%)
288
32
(6.5%)
(1.4%)
14,515
8,357
(12.0%)
(6.9%)
16,033
9,044
(12.5%)
(7.1%)
1,519
687
(10.5%)
(8.2%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The largest share (24.0%) of renter households in 2015 is projected to be among
households with incomes below $15,000. In fact, the three largest shares of renter
households by income are all below $35,000. These renter households comprise
nearly two-thirds of all renter households. The largest share (20.9%) of owneroccupied households at this same time will be among those with incomes between
$50,000 and $74,999. Between 2015 and 2020, the greatest renter household growth
is projected to occur among households with incomes between $15,000 and $24,999,
while the greatest owner-occupied household growth is projected to occur among
households with incomes between $35,000 and $49,999.
Given the large and growing base of older adult households in the region, it is
important to evaluate the income trends of senior households by tenure. The senior
household by income data is presented for the overall region for 2015 and 2020 in the
following tables.

Henderson-6

Total
35,164
(100.0%)
36,940
(100.0%)
1,776
(5.1%)
121,336
(100.0%)
128,024
(100.0%)
6,688
(5.5%)

 Ages 55 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
904
24.0%
968
23.3%
695
18.4%
894
21.5%
719
19.1%
764
18.4%
562
14.9%
636
15.3%
595
15.8%
614
14.8%
163
4.3%
146
3.5%
97
2.6%
84
2.0%
36
0.9%
47
1.1%
3,769
100.0%
4,155
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
1,886
9.1%
2,095
9.5%
2,144
10.3%
2,235
10.1%
2,305
11.1%
2,346
10.6%
3,179
15.3%
3,567
16.1%
4,349
20.9%
4,558
20.6%
2,948
14.2%
3,110
14.0%
2,620
12.6%
2,828
12.8%
1,368
6.6%
1,406
6.3%
20,798
100.0%
22,145
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Ages 62 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
650
24.0%
692
23.3%
500
18.4%
639
21.5%
517
19.1%
546
18.4%
404
14.9%
455
15.3%
427
15.8%
439
14.8%
117
4.3%
105
3.5%
70
2.6%
60
2.0%
26
0.9%
33
1.1%
2,710
100.0%
2,968
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
1,427
9.1%
1,589
9.5%
1,622
10.3%
1,695
10.1%
1,744
11.1%
1,779
10.6%
2,405
15.3%
2,705
16.1%
3,290
20.9%
3,457
20.6%
2,230
14.2%
2,359
14.0%
1,982
12.6%
2,145
12.8%
1,035
6.6%
1,066
6.3%
15,734
100.0%
16,796
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Ages 75 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
335
24.0%
343
23.3%
257
18.4%
317
21.5%
266
19.1%
271
18.4%
208
14.9%
226
15.3%
220
15.8%
218
14.8%
60
4.3%
52
3.5%
36
2.6%
30
2.0%
13
0.9%
17
1.1%
1,396
100.0%
1,473
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
573
9.1%
628
9.5%
651
10.3%
670
10.1%
700
11.1%
704
10.6%
965
15.3%
1,070
16.1%
1,321
20.9%
1,367
20.6%
896
14.2%
933
14.0%
796
12.6%
848
12.8%
415
6.6%
422
6.3%
6,317
100.0%
6,642
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Based on the data from the preceding page, the primary older adult household growth
between 2015 and 2020 is projected to occur among most household income segments.
As a result, there will likely be a growing need through at least 2020 for additional
renter and owner housing at a variety of price points that meets the needs of the
county’s senior population.

Henderson-7

 Population by race for 2010 (latest race data available) is shown below:

Asian
Alone

Some
Other
Race
Alone

Two or
More
Races

Total

Region

Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Black or
African
America
n Alone

Henderson
County

White
Alone

Population by Race

94,914
88.9%
353,718
88.7%

3,224
3.0%
19,967
5.0%

1,022
1.0%
3,653
0.9%

5,561
5.2%
13,732
3.4%

2,019
1.9%
7,842
2.0%

106,740
100.0%
398,912
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The largest share of population by race within the county is among the “White Alone”
segment, which represents 88.9% of the county’s population, which is near the overall
region’s share.
Population by poverty status for years 2006-2010 is shown in the following table:

Henderson
County
Region

Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Population by Poverty Status
Income below poverty level:
Income at or above poverty level:
<18
18 to 64
65+
<18
18 to 64
65+
4,588
7,290
1,718
17,653
54,877
20,614
4.3%
6.8%
1.6%
16.5%
51.4%
19.3%
17,106
33,329
6,304
65,171
212,420
64,583
4.3%
8.4%
1.6%
16.3%
53.2%
16.2%

Total
106,740
100.0%
398,912
100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Over 12.7% of the county’s population lives in poverty. One in five children (under
the age of 18) within the county live in poverty. Nearly 12.0% of the county’s
population between the ages of 18 and 64 lives in poverty, while 7.7% of seniors age
65 an older live in poverty. Given the more than 13,000 people living in poverty
within the county, affordable housing remains an important issue.

Henderson-8

 The following graph compares the share of population by age group with incomes
below the poverty level for the county and state:

Population Below Poverty Level by Age (2006-2010)
Henderson County

Region

9.0%
8.0%

8.4%

7.0%

Share

6.0%

6.8%

5.0%
4.0%
3.0%

4.3%

4.3%

2.0%

1.6%

1.0%

1.6%

0.0%
Under 18

18 to 64

65 & Over

Age

Households by tenure for selected years for the county and state are shown in the
following table:

Henderson
County
Region

Household Type
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total

2000
Number
Percent
29,487
78.8%
7,927
21.2%
37,414
100.0%
105,693
73.6%
37,817
26.4%
143,510
100.0%

Households by Tenure
2010
2015
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
34,143
75.1%
35,164
73.4%
11,305
24.9%
12,754
26.6%
45,448
100.0%
47,918
100.0%
117,511
69.6%
121,336
67.6%
51,237
30.4%
58,185
32.4%
168,748
100.0%
179,521
100.0%

2020
Number Percent
36,940
73.3%
13,473
26.7%
50,413
100.0%
128,018
67.4%
62,009
32.6%
190,027
100.0%

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Within the county, the share of owner-occupied households was over 75% in 2000 and
2010, while the share of renter-occupied households has been under 25%. It is
projected that between 2015 and 2020, the number of owner-occupied households will
increase by 1,776, while renter households will increase by 719.

Henderson-9

 The following graph compares household tenure shares for 2000, 2010, 2015 and
2020:

Henderson County/Region Households by Tenure
Henderson Owner

Region Owner

Henderson Renter

Region Renter

80.0%
70.0%

Share

60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2000

2010

2015

2020

Year

Renter households by size for selected years are shown in the following table:
Persons Per Renter Household

2010
Henderson
County

2015
2020
2010

Region

2015
2020

1-Person
4,426
(39.1%)
5,041
(39.5%)
5,375
(39.9%)
20,359
(39.7%)
23,427
(40.3%)
25,224
(40.7%)

2-Person
2,933
(25.9%)
3,270
(25.6%)
3,419
(25.4%)
14,680
(28.7%)
16,488
(28.3%)
17,416
(28.1%)

3-Person
1,670
(14.8%)
1,892
(14.8%)
2,012
(14.9%)
7,554
(14.7%)
8,593
(14.8%)
9,175
(14.8%)

4-Person
1,235
(10.9%)
1,378
(10.8%)
1,430
(10.6%)
4,965
(9.7%)
5,537
(9.5%)
5,806
(9.4%)

5-Person
1,041
(9.2%)
1,172
(9.2%)
1,236
(9.2%)
3,679
(7.2%)
4,140
(7.1%)
4,387
(7.1%)

Total
11,305
(100.0%)
12,754
(100.0%)
13,473
(100.0%)
51,237
(100.0%)
58,185
(100.0%)
62,009
(100.0%)

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

In 2015, the combined share of county renter households with one- and two-persons is
projected to be nearly two-thirds of all renter households. Note that one-person
households are projected to experience the greatest growth between 2015 and 2020,
increasing by 334, or 6.6%. This coincides with the slight projected decrease in the
median household size from 1.82 in 2015 to 1.80 in 2020.

Henderson-10

Median
Household
Size
1.84
1.82
1.80
1.72
1.69
1.66

 The following graph compares renter household size shares for the county and region
in 2015:
Henderson County/Region Persons per Renter Household (2015)
Henderson County

Region

40.0%
35.0%

39.5% 40.3%

Share

30.0%

28.3%

25.0%

25.6%
20.0%
15.0%

14.8% 14.8%

10.0%

10.8% 9.5%

5.0%

9.2%

7.1%

0.0%
1-Person

2-Persons

3-Persons

4-Persons

5-Persons

Household Size

Owner households by size for selected years are shown on the following table:
Persons Per Owner Household

2010
Henderson
County

2015
2020
2010

Region

2015
2020

1-Person
8,532
(25.0%)
8,838
(25.1%)
9,369
(25.4%)
29,657
(25.2%)
31,101
(25.6%)
33,231
(26.0%)

2-Person
15,407
(45.1%)
15,657
(44.5%)
16,322
(44.2%)
50,304
(42.8%)
51,336
(42.3%)
53,736
(42.0%)

3-Person
4,589
(13.4%)
4,858
(13.8%)
5,155
(14.0%)
17,419
(14.8%)
18,195
(15.0%)
19,298
(15.1%)

4-Person
3,490
(10.2%)
3,584
(10.2%)
3,734
(10.1%)
12,690
(10.8%)
12,962
(10.7%)
13,538
(10.6%)

5-Person
2,125
(6.2%)
2,227
(6.3%)
2,360
(6.4%)
7,441
(6.3%)
7,742
(6.4%)
8,216
(6.4%)

Total
34,143
(100.0%)
35,164
(100.0%)
36,940
(100.0%)
117,511
(100.0%)
121,336
(100.0%)
128,018
(100.0%)

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

In 2015, one- and two-person owner-occupied households combined are projected to
represent more than two-thirds of the owner-occupied household base within the
county.
At the same time, approximately 14% of the county’s owner-occupied
households will be three-persons, over 10% will be four-persons, and over 6% will be
five-person or larger. These shares are not expected to change much through 2020.

Henderson-11

Median
Household
Size
2.11
2.12
2.12
2.16
2.15
2.15

 The following graph compares owner household size shares for the county and region
in 2015:
Henderson County/Region Persons per Owner Household (2015)
Henderson County

Region

45.0%

44.5%

40.0%

42.3%

35.0%

Share

30.0%
25.0%
20.0%

25.1% 25.6%

15.0%

13.8% 15.0%

10.0%
5.0%

10.2% 10.7%
6.3% 6.4%

0.0%
1-Person

2-Persons

3-Persons

4-Persons

5-Persons

Household Size

Residents of the county face a variety of housing issues that include such things as
lacking complete kitchen and/or indoor plumbing, overcrowding (1.01 or more
persons per room), severe overcrowding (1.51 or more persons per room), cost
burdened (paying over 30% of their income towards housing costs), severe cost
burdened (paying over 50% of their income towards housing costs), and potentially
containing lead paint (units typically built prior to 1980).
The following table summarizes the housing issues by tenure for Henderson County.
It is important to note that some occupied housing units have more than one housing
issue.
Housing Issues by Tenure
Housing Issue
Incomplete Plumbing
Overcrowded
Severe Overcrowded
Cost Burdened
Severe Cost Burdened

Renter-Occupied
Number
Percent
67
0.6%
422
3.6%
74
0.6%
5,429
46.7%
2,327
20.0%

Owner-Occupied
Number
Percent
28
0.1%
471
1.4%
80
0.2%
7,824
23.3%
3,178
9.4%

Sources: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Notes: Some housing issues overlap with other issues

Henderson-12

 The greatest housing issue facing residents appears to be associated with cost burden.
The high share of cost burdened households indicates that many area residents are
paying a disproportionately high share of their income towards housing costs, which is
likely due to a lack of affordable housing.

D. ECONOMICS
As economic conditions and trends can influence the need for housing within a
particular market, the following is an overview of various economic characteristics
and trends within Henderson County.
The distribution of employment by industry sector in Henderson County is compared
with the region in the following table.

NAICS Group
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation & Warehousing
Information
Finance & Insurance
Real Estate & Rental & Leasing
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services
Management of Companies & Enterprises
Administrative, Support, Waste Management & Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health Care & Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
Accommodation & Food Services
Other Services (Except Public Administration)
Public Administration
Nonclassifiable
Total

Employment by Industry (Employees)
Henderson County
Region
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
656
1.3%
2,090
1.0%
50
0.1%
145
0.1%
34
0.1%
549
0.3%
3,019
6.2%
11,460
5.2%
4,081
8.3%
18,891
8.6%
2,527
5.2%
7,349
3.4%
5,509
11.3%
24,464
11.2%
1,415
2.9%
4,359
2.0%
485
1.0%
2,671
1.2%
1,124
2.3%
5,054
2.3%
1,201
2.5%
5,922
2.7%
1,789
3.7%
10,754
4.9%
32
0.1%
218
0.1%
2,939
6.0%
16,789
7.7%
2,051
4.2%
10,852
5.0%
4,069
8.3%
17,371
7.9%
533
1.1%
2,526
1.2%
3,519
7.2%
14,188
6.5%
3,008
6.2%
11,453
5.2%
2,627
5.4%
13,768
6.3%
8,239
16.8%
37,742
17.3%
48,907
100.0%
218,615
100.0%

*Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research
E.P.E. - Average Employees Per Establishment
Note: Since this survey is conducted of establishments and not of residents, some employees may not live within the County. These
employees, however, are included in our labor force calculations because their places of employment are located within the County.

The labor force within the county is very diversified and balanced with no industry
sector representing more than 11.3% of the overall county’s employment base. The
largest employment sectors in the county are within Retail Trade (11.3%),
Manufacturing (8.3%), and Health Care & Social Assistance (8.3%).
Overall,
Henderson County has a distribution of employment by job sector that is similar to the
region.

Henderson-13

 The following illustrates the total employment base for Henderson County, the region,
North Carolina, and the United States.

Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Total Employment
Region
North Carolina
Total
Percent
Total
Percent
Number
Change
Number
Change
173,140
4,031,081
176,817
2.1%
4,123,857
2.3%
183,324
3.7%
4,261,325
3.3%
184,292
0.5%
4,283,826
0.5%
185,863
0.9%
4,280,355
-0.1%
179,061
-3.7%
4,107,955
-4.0%
181,324
1.3%
4,138,113
0.7%
182,849
0.8%
4,183,094
1.1%
186,023
1.7%
4,271,315
2.1%
188,921
1.6%
4,318,319
1.1%
191,285
1.3%
4,368,455
1.2%

Henderson County
Total
Percent
Number
Change
43,676
44,682
2.3%
46,489
4.0%
46,545
0.1%
47,206
1.4%
45,612
-3.4%
46,358
1.6%
46,831
1.0%
47,368
1.1%
48,160
1.7%
48,776
1.3%

United States
Total
Percent
Number
Change
139,967,126
142,299,506
1.7%
145,000,043
1.9%
146,388,369
1.0%
146,047,748
-0.2%
140,696,560
-3.7%
140,457,589
-0.2%
141,727,933
0.9%
143,566,680
1.3%
144,950,662
1.0%
146,735,092
1.2%

Source: Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics
*Through August

Henderson County Total Employment
49,000

Total Employed

48,000
47,000
46,000
45,000
44,000
43,000
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014*

Year

Henderson County lost approximately 3.4% of its employment base in 2009, which is
slightly less than the decrease experienced in the overall region. The county’s
employment base has increased in each of the past five years. There are more people
employed in the county than there were prior to the recession. The positive job
growth over the past few years is an indication of a healthy and expanding economy.

Henderson-14

 Unemployment rates for Henderson County, the region, North Carolina and the United
States are illustrated as follows:
Unemployment Rate
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Henderson
County
4.2%
4.2%
3.6%
3.5%
4.9%
8.7%
8.6%
8.0%
7.1%
6.0%
5.0%

Region
4.5%
4.4%
3.8%
3.6%
4.9%
8.4%
8.8%
8.2%
7.5%
6.2%
5.1%

North Carolina
5.5%
5.3%
4.8%
4.8%
6.3%
10.4%
10.8%
10.2%
9.2%
8.0%
6.5%

United States
5.6%
5.2%
4.7%
4.7%
5.8%
9.3%
9.7%
9.0%
8.1%
7.4%
6.5%

Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
*Through August

The county’s unemployment rate has generally mirrored regional trends. After
reaching a decade high unemployment rate of 8.7% in 2009, the county’s
unemployment rate has declined in the county in each of the past five years.

Henderson County/Region Unemployment Rate
Henderson County

Region

Unemployment Rate

9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

Henderson-15

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014*

 The ten largest employers within Henderson County are summarized as follows:
Employer Name
Henderson County Board of Public Education
Park Ridge Health
Margaret R. Pardee Memorial Hospital
Ingles Markets, Inc.
County of Henderson
Wilsonart, LLC
Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.
Walmart

Business Type
Education
Health Care
Health Care
Supermarkets
Government
Countertop Manufacturers
Automotive Supplier
Retail/Grocery
Global Supplier of Axle, Brakes and
Meritor Heavy Vehicle Systems, LLC
Suspension Parts
Blue Ridge Community College
Education
Source: ACESSNC, North Carolina Economic Data and Site Information, 2014 1st quarter

According to a representative with the Henderson County Partnership for Economic
Development, the Henderson County economy is growing and improving. According
to economic development representatives, there has been a 12% increase in the labor
force and 8.5% increase in business growth since 2013, while the unemployment rate
has decreased.
The town of Fletcher, located in northern Henderson County, and 13 miles south of
Asheville, is the home to numerous manufacturers and successful businesses.
Hendersonville is in the center of the county and is the county seat. The city is famous
for the Historic Downtown Hendersonville with dining, shopping, parks and a
business district. Laurel Park is west of Hendersonville and has established itself as a
small residential community. Laurel Park is known for Jump Off Rock, a panoramic
view of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Mills River was incorporated in 2003 and is just
minutes from the Pisgah National Forest, the Asheville Airport and I-26
Empire Distributors of North Carolina announced that they planned to invest
approximately $20 million in a new building and equipment in Mills River and add
approximately 15 jobs. Empire is a distributor of beer, wine and liquor and has over
700 employees in eight cities in the South including Asheville, Charlotte, Raleigh,
Winston-Salem and Atlanta. It also has a plant in Arden near U.S. Highway 25.
In January of 2014, ASG (AGI Shorewood) announced that it will expand its
manufacturing operations in Henderson County. The company plans to create 50 new
jobs and invest more than $8.5 million in East Flat Rock. ASG is a global packaging
company that specializes in the development of innovative solutions for the consumer
products segment. The company plans to invest $8.55 million over 2 years. The
existing 136,000 square-foot manufacturing building will be expanded. ASG
anticipates that the expansion will help the East Flat Rock facility achieve heightened
production efficiencies and increase manufacturing volume.

Henderson-16

 In March of 2014, Continental AG celebrated the opening of a $35 million expansion
at its production plant in Henderson County which will result in 40 new jobs over the
next five years. Continental is based in Germany and the Fletcher plant currently
employs approximately 626 people. The company manufactures vehicle brakes,
chassis and brake calipers.
In April of 2014, Elkamet Incorporated announced that they would be expanding their
manufacturing operations in Henderson County. The company plans to create 20 new
jobs and invest more than $2.5 million over the next three years in East Flat Rock.
Elkamet currently employs 54 full-time employees at this current facility.
Sierra Nevada’s new Mills River brewery opened in April of 2014. The brewery was
to add a tasting room that was to open this past summer. Future plans call for a
restaurant, taproom and indoor and outdoor music areas. Sierra Nevada plans to make
350,000 barrels of beer a year at the Mills River location and bottles and cases of the
brewery’s popular Pale Ale and Torpedo IPA are already being filled and shipped.
There are about 70 full-time employees working at the brewery and that number is
expected to increase to 125 to 150 full- and part-time employees.
Mona Lisa Foods, located in Edneyville in Henderson County, is planning to invest
$2.2 million in a new building and $2 million in new equipment at its current plant on
St. Pauls Road. The move could add 12 to 29 employees in the next three years.
In May of 2014, a group of Hendersonville businessmen opened a 4,500 square-foot
cidery in the South Crossing Business Park in Flat Rock. Flat Rock Cider Works is
the first Henderson County company to move into the fast growing hard-cider market
with the introduction of their Naked Apple Hard Cider brand. Empire Distributors
will distribute Naked Apple initially in Western North Carolina with a planned roll out
across the rest of the state by late 2015.
In July of 2014, Kyocera celebrated the creation of a new, wholly-owned subsidiary,
Kyocera Precision Tools Incorporated (KPTI). The creation of the new company
follows a consolidation of Kyocera’s North American cutting tool operations. The
recently formed company will be headquartered in Hendersonville. The Kyocera
campus currently employs 187 persons in Henderson County, of which 75 employees
are affiliated with the newly formed KPTI.

Henderson-17

 Tourism:
Hendersonville and Henderson County have many attractions in the area to interest
visitors coming to North Carolina. The area has historic attractions as well as State
and National Forest beauty to attract tourists to the area. Historic Downtown
Hendersonville was entered into the National Register of Historic Places in 1988. It
has become a vital part of the community’s economic and cultural growth and offers a
wide array of shopping, antique stores, galleries, museums and restaurants. The
Downtown hosts many activities including the North Carolina Apple Festival held
during Labor Day weekend, as well as art shows, an antique show, car shows and
parades throughout the year.
The Henderson County Heritage Museum is housed in the Historic Henderson County
Courthouse on Main Street. It offers public displays, artifacts, lectures, collections,
archives, libraries, demonstrations, and other similar exhibitions relating to the history,
culture, and heritage of the founding settlement and development of Henderson
County. The museum celebrates veterans of all wars and has a notable Civil War
Display.
Historic Hendersonville Train Depot has been restored and now houses the Apple
Valley Model Railroad Club.
The DuPont State Recreational Forest encompasses 10,268 acres in Henderson and
Transylvania counties. It is situated in the Little River Valley and includes waterfalls
and 80 miles of roads and trails wandering through the mountainous terrain. The
forested land was purchased by the state of North Carolina after DuPont sold its
industrial operation in 1996 and 1997. The surrounding land became the DuPont State
Forest.
The Pisgah National Forest has 501,691 acres stretching across the eastern edge of
Western North Carolina’s mountains. The forest offers hiking trails, fishing, camping,
picnic sites and spectacular waterfalls. Some of the Pisgah National Forest attractions
include Looking Glass Falls, Sliding Rock, Pisgah Forest State Fish Hatchery, and the
North Mills River Recreational Area. The North Mills River Recreational Area is
located just 13 miles from Downtown Hendersonville. Jump Off Rock is a scenic
overlook which provides a panoramic view of rolling pastures and the Blue Ridge and
Pisgah mountain ranges and is a popular attraction.

Henderson-18

 The Flat Rock Playhouse, which is officially designated The State Theatre of North
Carolina, and is a notable area attraction, is committed to teaching the performing arts
to children and adults. Flat Rock Playhouse opened a satellite theater in Historic
Hendersonville in 2011.
Also located in Flat Rock is the Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site. Carl
Sandburg was an American poet, historian, author and lecturer and spent the final 22
years of his life at his estate named Connemara. The home, originally built in 1838,
displays the Sandburg’s furnishings as well as Sandburg’s collection of 12,000 books.
According to the North Carolina Tourism Department of Commerce, domestic tourism
in Henderson County generated an economic impact of $233.25 million in 2013. This
was a 6.78% change from 2012. Also in 2013, Henderson County ranked 15th in travel
impact among North Carolina’s 100 counties. More than 2,050 jobs in Henderson
County were directly attributable to travel and tourism. Travel generated a $40.52
million payroll in 2013.
WARN (layoff notices):
According to the North Carolina Workforce Development website
(www.nccommerce.com), there have been no WARN notices of large-scale layoffs or
closures reported for the Henderson County area since January 2013. However, in
September of 2014, Wilsonart announced that it would be laying off 57 people from
its manufacturing facility in Henderson County. The reason given for the layoffs is
that some positions were eliminated after some older skills are no longer needed.
Wilsonart is a laminate manufacturer and will have 900 employees after this current
layoff. The layoffs are nation wide.

E. HOUSING SUPPLY
This housing supply analysis considers both rental and owner for-sale housing.
Understanding the historical trends, market performance, characteristics, composition,
and current housing choices provide critical information as to current market
conditions and future housing potential. The housing data presented and analyzed in
this section includes primary data collected directly by Bowen National Research and
from secondary data sources including American Community Survey (ACS), U.S.
Census housing information and data provided by various government entities and real
estate professionals.

Henderson-19

 While there are a variety of housing alternatives offered in Henderson County, we
focused our analysis on the most common alternatives. The housing structures
included in this analysis are:


Rental Housing – Multifamily rentals, typically with three or more units were
inventoried and surveyed. Additionally, rentals with two or fewer units, which
were classified as non-conventional rentals, were identified and surveyed. Other
rentals such as vacation rentals, mobile homes, and home stays (a single bedroom
or portion of a larger unit) were also considered in this analysis.



Owner For-Sale Housing – We identified attached and detached for-sale housing,
which may be part of a planned development or community, as well as attached
multifamily housing such as condominiums.



Senior Care Housing – Facilities providing housing for seniors requiring some
level of care, such as adult care facilities, multi-unit assisted facilities and nursing
homes were surveyed and analyzed.

For the purposes of this analysis, the housing supply information is presented for
Henderson County and compared with the region. This analysis includes secondary
Census housing data, Bowen National Research’s survey of area rental alternatives
and senior care facilities, and owner for-sale housing data (both historical sales and
available housing alternatives) obtained from secondary data sources (Multiple Listing
Service, REALTOR.com, and other on-line sources). Finally, we contacted local
building and planning departments to determine if any residential units of notable
scale were currently planned or under review by local government. Any such units
were considered in the housing gap estimates included later in this section.
The following table summarizes the surveyed/inventoried housing stock in the county.
This is a sample survey/inventory and does not represent all housing in the county.
However, we believe this housing survey/inventory is representative of a majority of
the most common housing categories offered in the county.

Henderson-20

 Surveyed Housing Supply Overview
Housing Type
Units
Vacant Units
Multifamily Apartments
1,444
34
Non-Conventional Rentals
N/A
34
Home Stays
N/A
16
Vacation Rentals
N/A
50
Mobile Home Rentals
2,741*
N/A
Owner For-Sale Housing
6,438**
1,005
Senior Care Housing
1,616
56
Independent Living
325
4
Multi-Unit Assisted
Housing
444
5
Adult Care Homes
376
38
Nursing Homes
471
9
*Based on 2011-2013 American Community Survey
**Units sold between 2010 and 2014
N/A – Not Available

Vacancy
2.4%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.6%*
3.5%
1.2%

Price Range
$270-$1,625
$380-$3,800
$275-$550
$2,250-$34,995
$475-$550
$5,500-$5.0 Mil.
$1,371-$6,174
$1,371*

1.1%
10.1%
1.9%

$1,525*
$1,600*
$6,174*

With the exception of the adult care homes, all surveyed housing segments appear to
have vacancy rates of 3.6% or lower. This indicates that these housing segments are
in high demand. While the adult care homes have a vacancy rate of 10.1%, this is not
considered an unusually high vacancy rate for this type of senior care housing.
Overall, the county’s housing market is performing well, as demand is strong for
virtually all housing alternatives. The 2.4% vacancy rate of surveyed multifamily
rental housing likely indicates that there is a shortage of such housing within the
county.
a. Rental Housing
Multifamily Rental Housing
We identified and personally surveyed 30 conventional housing projects
containing a total of 1,444 units within the Site PMA. This survey was conducted
to establish the overall strength of the rental market and to identify trends in the
multifamily rental market. These rentals have a combined occupancy rate of
97.6%, a high rate for rental housing. Among these projects, 23 are non-subsidized
(market-rate and Tax Credit) projects containing 1,203 units. These non-subsidized
units are 97.2% occupied. There are four additional units under construction in the
Site PMA. The remaining seven projects contain 241 government-subsidized units,
which are 100.0% occupied.
Managers and leasing agents for each project were surveyed to collect a variety of
property information including vacancies, rental rates, design characteristics,
amenities, utility responsibility, and other features. Projects were also rated based
on quality and upkeep, and each was mapped as part of this survey.

Henderson-21

 The inventory of 30 surveyed multifamily rental housing projects contains a total
of 1,444 units within Henderson County. Of these units, 1,010 of the units are
market-rate, 193 are Tax Credit and 205 are government-subsidized. The
remaining units are within a mixed-income project. The distribution of surveyed
rental housing supply by product type is illustrated in the following table:
Surveyed Multifamily Apartments
Projects
Total
Project Type
Surveyed
Units
Market-rate
18
1,010
Tax Credit
5
193
Tax Credit/Government-Subsidized
1
36
Government-Subsidized
6
205
Total
30
1,444

Vacant
Units
34
0
0
0
34

Occupancy
Rate
96.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
97.6%

As the preceding table illustrates, these rentals have a combined occupancy rate of
97.6%. This is an extremely high occupancy rate and an indication that there is
very limited availability among larger multifamily apartments in Henderson
County. In fact, these projects have wait lists of up to 30 households, which
provides evidence that there is pent up demand for multifamily rental housing in
the Henderson County area.
The following tables summarize the breakdown of non-subsidized units surveyed
by program within the county.
Market-rate
Bedroom
Studio
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Total Market-rate

Baths
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.0
2.0
2.5

Units
9
418
51
18
380
14
2
112
10
1,014

Bedroom
Baths
One-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
2.0
Three-Bedroom
2.0
Total Tax Credit

Units
79
66
4
40
189

Distribution
Vacancy
0.9%
0
41.2%
18
5.0%
0
1.8%
0
37.5%
14
1.4%
0
0.2%
0
11.0%
2
1.0%
0
100.0%
34
Tax Credit, Non-Subsidized
Distribution
41.8%
34.9%
2.1%
21.2%
100.0%

Henderson-22

Vacancy
0
0
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
3.4%

Median Gross
Rent
$330
$745
$508
$895
$900
$785
$650
$1,155
$1,625
-

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Median Gross
Rent
$399
$485
$610
$577
-

 The market-rate units are 96.6% occupied and the Tax Credit units are 100.0%
occupied. While both occupancies are high, the Tax Credit occupancy rate of
100.0% and the wait lists maintained at the Tax Credit projects indicate that there
is pent-up demand for this product type.
Median collected rents by bedroom type range from $330 to $1,625 for the marketrate units and from $399 to $610 for Tax Credit units. It is important to note that
none of the surveyed non-subsidized multifamily projects offer four-bedroom or
larger units. As such, there appear to be no multifamily rental options for most
family households, particularly larger families, seeking housing within Henderson
County. As a result, family households seeking four-bedroom rental alternatives
in Henderson County choose from non-conventional rentals, which typically have
higher rents, fewer amenities and are of lower quality than multifamily options.
There are seven multifamily projects that were surveyed in Henderson County that
operate with a government-subsidy. The distribution of units and vacancies by
bedroom type among government-subsidized projects (both with and without Tax
Credits) in Henderson County is summarized as follows.
Bedroom
Baths
One-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
1.0
Total Subsidized Tax Credit
Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Total Subsidized

Baths
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0

Subsidized Tax Credit
Units
Distribution
32
88.9%
4
11.1%
36
100.0%
Government-Subsidized
Units
Distribution
93
45.4%
50
24.4%
28
13.7%
26
12.7%
4
2.0%
4
2.0%
205
100.0%

Vacancy
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Vacancy
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

The subsidized Tax Credit units and the government-subsidized units are 100.0%
occupied. The seven surveyed government-subsidized projects in Henderson
County operate under a variety of programs including the HUD Section 8, 202 and
811 programs and the Rural Development Section 515 program. All seven
subsidized projects surveyed in the market maintain waiting lists ranging from
approximately 2 to 10 households, or as long as five years in duration. As such,
there is clear pent-up demand for housing for very low-income households in
Henderson County.

Henderson-23

 The following is a distribution of multifamily rental projects and units surveyed by
year built for Henderson County:
Year Built
Before 1970
1970 to 1979
1980 to 1989
1990 to 1999
2000 to 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Projects
6
3
7
4
5
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
1

Units
78
129
206
66
455
0
40
30
0
0
0
416
0
24

Vacancy Rate
12.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
0.0%
3.3%
3.8%
0.0%

*As of December

The largest share of apartments surveyed was built between 1980 and 1989. These
older apartments have a vacancy rate of 0.0%. A total of 510 conventional
apartment units have been added in the county since 2005. As such, the existing
multifamily rental housing stock is considered to be well balanced.
Representatives of Bowen National Research personally visited each of the
surveyed properties within Henderson County and rated the exterior quality of
each property. We rated each surveyed property on a scale of “A” (highest)
through “F” (lowest). All properties were rated based on quality and overall
appearance (i.e. aesthetic appeal, building appearance, landscaping and grounds
appearance).
The following is a distribution by quality rating, units, and
vacancies for all surveyed rental housing product in Henderson County.
Quality Rating
A
AB+
BC+
C
CD
Quality Rating
A
AB+
BC-

Market-rate
Projects
Total Units
2
390
3
355
1
6
2
126
1
2
6
102
2
20
1
13
Non-Subsidized Tax Credit
Projects
Total Units
1
56
1
64
1
40
1
4
1
25

Henderson-24

Vacancy Rate
4.4%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
10.0%
53.8%
Vacancy Rate
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

 Government-Subsidized
Projects
Total Units
1
24
1
36
1
42
2
85
2
54

Quality Rating
A
B
BC+
C

Vacancy Rate
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Vacancies are generally low among all program types and quality levels. The
double digit vacancy rates among the C- and D rated properties indicate that these
lower quality units are the least marketable. All affordable (Tax Credit and
subsidized) rental units are occupied regardless of quality.
Non-Conventional Rental Housing
Henderson County has a large number of non-conventional rentals which can come
in the form of detached single-family homes, duplexes, units over storefronts, etc.
As a result, we have conducted a sample survey of non-conventional rentals within
the county. Overall, a total of 34 individual units were identified and surveyed.
While this does not include all non-conventional rentals in the market, we believe
these properties are representative of the typical non-conventional rental housing
alternatives in the market. Information regarding the bedroom/bathroom
configuration, year built, amenities, collected rent and total square footage was
collected and evaluated when available.
The following table aggregates the 34 non-conventional rental units surveyed in
Henderson County by bedroom type.
Surveyed Non-Conventional Rental Supply

Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom+
Total

Units
1
6
22
5
34

Rent
Range
$625
$775 - $965
$380 - $3,800
$1,300 - $1,750

Median
Rent
$625
$850
$1,250
$1,500

Median
Rent Per
Square Foot
$0.66
$0.75
$0.71
$0.71

As the preceding table illustrates, the rents for non-conventional rentals identified
range from $380 to $3,800. The median rents are $625 for a one-bedroom unit,
$850 for a two-bedroom unit, $1,250 for a three-bedroom unit and $1,500 for a
four-bedroom unit. The median rent per square foot by bedroom type ranges from
$0.66 to $0.75.

Henderson-25

 The rental rates of non-conventional rentals are generally comparable to most
market-rate multifamily apartments surveyed in the county. However, when
utilities are considered, as most non-conventional rentals require tenants to pay all
utilities, the rental housing costs of non-conventional rentals are generally higher
than multifamily apartments. When also considering the facts that a much larger
share of the non-conventional product was built prior to 1980 and their amenity
packages are relatively limited, it would appear the non-conventional rentals
represent less of a value than most multifamily apartments in the market. However,
given the relatively limited number of vacant units among the more affordable
multifamily apartments, many low-income households are likely forced to choose
from the non-conventional housing alternatives.
Vacation Rental Housing
Henderson County has a large number of vacation rentals which can come in the
form of cabins, detached single-family homes, condominiums, etc. As a result, we
have conducted a sample survey of vacation rentals within the county. Overall, a
total of 50 individual units were identified and surveyed. While this does not
include all vacation rentals in the market, we believe these properties are
representative of the typical vacation rental housing alternatives in the market.
The following table aggregates the 50 vacation rental units surveyed in the county
by bedroom type. It is important to note that while most vacation rentals charge
daily or weekly rents, we have converted all rents to monthly rents to more easily
compare with other rental alternatives in the market.
Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom+
Total

Vacation Rental Supply
Units
Rent Range
7
$2,250 - $4,500
20
$2,460 - $14,235
19
$3,000 - $31,710
4
$3,900 - $34,995
50

Median Rent
$3,075
$4,163
$4,500
$8,625

As the preceding table illustrates, the rents for vacation rentals identified range
from $2,250 to $34,995. The median monthly rents are $3,075 for a one-bedroom
unit, $4,163 for a two-bedroom unit, $4,500 for a three-bedroom unit, and $8,625
for a four-bedroom or larger unit.
The rental rates of vacation rentals are significantly higher than most conventional
multifamily apartments and non-conventional rentals surveyed in the county.
Generally, such rentals are at least four times higher than conventional rentals,
essentially eliminating this type of housing as a viable long-term housing
alternative to most area renters. However, due to this rent differential, such
housing may appeal to owners of traditional, long-term conventional rentals who
may want to convert their housing to vacation rentals. This is addressed in the
case study portion of the Asheville, North Carolina Region Housing Needs
Assessment.

Henderson-26

 Home Stay Rentals
A home stay rental is generally considered a bedroom or a few rooms that are
rented to tenants on a short-term basis and typically represents a portion of a full
rental unit. Such rentals are generally short-term (usually less than 30 days)
housing options. Tenants in the home stay rental often have shared access to
common areas such as bathrooms and kitchens. Home stay rentals typically come
in the form of apartments, detached single-family homes, duplexes,
condominiums, etc. We have conducted a sample survey of home stay rentals
within the county.
The following table aggregates the 16 home stay rental units surveyed in the
county by bedroom type.
Units
16

Surveyed Home Stay Rental Supply
Rent Range
$275 - $550

Median Rent
$400

As the preceding table illustrates, the monthly rents for home stay rentals
identified range from $275 to $550. The median rent is $400.
The rental rates of home stay rentals are generally lower than most multifamily
apartments surveyed in the county, which is not surprising since such rentals are
limited to a single room with shared access to common areas (e.g. bathrooms,
kitchens, etc.). Most home stay rentals are roommate situations where residents
have their own bedroom but must share kitchen, living and bathroom areas. Most
rentals include all basic utilities in the rent, with many rentals also offering cable
television and Internet as part of the rent. A large number of the rentals are fully
furnished, but offer few project amenities such as swimming pools or other
recreational features. Most rentals allow residents access to laundry facilities.
Leases are often flexible, typically month to month in duration. Unlike most
conventional apartment or private non-conventional rentals, home stays have the
unique element of matching personal preferences with roommates. For example,
many properties advertise that they are looking for smoke-free/smokers, pet
friendly/no pet, male/female or other types of tenants. Such preferences or
restrictions likely limit the type of residents that can be accommodated at such
rentals. Given these preferences and restrictions, along with the fact that the home
stay rentals can typically only accommodate one- or two-person households, home
stays likely have a limited ability to meet the needs of most area renters.

Henderson-27

 Mobile Home Rentals
Bowen National Research identified 41 mobile home parks in Henderson County
through secondary resources, such as www.mhvillage.com, the county tax
department/assessor, and CraigsList. Upon identification of these parks, which is
not a comprehensive list, we conducted a sample windshield survey to evaluate the
quality of select parks and their neighborhoods, and we attempted to conduct
telephone interviews with park operators.
Surveyed park operators indicated that lot rents range from $110 to $325 per
month. In terms of lot rents and vacancy trends, responses varied between “stayed
the same” and “increased” for both lot rents and vacancies. Respondents reported
typical occupancy rates of 90% to 95%, with two parks reporting 100%
occupancy. Mobile home park operators commented that the quality varies based
on the ownership/management of the park, but that typically the parks are in good
to fair condition. A windshield survey of select mobile home parks in the county
yielded a range of “B” to “C-” quality and neighborhood ratings, indicating that
these mobile home parks and their neighborhoods are in good to fair condition.
Bowen National Research asked respondents if there are any issues or problems
associated with operating or maintaining a mobile home park in the area, or what
recommendations the respondents may have that the local government could do to
aid in mobile home park living. Mobile home park operators reported that there is
a lack of collaboration between park owners and the local government, as well as
NIMBYism from public and private entities.
b. Owner For-Sale Housing
Bowen National Research, through a review of the Multiple Listing Service
information for Henderson County, identified both historical (sold since 2010) forsale residential data and currently available for-sale housing stock.
There were 6,438 homes sold and 1,005 homes currently available in Henderson
County. Approximately, an average of 1,218 homes are sold each year within
Henderson County. The 1,005 available homes in Henderson County represent
27.4% of all identified available for-sale homes in the region. The following table
summarizes the available and recently sold (since January 2010) housing stock for
Henderson County.
Type
Available
Sold

Owner For-Sale/Sold Housing Supply
Homes
1,005
6,438

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

Henderson-28

Median Price
$273,000
$178,000

 The historical data includes any home sales that occurred within the county from
January 2010 to November 2014. It is our opinion that an evaluation of sales
activity after 2009 is representative of true market conditions following the
recession.
The following table includes a summary of annual for-sale residential transactions
that occurred within Henderson County since 2010. It should be noted that the
2014 sales data is only through November of that year.

Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Owner For-Sale Housing by Year Sold
Units Sold
Median Price Sold
Number
Change
Price
Change
989
$185,000
962
-2.7%
$169,000
-8.6%
1,332
38.5%
$169,000
0.0%
1,587
19.1%
$180,000
6.5%
1,568
-1.2%
$185,550
3.1%

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research
*Through Nov. 21, 2014

Excluding the partial year of 2014, annual residential for-sales activity within the
county has ranged between 962 in 2011 and 1,587 in 2013. The annual sales
activity has grown each of the past two full years. The county is currently on pace
to sell approximately 1,730 residential units for all of 2014, which would be a fiveyear high. The county has experienced fluctuations in median sales prices over the
past three years, but has trended upward over the past two years with annual
growth rates above 3.0% during this time. The positive trends among sales
volume and sales prices are good indications of a healthy and stable for-sale
housing market in Henderson County.
The following graphs illustrate the overall annual number of homes sold and
median sales prices over the past four years for Henderson County from 2010 to
2013 (2014 was excluded due to the fact that only partial year data is available).

Henderson-29

 Henderson County Annual Home Sales (2010-2013)
1,600

1,587

Homes Sold

1,500

1,332

1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100

989
1,000

962
900

2010

2011

2012

2013

Year

Henderson County Annual Median Sales Price (2010-2013)
$190,000

$185,000
$185,000

Price

$180,000
$180,000

$175,000

$169,000

$170,000

$169,000

$165,000

2010

2011

2012
Year

Henderson-30

2013

 The following table summarizes the inventory of available for-sale housing in
Henderson County and the region.
Available Owner For-Sale Housing

Henderson County
Region

Total
Units
1,005
3,669

% Share
of Region
27.4%
100.0%

Low
List Price
$19,900
$19,900

High
List Price
$5,000,000
$10,750,000

Average
List Price
$382,273
$451,391

Median
List Price
$273,000
$290,418

Average
Days
On Market
216
244

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

Within Henderson County, the available homes have a median list price of
$273,000, which is less than the region median list price of $290,418. The average
number of days on market for available product in Henderson County is 216,
which is less than the region average of 244.
The table below summarizes the distribution of available for-sale residential units
by price point for Henderson County.

List Price
<$100,000
$100,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $499,999
$500,000+

Available Owner For-Sale Housing by Price Point
Henderson County
Region
Median
Median
Price
Units
Share
Price
Units
$72,000
57
5.7%
$79,700
190
$158,000
235
23.4%
$159,900
821
$249,900
300
29.8%
$249,900
934
$349,900
146
14.5%
$350,000
543
$454,000
74
7.4%
$450,000
319
$725,000
193
19.2%
$797,200
862

Share
5.2%
22.4%
25.4%
14.8%
8.7%
23.5%

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

Henderson County Available For-Sale Housing by Price
350
300

300

Homes

250

235

200

193

150

146

100
50

74

57

0
Less than $100K

$100k-$199,999

$200k-$299,999

$300k-$399,999

Price Range

Henderson-31

$400k-$499,000

$500,000+

 Nearly one-third of the available for-sale supply in Henderson County is priced
between $200,000 and $299,999. These homes would generally be available to
households with incomes between $60,000 and $100,000. Nearly a quarter of the
available product is priced between $100,000 and $199,999, indicating that there is
a good base of homes generally affordable to households with incomes between
$30,000 and $60,000. Only 5.7% of all available homes are priced below
$100,000, which would be generally affordable to households with incomes under
$30,000. Based on our on-site evaluation of the county’s housing stock and an
analysis of secondary data on such housing, it appears that much of the housing
inventory was built prior to 1970 and is of fair quality. As a result, while it may
be deemed that there is some for-sale product available to lower-income
households, such product likely requires additional costs for repairs, modernization
and maintenance, which my be difficult for many low-income households to
afford.
c. Senior Care Facilities
The subject county, like areas throughout the country, has a large senior
population that requires a variety of senior housing alternatives to meet its diverse
needs. Among seniors, generally age 62 or older, some individuals are either
seeking a more leisurely lifestyle or need assistance with Activities of Daily
Living (ADLs). As part of this analysis, we evaluated four levels of care that
typically respond to older adults seeking, or who need, alternatives to their current
living environment. They include independent living, multi-unit assisted housing,
adult care homes, and nursing care. These housing types, from least assisted to
most assisted, are summarized below.
Independent Living is a housing alternative that includes a residential unit,
typically an apartment or cottage that offers an individual living area, kitchen, and
sleeping room. The fees generally include the cost of the rental unit, some utilities,
and services such as laundry, housekeeping, transportation, meals, etc. This
housing type is also often referred to as congregate care. Physical assistance and
medical treatment are not offered at such facilities.
Multi-unit Assisted Housing With Services (referred to as multi-unit assisted
throughout this report) is a housing alternative that provides unlicensed care
services along with the housing. Such housing offers residents the ability to obtain
personal care services and nursing services through a home care or hospice agency
that visit the subject site to perform such services. Management at the subject
project arrange services that correspond to an individualized written care plan.

Henderson-32

 Adult Care Homes are state licensed residences for aged and disabled adults who
may require 24-hour supervision and assistance with personal care needs. People
in adult care homes typically need a place to live, with some help with personal
care (such as dressing, grooming and keeping up with medications), and some
limited supervision. Medical care may be provided on occasion but is not routinely
needed. Medication may be given by designated, trained staff. This type of facility
is very similar to what is commonly referred to as “assisted living.” These
facilities generally offer limited care that is designed for seniors who need some
assistance with daily activities but do not require nursing care.
Nursing Homes provide nursing care and related services for people who need
nursing, medical, rehabilitation or other special services. These facilities are
licensed by the state and may be certified to participate in the Medicaid and/or
Medicare programs. Certain nursing homes may also meet specific standards for
sub-acute care or dementia care.
We referenced the Medicare.com and North Carolina Division of Health Service
Regulation websites for all licensed senior care facilities and cross referenced this
list with other senior care facility resources. As such, we believe that we identified
most, if not all, licensed facilities in the county.
Within the county, a total of 19 senior care facilities were surveyed containing a
total of 1,616 beds. These facilities are representative of the typical housing
choices available to seniors requiring special care housing. It should be noted that
family adult care homes of six units or less were not included in this inventory.
The following table summarizes the surveyed facilities by property type.
Surveyed Senior Care Facilities
Project Type
Projects
Beds
Independent Living
1
325
Multi-Unit Assisted Housing
4
444
Adult Care Homes
7
376
Nursing Homes
7
471
Total
19
1,616

Vacant
4
5
38
9
56

Vacancy Rate
1.2%
1.1%
10.1%
1.9%
3.5%

The Henderson County senior care market is reporting overall vacancy rates
between 1.1% (multi-unit assisted housing) to 10.1% (assisted living). With the
exception of adult care homes, the vacancy rates among housing are relatively low
and indicate that there is a good level of demand for such housing in the county.
While the adult care homes have a 10.1% vacancy rate, this is not considered
unusual for these types of facilities. Overall, demand for senior care housing in the
county appears to be strong and indicates that there may be an opportunity to
develop additional senior care housing in this county, particularly when
considering the projected senior household growth for the next few years.

Henderson-33

 Base monthly fees for independent living units start at $1,371, multi-unit assisted
housing start at $1,525 a month, adult care homes start at $1,600, and nursing care
facilities have a base monthly fee starting near $6,174. These fees are slightly
lower than most senior care housing fees in the region.
d. Planned & Proposed Residential Development
In order to access housing development potential, we evaluated recent residential
building permit activity and identified residential projects in the development
pipeline for Henderson County. Understanding the number of residential units and
the type of housing being considered for development in the county can assist in
determining how these projects are expected to meet the housing needs of the area.
Based on our interviews with local building and planning representatives within
Henderson County, it was determined that there are multiple housing projects
planned within the county. These projects are tabulated in the following table.
Project Name & Location
The Seasons at Crane Creek
Braewood Homes
West Blue Ridge Road
Wolf Chase Homes
Half Moon Trail
Hickory Nut Forest
Fern Grove Lane
Winchester House
1744 Meadowbrook Terrace

City
Fletcher

Units/
Lots
192

Flat Rock

77

Hendersonville

8

Gerton
Hendersonville

Developer
Triangle Real Estate

Status
Plans Approved

N/A
Windsor Aughtry
Company
Little Bearwallow
Mountain, LLC

Plan Approved

23

Type
Rental, Market-Rate
For-Sale,
Single-Family
For-Sale,
Single-Family
For-Sale,
Single-Family

40 beds

Adult Care Home

N/A

Plans Approved
Plans Approved
Under Review,
Replacement Housing

F. HOUSING GAP ESTIMATES
Bowen National Research conducted housing gap analyses for rental and for-sale
housing for the subject county. The housing gap estimates include new household
growth, units required for a balanced market, households living in substandard
housing (replacement housing), and units in the development pipeline. This estimate
is considered a representation of the housing shortage in the market and indicative of
the more immediate housing requirements of the market. Our estimates consider four
income stratifications. These stratifications include households with incomes of up to
30% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI), households with incomes between
31% and 50% of AMHI, between 51% and 80% of AMHI, and between 80% and
120% of AMHI. This analysis was conducted for family households and seniors (age
55+) separately. This analysis identifies the housing gap (the number of units that
could potentially be supported) for the county between 2015 and 2020. Broader
housing needs estimates, which include household growth, cost burdened households,
households living in substandard housing, and units in the development pipeline, were
provided for the overall region and is included in the Asheville, North Carolina
Region Housing Needs Assessment.

Henderson-34

 The demand components included in the housing gap estimates for each of the two
housing types (rental and for-sale) are listed as follows:






Housing Gap Analysis Components
Owner Housing
Rental Housing
Renter Household Growth
 Owner Household Growth
Units Required for Balanced Market
 Units Required for Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
 Substandard Housing
Pipeline Development*
 Pipeline Development*

*Includes units that lack complete indoor plumbing and overcrowded housing
**Units under construction, permitted, planned or proposed

The demand factors for each housing segment at the various income stratifications are
combined. Any product confirmed to be in the development pipeline is deducted from
the various demand estimates, yielding a housing gap estimate. This gap analysis is
conducted for both renters and owners, as well as for seniors (age 55+) and family
households. These gaps represent the number of new households that may need
housing and/or the number of existing households that currently live in housing that
needs replaced to relieve occupants of such things as overcrowded or substandard
housing conditions. Data used for these various demand components originates from
the demographic analysis portion of this study.
Rental Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below summarize the rental housing gap estimates by the various income
segments for family and senior households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

<30%
(<$15,000)
17
56
78
0
151

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
347
2
51
52
56
73
72
77
100
0
0
-134
471
135
90

Total
417
237
327
-134
847

<30%
(<$15,000)
64
25
35
0
124

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
199
45
93
23
20
33
32
28
45
0
0
-58
254
93
113

Total
401
101
140
-58
584

Henderson-35

 Henderson County Rental Housing Gap by Income
Family Households

Senior Households

500
450

471

Housing Gap

400
350
300
250

254

200
150
100

151

135

124

93

50

90

113

0
<30%

30% - 50%

50% - 80%

80% - 120%

Percent of Median Household Income

Based on the preceding table, the largest area rental housing gap by income level is
within the 30% to 50% AMHI level among both families and seniors. However,
notable housing gaps exist within each of the other income levels.
Owner Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below summarize the owner housing gap estimates by the various income
segments for family and senior households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

<30%
(<$15,000)
97
20
20
0
137

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
12
-25
230
21
22
76
21
22
76
0
0
0
54
19
382

Total
314
139
139
0
592

<30%
(<$15,000)
209
29
29
0
267

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
91
41
597
31
33
114
31
33
114
0
0
0
153
107
825

Total
938
207
207
0
1,352

Henderson-36

 Henderson County Owner Housing Gap by Income
Family Households

Senior Households

900
800

825

Housing Gap

700
600
500
400

382

300

267

200
100

137

54

153

19

107

0
<30%

30% - 50%

50% - 80%

80% - 120%

Percent of Median Household Income

As shown in the preceding owner housing gap analysis, the greatest housing gap for
families and seniors with incomes between 80% and 120% of AMHI. While the
housing gap estimates show a large gap for senior housing that is affordable to
households making less than 30% of AMHI, this is likely attributed to many existing
seniors aging in place. While many of these particular households are likely housed in
the market, they will likely need senior-oriented housing that will enable them to
downsize in the years ahead. While not shown in this analysis, there is likely a
housing need for households with incomes above 120% of AMHI.
Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior care housing encompasses a variety of alternatives including multi-unit assisted
housing, adult care homes, and nursing homes. Such housing typically serves the
needs of seniors requiring some level of care to meet their personal needs, often due to
medical or other physical issues. The following attempts to quantify the estimated
senior care housing need in the county.

Henderson-37

 Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior Care Housing Demand Component
Demand Estimates
Elderly Population Age 62 and Older by 2020
36,556
Times Share* of Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
X 7.4%
Equals Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
= 2,705
Plus External Market Support (20%)
+ 541
Equals Total Senior Care Support Base
= 3,246
Less Existing Supply
- 2,149
Less Development Pipeline
- 80
Equals Potential Senior Care Beds Needed by 2020
= 1,017
ADL – Activities of Daily Living
*Share of ADL was based on data provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Population National Health Interview Survey 2011

Based upon age 62 and older population characteristics and trends, and applying the
estimated ratio of persons requiring ADL assistance and taking into account the
existing and planned senior housing supply, we estimate that there will be 1,017
households with a person requiring assisted services that will not have their needs met
by existing or planned senior care facilities by the year 2020. Not all of these
estimated households with persons age 62 and older requiring ADL assistance will
want to move to a senior care facility, as many may choose home health care services
or have their needs taken care of by a family member. Regardless, the 1,017 seniors
estimated above represent the potential need for additional senior care housing in the
county.

G. STAKEHOLDER SURVEY & INTERVIEWS
Associates of Bowen National Research solicited input from nearly more than 40
stakeholders throughout the region. Their input was provided in the form of an online
survey and telephone interviews. Of these respondents, 10 serve the Henderson
County area. Considered leaders within their field and active in the community, they
represent a wide range of industries, including government, real estate, and social
assistance. The purpose of these interviews was to gather input regarding the need for
the type and styles of housing, the income segments housing should target, and if there
is a lack of housing or housing assistance within the region. The following is a
summary of the key input gathered.
Stakeholders were asked is there is a specific area of the county where housing should
be developed. Respondents indicated that housing should be developed along major
transit corridors or close to transit with access to the downtown for employment, as
well as in the eastern end of the county. Rental housing was overwhelmingly ranked as
the type of housing having the greatest need, followed by for-sale housing and housing
for single-person/young professionals and senior independent living. Respondents
indicated that the housing style most needed in the area is single-family homes,
followed by apartments. Respondents also believe that adaptive reuse should be
prioritized over new construction and renovation/revitalization. When asked to rank
the need for housing for each income level, respondents evenly ranked incomes of less
than $25,000 and incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 with the greatest need. The

Henderson-38

 most significant housing issue within the county, as indicated by respondents, was rent
burdened/affordability, followed by limited availability and lack of public
transportation.
Respondents were asked to prioritize funding types that should be utilized or explored
in the county. “Other” homeowner assistance was given the highest priority, followed
by homebuyer assistance. Tax Credit financing and “other” rental housing assistance
(such as Vouchers) were evenly ranked in third place. When asked what common
barriers or obstacles exist as it relates to housing development in the county, the cost
of land and availability of land were most commonly cited, followed by financing.
Respondents provided various ways to overcome these barriers, including increased
collaboration between the local government and developers, improved infrastructure
and transit, and government incentives for developing. One respondent noted that
while the mountainous terrain of the region is a draw, it also creates challenges, and
strategies for land acquisition and density should be explored.
If a respondent was knowledgeable about homelessness in the county, they were asked
to rank the need for housing for various homeless groups. Each of the homeless groups
were ranked almost evenly: homeless individuals, families, veteran, youth, and
chronically homeless. Respondents indicated that the most needed type of housing to
serve the homeless population are emergency shelters, increased Voucher assistance
and Single Room Occupancy (SRO). The most commonly cited obstacle to developing
homeless housing was public perception/NIMBYism. Respondents believe that public
education to alleviate the perception of homeless housing and supportive housing
services that promote self sufficiency should be a focus in the county.
If a respondent was knowledgeable about special needs groups in the county, they
were asked to rank the need for housing for various special needs groups. The most
commonly indicated groups were persons with mental illness, persons suffering from
alcohol/substance abuse, persons with physical/developmental disabilities and exoffenders. Respondents believe that transitional housing and group homes would best
serve these populations. The lack of community support and funding were cited as the
most common obstacles to developing special needs housing.

H. SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
Besides the traditional demographics and housing supply evaluated on the preceding
pages of this section, we also identified special needs populations within Henderson
County. This section of the report addresses demographic and housing supply
information for the homeless population and the other special needs populations
within the county.

Henderson-39

 Henderson County is located within HUD’s designated Continuum of Care (CoC) area
known as North Carolina Balance of State (BoS). CoCs around the United States are
required to collect data for a point-in-time during the last week of each year. The last
published as North Carolina BoS point-in-time survey was conducted in January 2014.
This includes counts of persons who are classified as homeless, as well as an inventory
of the housing specifically designated for the homeless population. According to the
2014 point-in-time survey for Henderson County there are approximately 150 persons
who are classified as homeless on any given day in Henderson County. The following
table summarizes the sheltered and unsheltered homeless population, as well as the
homeless housing inventory within the county.

Population Category
Persons in Households without Children
Persons in Households with 1 Adult & 1
Child
Persons in Household with only Children
# of Persons Chronically & Formerly
Chronically Homeless
Persons with Serious Mental Illness
Persons with Substance Abuse Disorder
Persons w/ AIDS/HIV
Victims of Domestic Violence
Veterans
Ex-Offenders
Persons exiting Behavioral
Health/Healthcare System

Homeless Population & Subpopulation– Henderson County
Permanent
Emergency
Transitional
Supportive
Rapid
Shelter
Housing
Housing
Re-Housing

Total

Unsheltered

Total
Population

44

1

0

2

7

54

11
1

8
0

0
0

35
0

14
0

68
1

16
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
2
1
0
7
1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

16
2
1
0
7
1
0

0
72

0
9

0
0

0
48

0
21

0
150

Source: North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness (1-2014)
PSH and CH Beds Duplicated

Source: North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness (1-2014)
PSH and CH Beds Duplicated

Henderson-40

Seasonal
Beds

*Overflow
Beds

Total
Beds

Veteran
0
0
0
0
0
0

AIDS/HIV

Single
Male &
Female
75
0
7
2
0
84

Youth

Households
with Children
22
2
14
35
0
73

Domestic
Violence

Project
Type
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
*Permanent Supportive Housing
Rapid Re-housing
Safe Haven
Total Beds By Population

*Chronically
Homeless

Homeless Housing Inventory – Henderson County
Beds by Population Category

0
0
12
0
0
12

11
11
0
0
0
22

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

108
13
33
37
0
191

 Based on the 2014 North Carolina Balance of the State Housing Inventory Count
Summary, the utilization (occupancy) rate for homeless housing beds in Henderson
County is 56.9%. This utilization rate and the fact that 21 persons remain unsheltered
on a given night indicate that there still remains a need for housing that meets the
special needs of the homeless population. Homeward Bound of Asheville and other
local service providers appear to be actively engaged in assisting the homeless in
Henderson County through various outreach and housing programs that are targeted
towards its homeless population.
Specifically within Henderson County, one area service provider noted that on average
there are approximately 100 individuals living in emergency shelters or transitional
housing on any given night. There may be enough emergency shelters in Henderson
County to meet the demand as they are usually not at full capacity; however, there
needs to be more transitional and permanent supportive housing options and resources
for homeless individuals as well as families as most facilities are always full. It was
also noted that the lack of public transportation options in Henderson County makes it
difficult for homeless persons to seek/obtain employment. Regardless, with an
estimated population of 150 and nearly a dozen homeless persons unsheltered,
homelessness remains a challenge in Henderson County and is an ongoing housing
need.
The following table summarizes the various special needs populations within the
county that were considered in this report.
Special Needs Populations
Special Needs Group
HIV/AIDS
Victims of Domestic Violence (VDV)
Persons with Substance Abuse (PSA)
Adults with a Mental Illness (MI)
Adults with Severe Mental Illness (SMI)
Co-Occurring Disorders (COD)
Multi-Generational Households (MH)

Persons
85
795
50
2,559
63
1,068
1,556

Special Needs Group
Persons with Disabilities (PD)
Elderly (Age 62+) (E62)
Frail Elderly (Age 62+) (FE62)
Ex-offenders (Parole/Probation) (EOP)
Unaccompanied Youth (UY)
Veterans

Persons
15,993
14,211
2,705
150
8
11,305

Excluding the homeless population, the largest number of special needs persons is
among the elderly (age 62+), those with disabilities, and veterans. According to our
interviews with area stakeholders, housing alternatives that meet the distinct demands
of the special needs population are limited. Special needs facilities and services are
offered by Homeward Bound, Disability Partners, Western North Carolina AIDS
Project, Mainstay, Black Mountain Home for Youth & Children, Youth Villages,
Goodwill of Henderson, NC TASC Services-Hendersonville, Western Highlands
LME, Hendersonville Rescue Mission, House of Hope Western NC, and various
mental health facilities as well as various nursing and residential care homes.
According to various services provides knowledgeable about housing for various
homeless and special needs groups in Henderson County the most needed was
transitional housing and group homes.

Henderson-41

 I. CONCLUSIONS
Recent county economic trends have been positive and overall demographic trends are
projected to be positive within Henderson County over the next five years, which are
expected to contribute to the continued strength of the housing market within the
county for the foreseeable future. Some key findings based on our research of
Henderson County are summarized as follows.


Population & Households – Between 2015 and 2020, the population is projected
to grow by 5,686 (5.1%), which is nearly identical to the growth rate (5.5%) of the
overall region. During this same time, household growth of 2,495 (5.2%) is
projected to occur in the county, which is slightly slower than the region’s
projected growth rate of 5.9%.



Household Heads by Age –The county’s senior households age 65 and older will
increase by 2,654 (8.4%) between 2015 and 2020, adding to its anticipated need
for senior-oriented housing.



Households by Income and Tenure – While the greatest projected renter
household growth between 2015 and 2020 will be among those with incomes
between $15,000 and $24,999, most renter household segments making less than
$50,000 will experience notable growth. The greatest owner household growth
during this time is projected to occur among those making between $35,000 and
$49,999. As such, the county will have diverse housing needs.



Rental Housing – Henderson County has a well-balanced supply of rental
alternatives. However, it is noteworthy that the multifamily rental housing supply
is operating at an overall 97.6% occupancy rate, which is very high. More
importantly, there are no vacancies among the 430 surveyed affordable (Tax Credit
and government-subsidized) rental units in the county. This occupancy rate and
the long wait lists maintained at these projects indicate that there is pent-up
demand for affordable housing in the county. Based on the housing gap estimates,
it appears that the greatest projected rental housing needs will be for those with
incomes between 30% and 50% of AMHI, though all income segments have
notable gaps.



Owner Housing (for-sale) – For-sale housing prices have remained generally
stable over the past four years, while the number of homes sold annually has
increased in each of the past three years, including the projections for 2014. The
for-sale housing market is considered to be strong. Nearly one-third of the
available supply is priced between $200,000 and $299,999 and another quarter
priced between $100,000 and $199,999. These shares of available supply are
similar to the entire region. Based on the housing gap estimates, it appears that the
greatest housing gap for owner housing will be for households with incomes
between 80% and 120% of AMHI, though all income segments have notable gaps.

Henderson-42

 

Senior Care Facilities – Senior housing reported an overall occupancy rate of
96.5% (3.5% vacant). This is a relatively high occupancy rate. As shown in the
housing needs estimates, it is believed that an additional 1,017 senior care beds
will be needed to meet the future needs of area seniors.



Special Needs Populations: While there are many special needs populations
within the county that likely require housing assistance, it appears that the largest
special needs populations in the county are the elderly (age 62+), those with
disabilities, and veterans.

J. SOURCES
See the Asheville, North Carolina Region Housing Needs Assessment for a full listing
of all sources used in this report.

Henderson-43

 Madison County
Housing Needs Assessment

Author: Patrick M. Bowen, President & Lead Contact
155 E. Columbus Street, Ste. 220   Pickerington, Ohio 43147
Phone: (614) 833-9300   patrickb@bowennational.com
www.bowennational.com

 MADISON COUNTY
A. INTRODUCTION
The focus of this analysis is to assess the market characteristics of, and to determine
the housing needs for, Madison County. To accomplish this task, Bowen National
Research evaluated various socio-economic characteristics, inventoried and analyzed
the housing supply (rental and owner/for-sale product), conducted stakeholder
interviews, evaluated special needs populations and provided housing gap estimates to
help identify the housing needs of the county.
To provide a base of comparison, various metrics of Madison County were compared
with overall region. A comparison of the subject county in relation with other counties
in the region is provided in the regional analysis portion of the overall Housing Needs
Assessment.

B. COUNTY OVERVIEW
Madison County is located within the northern portion of the study region. It
encompasses a total of 452 square miles. Primary thoroughfares within the county
include Interstate Highway 26, U.S. Highways 19, 23, 23A, 25 and 70. Notable
natural landmarks and
public attractions include
Pisgah National Forest,
Appalachian
Trail
Hiking Trails, Mars Hill
University, and Ebbs
Chapel Performing Arts
Center. The county had
a 2010 total population
of 20,764 and 8,494 total
households. The town of
Marshal serves as the
county seat, while other
notable towns include
Hot Springs and Mars
Hill.
The
primary
employment sectors and
their corresponding shares of the county’s total employment are Educational Services
(11.4%), Manufacturing (9.1%), Public Administration (8.0%) and Retail Trade
(7.9%). Additional details regarding demographics, economics, housing, and other
pertinent research and findings are included on the following pages.

Madison-1

 C. DEMOGRAPHICS
This section of the report evaluates key demographic characteristics for Madison
County. Through this analysis, unfolding trends and unique conditions are revealed
regarding populations and households residing in the county. Demographic
comparisons provide insights into the human composition of housing markets.
This section is comprised of three major parts: population characteristics, household
characteristics, and demographic theme maps. Population characteristics describe the
qualities of individual people, while household characteristics describe the qualities of
people living together in one residence.
It is important to note that 2000 and 2010 demographics are based on U.S. Census data
(actual count), while 2015 and 2020 data are based on calculated projections provided
by ESRI, a nationally recognized demography firm, and American Community
Survey. The accuracy of these projections depends on the realization of certain
assumptions:


Economic projections made by secondary sources materialize;



Governmental policies with respect to residential development remain consistent;



Availability of financing for residential development (i.e. mortgages, commercial
loans, subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) remains consistent;



Sufficient housing and infrastructure is provided to support projected population
and household growth.

Significant unforeseen changes or fluctuations among any of the preceding
assumptions could have an impact on demographic projections.
Overall population and household trends in Madison County and the region are shown
in the following table:

2000 Census
2010 Census
Change 2000-2010
Percent Change 2000-2010
2015 Projected
Change 2010-2015
Percent Change 2010-2015
2020 Projected
Change 2015-2020
Percent Change 2015-2020

Total Population
Madison
County
Region
19,647
344,472
20,764
398,912
1,117
54,440
5.7%
15.8%
21,498
421,899
734
22,987
3.5%
5.8%
22,134
445,283
636
23,384
3.0%
5.5%

Total Households
Madison
County
Region
8,005
143,510
8,494
168,748
489
25,238
6.1%
17.6%
8,835
179,521
341
10,773
4.0%
6.4%
9,116
190,027
281
10,506
3.2%
5.9%

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Madison-2

 Madison County/Region Population & Household Trends
Madison Population

Region Population

Madison Households

Region Households

18.0%

17.6%

Percent Change

16.0%

15.8%

14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%

5.7%

6.1%

6.4%

5.8%
3.5%

2.0%

4.0%

5.9%

5.5%
3.0%

3.2%

0.0%
2000-2010

2010-2015

2015-2020

Year

Madison County experienced an increase in both population and households between
2000 and 2010. They are projected to increase by 734 (3.5%) and 341 (4.0%),
respectively, between 2010 and 2015. Between 2015 and 2020, it is projected that
they will increase by 636 (3.0%) and 281 (3.2%), respectively. These positive
projected demographic trends are expected to be just over one-half of the projected
trends within the region.
The distribution of households by age for Madison County is compared with the
overall region in the table below.

2010
Madison
County

2015
2020
Change
2015-2020
2010
2015

Region
2020
Change
2015-2020

<25
255
(3.0%)
249
(2.8%)
246
(2.7%)
-3
(-1.2%)
6,352
(3.8%)
6,281
(3.5%)
6,226
(3.3%)
-55
(-0.9%)

25 to 34
937
(11.0%)
958
(10.8%)
950
(10.4%)
-8
(-0.8%)
22,274
(13.2%)
22,772
(12.7%)
23,091
(12.2%)
319
(1.4%)

Household Heads by Age
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
1,396
1,697
1,849
(16.4%)
(20.0%)
(21.8%)
1,356
1,647
1,907
(15.3%)
(18.6%)
(21.6%)
1,280
1,612
1,900
(14.0%)
(17.7%)
(20.8%)
-76
-35
-7
(-5.6%)
(-2.1%)
(-0.4%)
27,174
31,960
33,116
(16.1%)
(18.9%)
(19.6%)
27,357
31,366
35,669
(15.2%)
(17.5%)
(19.9%)
27,543
31,080
37,629
(14.5%)
(16.4%)
(19.8%)
186
-286
1,960
(0.7%)
(-0.9%)
(5.5%)

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Madison-3

65 to 74
1,300
(15.3%)
1,619
(18.3%)
1,907
(20.9%)
288
(17.8%)
24,596
(14.6%)
30,438
(17.0%)
35,434
(18.6%)
4,996
(16.4%)

75+
1,060
(12.5%)
1,099
(12.4%)
1,221
(13.4%)
122
(11.1%)
23,276
(13.8%)
25,638
(14.3%)
29,024
(15.3%)
3,386
(13.2%)

 It is projected that by 2015, the largest share (21.6%) of households by age in Madison
County will be within the 55 to 64 age cohort. Between 2015 and 2020, it is projected
that the number of households between the ages of 65 and 74 will increase the most,
adding 288 (17.8%) households during this time. Households age 75 and older are
projected to increase by 122 (11.1%) between 2015 and 2020.

Madison County/Region Household Heads by Age (2015)

Share

Madison County

Region

22.0%
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
<25

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 - 64

65 - 74

75+

Age Range

Households by income for selected years are shown in the following table:

2015
Madison
County

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
1,561
(17.7%)
1,701
(18.7%)
140
(9.0%)
26,973
(15.0%)
27,648
(14.5%)
674
(2.5%)

Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999 $150,000+
1,402
1,063
1,271
1,701
1,107
501
230
(15.9%)
(12.0%)
(14.4%)
(19.2%)
(12.5%)
(5.7%)
(2.6%)
1,343
1,112
1,344
1,797
1,017
543
259
(14.7%)
(12.2%)
(14.7%)
(19.7%)
(11.2%)
(6.0%)
(2.8%)
-59
49
74
96
-90
42
28
(-4.2%)
(4.7%)
(5.8%)
(5.7%)
(-8.1%)
(8.4%)
(12.3%)
22,124
23,236
28,217
34,090
19,434
16,434
9,012
(12.3%)
(12.9%)
(15.7%)
(19.0%)
(10.8%)
(9.2%)
(5.0%)
23,576
24,058
30,943
35,461
20,226
18,169
9,954
(12.4%)
(12.7%)
(16.3%)
(18.7%)
(10.6%)
(9.6%)
(5.2%)
1,453
823
2,725
1,371
792
1,734
942
(6.6%)
(3.5%)
(9.7%)
(4.0%)
(4.1%)
(10.6%)
(10.5%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Madison-4

Total
8,835
(100.0%)
9,116
(100.0%)
281
(3.2%)
179,521
(100.0%)
190,035
(100.0%)
10,514
(5.9%)

 In 2015, it is projected that nearly one-half of Madison County households will have
annual incomes below $35,000. It is projected that between 2015 and 2020, the
greatest increase in households by income level in Madison County will be among
those with incomes below $15,000, while most household income segments are
expected to experience some level of growth. This will likely add to a broad range of
housing needs over the next few years.

Madison County/Region Households by Income (2015)
Madison County

Region

20.0%
18.0%
16.0%

Share

14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
<$15,000

$15,000 $24,999

$25,000 $34,999

$35,000 $49,999

$50,000 $74,999

$75,000 $99,999

$100,000 $149,999

$150,000+

Household Income

Households by income and tenure for selected years are shown below:

2015
Madison
County

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
681
(31.1%)
650
(28.6%)
-30
(-4.5%)
15,446
(26.5%)
15,532
(25.0%)
86
(0.6%)

Renter Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999 $150,000+
Total
496
262
285
322
141
0
0
2,187
(22.7%)
(12.0%)
(13.0%)
(14.7%)
(6.4%)
(0.0%)
(0.0%)
(100.0%)
451
451
298
281
144
44
0
2,272
(19.9%)
(19.9%)
(13.1%)
(12.3%)
(6.3%)
(1.9%)
(0.0%)
(100.0%)
-45
142
13
-41
3
44
0
85
(-9.1%)
(54.0%)
(4.6%)
(-12.8%)
(2.3%)
(100.0%)
(0.0%)
(3.9%)
10,300
9,758
8,525
8,674
2,908
1,919
656
58,185
(17.7%)
(16.8%)
(14.7%)
(14.9%)
(5.0%)
(3.3%)
(1.1%)
(100.0%)
11,262
11,262
10,165
8,767
3,070
2,135
910
62,011
(18.2%)
(18.2%)
(16.4%)
(14.1%)
(5.0%)
(3.4%)
(1.5%)
(100.0%)
962
411
1,641
93
161
216
255
3,826
(9.3%)
(4.2%)
(19.2%)
(1.1%)
(5.5%)
(11.2%)
(38.8%)
(6.6%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Madison-5

 2015
Madison
County

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
880
(13.2%)
1,051
(15.4%)
171
(19.4%)
11,528
(9.5%)
12,116
(9.5%)
588
(5.1%)

Owner Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999 $150,000+
Total
906
801
986
1,379
966
501
230
6,648
(13.6%)
(12.0%)
(14.8%)
(20.7%)
(14.5%)
(7.5%)
(3.5%)
(100.0%)
891
709
1,046
1,517
872
499
259
6,844
(13.0%)
(10.4%)
(15.3%)
(22.2%)
(12.7%)
(7.3%)
(3.8%)
(100.0%)
-14
-92
60
138
-93
-2
28
196
(-1.6%) (-11.5%)
(6.1%)
(10.0%)
(-9.6%)
(-0.4%)
(12.3%)
(2.9%)
11,824
13,478
19,692
25,417
16,526
14,515
8,357
121,336
(9.7%)
(11.1%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.6%)
(12.0%)
(6.9%)
(100.0%)
12,314
13,889
20,777
26,694
17,156
16,033
9,044
128,024
(9.6%)
(10.8%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.4%)
(12.5%)
(7.1%)
(100.0%)
491
411
1,085
1,278
630
1,519
687
6,688
(4.1%)
(3.1%)
(5.5%)
(5.0%)
(3.8%)
(10.5%)
(8.2%)
(5.5%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The largest share (31.1%) of renter households in 2015 is projected to be among
households with incomes below $15,000 while the largest share (20.7%) of owneroccupied households at this same time will be among those with incomes between
$50,000 and $74,999. Between 2015 and 2020, the greatest renter household growth
is projected to occur among households with incomes between $25,000 and $34,999,
and among homeowners with incomes also below $15,000, with notable homeowner
growth also projected to occur among households with incomes between $50,000 and
$74,999. The large increase in owner households making below $15,000 annually is
primarily attributed to senior homeowners aging in place and reaching retirement age
and thereby experiencing a decline in income.

Madison-6

 Given the large and growing base of older adult households in the region, it is
important to evaluate the demographic trends of households by tenure and income for
senior householders. The data is presented for the county for 2015 and 2020 in the
following tables.
Ages 55 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
241
31.1%
219
28.6%
176
22.7%
152
19.9%
93
12.0%
136
17.8%
101
13.0%
100
13.1%
114
14.7%
94
12.3%
50
6.4%
49
6.3%
0.0%
15
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
774
100.0%
765
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
495
13.2%
610
15.4%
509
13.6%
518
13.0%
450
12.0%
412
10.4%
554
14.8%
608
15.3%
775
20.7%
881
22.2%
543
14.5%
507
12.7%
282
7.5%
290
7.3%
129
3.5%
150
3.8%
3,736
100.0%
3,975
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Ages 62 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
168
31.1%
153
28.6%
122
22.7%
106
19.9%
65
12.0%
95
17.8%
70
13.0%
70
13.1%
79
14.7%
66
12.3%
35
6.4%
34
6.3%
0.0%
10
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
540
100.0%
536
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
353
13.2%
438
15.4%
364
13.6%
372
13.0%
322
12.0%
296
10.4%
396
14.8%
436
15.3%
554
20.7%
633
22.2%
388
14.5%
364
12.7%
201
7.5%
208
7.3%
92
3.5%
108
3.8%
2,670
100.0%
2,855
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Ages 75 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
71
31.1%
48
28.6%
52
22.7%
34
19.9%
28
12.0%
30
17.8%
30
13.0%
22
13.1%
34
14.7%
21
12.3%
15
6.4%
11
6.3%
0.0%
3
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
230
100.0%
169
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Madison-7

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
111
13.2%
146
15.4%
114
13.6%
124
13.0%
101
12.0%
99
10.4%
125
14.8%
146
15.3%
174
20.7%
211
22.2%
122
14.5%
121
12.7%
63
7.5%
69
7.3%
29
3.5%
36
3.8%
840
100.0%
953
100.0%

 Based on the data from the preceding page, the primary older adult household growth
between 2015 and 2020 is projected to occur among many of household income
segments. As a result, there will likely be a growing need through at least 2020 for
additional renter and owner housing at a variety of price points that meets the needs of
the county’s senior population.
Population by race for 2010 (latest race data available) is shown below:

Asian
Alone

Some
Other
Race
Alone

Two or
More
Races

Total

Region

Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Black or
African
America
n Alone

Madison
County

White
Alone

Population by Race

20,035
96.5%
353,718
88.7%

240
1.2%
19,967
5.0%

70
0.3%
3,653
0.9%

150
0.7%
13,732
3.4%

269
1.3%
7,842
2.0%

20,764
100.0%
398,912
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The largest share of population by race within the county is among the “White Alone”
segment, which represents 96.5% of the county’s population, which is above the
region’s average.
Population by poverty status for years 2006-2010 is shown in the following table:

Madison
County
Region

Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Population by Poverty Status
Income below poverty level:
Income at or above poverty level:
<18
18 to 64
65+
<18
18 to 64
65+
867
2,044
596
3,485
10,683
3,089
4.2%
9.8%
2.9%
16.8%
51.5%
14.9%
17,106
33,329
6,304
65,171
212,420
64,583
4.3%
8.4%
1.6%
16.3%
53.2%
16.2%

Total
20,764
100.0%
398,912
100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Nearly 17% of the county’s population lives in poverty. One in five children (under
the age of 18) within the county live in poverty. Approximately 16.1% of the county’s
population between the ages of 18 and 64 lives in poverty, while 16.2% of seniors age
65 and older live in poverty.
The following graph compares the share of population by age group with incomes
below the poverty level for the county and state.

Madison-8

 Population Below Poverty Level by Age (2006-2010)
Madison County

Region

10.0%
9.0%

9.8%

8.0%

8.4%

Share

7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%

4.2%

4.3%
2.9%

2.0%

1.6%

1.0%
0.0%
Under 18

18 to 64

65 & Over

Age

Households by tenure for selected years for the county and state are shown in the
following table:

Madison
County
Region

Household Type
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total

2000
Number
Percent
6,134
76.6%
1,871
23.4%
8,005
100.0%
105,693
73.6%
37,817
26.4%
143,510
100.0%

Households by Tenure
2010
2015
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
6,514
76.7%
6,648
75.2%
1,980
23.3%
2,187
24.8%
8,494
100.0%
8,835
100.0%
117,511
69.6%
121,336
67.6%
51,237
30.4%
58,185
32.4%
168,748
100.0%
179,521
100.0%

2020
Number Percent
6,844
75.1%
2,272
24.9%
9,116
100.0%
128,018
67.4%
62,009
32.6%
190,027
100.0%

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Within the county, the share of owner-occupied households was over 75% in 2000 and
2010, while the share of renter-occupied households has been under 25%. It is
projected that between 2015 and 2020, the number of owner-occupied households will
increase by 196 (2.9%) and the number of renter-occupied households will increase by
85 or by 3.9%. As such, demand for additional housing originating from ownerhousehold growth will outpace renter-household growth by more than a two-to-one
margin.

Madison-9

 The following graph compares household tenure shares for 2000, 2010, 2015 and
2020:

Madison County/Region Households by Tenure
Madison Owner

Region Owner

Madison Renter

Region Renter

80.0%
70.0%

Share

60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2000

2010

2015

2020

Year

Renter households by size for selected years are shown in the following table:
Persons Per Renter Household

2010
Madison
County

2015
2020
2010

Region

2015
2020

1-Person
759
(38.3%)
847
(38.7%)
885
(39.0%)
20,359
(39.7%)
23,427
(40.3%)
25,224
(40.7%)

2-Person
556
(28.1%)
609
(27.8%)
627
(27.6%)
14,680
(28.7%)
16,488
(28.3%)
17,416
(28.1%)

3-Person
302
(15.3%)
335
(15.3%)
348
(15.3%)
7,554
(14.7%)
8,593
(14.8%)
9,175
(14.8%)

4-Person
218
(11.0%)
236
(10.8%)
242
(10.7%)
4,965
(9.7%)
5,537
(9.5%)
5,806
(9.4%)

5-Person
145
(7.3%)
160
(7.3%)
169
(7.4%)
3,679
(7.2%)
4,140
(7.1%)
4,387
(7.1%)

Total
1,980
(100.0%)
2,187
(100.0%)
2,272
(100.0%)
51,237
(100.0%)
58,185
(100.0%)
62,009
(100.0%)

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

In 2015, the combined share of the county’s renter households with one- and twopersons was 66.5%, while three-person or larger renter households will represent over
30% of the total renter households. Note that one-person households are projected to
experience the greatest growth between 2015 and 2020, increasing by 38, or 4.5%.
The median household size is expected to remain essentially unchanged from between
2015 and 2020.

Madison-10

Median
Household
Size
1.83
1.81
1.80
1.72
1.69
1.66

 The following graph compares renter household size shares for the county and state in
2015:
Madison County/Region Persons per Renter Household (2015)
Madison County

Region

40.0%
35.0%

38.7%

40.3%

Share

30.0%

27.8% 28.3%

25.0%
20.0%
15.0%

15.3% 14.8%

10.0%

10.8% 9.5%

5.0%

7.3% 7.1%

0.0%
1-Person

2-Persons

3-Persons

4-Persons

5-Persons

Household Size

Owner households by size for selected years are shown on the following table:
Persons Per Owner Household

2010
Madison
County

2015
2020
2010

Region

2015
2020

1-Person
1,538
(23.6%)
1,599
(24.1%)
1,663
(24.3%)
29,657
(25.2%)
31,101
(25.6%)
33,231
(26.0%)

2-Person
2,838
(43.6%)
2,867
(43.1%)
2,934
(42.9%)
50,304
(42.8%)
51,336
(42.3%)
53,736
(42.0%)

3-Person
1,028
(15.8%)
1,057
(15.9%)
1,092
(16.0%)
17,419
(14.8%)
18,195
(15.0%)
19,298
(15.1%)

4-Person
751
(11.5%)
755
(11.4%)
770
(11.3%)
12,690
(10.8%)
12,962
(10.7%)
13,538
(10.6%)

5-Person
360
(5.5%)
371
(5.6%)
385
(5.6%)
7,441
(6.3%)
7,742
(6.4%)
8,216
(6.4%)

Total
6,514
(100.0%)
6,648
(100.0%)
6,844
(100.0%)
117,511
(100.0%)
121,336
(100.0%)
128,018
(100.0%)

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Generally, one- and two-person owner-occupied households in 2015 are projected to
each represent a combined 67.2% of the owner-occupied household base within the
county. At the same time, approximately 16% of the county’s owner-occupied
households will consist of three-persons, over 11% will be four-persons, and nearly
6% will be five-person or larger. These shares are not expected to change much
through 2020.

Madison-11

Median
Household
Size
2.21
2.20
2.20
2.16
2.15
2.15

 The following graph compares owner household size shares for the county and region
in 2015:
Madison County/Region Persons per Owner Household (2015)
Madison County

Region

45.0%
40.0%

43.1% 42.3%

35.0%

Share

30.0%
25.0%
20.0%

24.1%

25.6%

15.0%

15.9% 15.0%

10.0%

11.4% 10.7%

5.0%

5.6% 6.4%

0.0%
1-Person

2-Persons

3-Persons

4-Persons

5-Persons

Household Size

Residents of the county face a variety of housing issues that include such things as
lacking complete kitchen and/or indoor plumbing, overcrowding (1.01 or more
persons per room), severe overcrowding (1.51 or more persons per room), cost
burdened (paying over 30% of their income towards housing costs), severe cost
burdened (paying over 50% of their income towards housing costs), and potentially
containing lead paint (units typically built prior to 1980).
The following table summarizes the housing issues by tenure for Madison County. It
is important to note that some occupied housing units have more than one housing
issue.
Housing Issues by Tenure
Housing Issue
Incomplete Plumbing
Overcrowded
Severe Overcrowded
Cost Burdened
Severe Cost Burdened

Renter-Occupied
Number
Percent
0
0.0%
102
4.9%
12
0.6%
636
30.8%
199
9.6%

Owner-Occupied
Number
Percent
32
0.5%
65
1.1%
0
0.0%
1,404
22.9%
726
11.8%

Sources: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Notes: Some housing issues overlap with other issues

Madison-12

 The greatest housing issue facing residents appears to be associated with cost burden.
The high share of cost burdened households indicates that many area residents are
paying a disproportionately high share of their income towards housing costs, which is
likely due to a lack of affordable housing.

D. ECONOMICS
As economic conditions and trends can influence the need for housing within a
particular market, the following is an overview of various economic characteristics
and trends within Madison County.
The distribution of employment by industry sector in Madison County is compared
with the region in the following table.

NAICS Group
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation & Warehousing
Information
Finance & Insurance
Real Estate & Rental & Leasing
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services
Management of Companies & Enterprises
Administrative, Support, Waste Management & Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health Care & Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
Accommodation & Food Services
Other Services (Except Public Administration)
Public Administration
Nonclassifiable
Total

Employment by Industry (Employees)
Madison County
Region
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
154
2.4%
2,090
1.0%
0
0.0%
145
0.1%
72
1.1%
549
0.3%
296
4.7%
11,460
5.2%
574
9.1%
18,891
8.6%
83
1.3%
7,349
3.4%
501
7.9%
24,464
11.2%
139
2.2%
4,359
2.0%
75
1.2%
2,671
1.2%
87
1.4%
5,054
2.3%
123
2.0%
5,922
2.7%
227
3.6%
10,754
4.9%
2
0.0%
218
0.1%
463
7.3%
16,789
7.7%
716
11.4%
10,852
5.0%
432
6.9%
17,371
7.9%
77
1.2%
2,526
1.2%
134
2.1%
14,188
6.5%
297
4.7%
11,453
5.2%
505
8.0%
13,768
6.3%
1,345
21.3%
37,742
17.3%
6,302
100.0%
218,615
100.0%

*Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research
E.P.E. - Average Employees Per Establishment
Note: Since this survey is conducted of establishments and not of residents, some employees may not live within the County. These
employees, however, are included in our labor force calculations because their places of employment are located within the County.

The labor force within the county is very diversified and balanced with no industry
sector representing more than 11.4% of the overall county’s employment base. The
largest employment sectors in the county are within Educational Services (11.4%),
Manufacturing (9.1%), Public Administration (8.0%) and Retail Trade (7.9%).

Madison-13

 The following illustrates the total employment base for Madison County, the region,
North Carolina, and the United States.

Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Madison County
Total
Percent
Number
Change
9,199
9,338
1.5%
9,584
2.6%
9,406
-1.9%
9,451
0.5%
9,022
-4.5%
9,045
0.3%
9,060
0.2%
9,103
0.5%
9,255
1.7%
9,373
1.3%

Total Employment
Region
North Carolina
Total
Percent
Total
Percent
Number
Change
Number
Change
173,140
4,031,081
176,817
2.1%
4,123,857
2.3%
183,324
3.7%
4,261,325
3.3%
184,292
0.5%
4,283,826
0.5%
185,863
0.9%
4,280,355
-0.1%
179,061
-3.7%
4,107,955
-4.0%
181,324
1.3%
4,138,113
0.7%
182,849
0.8%
4,183,094
1.1%
186,023
1.7%
4,271,315
2.1%
188,921
1.6%
4,318,319
1.1%
191,285
1.3%
4,368,455
1.2%

United States
Total
Percent
Number
Change
139,967,126
142,299,506
1.7%
145,000,043
1.9%
146,388,369
1.0%
146,047,748
-0.2%
140,696,560
-3.7%
140,457,589
-0.2%
141,727,933
0.9%
143,566,680
1.3%
144,950,662
1.0%
146,735,092
1.2%

Source: Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics
*Through August

Madison County Total Employment
9,600

Total Employed

9,500
9,400
9,300
9,200
9,100
9,000
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014*

Year

Madison County lost more than 500 jobs, representing 5.9% of its employment base
between 2006 and 2009, which is a greater percent decline than experienced in the
overall region. The county’s employment base has increased in each of the past five
years.

Madison-14

 Unemployment rates for Madison County, the region, North Carolina and the United
States are illustrated as follows:
Unemployment Rate
Madison
County
5.2%
5.1%
4.2%
4.0%
5.8%
9.3%
9.8%
9.6%
9.0%
7.0%
5.5%

Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Region
4.5%
4.4%
3.8%
3.6%
4.9%
8.4%
8.8%
8.2%
7.5%
6.2%
5.1%

North Carolina
5.5%
5.3%
4.8%
4.8%
6.3%
10.4%
10.8%
10.2%
9.2%
8.0%
6.5%

United States
5.6%
5.2%
4.7%
4.7%
5.8%
9.3%
9.7%
9.0%
8.1%
7.4%
6.5%

Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
*Through August

The unemployment rate in Madison County has remained between 4.0% and 9.8%,
slightly above the state average since 2004. After reaching a decade high
unemployment rate of 9.8% in 2010, the county’s unemployment rate has declined in
the county in each of the past four years.

Madison County/Region Unemployment Rate
Madison County

Region

Unemployment Rate

10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

Madison-15

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014*

 The ten largest employers within the Madison County area are summarized as follows:
Employer Name
Business Type
Madison County Schools
Education
Mars Hill College
Education
Madison County
County Government
Ingles Markets Inc.
Grocers
Printpack Inc.
Packaging Solutions
Hot Springs Health Program
Health Services
Madison Manor Nursing Home
Heath Care
Blue Ridge Group Homes
Health Services
Elderberry Health Care
Health Care
French Broad Electric
Cooperative Utility
Source: ACESSNC, North Carolina Economic Data and Site Information, 2014 1st quarter

According to the representative with the Madison County Economic Development
Board, the Madison County economy is slowly growing. The representative stated
that about 60% of the workforce travel to Buncombe County/Asheville area to work.
He mentioned that it is a short drive, about 25 minutes, and there are many more job
opportunities in that area.
In October of 2014, Mars Hill University held a groundbreaking ceremony for its next
building project, a three-story, state-of-the-art complex, designed to hold classrooms
and retail spaces. The Troy and Pauline Day Hall is the planned future home of Mars
Hill’s undergraduate business program which continues to be the largest department at
the university. The new complex will sit on the corner of Main Street and College
Street in Mars Hill and is expected to be completed by summer 2016. In October of
2013, Mars Hill announced funding for the Ferguson Health Sciences Facility which
will house the university’s planned bachelors of nursing program. Construction for
this project will begin in spring of 2015.
In November of 2014, Plow & Hearth announced that it is planning a $4.5 million
expansion at its Madison County headquarters to consolidate operations, add 25 new
jobs and expand by 84,000 square feet. The plans include warehouse space for Plow
& Hearth and headquarters for its sister company, Viva Terra. Plow & Hearth began
with a small retail store in Madison in 1980. Its parent company, PH International, is
one of the largest employers in Madison County.

Madison-16

 The representative from Madison County Economic Development Board said that
Mars Hill is an area where development is currently popular. He commented that
there is water and sewer services available for new construction and because of this, a
new BoJangles restaurant and a 48-unit apartment complex are being built. Mars Hill
University is planning a new building project as well. In 2007, the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) placed a moratorium
on any water extensions by the town of Marshall for two reasons: inadequate water
supply capacity and failing distribution system with inadequately sized lines that were
longer than 1,000 feet in length. Because of this moratorium, there is not much new
construction in the town of Marshall.
Tourism:
There are over 50,000 acres of national forest and wild rivers in Madison County. The
Pisgah National Forest along the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Cherokee National
Forest with its whitewater, waterfalls and winding footpaths feature provide attractions
and recreational opportunities. This Blue Ridge attraction in Western North Carolina
is also home to the worlds’s oldest river, the French Broad River. There are also
natural mineral water baths in the town of Hot Springs. There numerous outdoor
recreational opportunities like hiking, rafting, bicycling, fishing and it the winter there
is skiing, snowboarding and tubing.
There is also indoor entertainment with many musicians and local artists at local
venues, studios, galleries and festivals throughout the year. The Spring events are the
Fiddler’ Tribute Concert, Trailfest, Madison Championship Rodeo, and French Broad
River Festival, Many of these events have been planned for the area for the past 15 to
17 years. The Summer events are the Southern Appalachian Repertory Theatre,
Madison County Championship Rodeo, Bluff Mountain Festival, Marshall Rodeo, Hot
Dogget 100 Bicycle Ride, Skirmish at Warm Springs Encampment (Civil War
reenactment), and the Blackberry Festival. Fall events scheduled for the area are the
French Broad Brew Fest, Art on the Island Festival, Bascom Lamar Lunsford Music
Festival, Madison County Heritage Festival and Madison County Fair.
According to North Carolina Tourism Department of Commerce, domestic tourism in
Madison County generated an economic impact of $32.53 million in 2013. Also in
2013, Madison County ranked 70th in travel impact among North Carolina’s 100
counties. More than 310 jobs in Madison County were directly attributable to travel
and tourism. Travel generated a $6.19 million payroll in 2013.
The representative stated that tourism is very important and is a major source of
revenue for many businesses in the area like motels/hotels, restaurants and retail.
Many people who come to the Asheville area for vacations, take smaller day trips to
Madison County for rafting, hiking, skiing, or renting a mountain cabin.

Madison-17

 WARN (layoff notices):
According to the North Carolina Workforce Development website
(www.nccommerce.com), there have been no WARN notices of large-scale layoffs or
closures reported for the Madison County area since January 2013.

E. HOUSING SUPPLY
This housing supply analysis considers both rental and owner for-sale housing.
Understanding the historical trends, market performance, characteristics, composition,
and current housing choices provide critical information as to current market
conditions and future housing potential. The housing data presented and analyzed in
this section includes primary data collected directly by Bowen National Research and
from secondary data sources including American Community Survey (ACS), U.S.
Census housing information and data provided by various government entities and real
estate professionals.
The housing structures included in this analysis are:


Rental Housing – Multifamily rentals, typically with three or more units were
inventoried and surveyed. Additionally, rentals with two or fewer units, which
were classified as non-conventional rentals, were identified and surveyed. Other
rentals such as vacation rentals, mobile homes, and home stays (a single bedroom
or portion of a larger unit) were also considered in this analysis.



Owner For-Sale Housing – We identified attached and detached for-sale housing,
which may be part of a planned development or community, as well as attached
multifamily housing such as condominiums.



Senior Care Housing – Facilities providing housing for seniors requiring some
level of care, such as adult care facilities, multi-unit assisted facilities and nursing
homes were surveyed and analyzed.

For the purposes of this analysis, the housing supply information is presented for
Madison County and compared with the region. This analysis includes secondary
Census housing data, Bowen National Research’s survey of area rental alternatives
and senior care facilities, and owner for-sale housing data (both historical sales and
available housing alternatives) obtained from secondary data sources (Multiple Listing
Service, REALTOR.com, and other on-line sources). Finally, we contacted local
building and planning departments to determine if any residential units of notable
scale were currently planned or under review by local government. Any such units
were considered in the housing gap estimates included later in this section.

Madison-18

 The following table summarizes the surveyed/inventoried housing stock in the county.
This is a sample survey/inventory and does not represent all housing in the county.
However, we believe this housing survey/inventory is representative of a majority of
the most common housing categories offered in the county.
Surveyed Housing Supply Overview
Housing Type
Units
Vacant Units
Multifamily Apartments
177
0
Non-Conventional Rentals
N/A
3
Home Stays
N/A
4
Vacation Rentals
N/A
50
Mobile Home Rentals
488*
N/A
Owner For-Sale Housing
589**
252
Senior Care Housing
116
7
Independent Living
0
Multi-Unit Assisted Housing
0
Adult Care Homes
56
7
Nursing Homes
60
0
*Based on 2011-2013 American Community Survey
**Units sold between 2010 and 2014
N/A – Not Available

Vacancy
0.0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2%*
6.0%
12.5%
0.0%

Price Range
N/A
$600-$800
$250-$350
$2,970-$18,855
$450-$500
$12,000-$2.6 Mil.
$3,986+
$3,986+
$5,322+

With the exception of the adult care homes, all housing segments appear to have
vacancy rates of 6.0% or lower. This indicates that these housing segments are in high
demand. While the adult care homes have a vacancy rate of 12.5% this is not
considered an unusually high vacancy rate for this type of senior care housing.
Overall, the county’s housing market is performing well, as demand is strong for
virtually all housing alternatives. The lack of any vacancies among the surveyed
multifamily rental housing likely indicates that there is a shortage of such housing
within the county.
a. Rental Housing
Multifamily Rental Housing
We identified and personally surveyed five conventional housing projects
containing a total of 177 units within the county. This survey was conducted to
establish the overall strength of the rental market and to identify trends in rental
housing. These rentals have a combined occupancy rate of 100.0%, an extremely
high rate for rental housing. It is important to note that our survey illustrates
occupancy rates that only factor in physical vacancies, which are vacant units that
are currently ready to rent and does not account for economic vacancies, which are
vacant units that cannot be rented due to a variety of factors (e.g. units being
renovated or prepared for future occupants, uninhabitable units, etc.). Definitions
of each housing program are included in Addendum D: Glossary of the Asheville,
North Carolina Region Housing Needs Assessment.

Madison-19

 Managers and leasing agents for each project were surveyed to collect a variety of
property information including vacancies, rental rates, design characteristics,
amenities, utility responsibility, and other features. Projects were also rated based
on quality and upkeep.
The distribution of surveyed rental housing supply by product type is illustrated in
the following table:
Surveyed Multifamily Rental Housing
Projects
Total
Project Type
Surveyed
Units
Tax Credit/Government-Subsidized
1
34
Government-Subsidized
4
143
Total
5
177

Vacant
Units
0
0
0

Occupanc
y Rate
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

As the preceding table illustrates, these rentals have a combined occupancy rate of
100.0%. This is an extremely high occupancy rate and an indication that there is
very limited availability among larger multifamily apartments in Madison County.
In fact, these projects have wait lists of up to 100 households, which provides
evidence that there is pent up demand for multifamily rental housing in the
Madison County area. It is of note that we did not identify any market-rate
multifamily supply in the county. It appears that all multifamily rentals operate
under the Tax Credit or HUD programs, and that market-rate rental housing is
primarily among non-conventional rentals (e.g. houses, duplexes, etc.) or mobile
homes.
There are five multifamily projects that were surveyed in Madison County that
operate with a government-subsidy. The distribution of units and vacancies by
bedroom type among government-subsidized projects (both with and without Tax
Credits) in Madison County is summarized as follows.
Bedroom
Baths
One-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
1.0
Total Subsidized Tax Credit
Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Total Subsidized

Baths
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5

Subsidized Tax Credit
Units
Distribution
32
94.1%
2
5.9%
34
100.0%
Government-Subsidized
Units
Distribution
46
32.2%
58
40.6%
22
15.4%
12
8.4%
5
3.5%
143
100.0%

Madison-20

Vacancy
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Vacancy
0
0
0
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

 The surveyed government-subsidized projects in Madison County operate under a
variety of programs including the HUD Sections 202 and 811 programs, as Public
Housing and the Rural Development Section 515 program. Overall, there are no
vacant government-subsidized units in Madison County, resulting in a combined
100% occupancy rate. This is an extremely high occupancy rate. Of the five
subsidized projects in the market, four maintain waiting lists with up to 100
households. As such, there is clear pent-up demand for housing for very lowincome households in Madison County.
The following is a distribution of multifamily rental projects and units surveyed by
year built for Madison County:
Year Built
Before 1970
1970 to 1979
1980 to 1989
1990 to 1999
2000 to 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Projects
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Units
97
0
46
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Vacancy Rate
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-

*As of December

The largest share of apartments surveyed was built prior to 1970, with all surveyed
units built prior to 2000. All of these apartments are occupied. While there have
been no new units added to the county’s inventory in over 15 years, there is
currently a 48-unit LIHTC project under construction that is scheduled for
completion sometime in 2015.
Representatives of Bowen National Research personally visited each of the
surveyed rental projects within Madison County and rated the quality of each
property. We rated each property surveyed on a scale of "A" (highest) through "F"
(lowest). All properties were rated based on quality and overall appearance (i.e.
aesthetic appeal, building appearance, landscaping and grounds appearance).
The following is a distribution by quality rating, units, and vacancies for all
surveyed rental housing product in Madison County.
Quality Rating
B
B-

Government-Subsidized
Projects
Total Units
4
143
1
34

Madison-21

Vacancy Rate
0.0%
0.0%

 All of the surveyed multifamily properties were rated either “B” or “B-“, indicated
that the existing multifamily supply is generally considered to be in good
condition.
Non-Conventional Rental Housing
Madison County has a large number of non-conventional rentals which can come
in the form of detached single-family homes, duplexes, units over storefronts, etc.
As a result, we have conducted a sample survey of non-conventional rentals within
the county. Only two individual units were identified and surveyed in the county.
While this does not include all non-conventional rentals in the market, we believe
these properties are representative of the typical non-conventional rental housing
alternatives in the market.
The following table aggregates the non-conventional rental units surveyed in
Madison County by bedroom type.

Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom+
Total

Surveyed Non-Conventional Rental Supply
Rent
Median
Units
Range
Rent
1
$750
$750
0
2
$600 - $800
$700
0
2

Median Rent Per
Square Foot
$1.11
$0.60
-

As the preceding table illustrates, the rents for non-conventional rentals identified
range from $600 to $800. The median rents are $750 for a one-bedroom unit and
$700 for a three-bedroom unit, with a median rent per square foot range of $0.60 to
$1.11.
Most non-conventional rentals require tenants to pay all utilities. As a result,
tenants are likely paying an additional $100 to $200 in utility costs on top of the
rental rates. When also considering that the non-conventional rentals are more
than 20 years old and their amenity packages are relatively limited, it would appear
the non-conventional rentals represent less of a value than most multifamily
apartments in the market. However, given the relatively limited number of vacant
units among the more affordable multifamily apartments, many low-income
households are likely forced to choose from the limited number of nonconventional housing alternatives.

Madison-22

 Vacation Rental Housing
Madison County has a large number of vacation rentals which can come in the
form of cabins, detached single-family homes, condominiums, etc. As a result, we
have conducted a sample survey of vacation rentals within the county. Overall, a
total of 50 individual units were identified and surveyed. While this does not
include all vacation rentals in the market, we believe these properties are
representative of the typical vacation rental housing alternatives in the market.
The following table aggregates the 50 vacation rental units surveyed in the county
by bedroom type. It should be noted that while vacation rentals are typically
rented on a daily or weekly basis, we have shown all rents on a monthly basis to
more easily compare with other rental options in the market.
Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom+
Total

Surveyed Vacation Rental Supply
Units
Rent Range
17
$2,970 - $5,775
15
$3,015 - $5,670
12
$3,300 - $9,450
6
$3,750 - $18,855
50

Median Rent
$4,500
$4,275
$4,838
$8,063

Source: www.homeaway.com; Bowen National Research
*Monthly Rents (most rentals are rented on a daily or weekly rate, but were converted to a monthly rent for an
easier comparison with long-term rentals)

As the preceding table illustrates, the rents for vacation rentals identified range
from $2,970 to $18,855. The median rents are $4,500 for a one-bedroom unit,
$4,275 for a two-bedroom unit, $4,838 for a three-bedroom unit, and $8,063 for a
four-bedroom or larger unit.
The rental rates of vacation rentals are significantly higher than most conventional
multifamily apartments and non-conventional rentals surveyed in the county.
Generally, such rentals are four times higher than conventional rentals, essentially
eliminating this type of housing as a viable long-term housing alternative to most
area renters. However, due to this rent differential, such housing may appeal to
owners of traditional, long-term conventional rentals who may want to convert
their housing to vacation rentals. This is addressed in the case study portion of the
Asheville, North Carolina Region Housing Needs Assessment.

Madison-23

 Home Stay Rentals
A home stay rental is generally considered a bedroom that are rented to tenants and
typically excludes a full rental unit. Tenants in the home stay rental often have
shared access to common areas such as bathrooms and kitchens. Madison County
has a small number of home stay rentals. As a result, we have conducted a sample
survey of home stay rentals within the county.
Overall, a total of four individual home stay rental “units” were identified and
surveyed. While this likely does not include all home stay rentals in the market,
we believe these properties are representative of the typical home stay rental
housing alternatives in the market. The following table aggregates the four home
stay rental units surveyed in the county by bedroom type.

Units
4

Surveyed Home Stay Rental Supply
Rent
Range
$250 - $350

Median
Rent
$313

As the preceding table illustrates, the monthly rents for home stay rentals
identified range from $250 to $350. The median monthly rent for the surveyed
home stay units is $313.
The rental rates of home stay rentals are generally lower than most multifamily
apartments surveyed in the county, which is not surprising since such rentals are
limited to a single room with shared access to common areas (e.g. bathrooms,
kitchens, etc.). Most home stay rentals are roommate situations where residents
have their own bedroom but must share kitchen, living and bathroom areas. Most
rentals include all basic utilities in the rent, with many rentals also offering cable
television and Internet as part of the rent. A large number of the rentals are fully
furnished, but offer few project amenities such as swimming pools or other
recreational features. Most rentals allow residents access to laundry facilities.
Leases are often flexible, typically month-to-month in duration. Unlike most
conventional apartments or private non-conventional rentals, home stays have the
unique element of matching personal preferences with roommates. For example,
many properties advertise that they are looking for smoke-free/smokers, pet
friendly/no pet, male/female or other types of tenants. Such preferences or
restrictions likely limit the type of residents that can be accommodated at such
rentals. Given these preferences and restrictions, along with the fact that the home
stay rentals can typically only accommodate one- or two-person households, home
stays likely have a limited ability to meet the needs of most area renters.

Madison-24

 Mobile Home Parks
Bowen National Research identified six mobile home parks in Madison County
through secondary resources, such as www.mhvillage.com, the county tax
department/assessor, and CraigsList. Upon identification of these parks, which is
not a comprehensive list, we conducted a sample windshield survey to evaluate the
quality of select parks and their neighborhoods, and we attempted to conduct
telephone interviews with park operators.
According mobile home park operators, typical mobile home rents range from
$450 to $500 per month, which are among some of the lower mobile home rents in
the region. Based on a windshield survey of select mobile home parks in the
county yielded overall “C-” quality and neighborhood ratings, indicating that these
mobile home parks and their neighborhoods are in fair to poor condition.
b. Owner For-Sale Housing
Bowen National Research, through a review of the Multiple Listing Service
information for Madison County, identified both historical (sold since 2010) forsale residential data and currently available for-sale housing stock.
There were 589 homes sold and 252 homes currently available in Madison County.
Approximately, an average of 112 homes are sold each year within Madison
County. The 252 available homes in Madison County represent 6.9% of all
identified available for-sale homes in the region. The following table summarizes
the available and recently sold (since January 2010) housing stock for Madison
County.
Madison County - Owner For-Sale/Sold Housing Supply
Type
Homes
Median Price
Available
252
$270,445
Sold
589
$168,000
Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

The historical data includes any home sales that occurred within the county from
January 2010 to November 2014. It is our opinion that an evaluation of sales
activity after 2009 is representative of true market conditions following the
recession.

Madison-25

 The following table includes a summary of annual for-sale residential transactions
that occurred within Madison County since 2010. It should be noted that the 2014
sales data is only through November of that year.

Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Madison County
Owner For-Sale Housing by Year Sold
Units Sold
Median Price Sold
Number
Change
Price
Change
95
$165,000
97
2.1%
$167,000
1.2%
120
23.7%
$165,000
-1.2%
136
13.3%
$167,500
1.5%
141
3.7%
$171,000
2.1%

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research
*Through Nov. 21, 2014

Excluding the partial year of 2014, annual residential for-sale activity within the
county has ranged between 95 in 2010 and 136 in 2013. The annual sales activity
has grown each of the past four full years. The county is currently on pace to sell
approximately 150 residential units for all of 2014. The county has experienced
fluctuations in median sales prices over the past three years, but has trended
upward in 2013 and 2014. The positive trends among sales volume and sales
prices, although modest, are good indications of a healthy and stable for-sale
housing market in Madison County.
The following graphs illustrate the overall annual number of homes sold and
median sales prices over the past four years for Madison County from 2010 to
2013 (2014 was excluded due to the fact that only partial year data is available):

Madison County Annual Home Sales (2010-2013)
150

136

Homes Sold

140
130

120
120
110
100

95

97

90

2010

2011

2012
Year

Madison-26

2013

 Madison County Annual Median Sales Price (2010-2013)
$170,000
$169,000

$167,500

Price

$168,000

$167,000

$167,000
$166,000

$165,000

$165,000

$165,000

$164,000
$163,000

2010

2011

2012

2013

Year

The following table summarizes the inventory of available for-sale housing in
Madison County and the region.
Available Owner For-Sale Housing

Madison County
Region

Total
Units
252
3,669

% Share
of Region
6.9%
100.0%

Low
List Price
$39,900
$19,900

High
List Price
$2,300,000
$10,750,000

Average
List Price
$343,583
$451,391

Median
List Price
$270,445
$290,418

Average
Days
On Market
339
244

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

Within Madison County, the available homes have a median list price of $270,445,
which is more than the region median list price of $290,418. The average number
of days on market for available product in Madison County is 339, which is
significantly longer than the region average of 244.
The table below summarizes the distribution of available for-sale residential units
by price point for Madison County.

List Price
<$100,000
$100,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $499,999
$500,000+

Available Owner For-Sale Housing by Price Point
Madison County
Region
Median
Median
Price
Units
Share
Price
Units
$79,900
26
10.3%
$79,700
190
$158,975
63
25.0%
$159,900
821
$249,900
56
22.2%
$249,900
934
$357,000
50
19.8%
$350,000
543
$448,000
16
6.4%
$450,000
319
$695,000
41
16.3%
$797,200
862

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

Madison-27

Share
5.2%
22.4%
25.4%
14.8%
8.7%
23.5%

 Madison County Available For-Sale Housing by Price
70
60

63

Homes

50

56
50

40

41
30
20

26
16

10
0
Less than $100K

$100k-$199,999

$200k-$299,999

$300k-$399,999

$400k-$499,000

$500,000+

Price Range

One-fourth of the available for-sale supply in Madison County is priced between
$100,000 and $199,999. These homes would generally be available to households
with incomes between $30,000 and $60,000. More than a fifth of the available
product is priced between $200,000 and $299,999, indicating that there is a good
base of homes generally affordable to households with incomes between $60,000
and $100,000. Only 10.6% of all available homes are priced below $100,000,
which would be generally affordable to households with incomes under $30,000
Based on our on-site evaluation of the county’s housing stock and an analysis of
secondary data on such housing, it appears that much of the housing inventory was
built prior to 1970 and of fair quality. As a result, while it may be deemed that
there is some for-sale product available to lower-income households, such product
likely requires additional costs for repairs, modernization and maintenance, which
my be difficult for many low-income households to afford.
c. Senior Care Facilities
The subject county, like areas throughout the country, has a large senior
population that requires a variety of senior housing alternatives to meet its diverse
needs. Among seniors, generally age 62 or older, some individuals are either
seeking a more leisurely lifestyle or need assistance with Activities of Daily
Living (ADLs). As part of this analysis, we evaluated four levels of care that
typically respond to older adults seeking, or who need, alternatives to their current
living environment. They include independent living, multi-unit assisted housing,
adult care homes, and nursing care. These housing types, from least assisted to
most assisted, are summarized below.

Madison-28

 Independent Living is a housing alternative that includes a residential unit,
typically an apartment or cottage that offers an individual living area, kitchen, and
sleeping room. The fees generally include the cost of the rental unit, some utilities,
and services such as laundry, housekeeping, transportation, meals, etc. This
housing type is also often referred to as congregate care. Physical assistance and
medical treatment are not offered at such facilities.
Multi-unit Assisted Housing With Services (referred to as multi-unit assisted
throughout this report) is a housing alternative that provides unlicensed care
services along with the housing. Such housing offers residents the ability to obtain
personal care services and nursing services through a home care or hospice agency
that visit the subject site to perform such services. Management at the subject
project arrange services that correspond to an individualized written care plan.
Adult Care Homes are state licensed residences for aged and disabled adults who
may require 24-hour supervision and assistance with personal care needs. People
in adult care homes typically need a place to live, with some help with personal
care (such as dressing, grooming and keeping up with medications), and some
limited supervision. Medical care may be provided on occasion but is not routinely
needed. Medication may be given by designated, trained staff. This type of facility
is very similar to what is commonly referred to as “assisted living.” These
facilities generally offer limited care that is designed for seniors who need some
assistance with daily activities but do not require nursing care.
Nursing Homes provide nursing care and related services for people who need
nursing, medical, rehabilitation or other special services. These facilities are
licensed by the state and may be certified to participate in the Medicaid and/or
Medicare programs. Certain nursing homes may also meet specific standards for
sub-acute care or dementia care.
We referenced the Medicare.com and North Carolina Division of Health Service
Regulation websites for all licensed senior care facilities and cross referenced this
list with other senior care facility resources. As such, we believe that we identified
most, if not all, licensed facilities in the county.
Within the county, a total of two senior care facilities were surveyed containing a
total of 116 beds. These facilities are representative of the typical housing choices
available to seniors requiring special care housing. It should be noted that family
adult care homes of six units or less were not included in this inventory. The
following table summarizes the surveyed facilities by property type.

Madison-29

 Surveyed Senior Care Facilities
Project Type
Projects
Beds
Independent Living
0
0
Multi-Unit Assisted Housing
0
0
Adult Care Homes
1
56
Nursing Homes
1
60
Total
2
116

Vacant
7
0
7

Vacancy Rate
12.5%
0.0%
6.0%

The Madison County senior care market is reporting overall vacancy rates between
0.0% (nursing homes) and 12.5% (adult care homes). Combined, the surveyed
senior care facilities have a 6.0% vacancy rate. The 12.5% vacancy rate among
the adult care homes is not unusually high for such housing, particularly in a rural
market. The lack of available nursing home units indicates that there is possible
demand for additional beds of nursing care. There were no independent living or
multi-unit assisted housing units identified in the county, which may indicate a
potential opportunity for such housing in the county.
The base monthly fee for adult care homes start at around $3,986 a month and
nursing care facilities have a base monthly fee starting at $5,322. The adult care
home fees are higher than most in the region, while the nursing home beds fees are
among the lowest.
d. Planned & Proposed Residential Development
In order to access housing development potential, we evaluated recent residential
building permit activity and identified residential projects in the development
pipeline for Madison County. Understanding the number of residential units and
the type of housing being considered for development in the county can assist in
determining how these projects are expected to meet the housing needs of the area.
Based on our interviews with local building and planning representatives, it was
determined that there was one housing project planned within Madison County.
Mars Hill Commons Apartments is a Tax Credit project under construction on
Mars Hill Commons Lane in Mars Hill. Mountain Housing Opportunities and
Partnership Property Management are the developers of this 48-unit project that
will consist of one-, two- and three-bedroom units when completed in the summer
of 2015.

Madison-30

 F. HOUSING GAP ESTIMATES
Bowen National Research conducted housing gap analyses for rental and for-sale
housing for the subject county. The housing gap estimates include new household
growth, units required for a balanced market, households living in substandard
housing (replacement housing), and units in the development pipeline. This estimate
is considered a representation of the housing shortage in the market and indicative of
the more immediate housing requirements of the market. Our estimates consider four
income stratifications. These stratifications include households with incomes of up to
30% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI), households with incomes between
31% and 50% of AMHI, between 51% and 80% of AMHI, and between 80% and
120% of AMHI. This analysis was conducted for family households and seniors (age
55+) separately. This analysis identifies the housing gap (the number of units that
could potentially be supported) for the county between 2015 and 2020. Broader
housing needs estimates, which include household growth, cost burdened households,
households living in substandard housing, and units in the development pipeline, were
provided for the overall region and is included in the Asheville, North Carolina
Region Housing Needs Assessment.
The demand components included in the housing gap estimates for each of the two
housing types (rental and for-sale) are listed as follows:






Housing Gap Analysis Components
Owner Housing
Rental Housing
Renter Household Growth
 Owner Household Growth
Unit Required for Balanced Market
 Unit Required for Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
 Substandard Housing
Pipeline Development*
 Pipeline Development*

*Includes units that lack complete indoor plumbing and overcrowded housing
**Units under construction, permitted, planned or proposed

The demand factors for each housing segment at the various income stratifications are
combined. Any product confirmed to be in the development pipeline is deducted from
the various demand estimates, yielding a housing gap estimate. This gap analysis is
conducted for both renters and owners, as well as for seniors (age 55+) and family
households. These gaps represent the number of new households that may need
housing and/or the number of existing households that currently live in housing that
needs replaced to relieve occupants of such things as overcrowded or substandard
housing conditions. Data used for these various demand components originates from
the demographic analysis portion of this study.

Madison-31

 Rental Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below summarize the rental housing gap estimates by the various income
segments for family and senior households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
<30%
($15,000($25,000($35,000(<$15,000)
$24,999)
$34,999)
$75,000)
Total
-8
-21
99
-7
63
22
15
7
19
63
21
15
15
19
70
0
0
-34
0
-34
35
9
87
31
162

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
<30%
($15,000($25,000($35,000(<$15,000)
$24,999)
$34,999)
$75,000)
Total
-22
-24
43
-21
-24
11
8
7
10
36
11
7
7
4
29
0
0
-14
0
-14
0
-9
43
-7
27

Madison County Rental Housing Gap by Income
Family Households

Senior Households

90

87

80

Housing Gap

70
60
50
40
30

43
35

31

20

0

10
0

9
-9

-7

-10
<30%

30% - 50%

50% - 80%

Percent of Median Household Income

Madison-32

80% - 120%

 Based on the preceding table, the largest are rental housing gap by income level is
within the 50% to 80% AMHI level among both families and seniors. The housing gap
for family rentals is six times greater than the senior rental housing gap.
Owner Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below summarize the owner housing gap estimates by the various income
segments for family and senior households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
<30%
($15,000($25,000($35,000(<$15,000)
$24,999)
$34,999)
$75,000)
Total
56
-23
-54
38
17
12
10
8
30
60
5
4
3
12
24
0
0
0
0
0
73
-9
-43
80
101

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
<30%
($15,000($25,000($35,000(<$15,000)
$24,999)
$34,999)
$75,000)
Total
115
9
-38
160
246
17
15
12
30
74
7
6
5
16
34
0
0
0
0
0
139
30
-21
206
354

Madison-33

 Madison County Owner Housing Gap by Income
Family Households

Senior Households

250

Housing Gap

200

206

150

139
100
50

80

73
30

0

-9

-43

-21

-50
<30%

30% - 50%

50% - 80%

80% - 120%

Percent of Median Household Income

As shown in the preceding owner housing gap analysis, the greatest housing gap for
families and seniors with incomes between 80% and 120% of AMHI.
Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior care housing encompasses a variety of alternatives including multi-unit assisted
housing, adult care homes, and nursing homes. Such housing typically serves the
needs of seniors requiring some level of care to meet their personal needs, often due to
medical or other physical issues. The following attempts to quantify the estimated
senior care housing need in the county.
Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior Care Housing Demand Component
Demand Estimates
Elderly Population Age 62 and Older by 2020
6,058
Times Share* of Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
X 7.4%
Equals Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
= 448
Plus External Market Support (20%)
+ 90
Equals Total Senior Care Support Base
= 538
Less Existing Supply
- 216
Less Development Pipeline
-0
Potential Senior Care Beds Needed by 2020
= 322
ADL – Activities of Daily Living
*Share of ADL was based on data provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Population National Health Interview Survey 2011

Madison-34

 Based upon age 62 and older population characteristics and trends, and applying the
estimated ratio of persons requiring ADL assistance and taking into account the
existing and planned senior housing supply, we estimate that there will be 322
households with a person requiring assisted services that will not have their needs met
by existing or planned senior care facilities by the year 2020. Not all of these
estimated households with persons age 62 and older requiring ADL assistance will
want to move to a senior care facility, as many may choose home health care services
or have their needs taken care of by a family member. Regardless, the 322 seniors
estimated above represent the potential need for additional senior care housing in the
county.

G. STAKEHOLDER SURVEY & INTERVIEWS
Associates of Bowen National Research solicited input from nearly more than 40
stakeholders throughout the region. Their input was provided in the form of an online
survey and telephone interviews. Of these respondents, 10 serve the Madison County
area. Considered leaders within their field and active in the community, they represent
a wide range of industries, including government, economic development, real estate,
and social assistance. The purpose of these interviews was to gather input regarding
the need for the type and styles of housing, the income segments housing should
target, and if there is a lack of housing or housing assistance within the region. The
following is a summary of the key input gathered.
Respondents were asked to rank the type of housing having the greatest need within
the county. All housing types, with the exception of student, were ranked almost
evenly as being needed, including rental, for-sale, single-person/young professional,
senior independent living, homeless, special needs, and senior care. Respondents
indicated that the housing style most needed in the area is apartments, followed by
single-family homes and manufactured housing/mobile homes. When asked to rank
the need for housing for each income level, respondents evenly ranked incomes of less
than $25,000 and incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 with the greatest need. The
most significant housing issues within the county, as indicated by respondents, are rent
burdened/affordability, lack of public transportation, and substandard housing.
Respondents were asked to prioritize funding types that should be utilized or explored
in the county. “Other” homeowner assistance and “other” rental housing assistance
were given the highest priority, followed by Tax Credit financing and project-based
rental subsidy. While no respondents provided a type of “other” assistance that should
be offered, one respondent indicated that there is a need for additional Public Housing
within the county. When asked what common barriers or obstacles exist as it relates to
housing development in the county, the cost of land and availability of land were most
commonly cited. Two respondents commented that a lack of funding is also a problem.
One respondent noted that while the mountainous terrain of the region is a draw, it
also creates challenges, and strategies for land acquisition and density should be
explored.

Madison-35

 If a respondent was knowledgeable about homelessness in the county, they were asked
to rank the need for housing for various homeless groups. Homeless individuals,
families, and veterans were ranked the highest in terms of housing need. Respondents
indicated that the most needed type of housing to serve the homeless population is
increased Voucher assistance, followed by emergency shelters. The most commonly
cited obstacles to developing homeless housing were the high cost of
development/lack of funding, lack of housing assistance/social services, NIMBYism
and governmental “red tape”. Multiple respondents believe there is a need for
increased supportive service programs and permanent supportive housing for area
homeless persons.
If a respondent was knowledgeable about special needs groups in the county, they
were asked to rank the need for housing for various special needs groups. The most
commonly indicated groups were persons with mental illness, persons with
physical/developmental disabilities, persons suffering from alcohol/ substance abuse,
and ex-offenders. Respondents believe that transitional housing, group homes, and
emergency shelters would best serve these populations. The lack of community
support and funding (specifically, the loss of the HUD 811 program and the continuum
of care new construction bonus) were cited as the most common obstacles to
developing special needs housing.

H. SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
Besides the traditional demographics and housing supply evaluated on the preceding
pages of this section, we also identified special needs populations within Madison
County. This section of the report addresses demographic and housing supply
information for the homeless population and the other special needs populations
within the county.
Madison County is located within HUD’s designated Continuum of Care (CoC) area
known as North Carolina Balance of State (BoS). CoCs around the United States are
required to collect data for a point-in-time during the last week of each year. The last
published as North Carolina BoS point-in-time survey was conducted in January 2014.
This includes count of persons who are classified as homeless, as well as an inventory
of the housing specifically designated for the homeless population.
According to a representative with the North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness
Madison County does not have an active homeless service sector and as such has
never reported a sheltered or unsheltered PIT count. A representative from Pisgah
Legal Services stated that it’s hard to estimate how many people in Madison County
are homeless and there is only one shelter in the county however it is for domestic
violence victims. Madison County could benefit from a small shelter facility with no
more than five beds to assist the few people who become homeless. Several other
representatives with the local housing authorities that serve Madison County stated
that there is a need for shelter services as they get people who are homeless coming in
looking for immediate assistance and there is none available. There is a need for more
permanent housing in the area as much of the product typically affordable to the

Madison-36

 homeless population is often old and in substandard condition. Additionally, there is a
need for subsidized housing as the three housing authorities in the area that administer
Section 8 have extensive waiting lists. Furthermore, Mountain Housing Opportunities
is in the process of developing the first LIHTC development, Mars Hill Commons, in
Madison County which will consist of 48-units and is set to open in 2015. While not
specifically for the homeless, the project will create an affordable housing option that
is currently lacking in the area.
The following table summarizes the various special needs populations within the
county that were considered in this report.
Special Needs Populations
Special Needs Group
HIV/AIDS
Victims of Domestic Violence (VDV)
Persons with Substance Abuse (PSA)
Adults with Mental Illness (MI)
Adults with Severe Mental Illness (SMI)
Co-Occurring Disorders (COD)
Multi-Generational Households (MGH)

Persons
14
419
13
1,921
13
322
334

Special Needs Group
Persons with Disabilities (PD)
Elderly (Age 62+) (E62)
Frail Elderly (Age 62+) (FE62)
Ex-offenders (Parole/Probation) (EOP)
Unaccompanied Youth (UY)
Veterans

Persons
3,686
6,058
448
35
9
1,435

The largest number of special needs persons is among the elderly (age 62+), persons
with disabilities, adults with mental illness, and veterans. According to our interviews
with area stakeholders, housing alternatives that meet the distinct demands of the
special needs population are limited. Notable facilities are offered by Pisgah Legal
Services, Smokey Mountain Center, Disability Partners, Western North Carolina
AIDS Project, My Sister’s Place, Black Mountain Homes for Youth & Children,
Church of the Holy Spirit, Salvation Army-Clyde, Western Highland LME, Blue
Ridge Homes- Madison, and October Road, Inc., and various senior care facilities. It
should be noted that while most of these facilities and organizations are located in
Buncombe County services are offered to persons residing within Madison County.
According to various services providers knowledgeable about housing for various
homeless and special needs groups in Madison County the most needed are
transitional housing, group homes, and emergency shelters. It was also noted that
housing for persons with mental illness, persons with physical/developmental
disabilities, persons suffering from alcohol/ substance abuse, and ex-offenders were in
great need.

Madison-37

 I. CONCLUSIONS
Overall demographic trends are projected to be positive within Madison County over
the next five years, which is expected to contribute to the continued strength of the
housing market within the county during this time period. Some key findings based
on our research of Madison County are summarized as follows:


Population & Households – Between 2015 and 2020, the population is projected
to grow by 636 (3.0%), which is just over one half the growth rate (5.5%) of the
overall region. During this same time, household growth of 281 (3.2%) is
projected to occur in the county, which is slightly more than half the region’s
projected growth rate of 5.9%.



Household Heads by Age – Madison County’s senior households age 65 and
older will increase by 410 (13.1%) between 2015 and 2020, adding to its
anticipated need for senior-oriented housing. This projected growth will likely
lead to a need for additional family-oriented and/or workforce housing.



Households by Income and Tenure – While the greatest projected renter
household growth (142, 54.0%) between 2015 and 2020 will be among those with
incomes between $25,000 and $34,999, the largest share (31.1%) of renter
households will be among those making less than $15,000 by 2020. The greatest
owner household growth (171, 19.4%) during this time is projected to occur
among those making less than $15,000. Approximately, two-thirds of the
projected growth among the owner households making less than $15,000 is
attributed to seniors reaching retirement age and experiencing decreases in their
incomes. Notable growth is project to occur among homeowners making between
$50,000 and $74,999, which is expected to add 138 households, which represents a
10.0% increase.



Rental Housing – Madison County has a relatively limited supply of rental
alternatives. All multifamily rental units we identified and surveyed are occupied
and a limited number of non-conventional rentals, home stays and mobile home
rentals were identified as being available for rent. Of the more than 100 affordable
(Tax Credit and government-subsidized) units in the county, all are occupied and
have wait list as high as 100 households. This occupancy rate and the long wait
lists maintained at these projects indicate that there is pent-up demand for
affordable housing in the county. Based on the housing gap estimates, it appears
that the greatest projected rental housing needs will be for those with incomes
between 50% and 80% of AMHI, even with a new Tax Credit project in the
development pipeline.

Madison-38

 

Owner Housing (for-sale) – For-sale housing prices have increased in three of the
last four years (including 2014), while the number of homes sold annually has
increased in each of the past three years. The for-sale housing market is
considered to be strong. While the largest share (25.0%) of available for-sale
housing is among product priced between $100,000 and $199,999, a nearly equal
share (22.2%) of all available product is priced between $200,000 and $299,999.
These shares of available supply are similar to the entire region. Based on the
housing gap estimates, it appears that the greatest housing gap for owner housing
will be for households with incomes between 80% and 120% of AMHI.



Senior Care Facilities – Senior housing reported an overall occupancy rate of
94.0% (6.0% vacant). This is a relatively high occupancy rate. As shown in the
housing needs estimates, it is believed that an additional 322 senior care beds will
be needed to meet the future needs of area seniors.

 Special Needs Populations: While there are many special needs populations
within the county that likely require housing assistance, it appears that the largest
special needs populations in the county are the elderly (age 62+), persons with
disabilities, adults with mental illness, and veterans.

J. SOURCES
See the Asheville, North Carolina Region Housing Needs Assessment for a full listing
of all sources used in this report.

Madison-39

 Transylvania County
Housing Needs Assessment

Author: Patrick M. Bowen, President & Lead Contact
155 E. Columbus Street, Ste. 220   Pickerington, Ohio 43147
Phone: (614) 833-9300   patrickb@bowennational.com
www.bowennational.com

 TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY
A. INTRODUCTION
The focus of this analysis is to assess the market characteristics of, and to determine
the housing needs for, Transylvania County. To accomplish this task, Bowen National
Research evaluated various socio-economic characteristics, inventoried and analyzed
the housing supply (rental and owner/for-sale product), conducted stakeholder
interviews, evaluated special needs populations and provided housing gap estimates to
help identify the housing needs of the county.
To provide a base of comparison, various metrics of Transylvania County were
compared with overall region. A comparison of the subject county in relation with
other counties in the region is provided in the regional analysis portion of the overall
Housing Needs Assessment.

B. COUNTY OVERVIEW
Transylvania County is located within the southwest portion of the study region. It
encompasses a total of 381 square miles. Primary thoroughfares within the county
include U.S. Highways 64, 178, and 276. Notable natural landmarks and public
attractions include Brevard Music Center, Blue Ridge Community College, Blue
Ridge Parkway, Dupont
State Park, Looking Glass
Falls, Pisgah National
Forest, and Brevard Little
Theater. The county had
a 2010 total population of
33,090 and 14,394 total
households. Brevard, with
a 2010 population of
7,609, is the largest
community in the county
and also serves as the
county seat. The primary
employment sectors and
their corresponding shares
of the county’s total
employment are Retail
Trade (11.2%), Health
Care & Social Assistance (8.4%) and Public Administration (7.7%). Additional
details regarding demographics, economics, housing, and other pertinent research and
findings are included on the following pages.

Transylvania-1

 C. DEMOGRAPHICS
This section of the report evaluates key demographic characteristics for Transylvania
County. Through this analysis, unfolding trends and unique conditions are revealed
regarding populations and households residing in the county. Demographic
comparisons provide insights into the human composition of housing markets.
This section is comprised of three major parts: population characteristics, household
characteristics, and household income data. Population characteristics describe the
qualities of individual people, while household characteristics describe the qualities of
people living together in one residence.
It is important to note that 2000 and 2010 demographics are based on U.S. Census data
(actual count), while 2015 and 2020 data are based on calculated projections provided
by ESRI, a nationally recognized demography firm, and American Community Survey
Data. The accuracy of these projections depends on the realization of certain
assumptions:


Economic projections made by secondary sources materialize;



Governmental policies with respect to residential development remain consistent;



Availability of financing for residential development (i.e. mortgages, commercial
loans, subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) remains consistent;



Sufficient housing and infrastructure is provided to support projected population
and household growth.

Significant unforeseen changes or fluctuations among any of the preceding
assumptions could have an impact on demographic projections.

Transylvania-2

 Population and household numbers for selected years within Transylvania County and
the region are shown in the following table:

2000 Census
2010 Census
Change 2000-2010
Percent Change 2000-2010
2015 Projected
Change 2010-2015
Percent Change 2010-2015
2020 Projected
Change 2015-2020
Percent Change 2015-2020

Total Population
Transylvania
County
Region
29,334
344,472
33,090
398,912
3,756
54,440
12.8%
15.8%
34,243
421,899
1,153
22,987
3.5%
5.8%
35,225
445,283
982
23,384
2.9%
5.5%

Total Households
Transylvania
County
Region
12,320
143,510
14,394
168,748
2,074
25,238
16.8%
17.6%
15,073
179,521
679
10,773
4.7%
6.4%
15,584
190,027
511
10,506
3.4%
5.9%

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Transylvania County/Region Population & Household Trends
Transylvania Population

Region Population

Transylvania Households

Region Households

18.0%

Percent Change

16.0%

15.8%

14.0%
12.0%

16.8%

17.6%

12.8%

10.0%
8.0%
6.0%

5.8%

4.0%

6.4%

3.5%

2.0%

5.9%

5.5%

4.7%
2.9%

3.4%

0.0%
2000-2010

2010-2015

2015-2020

Year

Transylvania County experienced an increase in both population and households
between 2000 and 2010. They are projected to increase by 1,153 (3.5%) and 679
(4.7%), respectively, between 2010 and 2015. Between 2015 and 2020, it is projected
that they will increase by 982 (2.9%) and 511 (3.4%), respectively. These positive
projected demographic trends are expected to be slower than the projected trends
within the region.

Transylvania-3

 The distribution of households by age for Transylvania County is compared with the
overall region in the table below.

2010
2015

Transylvani
a
County

2020
Change
2015-2020
2010
2015

Region
2020
Change
2015-2020

<25
463
(3.2%)
427
(2.8%)
389
(2.5%)
-38
(-8.9%)
6,352
(3.8%)
6,281
(3.5%)
6,226
(3.3%)
-55
(-0.9%)

25 to 34
1,359
(9.4%)
1,482
(9.8%)
1,521
(9.8%)
39
(2.6%)
22,274
(13.2%)
22,772
(12.7%)
23,091
(12.2%)
319
(1.4%)

Household Heads by Age
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
1,700
2,480
2,914
(11.8%)
(17.2%)
(20.2%)
1,654
2,316
2,975
(11.0%)
(15.4%)
(19.7%)
1,659
2,095
3,038
(10.6%)
(13.4%)
(19.5%)
5
-221
63
(0.3%)
(-9.5%)
(2.1%)
27,174
31,960
33,116
(16.1%)
(18.9%)
(19.6%)
27,357
31,366
35,669
(15.2%)
(17.5%)
(19.9%)
27,543
31,080
37,629
(14.5%)
(16.4%)
(19.8%)
186
-286
1,960
(0.7%)
(-0.9%)
(5.5%)

65 to 74
2,836
(19.7%)
3,235
(21.5%)
3,540
(22.7%)
305
(9.4%)
24,596
(14.6%)
30,438
(17.0%)
35,434
(18.6%)
4,996
(16.4%)

75+
2,642
(18.4%)
2,985
(19.8%)
3,343
(21.4%)
358
(12.0%)
23,276
(13.8%)
25,638
(14.3%)
29,024
(15.3%)
3,386
(13.2%)

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

It is projected that by 2015, the largest share (21.5%) of households by age in
Transylvania County will be within the 55 to 64 age cohort. Between 2015 and 2020,
it is projected that the number of households age 75 and older and between the ages of
65 and 74 will increase the most during this time. Overall, Transylvania County will
add a projected 663 (9.6%) households age 65 and older between 2015 and 2020. Such
growth will increase the need for senior-oriented housing for the foreseeable future.

Transylvania County/Region Household Heads by Age (2015)

Share

Transylvania County

Region

22.0%
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
<25

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

Age Range

Transylvania-4

55 - 64

65 - 74

75+

 Households by income for selected years are shown in the following table:

2015
Transylvani
a
County

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
2,454
(16.3%)
2,246
(14.4%)
-207
(-8.4%)
26,973
(15.0%)
27,648
(14.5%)
674
(2.5%)

Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999 $150,000+
1,950
2,200
2,521
2,532
1,679
1,238
500
(12.9%)
(14.6%)
(16.7%)
(16.8%)
(11.1%)
(8.2%)
(3.3%)
2,021
2,216
2,808
2,676
1,957
1,198
473
(13.0%)
(14.2%)
(18.0%)
(17.2%)
(12.5%)
(7.7%)
(3.0%)
71
16
287
144
277
-41
-28
(3.6%)
(0.7%)
(11.4%)
(5.7%)
(16.5%)
(-3.3%)
(-5.6%)
22,124
23,236
28,217
34,090
19,434
16,434
9,012
(12.3%)
(12.9%)
(15.7%)
(19.0%)
(10.8%)
(9.2%)
(5.0%)
23,576
24,058
30,943
35,461
20,226
18,169
9,954
(12.4%)
(12.7%)
(16.3%)
(18.7%)
(10.6%)
(9.6%)
(5.2%)
1,453
823
2,725
1,371
792
1,734
942
(6.6%)
(3.5%)
(9.7%)
(4.0%)
(4.1%)
(10.6%)
(10.5%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

In 2015, it is projected that over 40% of Transylvania County households will have
annual incomes below $35,000. However, the largest household income segment in
2015 will be households with incomes between $50,000 and $74,999, which will
represent 16.8% of the total household base. It is projected that between 2015 and
2020, the greatest increase in households by income level in Transylvania County will
be among those with incomes between $35,000 and $49,999, with notable growth also
projected to occur among all household income segments between $50,000 and
$74,999 as well as between $75,000 and $99,999.

Transylvania County/Region Households by Income (2015)
Transylvania County

Region

20.0%
18.0%
16.0%

Share

14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
<$15,000

$15,000 $24,999

$25,000 $34,999

$35,000 $49,999

$50,000 $74,999

Household Income

Transylvania-5

$75,000 $99,999

$100,000 $149,999

$150,000+

Total
15,074
(100.0%)
15,593
(100.0%)
519
(3.4%)
179,521
(100.0%)
190,035
(100.0%)
10,514
(5.9%)

 Households by income and tenure for selected years are shown below:

2015
Transylvani
a
County

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
1,222
(30.7%)
1,081
(26.2%)
-141
(-1.5%)
15,446
(26.5%)
15,532
(25.0%)
86
(0.6%)

Renter Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999 $150,000+
815
742
411
489
136
139
24
(20.5%)
(18.7%)
(10.3%)
(12.3%)
(3.4%)
(3.5%)
(0.6%)
876
876
598
384
176
132
0
(21.2%)
(21.2%)
(14.5%)
(9.3%)
(4.3%)
(3.2%)
(0.0%)
61
139
188
-106
40
-7
-24
(7.4%)
(18.8%)
(45.7%)
(-1.6%)
(29.1%)
(-4.7%) (-100.0%)
10,300
9,758
8,525
8,674
2,908
1,919
656
(17.7%)
(16.8%)
(14.7%)
(14.9%)
(5.0%)
(3.3%)
(1.1%)
11,262
11,262
10,165
8,767
3,070
2,135
910
(18.2%)
(18.2%)
(16.4%)
(14.1%)
(5.0%)
(3.4%)
(1.5%)
962
411
1,641
93
161
216
255
(9.3%)
(4.2%)
(19.2%)
(1.1%)
(5.5%)
(11.2%)
(38.8%)

Total
3,978
(100.0%)
4,126
(100.0%)
148
(3.7%)
58,185
(100.0%)
62,011
(100.0%)
3,826
(6.6%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

2015
Transylvani
a
County

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
1,232
(11.1%)
1,165
(10.2%)
-66
(-5.4%)
11,528
(9.5%)
12,116
(9.5%)
588
(5.1%)

Owner Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 $24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999
1,135
1,458
2,110
2,042
1,543
(10.2%)
(13.1%)
(19.0%)
(18.4%)
(13.9%)
1,145
1,334
2,210
2,292
1,781
(10.0%)
(11.6%)
(19.3%)
(20.0%)
(15.5%)
10
-124
99
250
238
(0.9%)
(-8.5%)
(4.7%)
(12.2%)
(15.4%)
11,824
13,478
19,692
25,417
16,526
(9.7%)
(11.1%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.6%)
12,314
13,889
20,777
26,694
17,156
(9.6%)
(10.8%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.4%)
491
411
1,085
1,278
630
(4.1%)
(3.1%)
(5.5%)
(5.0%)
(3.8%)

$100,000$149,999 $150,000+
1,100
476
(9.9%)
(4.3%)
1,066
473
(9.3%)
(4.1%)
-34
-4
(-3.1%)
(-0.8%)
14,515
8,357
(12.0%)
(6.9%)
16,033
9,044
(12.5%)
(7.1%)
1,519
687
(10.5%)
(8.2%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The largest share (26.2%) of renter households in 2020 is projected to be among
households with incomes below $15,000, while the largest share (20.0%) of owneroccupied households at this same time will be among those with incomes between
$50,000 and $74,999. Between 2015 and 2020, the greatest renter household growth
is projected to occur among households with incomes between $35,000 and $49,999,
as well as among those with incomes between $25,000 and $34,999. The greatest
homeowner growth is projected to occur among those with incomes between $50,000
and $74,999, during this same time.

Transylvania-6

Total
11,096
(100.0%)
11,459
(100.0%)
363
(3.3%)
121,336
(100.0%)
128,024
(100.0%)
6,688
(5.5%)

 Given the large and growing base of older adult households in the county, it is
important to evaluate the demographic trends of households by tenure for
householders by age for income groups in the county. The data is presented for the
overall county for 2015 and 2020 in the following tables.
Ages 55 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
308
30.7%
296
26.2%
205
20.5%
240
21.2%
187
18.7%
242
21.4%
103
10.3%
169
14.9%
123
12.3%
103
9.1%
34
3.4%
48
4.3%
35
3.5%
32
2.9%
6
0.6%
0.0%
1,002
100.0%
1,131
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
806
11.1%
786
10.2%
742
10.2%
772
10.0%
953
13.1%
900
11.6%
1,380
19.0%
1,490
19.3%
1,335
18.4%
1,558
20.2%
1,009
13.9%
1,201
15.5%
719
9.9%
703
9.1%
311
4.3%
319
4.1%
7,256
100.0%
7,728
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Ages 62 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
220
30.7%
215
26.2%
147
20.5%
174
21.2%
134
18.7%
176
21.4%
74
10.3%
123
14.9%
88
12.3%
75
9.1%
24
3.4%
35
4.3%
25
3.5%
24
2.9%
4
0.6%
0.0%
716
100.0%
822
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
638
11.1%
620
10.2%
588
10.2%
609
10.0%
755
13.1%
709
11.6%
1,093
19.0%
1,175
19.3%
1,058
18.4%
1,228
20.2%
799
13.9%
947
15.5%
570
9.9%
554
9.1%
247
4.3%
251
4.1%
5,747
100.0%
6,091
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Ages 75 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
121
30.7%
109
26.2%
80
20.5%
88
21.2%
73
18.7%
89
21.4%
41
10.3%
62
14.9%
48
12.3%
38
9.1%
13
3.4%
18
4.3%
14
3.5%
12
2.9%
2
0.6%
0.0%
393
100.0%
416
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Transylvania-7

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
250
11.1%
247
10.2%
231
10.2%
243
10.0%
296
13.1%
283
11.6%
429
19.0%
468
19.3%
415
18.4%
489
20.2%
314
13.9%
377
15.5%
224
9.9%
221
9.1%
97
4.3%
100
4.1%
2,255
100.0%
2,428
100.0%

 Based on the data from the preceding page, the primary senior (age 55+) household
growth between 2015 and 2020 is projected to occur among renters within incomes
between $25,000 and $50,000 and among owners with incomes between $35,000 and
$75,000. As a result, there will likely be a growing need through at least 2020 for
additional renter and owner housing at a variety of price points that meets the needs of
the county’s senior population.
Population by race for 2010 (latest race data available) is shown below:

Asian
Alone

Some
Other
Race
Alone

Two or
More
Races

Total

Region

Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Black or
African
America
n Alone

Transylvania
County

White
Alone

Population by Race

30,577
92.4%
353,718
88.7%

1,292
3.9%
19,967
5.0%

144
0.4%
3,653
0.9%

518
1.6%
13,732
3.4%

559
1.7%
7,842
2.0%

33,090
100.0%
398,912
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The largest share of population by race within the county is among the “White Alone”
segment, which represents 92.4% of the county’s population. This is slightly higher
than the region.
Population by poverty status for years 2006-2010 is shown in the following table:

Transylvania
County
Region

Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Population by Poverty Status
Income below poverty level:
Income at or above poverty level:
<18
18 to 64
65+
<18
18 to 64
65+
1,339
2,779
516
4,375
16,098
7,982
4.0%
8.4%
1.6%
13.2%
48.6%
24.1%
17,106
33,329
6,304
65,171
212,420
64,583
4.3%
8.4%
1.6%
16.3%
53.2%
16.2%

Total
33,090
100.0%
398,912
100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Approximately 14% of the county’s population lives in poverty. Nearly one in four
children (under the age of 18) within the county live in poverty. Approximately
14.7% of the county’s population between the ages of 18 and 64 lives in poverty,
while only 6.1% of seniors age 65 and older live in poverty.

Transylvania-8

 The following graph compares the share of population by age group with incomes
below the poverty level for the county and state:

Population Below Poverty Level by Age (2006-2010)
Transylvania County

Region

9.0%
8.0%

8.4%

8.4%

7.0%

Share

6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%

4.0%

4.3%

2.0%
1.0%

1.6%

1.6%

0.0%
Under 18

18 to 64

65 & Over

Age

Households by tenure for selected years for the county and region are shown in the
following table:

Transylvania
County
Region

Household Type
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total

2000
Number
Percent
9,781
79.4%
2,539
20.6%
12,320
100.0%
105,693
73.6%
37,817
26.4%
143,510
100.0%

Households by Tenure
2010
2015
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
10,873
75.5%
11,096
73.6%
3,521
24.5%
3,978
26.4%
14,394
100.0%
15,073
100.0%
117,511
69.6%
121,336
67.6%
51,237
30.4%
58,185
32.4%
168,748
100.0%
179,521
100.0%

2020
Number Percent
11,459
73.5%
4,126
26.5%
15,584
100.0%
128,018
67.4%
62,009
32.6%
190,027
100.0%

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Within the county, the share of owner-occupied households was over 75% in 2000 and
2010, while the share of renter-occupied households has been under 25%. It is
projected that between 2015 and 2020, the number of owner-occupied households will
increase by 363 (3.3%), while the number of renter-occupied households will increase
by 148 (3.7%).

Transylvania-9

 The following graph compares household tenure shares for 2000, 2010, 2015 and
2020:

Transylvania County/Region Households by Tenure
Transylvania Owner

Region Owner

Transylvania Renter

Region Renter

80.0%
70.0%

Share

60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2000

2010

2015

2020

Year

Renter households by size for selected years are shown in the following table:
Persons Per Renter Household

2010
Transylvania
County

2015
2020
2010

Region

2015
2020

1-Person
1,432
(40.7%)
1,641
(41.3%)
1,724
(41.8%)
20,359
(39.7%)
23,427
(40.3%)
25,224
(40.7%)

2-Person
950
(27.0%)
1,063
(26.7%)
1,094
(26.5%)
14,680
(28.7%)
16,488
(28.3%)
17,416
(28.1%)

3-Person
475
(13.5%)
536
(13.5%)
556
(13.5%)
7,554
(14.7%)
8,593
(14.8%)
9,175
(14.8%)

4-Person
389
(11.0%)
434
(10.9%)
443
(10.7%)
4,965
(9.7%)
5,537
(9.5%)
5,806
(9.4%)

5-Person
276
(7.8%)
304
(7.6%)
308
(7.5%)
3,679
(7.2%)
4,140
(7.1%)
4,387
(7.1%)

Total
3,521
(100.0%)
3,978
(100.0%)
4,126
(100.0%)
51,237
(100.0%)
58,185
(100.0%)
62,009
(100.0%)

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

In 2010, the share of county renter households with one- and two-persons was just
over two-thirds of all renter households, while three-person or larger renter households
represented over 30% of the total renter households. Note that one-person households
are projected to experience the greatest growth between 2015 and 2020, increasing by
83, or 5.1%. This contributes to the projected decrease in the median household size
from 1.65 in 2010 to 1.62 in 2020.

Transylvania-10

Median
Household
Size
1.69
1.65
1.62
1.72
1.69
1.66

 The following graph compares renter household size shares for the county and state in
2015:
Transylvania County/Region Persons per Renter Household (2015)
Transylvania County

Region

45.0%
40.0%
35.0%

41.3% 40.3%

Share

30.0%
25.0%

26.7%

28.3%

20.0%
15.0%

13.5% 14.8%

10.0%
5.0%

10.9% 9.5%

7.6% 7.1%

0.0%
1-Person

2-Persons

3-Persons

4-Persons

5-Persons

Household Size

Owner households by size for selected years are shown on the following table:
Persons Per Owner Household

2010
Transylvania
County

2015
2020
2010

Region

2015
2020

1-Person
2,750
(25.3%)
2,894
(26.1%)
3,060
(26.7%)
29,657
(25.2%)
31,101
(25.6%)
33,231
(26.0%)

2-Person
5,299
(48.7%)
5,348
(48.2%)
5,484
(47.9%)
50,304
(42.8%)
51,336
(42.3%)
53,736
(42.0%)

3-Person
1,326
(12.2%)
1,354
(12.2%)
1,398
(12.2%)
17,419
(14.8%)
18,195
(15.0%)
19,298
(15.1%)

4-Person
934
(8.6%)
939
(8.5%)
950
(8.3%)
12,690
(10.8%)
12,962
(10.7%)
13,538
(10.6%)

5-Person
564
(5.2%)
561
(5.1%)
566
(4.9%)
7,441
(6.3%)
7,742
(6.4%)
8,216
(6.4%)

Total
10,873
(100.0%)
11,096
(100.0%)
11,459
(100.0%)
117,511
(100.0%)
121,336
(100.0%)
128,018
(100.0%)

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Generally, one- and two-person owner-occupied households are projected to represent
a combined three-fifths of the owner-occupied household base within the county in
2015. At the same time, approximately 12% of the county’s owner-occupied
households have consisted of three-persons, less than 9% have been four-persons, and
over 5% have been five-person or larger. These shares are not expected to change
much through 2020. Generally, Transylvania County has a higher share of smaller
household sizes than the overall region.

Transylvania-11

Median
Household
Size
2.01
1.99
1.97
2.16
2.15
2.15

 The following graph compares owner household size shares for the county and region
in 2015:
Transylvania County/Region Persons per Owner Household (2015)
Transylvania County

Region

50.0%
45.0%

48.2%

40.0%

42.3%

Share

35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%

26.1% 25.6%

15.0%
10.0%

12.2%

15.0%
8.5%

5.0%

10.7%

0.0%
1-Person

2-Persons

3-Persons

4-Persons

5.1% 6.4%
5-Persons

Household Size

Residents of the county face a variety of housing issues that include such things as
lacking complete kitchen and/or indoor plumbing, overcrowding (1.01 or more
persons per room), severe overcrowding (1.51 or more persons per room), cost
burdened (paying over 30% of their income towards housing costs), and severe cost
burdened (paying over 50% of their income towards housing costs).
The following table summarizes the housing issues by tenure for Transylvania County.
It is important to note that some occupied housing units have more than one housing
issue.
Housing Issues by Tenure
Housing Issue
Incomplete Plumbing
Overcrowded
Severe Overcrowded
Cost Burdened
Severe Cost Burdened

Renter-Occupied
Number
Percent
0
0.0%
62
1.9%
5
0.2%
1,322
39.9%
626
18.9%

Owner-Occupied
Number
Percent
35
0.3%
103
1.0%
48
0.4%
1,969
18.5%
855
8.0%

Sources: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Notes: Some housing issues overlap with other issues

As illustrated in the preceding table, the greatest housing issue facing county residents
appears to be associated with cost burden. The high share of cost burdened
households indicates that many area residents are paying a disproportionately high
share of their income towards housing costs, which is likely due to a lack of affordable
housing.

Transylvania-12

 D. ECONOMICS
As economic conditions and trends can influence the need for housing within a
particular market, the following is an overview of various economic characteristics
and trends within Transylvania County.
The distribution of employment by industry sector in Transylvania County is
compared with the region in the following table.

NAICS Group
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation & Warehousing
Information
Finance & Insurance
Real Estate & Rental & Leasing
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services
Management of Companies & Enterprises
Administrative, Support, Waste Management & Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health Care & Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
Accommodation & Food Services
Other Services (Except Public Administration)
Public Administration
Nonclassifiable
Total

Employment by Industry (Employees)
Transylvania County
Region
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
88
0.7%
2,090
1.0%
0
0.0%
145
0.1%
25
0.2%
549
0.3%
866
7.0%
11,460
5.2%
507
4.1%
18,891
8.6%
181
1.5%
7,349
3.4%
1,388
11.2%
24,464
11.2%
108
0.9%
4,359
2.0%
136
1.1%
2,671
1.2%
325
2.6%
5,054
2.3%
486
3.9%
5,922
2.7%
523
4.2%
10,754
4.9%
13
0.1%
218
0.1%
657
5.3%
16,789
7.7%
771
6.2%
10,852
5.0%
1,043
8.4%
17,371
7.9%
494
4.0%
2,526
1.2%
838
6.8%
14,188
6.5%
644
5.2%
11,453
5.2%
954
7.7%
13,768
6.3%
2,306
18.7%
37,742
17.3%
12,353
100.0%
218,615
100.0%

*Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research
E.P.E. - Average Employees Per Establishment
Note: Since this survey is conducted of establishments and not of residents, some employees may not live within the county. These
employees, however, are included in our labor force calculations because their places of employment are located within the county.

The labor force within the county is very diversified and balanced with no industry
sector representing more than 11.2% of the overall county’s employment base. The
largest employment sectors in the county are within Retail Trade (11.2%), Health Care
& Social Assistance (8.4%) and Public Administration (7.7%). Overall, Transylvania
County has a distribution of employment by job sector that is similar to the region.

Transylvania-13

 The following illustrates the total employment base for Transylvania County, the
region, North Carolina, and the United States.

Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Total Employment
Region
North Carolina
Total
Percent
Total
Percent
Number
Change
Number
Change
173,140
4,031,081
176,817
2.1%
4,123,857
2.3%
183,324
3.7%
4,261,325
3.3%
184,292
0.5%
4,283,826
0.5%
185,863
0.9%
4,280,355
-0.1%
179,061
-3.7%
4,107,955
-4.0%
181,324
1.3%
4,138,113
0.7%
182,849
0.8%
4,183,094
1.1%
186,023
1.7%
4,271,315
2.1%
188,921
1.6%
4,318,319
1.1%
191,285
1.3%
4,368,455
1.2%

Transylvania County
Total
Percent
Number
Change
11,386
11,800
3.6%
12,174
3.2%
12,815
5.3%
12,661
-1.2%
12,065
-4.7%
11,719
-2.9%
11,373
-3.0%
11,524
1.3%
11,505
-0.2%
11,600
0.8%

United States
Total
Percent
Number
Change
139,967,126
142,299,506
1.7%
145,000,043
1.9%
146,388,369
1.0%
146,047,748
-0.2%
140,696,560
-3.7%
140,457,589
-0.2%
141,727,933
0.9%
143,566,680
1.3%
144,950,662
1.0%
146,735,092
1.2%

Source: Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics
*Through August

Transylvania County Total Employment
12,900

Total Employed

12,700
12,500
12,300
12,100
11,900
11,700
11,500
11,300
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014*

Year

Unlike the other counties within the region, Transylvania County lost jobs in five of
the past seven years and has not fully recovered all jobs since the last recession.
Overall, the county has experienced a net loss of 1,215 or 9.5% of its job base since
2007. On a positive note, the county’s job base has expanded in two of the past three
years.

Transylvania-14

 Unemployment rates for Transylvania County, the region, North Carolina and the
United States are illustrated as follows:
Unemployment Rate
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Transylvania
County
7.0%
5.3%
4.2%
3.7%
5.3%
9.1%
10.4%
10.0%
9.4%
8.1%
6.7%

Region
4.5%
4.4%
3.8%
3.6%
4.9%
8.4%
8.8%
8.2%
7.5%
6.2%
5.1%

North Carolina
5.5%
5.3%
4.8%
4.8%
6.3%
10.4%
10.8%
10.2%
9.2%
8.0%
6.5%

United States
5.6%
5.2%
4.7%
4.7%
5.8%
9.3%
9.7%
9.0%
8.1%
7.4%
6.5%

Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
*Through August

The unemployment rate in Transylvania County has remained between 3.7% and
10.4%, well above the region, state and national averages, since 2004. After reaching
a decade high unemployment rate of 10.4% in 2010, the unemployment rate has
declined in the county in each of the past four years.

Transylvania County/Region Unemployment Rate
Transylvania County

Region

Unemployment Rate

11.0%
10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

Transylvania-15

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014*

 The ten largest employers within the Transylvania County area are summarized as
follows:
Employer Name
Transylvania County Schools
Transylvania Community Hospital, Inc.
Transylvania County
Ingles Markets Inc.
Brevard College
Town of Brevard
Gaia Herbs Inc.
Walmart
M B Industries Inc.
Lowes Home Centers, Inc.

Business Type
Education
Health Care
County Government
Supermarkets
Education
Town Government
Organic Herb Grower/Manufacturing
Retail/Grocery
Manufacturer of OEM Parts for Industry
Hardware/Building Products

Source: ACESSNC, North Carolina Economic Data and Site Information, 2014 1st quarter

According to the representative with Transylvania County Planning and Economic
Development, the Transylvania County economy is growing. Transylvania County is
the home of Brevard College and Brevard Music Center. Brevard College is a small
private United Methodist liberal arts college located in Brevard and the current
enrollment is approximately 705 students. It is listed in the top ten employers within
the county.
The Brevard Music Center is a summer institute and festival located in the town of
Brevard. It enrolls about four hundred students, age fourteen and older, who
participate in orchestra and other large ensembles, an opera program, play chamber
music, study composition and private lessons. A faculty of 60 is drawn from
orchestras, conservatories, and universities. The season runs from the last week of
June through the first week of August. Three performance venues, including the 1800seat Whittington-Pfohl Auditorium, host more than 80 public concerts that attract
audiences of some 50,000 persons. With an annual budget of more than $3 million, the
Center contributes substantially to the economy of western North Carolina.
In August of 2014, Sigma Plastics Group announced that it will restore the former
Excelsior Rosman plant in Transylvania County and create 80 new jobs. The
company plans to expand manufacturing operations and invest $5.5 million over the
next three years. The new expansion will be called New Excelsior Incorporated and
will be a manufacturer of extruded polyethylene films and bags in North America. In
addition to the 80 new jobs, New Excelsior has already hired back approximately 50
former plant employees.

Transylvania-16

 In September of 2014, Gaia Herbs, an organic herbal supplement company based in
Transylvania County, announced that they will be expanding their operations. What
began with a 200 square-foot office outside Boston, Massachusetts in 1987, has
evolved into a 350-acre farm off Island Ford Road. Transylvania County is Gaia
Herbs’ global headquarters, with nearly 150 employees in-house and sales
representatives and other employees spread throughout the country.
Tourism:
According to a representative with Transylvania County Planning and Economic
Development, tourism in the county is substantial and continues to grow each year.
Transylvania County is also known as the “Land of Waterfalls” in both DuPont State
Forest and Pisgah National Forest. The county’s unique geography has 250 waterfalls
within a few miles of each other, including Whitewater Falls (highest falls east of the
Rocky Mountains) and Looking Glass Falls, most of which are easily accessible. In
addition, there are local outfitters that will lead guided tours if you are not able to do a
self-guided tour. DuPont State Forest is also home to Bridal Veil Falls, Grassy Creek
Falls, High Falls, Triple Falls, and Hooker Falls. Possibly the most popular falls,
Bridal Veil Falls draw tourists to the area. These 120-foot falls can be enjoyed from
many angles including an observation deck, flat rocks at the base of the waterfall and
even underneath the falls. These falls, combined with the two forests in the area,
provide Transylvania county with nearly 20 summer camps. Every summer, these
camps are filled with children.
Located in the Blue Ridge Mountains and approximately 45 minutes from Asheville,
the Brevard Music Center (BMC), allows young musicians the opportunity to develop
their musical talents and draws popular guest artists for their annual summer music
series. Each summer more than 400 students, ages 14 through post-college, join
professional musicians for seven weeks. In addition to the instruction, there are
summer concerts and fall concerts. The 2014 season featured more than 80
performances and BMC will open its 2015 season with the debut of violinist Itzhak
Perlman.
With tourism so active in the area, there are many hotels, bed and breakfasts, inns,
hotels, cabins and cottages for lodging as well as restaurants for dining with more
coming into the area.
According to the North Carolina Tourism Department of Tourism, domestic tourism in
Transylvania County generated an economic impact of $84.26 million in 2013. This
was a 4.1% change from 2012. Also in 2013, Transylvania County ranked 44th in
travel impact among North Carolina’s 100 counties. More than 740 jobs in
Transylvania County were directly attributed to travel and tourism.

Transylvania-17

 WARN (layoff notices):
According to the North Carolina Workforce Development website (nccommerce.com),
there have been no WARN notices of large-scale layoffs or closures reported for
Transylvania County area since January 2013.

E. HOUSING SUPPLY
This housing supply analysis considers both rental and owner for-sale housing.
Understanding the historical trends, market performance, characteristics, composition,
and current housing choices provide critical information as to current market
conditions and future housing potential. The housing data presented and analyzed in
this section includes primary data collected directly by Bowen National Research and
from secondary data sources including American Community Survey (ACS), U.S.
Census housing information, and data provided by various government entities and
real estate professionals.
While there are a variety of housing alternatives offered in Transylvania County, we
focused our analysis on the most common alternatives. The housing structures
included in this analysis are:


Rental Housing – Multifamily rentals, typically with three or more units were
inventoried and surveyed. Additionally, rentals with fewer than three units, which
were classified as non-conventional rentals, were identified and surveyed. Other
rentals such as vacation homes, home stays (short-term room rentals), and mobile
homes were evaluated.



Owner For-Sale Housing – We identified attached and detached for-sale housing,
which may be part of a planned development or community, as well as attached
multifamily housing such as condominiums. Both historical (homes sold between
January of 2010 and November of 2014) and available for-sale homes were
evaluated.



Senior Care Housing – Facilities providing housing for seniors requiring some
level of care, such as independent living, multi-unit assisted housing, adult care
homes, and nursing homes, were surveyed and analyzed.

This analysis includes secondary Census housing data, Bowen National Research’s
survey of area rental alternatives and senior care facilities, and owner for-sale housing
data (both historical sales and available housing alternatives) obtained from secondary
data sources (Multiple Listing Service, REALTOR.com, and other on-line sources)
and mobile home parks (Bowen National Research and various secondary sources).
Finally, we contacted local building and planning departments to determine if any
residential units of notable scale were currently planned or under review by local
government. Any such units were considered in the housing gap estimates included
later in this section.

Transylvania-18

 The following table summarizes the surveyed/inventoried housing stock in the county.
This is a sample survey/inventory and does not represent all housing in the county.
However, we believe this housing survey/inventory is representative of a majority of
the most common housing categories offered in the county.
Surveyed Housing Supply Overview
Housing Type
Units
Vacant Units
Multifamily Apartments
507
4
Non-Conventional Rentals
N/A
4
Home Stays
N/A
4
Vacation Rentals
N/A
50
Mobile Home Rentals
935*
N/A
Owner For-Sale Housing
1,726**
678
Senior Care Housing
443
38
Independent Living
Multi-Unit Assisted Housing
194
8
Adult Care Homes
124
15
Nursing Homes
125
15
*Based on 2011-2013 American Community Survey
**Units sold between 2010 and 2014
N/A – Not Available

Vacancy
0.8%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.8%*
5.0%
4.3%
12.1%
12.0%

Price Range
$340-$1,650
$585-$1,750
$350-$695
$2,700-$39,900
$425-$600
$7,500-$8.5 Million
$1,925+
$1,925+
$2,550+
$6,752+

With the exception of the adult care homes and the nursing homes, all housing
segments appear to have vacancy rates of 5.0% or lower. This indicates that these
housing segments are in high demand. While the adult care homes and nursing homes
have vacancy rates of 12.1% and 12.0% respectively, these are not considered
unusually high vacancy rates for these types of senior care housing. Overall, the
county’s housing market is performing well, as demand is strong for virtually all
housing alternatives. The 0.8% vacancy rate of surveyed multifamily rental housing
likely indicates that there is a shortage of such housing within the county.
a. Rental Housing
Multifamily Rental Housing
A total of 17 multifamily housing projects containing a total of 507 units within
the county were surveyed. These rentals have a combined occupancy rate of
99.2%, a very high rate for rental housing. Among these projects, seven are nonsubsidized (market-rate and Tax Credit) projects containing 146 units. These nonsubsidized units are 97.3% occupied. The remaining ten projects contain 361
government-subsidized units, which are 100.0% occupied. It is important to note
that our survey illustrates occupancy rates that only factor in physical vacancies,
which are vacant units that are currently ready to rent and does not account for
economic vacancies, which are vacant units that cannot be rented due to a variety
of factors (e.g. units being renovated or prepared for future occupants,
uninhabitable units, etc.). Definitions of each housing program are included in
Addendum D: Glossary of the Asheville, North Carolina Region Housing Needs
Assessment.

Transylvania-19

 Managers and leasing agents for each project were surveyed to collect a variety of
property information including vacancies, rental rates, design characteristics,
amenities, utility responsibility, and other features. Projects were also rated based
on quality and upkeep.
The inventory of 17 surveyed multifamily rental housing projects contains a total
of 507 units within Transylvania County. Of these units, 25 of the units are
market-rate, 121 are Tax Credit and 259 are government-subsidized. The
remaining units are within mixed-income projects. The distribution of surveyed
rental housing supply by product type is illustrated in the following table:
Project Type
Market-rate
Tax Credit
Tax Credit/Government-Subsidized
Government-Subsidized
Total

Projects
Surveyed
4
3
3
7
17

Total
Units
25
121
102
259
507

Vacant
Units
4
0
0
0
4

Occupancy
Rate
84.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.2%

As the preceding table illustrates, these rentals have a combined occupancy rate of
99.2%. This is an extremely high occupancy rate and an indication that there is
very limited availability among larger multifamily apartment properties in
Transylvania County. In fact, 12 of these projects have wait lists of up to one year
in duration, which provides evidence that there is pent up demand for multifamily
rental housing in the Transylvania County area.
The following tables summarize the breakdown of non-subsidized units surveyed
by program within the county.
Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Total Market-rate

Baths
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.5

Units
8
12
2
2
1
25

Bedroom
Baths
One-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
2.0
Three-Bedroom
1.5
Three-Bedroom
2.0
Total Tax Credit

Units
12
39
36
4
30
121

Market-rate
Distribution
Vacancy
32.0%
0
48.0%
1
8.0%
1
8.0%
1
4.0%
1
100.0%
4
Tax Credit, Non-Subsidized
Distribution
Vacancy
9.9%
0
32.2%
0
29.8%
0
3.3%
0
24.8%
0
100.0%
0

Transylvania-20

% Vacant
0.0%
8.3%
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
16.0%

Median Rent
$525
$650
$950
$975
$950
-

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Median Rent
$415
$448
$405
$476
$565
-

 The market-rate units are 84.0% occupied and the Tax Credit units are 100.0%
occupied. It should be noted that the 84.0% occupancy rate among market-rate
units is attributed to only four vacancies and is not indicative of a lack of demand
for such product. Conversely, there are no vacancies among the surveyed LIHTC
supply and most of these projects have wait lists. As such, there remains a need
for additional affordable multifamily housing in the county.
Median collected rents by bedroom type range from $525 to $975 for the marketrate units and from $405 to $565 for Tax Credit units. It is important to note that
none of the surveyed non-subsidized multifamily projects offered four-bedroom or
larger units. As such, there appear to be no or limited non-subsidized multifamily
rental options for most of the larger family households seeking housing within
Transylvania County. As a result, family households seeking four-bedroom rental
alternatives in Transylvania County likely choose from non-conventional rentals,
which typically have higher rents (when considering utility costs), fewer amenities
and are often of lower quality than multifamily options.
There are ten multifamily projects that were surveyed in Transylvania County that
operate with a government-subsidy. The distribution of units and vacancies by
bedroom type among government-subsidized projects (both with and without Tax
Credits) in Transylvania County is summarized as follows.
Bedroom
Baths
One-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
2.0
Total Subsidized Tax Credit
Bedroom
Studio
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Total Subsidized

Baths
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.0

Subsidized Tax Credit
Units
Distribution
87
85.3%
3
2.9%
12
11.8%
102
100.0%
Government-Subsidized
Units
Distribution
24
9.3%
70
27.0%
114
44.0%
23
8.9%
16
6.2%
12
4.6%
259
100.0%

Vacancy
0
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Vacancy
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

The subsidized Tax Credit units and the government-subsidized units are 100.0%
occupied. Management of these properties are reporting wait lists of up to 12
households or one year in duration. As such, there is a clear pent-up demand for
government-subsidized rental housing affordable to very low-income households.

Transylvania-21

 The following is a distribution of multifamily rental projects and units surveyed by
year built for Transylvania County:
Year Built
Before 1970
1970 to 1979
1980 to 1989
1990 to 1999
2000 to 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Projects
1
3
4
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1

Units
20
100
159
52
32
40
0
0
0
0
62
0
40
2

Vacancy Rate
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%

*As of December

The majority of surveyed multifamily apartments were built between 1970 and
1989. These older apartments have a vacancy rate of 0.0%. Virtually all units built
since 2006 are occupied, indicating that the market has responded well to new
multifamily rental product.
Representatives of Bowen National Research personally visited each of the
surveyed rental projects within Transylvania County and rated the quality of each
property. We rated each property surveyed on a scale of "A" (highest) through "F"
(lowest). All properties were rated based on quality and overall appearance (i.e.
aesthetic appeal, building appearance, landscaping and grounds appearance). The
following is a distribution of units and vacancies by quality rating for all surveyed
rental housing product in Transylvania County.
Quality Rating
A
B+
B
C
Quality Rating
B+
B
BQuality Rating
A
B
C+
C
C- or Lower

Market-rate
Projects
Total Units
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
20
Non-Subsidized Tax Credit
Projects
Total Units
1
62
1
40
1
19
Government-Subsidized
Projects
Total Units
1
40
1
29
1
33
4
137
3
122

Transylvania-22

Vacancy Rate
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
5.0%
Vacancy Rate
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Vacancy Rate
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

 Vacancies are generally low among all program types and quality levels. More
importantly, there does not appear to be a direct correlation between quality level
and vacancy rates. This is not unusual in markets with limited available product.
Non-Conventional Rental Housing
Transylvania County has a large number of non-conventional rentals which can
come in the form of detached single-family homes, duplexes, units over
storefronts, etc. As a result, we have conducted a sample survey of nonconventional rentals within the county. Overall, a total of 13 individual units
were identified and surveyed. While this does not include all non-conventional
rentals in the market, we believe these properties are representative of the typical
non-conventional rental housing alternatives in the county.
The following table aggregates the 13 non-conventional rental units surveyed in
Transylvania County by bedroom type.
Surveyed Non-Conventional Rental Supply

Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom+
Total
N/A – Not Available

Units
1
5
2
5
13

Rent
Range
$750
$585 - $700
$850 - $900
$750 - $1,750

Median
Rent
$750
$600
$875
$1,000

Median
Rent Per
Square Foot
N/A
N/A
N/A
$0.53

As the preceding table illustrates, the rents for non-conventional rentals identified
range from $585 to $1,750. The median rents are $750 for a one-bedroom unit,
$600 for a two-bedroom unit, $875 for a three-bedroom unit and $1,000 for a fourbedroom unit.
The rental rates of non-conventional rentals are generally comparable to most
market-rate multifamily apartments surveyed in the county. However, when
utilities are considered, as most non-conventional rentals require tenants to pay all
utilities, the rental housing costs of non-conventional rentals are generally higher
than multifamily apartments. When also considering the facts that a much larger
share of the non-conventional product was built prior to 1980 and their amenity
packages are relatively limited, it would appear the non-conventional rentals
represent less of a value than most multifamily apartments in the market. However,
given the relatively limited number of vacant units among the more affordable
multifamily apartments, many low-income households are likely forced to choose
from the non-conventional housing alternatives.

Transylvania-23

 Vacation Rental Housing
Transylvania County has a large number of vacation rentals which can come in the
form of cabins, detached single-family homes, condominiums, etc. As a result, we
have conducted a sample survey of vacation rentals within the county. Overall, a
total of 50 individual units were identified and surveyed. While this does not
include all vacation rentals in the market, we believe these properties are
representative of the typical vacation rental housing alternatives in the market.
Information regarding the bedroom/bathroom configuration, year built, amenities,
collected rent and total square footage was collected and evaluated when available.
The following table aggregates the 50 vacation rental units surveyed in the county
by bedroom type. (Note: While vacation rentals are rented on a variety of periods,
such as daily and weekly, all rents have been converted to monthly rates to more
easily compare with conventional, long-term rentals).
Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom+
Total

Surveyed Vacation Rental Supply
Units
Rent Range
2
$2,700 - $3,750
20
$2,625 - $8,700
15
$2,985 - $11,700
13
$4,500 - $39,900
50

Median Rent
$3,225
$3,825
$6,675
$9,405

Source: www.homeaway.com; Bowen National Research
*Monthly Rents (most rentals are rented on a daily or weekly rate, but were converted to a monthly rent for an
easier comparison with long-term rentals)

The rental rates of vacation rentals are significantly higher than most conventional
multifamily apartments and non-conventional rentals surveyed in the county.
Generally, such rentals are four times higher than conventional rentals, essentially
eliminating this type of housing as a viable long-term housing alternative to most
area renters. However, due to this rent differential, such housing may appeal to
owners of traditional, long-term conventional rentals who may want to convert
their housing to vacation rentals. This is addressed in the case study portion of the
Asheville, North Carolina Region Housing Needs Assessment.

Transylvania-24

 Home Stay Rentals
A home stay rental is generally considered a bedroom or a few rooms that are
rented to tenants on a short-term basis and typically represents a portion of a full
rental unit. Such rentals are generally short-term (usually less than 30 days)
housing options. Tenants in the home stay rental often have shared access to
common areas such as bathrooms and kitchens. Home stay rentals typically come
in the form of apartments, detached single-family homes, duplexes,
condominiums, etc. We have conducted a sample survey of home stay rentals
within the county.
Overall, a total of only four individual home stay rental “units” were identified and
surveyed. While this likely does not include all home stay rentals in the county,
we believe these properties are representative of the typical home stay rental
housing alternatives in the market. The following table aggregates the four home
stay rental units surveyed in the county.
Units
4

Surveyed Home Stay Rental Supply
Rent Range
$350 - $695

Median Rent
$425

Source: Craiglist.com; Bowen National Research

As the preceding table illustrates, the rents for home stay rentals identified range
from $350 to $695. The county’s median rent is $425 per unit. This median rent
is very comparable to the overall region.
The rental rates of home stay rentals are generally lower than most multifamily
apartments surveyed in the county, which is not surprising since such rentals are
limited to a single room with shared access to common areas (e.g. bathrooms,
kitchens, etc.). Most home stay rentals are roommate situations where residents
have their own bedroom but must share kitchen, living and bathroom areas. Most
rentals include all basic utilities in the rent, with many rentals also offering cable
television and Internet as part of the rent. A large number of the rentals are fully
furnished, but offer few project amenities such as swimming pools or other
recreational features. Most rentals allow residents access to laundry facilities.
Leases are often flexible, typically month to month in duration. Unlike most
conventional apartment or private non-conventional rentals, home stays have the
unique element of matching personal preferences with roommates. For example,
many properties advertise that they are looking for smoke-free/smokers, pet
friendly/no pet, male/female or other types of tenants. Such preferences or
restrictions likely limit the type of residents that can be accommodated at such
rentals. Given these preferences and restrictions, along with the fact that the home
stay rentals can typically only accommodate one- or two-person households, home
stays likely have a limited ability to meet the needs of most area renters.

Transylvania-25

 Mobile Home Rentals
Bowen National Research identified 61 mobile home parks in Transylvania
County through secondary resources, such as www.mhvillage.com, the county tax
department/assessor, and CraigsList. Upon identification of these parks, which is
not a comprehensive list, we conducted a sample windshield survey to evaluate the
quality of select parks and their neighborhoods, and we attempted to conduct
telephone interviews with park operators.
According to local mobile home park operators, the current lot rents are around
$240 per month, and the typical rent for a mobile home on a lot ranges from $425
to $600 per month, dependent upon size and condition of the unit. The parks are
typically 95% to 98% occupied. These numbers are generally similar to other
mobile home parks in the region. The respondents also stated that they believe lot
rents have increased over the past several years, while occupancy rates have
generally stayed the same. A windshield survey of select mobile home parks in
the county yielded “C” to “C-” quality and neighborhood ratings, indicating that
these mobile home parks and their neighborhoods are in fair condition.
Bowen National Research asked the mobile home park operators if there are any
issues or problems associated with operating or maintaining a mobile home park in
the area, or what recommendations the respondents may have that the local
government could do to aid in mobile home park living. The respondents stated
that an increase in Section 8 Voucher assistance would help, and also more
playgrounds and the addition of planed/organized activities for children at area
mobile home parks to increase appeal for families.
b. Owner For-Sale Housing
Bowen National Research, through a review of the Multiple Listing Service
information for Transylvania County, identified both historical (sold since 2010)
for-sale residential data and currently available for-sale housing stock.
There were 1,726 homes sold and 678 homes currently available in Transylvania
County. Approximately, an average of 329 homes are sold each year within
Transylvania County. The 678 available homes in Transylvania County represent
18.5% of all identified available for-sale homes in the region. The following table
summarizes the available and recently sold (since January 2010) housing stock for
Transylvania County.
Transylvania County - Owner For-Sale/Sold Housing Supply
Type
Homes
Median Price
Available
678
$299,700
Sold
1,726
$185,000
Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

Transylvania-26

 The following table includes a summary of annual for-sale residential transactions
that occurred within Transylvania County since 2010. It should be noted that the
2014 sales data is only through November of that year. It is our opinion that an
evaluation of sales activity after 2009 is representative of true market conditions
following the recession.

Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Transylvania County
Owner For-Sale Housing by Year Sold
Units Sold
Median Price Sold
Number
Change
Price
Change
270
$199,950
286
5.9%
$175,000
-12.5%
366
28.0%
$174,750
-0.1%
393
7.4%
$181,500
3.9%
411
4.6%
$187,000
3.0%

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research
*Through Nov. 21, 2014

Excluding the partial year of 2014, annual residential for-sales activity within the
county has ranged between 270 in 2010 and 393 in 2013. The annual sales activity
has grown each of the past four full years. The county has already sold more
homes though November of this year than at any full year since 2010 and is
currently on pace to sell approximately 450 residential units for all of 2014. The
county has experienced fluctuations in median sales prices over the past five years,
but has trended upward over the past two years. The positive trends among sales
volume and sales prices are good indications of a healthy and stable for-sale
housing market in Transylvania County.

Transylvania-27

 The following graphs illustrate the overall annual number of homes sold and
median sales prices over the past four years for Transylvania County from 2010 to
2013 (2014 was excluded due to the fact that only partial year data is available):

Transylvania County Annual Home Sales (2010-2013)
400

393
366

Homes Sold

375
350
325

286

300

270

275
250

2010

2011

2012

2013

Year

Transylvania County Annual Median Sales Price (2010-2013)
$205,000

$199,950

$200,000

Price

$195,000
$190,000

$181,500

$185,000
$180,000

$175,000

$175,000

$174,750
$170,000

2010

2011

2012
Year

Transylvania-28

2013

 The following table summarizes the inventory of available for-sale housing in
Transylvania County and the region.
Available Owner For-Sale Housing
Total
Units
678
3,669

Transylvania County
Region

% Share
of Region
18.5%
100.0%

Low
List Price
$46,250
$19,900

High
List Price
$8,500,000
$10,750,000

Average
List Price
$506,092
$451,391

Median
List Price
$299,700
$290,418

Average
Days
On Market
393
244

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

Within Transylvania County, the available homes have a median list price of
$299,700, which is slightly more than the region median list price of $290,418.
The average number of days on market for available product in Transylvania
County is 393, which is significantly longer than the region average of 244. This
is not surprising given the fact that over one-fourth of the available supply in the
county is priced over $500,000, which typically takes longer to sell due to the
smaller number of higher income households that could afford such product.
The table below summarizes the distribution of available for-sale residential units
by price point for Transylvania County.

List Price
<$100,000
$100,000 - $199,999
$200,000 - $299,999
$300,000 - $399,999
$400,000 - $499,999
$500,000+

Available Owner For-Sale Housing by Price Point
Transylvania County
Region
Median
Median
Price
Units
Share
Price
Units
$78,000
31
4.6%
$79,700
190
$159,000
139
20.5%
$159,900
821
$249,000
175
25.8%
$249,900
934
$359,000
93
13.7%
$350,000
543
$450,000
63
9.3%
$450,000
319
$849,000
177
26.1%
$797,200
862

Share
5.2%
22.4%
25.4%
14.8%
8.7%
23.5%

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

Transylvania County Available For-Sale Housing by Price
200
175

Homes

177

175

150
125

139

100

93

75
50
25

63
31

0
Less than $100K

$100k-$199,999

$200k-$299,999

$300k-$399,999

Price Range

Transylvania-29

$400k-$499,000

$500,000+

 The highest share (26.1%) of the available for-sale supply in Transylvania County
is priced over $500,000. These homes would generally be available to households
with incomes of $150,000 or higher. More than a quarter (25.8%) of the available
product is priced between $200,000 and $299,999, indicating that there is a good
base of homes generally affordable to households with incomes between $60,000
and $100,000. Only 4.6% of all available homes are priced below $100,000, which
would be generally affordable to households with incomes under $30,000 Based
on our on-site evaluation of the county’s housing stock and an analysis of
secondary data on such housing, it appears that much of the housing inventory was
built prior to 1970 and is of fair quality. As a result, while it may be deemed that
there is some for-sale product available to lower-income households, such product
likely requires additional costs for repairs, modernization and maintenance, which
my be difficult for many low-income households to afford.
c. Senior Care Facilities
The subject county, like areas throughout the country, has a large senior
population that requires a variety of senior housing alternatives to meet its diverse
needs. Among seniors, generally age 62 or older, some individuals are either
seeking a more leisurely lifestyle or need assistance with Activities of Daily
Living (ADLs). As part of this analysis, we evaluated four levels of care that
typically respond to older adults seeking, or who need, alternatives to their current
living environment. They include independent living, multi-unit assisted housing,
adult care homes, and nursing care. These housing types, from least assisted to
most assisted, are summarized below.
Independent Living is a housing alternative that includes a residential unit,
typically an apartment or cottage that offers an individual living area, kitchen, and
sleeping room. The fees generally include the cost of the rental unit, some utilities,
and services such as laundry, housekeeping, transportation, meals, etc. This
housing type is also often referred to as congregate care. Physical assistance and
medical treatment are not offered at such facilities.
Multi-unit Assisted Housing With Services (referred to as multi-unit assisted
throughout this report) is a housing alternative that provides unlicensed care
services along with the housing. Such housing offers residents the ability to obtain
personal care services and nursing services through a home care or hospice agency
that visit the subject site to perform such services. Management at the subject
project arrange services that correspond to an individualized written care plan.
Adult Care Homes are state licensed residences for aged and disabled adults who
may require 24-hour supervision and assistance with personal care needs. People
in adult care homes typically need a place to live, with some help with personal
care (such as dressing, grooming and keeping up with medications), and some
limited supervision. Medical care may be provided on occasion but is not routinely
needed. Medication may be given by designated, trained staff. This type of facility
is very similar to what is commonly referred to as “assisted living.” These

Transylvania-30

 facilities generally offer limited care that is designed for seniors who need some
assistance with daily activities but do not require nursing care.
Nursing Homes provide nursing care and related services for people who need
nursing, medical, rehabilitation or other special services. These facilities are
licensed by the state and may be certified to participate in the Medicaid and/or
Medicare programs. Certain nursing homes may also meet specific standards for
sub-acute care or dementia care.
We referenced the Medicare.com and North Carolina Division of Health Service
Regulation websites for all licensed senior care facilities and cross referenced this
list with other senior care facility resources. As such, we believe that we identified
most, if not all, licensed facilities in the county.
Within the county, a total of five senior care facilities were surveyed containing a
total of 443 beds. These facilities are representative of the typical housing choices
available to seniors requiring special care housing. It should be noted that family
adult care homes of six units or less were not included in this inventory. The
following table summarizes the surveyed facilities by property type.
Project Type
Independent Living
Multi-Unit Assisted Housing
Adult Care Homes
Nursing Homes
Total

Surveyed Senior Care Facilities
Projects
Beds
0
0
2
194
2
124
1
125
5
443

Vacant
8
15
15
38

Vacancy Rate
4.3%
12.1%
12.0%
5.0%

The Transylvania County senior care market is reporting overall vacancy rates
between 4.3% (multi-unit assisted housing) to 12.1% (assisted living). The 4.3%
vacancy rate among multi-unit assisted housing is relatively low and indicates that
there is a good level of demand for such housing in the county. While the adult
care homes and nursing homes have double-digit vacancy rates, these are not
considered unusual for these types of facilities. As such, demand for these types of
senior care housing facilities within the county is typical. Overall, demand for
senior care housing in the county appears to be strong and indicates that there may
be an opportunity to develop additional senior care housing in this county,
particularly when considering the projected senior household growth for the next
few years.
Base monthly fees for multi-unit assisted housing start at $1,925 a month, adult
care homes start at $2,550 and nursing care facilities have a base monthly fee
starting near $6,752. These fees are slightly higher than most senior care housing
fees in the region.

Transylvania-31

 d. Planned & Proposed Residential Development
In order to access housing development potential, we evaluated recent residential
building permit activity and identified residential projects in the development
pipeline for Transylvania County. Understanding the number of residential units
and the type of housing being considered for development in the county can assist
in determining how these projects are expected to meet the housing needs of the
area. However, according to local building and planning officials, there is
currently nothing planned regarding new housing, and no notable economic
development or infrastructure projects planned within Transylvania County.

F. HOUSING GAP ESTIMATES
Bowen National Research conducted housing gap analyses for rental and for-sale
housing for the subject county. The housing gap estimates include new household
growth, housing required for a balanced market, households living in substandard
housing (replacement housing), and units in the development pipeline. This estimate
is considered a representation of the housing shortage in the market and indicative of
the more immediate housing requirements of the market. Our estimates consider four
income stratifications. These stratifications include households with incomes of up to
30% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI), households with incomes between
31% and 50% of AMHI, between 51% and 80% of AMHI, and between 80% and
120% of AMHI. This analysis was conducted for family households and seniors (age
55+) separately. This analysis identifies the housing gap (the number of units that
could potentially be supported) for the county between 2015 and 2020. Broader
housing needs estimates, which include household growth, cost burdened households,
households living in substandard housing, and units in the development pipeline, were
provided for the overall region and is included in the Asheville, North Carolina
Region Housing Needs Assessment.
The demand components included in the housing gap estimates for each of the two
housing types (rental and for-sale) are listed as follows:






Housing Gap Analysis Components
Owner Housing
Rental Housing
Renter Household Growth
 Owner Household Growth
Units Required for Balanced Market
 Units Required for Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
 Substandard Housing
Pipeline Development*
 Pipeline Development*

*Includes units that lack complete indoor plumbing and overcrowded housing
**Units under construction, permitted, planned or proposed

The demand factors for each housing segment at the various income stratifications are
combined. Any product confirmed to be in the development pipeline is deducted from
the various demand estimates, yielding a housing gap estimate. This gap analysis is
conducted for both renters and owners, as well as for seniors (age 55+) and family
households. These gaps represent the number of new households that may need

Transylvania-32

 housing and/or the number of existing households that currently live in housing that
needs replaced to relieve occupants of such things as overcrowded or substandard
housing conditions. Data used for these various demand components originates from
the demographic analysis portion of this study.
Rental Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below summarize the rental housing gap estimates by the various income
segments for family and senior households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

<30%
(<$15,000)
-129
33
15
0
-81

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
26
84
36
27
27
30
12
12
14
0
0
0
65
123
80

Total
17
117
53
0
187

<30%
(<$15,000)
-12
12
6
0
6

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
35
55
46
10
10
11
5
5
5
0
0
0
50
70
62

Total
124
43
21
0
188

Transylvania County Rental Housing Gap by Income
Family Households

Senior Households

125

123

100

Housing Gap

75

65

50

6

25

70
50

80
62

0
-25
-50

-81

-75
-100
<30%

30% - 50%

50% - 80%

Percent of Median Household Income

Transylvania-33

80% - 120%

 Based on the preceding table, the largest are rental housing gap by income level is
within the 50% to 80% AMHI level among both families and seniors. However,
notable housing gaps exist within the 30% to 50% AMHI level and the 80% to 120%
AMHI level as well. There does not appear to be a housing deficit for units affordable
to households with incomes of 30% of AMHI or lower. However, based on our survey
of rental housing, government-subsidized housing that targets very low-income
households is fully occupied and maintains long wait lists. As such, despite the lack
of a quantitative housing gap deficit shown for very low-income housing in the
preceding table, we believe there will be a continued need for such housing. This is
particularly true when considering that nearly 40% of area renters are rent burdened
and would benefit from additional affordable housing in the county.
Owner Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below summarize the owner housing gap estimates by the various income
segments for family and senior households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

<30%
(<$15,000)
-46
5
4
0
-37

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
-20
71
16
5
5
18
4
4
15
0
0
0
-11
80
49

Total
21
33
27
0
81

<30%
(<$15,000)
-20
9
8
0
-3

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
30
-53
333
9
11
37
9
9
31
0
0
0
48
-33
401

Total
290
66
57
0
413

Transylvania-34

 Transylvania County Owner Housing Gap by Income
Family Households

Senior Households

400

401

350

Housing Gap

300
250
200
150
100
50

48

0
-50

-37
<30%

-3

-11
30% - 50%

80

49
-33

50% - 80%

80% - 120%

Percent of Median Household Income

As shown in the preceding owner housing gap analysis, the greatest housing gap for
families is for households with incomes between 50% and 80% of AMHI, while
seniors with incomes between 80% and 120% of AMHI have the greatest gap among
seniors.
Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior care housing encompasses a variety of alternatives including multi-unit assisted
housing, adult care homes, and nursing homes. Such housing typically serves the
needs of seniors requiring some level of care to meet their personal needs, often due to
medical or other physical issues. The following attempts to quantify the estimated
senior care housing need in the county.
Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior Care Housing Demand Component
Demand Estimates
Elderly Population Age 62 and Older by 2020
12,617
Times Share* of Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
X 7.4%
Equals Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
= 934
Plus External Market Support (20%)
+ 187
Equals Total Senior Care Support Base
= 1,121
Less Existing Supply
- 443
Less Development Pipeline
-0
Potential Senior Care Beds Needed by 2020
= 678
ADL – Activities of Daily Living
*Share of ADL was based on data provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Population National Health Interview Survey 2011

Transylvania-35

 Based upon age 62 and older population characteristics and trends, and applying the
estimated ratio of persons requiring ADL assistance and taking into account the
existing and planned senior housing supply, we estimate that there will be 678
households with a person requiring assisted services that will not have their needs met
by existing or planned senior care facilities by the year 2020. Not all of these
estimated households with persons age 62 and older requiring ADL assistance will
want to move to a senior care facility, as many may choose home health care services
or have their needs taken care of by a family member. Regardless, the 678 seniors
estimated above represent the potential need for additional senior care housing in the
county.

G. STAKEHOLDER SURVEY & INTERVIEWS
Associates of Bowen National Research solicited input from nearly more than 40
stakeholders throughout the region. Their input was provided in the form of an online
survey and telephone interviews. Of these respondents, 10 serve the Transylvania
County area. Considered leaders within their field and active in the community, they
represent a wide range of industries, including government, economic development,
real estate, and social assistance. The purpose of these interviews was to gather input
regarding the need for the type and styles of housing, the income segments housing
should target, and if there is a lack of housing or housing assistance within the county.
The following is a summary of the key input gathered.
Stakeholders were asked if there is a specific area of the county where housing should
be developed. Rental housing was ranked as the type of housing having the greatest
need, followed by for-sale housing and housing for single-person/young professionals.
Respondents indicated that the housing style most needed in the area is single-family,
followed by duplex/triplex/townhomes. When asked to rank the need for housing for
each income level, respondents ranked incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 with the
greatest need, followed by incomes below $25,000 and incomes between $51,000 and
$75,000, respectively. The most significant housing issues within the county, as
indicated by respondents, are rent burdened/affordability and limited availability.
Respondents were asked to prioritize funding types that should be utilized or explored
in the county. “Other” homeowner assistance and “other” rental housing assistance
were given the highest priority, followed by Tax Credit financing. No respondents
provided a type of “other” assistance that should be offered. One respondent indicated
that there is a need for one-bedroom units, while another noted that supervised living
is needed within the county. When asked what common barriers or obstacles exist as it
relates to housing development in the county, the cost of land was most commonly
cited, followed by financing and local government regulations. Suggestions for
overcoming these obstacles included greater coordination between the city of Brevard,
the town of Rosman and the county, as well as additional funding and streamlined
development processes. One respondent noted that while the mountainous terrain of
the region is a draw, it also creates development challenges, and strategies for land
acquisition and density should be explored.

Transylvania-36

 If a respondent was knowledgeable about homelessness in the county, they were asked
to rank the need for housing for various homeless groups. All homeless groups
(homeless individuals, families, veterans, chronically homeless and youth) were
ranked fairly evenly in terms of housing need. Respondents indicated that the most
needed type of housing to serve the homeless population is transitional housing,
followed by increased Voucher assistance and emergency shelters. The most
commonly cited obstacles to developing homeless housing were NIMBYism and
governmental “red tape”. Multiple respondents believe there is a need for increased
supportive service programs, public education, and local government incentives for
the development of housing for area homeless persons.
If a respondent was knowledgeable about special needs groups in the county, they
were asked to rank the need for housing for various special needs groups. The most
commonly indicated groups were persons with mental illness, persons suffering from
alcohol/substance abuse, and persons with physical/developmental disabilities.
Respondents believe that transitional housing, group homes, and emergency shelters
would best serve these populations. The lack of community support and funding were
cited as the most common obstacles to developing special needs housing.

H. SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
Besides the traditional demographics and housing supply evaluated on the preceding
pages of this section, we also identified special needs populations within Transylvania
County. This section of the report addresses demographic and housing supply
information for the homeless population and the other special needs populations
within the county.
Transylvania County is located within HUD’s designated Continuum of Care (CoC)
area known as North Carolina Balance of State (BoS). CoCs around the United States
are required to collect data for a point-in-time during the last week of each year. The
last published as North Carolina BoS point-in-time survey was conducted in January
2014. This includes count of persons who are classified as homeless, as well as an
inventory of the housing specifically designated for the homeless population.
According to the 2014 point-in-time survey for Transylvania County there are
approximately 115 persons who are classified as homeless on any given day in
Transylvania County. The following tables summarize the sheltered and unsheltered
homeless population, as well as the homeless housing inventory within the county.

Transylvania-37

 Homeless Population & Subpopulation–Transylvania County
Permanent
Emergency
Transitional
Supportive
Rapid
Shelter
Housing
Housing
Re-Housing

Population Category
Persons in Households without Children
Persons in Households with 1 Adult & 1
Child
Persons in Household with only Children
# of Persons Chronically & Formerly
Chronically Homeless
Persons with Serious Mental Illness
Persons with Substance Abuse Disorder
Persons w/ AIDS/HIV
Victims of Domestic Violence
Veterans
Ex-Offenders
Persons exiting Behavioral
Health/Healthcare System

Total

Unsheltered

Total
Population

9

0

0

0

72

81

8
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

4
0

12
0

3
0
0
0
12
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

7
0
0
0
0
0
0

10
0
0
0
12
0
0

0
32

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
83

0
115

Seasonal
Beds

*Overflow
Beds

Total
Beds

Veteran
0
0
0
0
0
0

AIDS/HIV

Single
Male &
Female
10
0
0
0
0
10

Youth

Households
with Children
8
0
0
0
0
8

Domestic
Violence

Project
Type
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
*Rapid Re-housing
Safe Haven
Total Beds By Population

Chronically
Homeless

Homeless Housing Inventory – Transylvania County
Beds by Population Category

0
0
0
0
0
0

13
0
0
0
0
13

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0
1

32
0
0
0
0
32

Source: North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness (1-2014)
*Haven of Transylvania operates a RRH program and can provide assistance up to 34 individuals however this number is not
reflected in the count as it was not providing assistance during the PIT count.

Based on the 2014 North Carolina Balance of the State Housing Inventory Count
Summary, the utilization (occupancy) rate for homeless housing beds in Transylvania
County is 90.6%. This utilization rate and the fact that 83 (72.1%) persons remain
unsheltered on a given night indicate that there still remains a need for housing that
meets the special needs of the homeless population. One local service provider noted
that the homeless population in the area would greatly benefit from more emergency
shelter beds for families as well as permanent supportive housing for persons with a
mental illness. Approximately 85% of homeless persons in Transylvania County
suffer from an addiction or mental illness at the time these individuals are referred to
Meridian Health Services. There are also various outreach programs available through
Salvation Army and Bread of Life Sharing House which assist in meeting the
homeless population’s basic needs in Transylvania County.

Transylvania-38

 Specifically, within Transylvania County one area service provider noted that on
average there are approximately 125 to 150 individuals living in emergency shelters or
transitional housing on any given night. However, that number is believed to be
greater due to persons couch surfing that would not be accounted for in the annual PIT
counts as rural homelessness often is less visible. It was also noted that the lack of
transportation in the area also hinders the homeless and low-income families from
seeking jobs and access to other supportive services. Regardless, with an estimated
population of 115 and nearly a dozen homeless persons unsheltered, homelessness
remains a challenge in Transylvania County and is an ongoing housing need.
The following table summarizes the various special needs populations within the
county that were considered in this report.
Special Needs Populations
Special Needs Group
HIV/AIDS
Victims of Domestic Violence (VDV)
Persons with Substance Abuse (PSA)
Adults with Mental Illness (MI)
Adults with Severe Mental Illness (SMI)
Co-Occurring Disorders (COD)
Multi-Generational Households (MGH)

Persons
32
273
32
1,151
14
399
460

Special Needs Group
Persons with Disabilities (PD)
Elderly (Age 62+) (E62)
Frail Elderly (Age 62+) (FE62)
Ex-offenders (Parole/Probation) (EOP)
Unaccompanied Youth (UY)
Veterans
Source: See Region Housing Needs Assessment

Persons
5,861
12,617
934
48
3
3,349

The largest number of special needs persons is among the elderly (age 62+), those
with disabilities, veterans, persons with mental illness and multi-generational
households. According to our interviews with area stakeholders, housing alternatives
that meet the distinct demands of the special needs population are limited. Notable
facilities are offered by Haven of Transylvania County, Disability Partners,
Transylvania Association for Disabled Citizens, Western North Carolina AIDS
Project, SAFE of Transylvania County/Stacey’s House, Eliada Homes, Western
Highlands LME, Mountain Laurel Community Services, Counseling Centers of
Brevard, Trails Carolina and various nursing and residential care homes which meet
the needs of victims of domestic violence, persons with substance abuse, persons with
a mental illness, disabled persons, ex-offenders, unaccompanied youth, persons living
with HIV/AIDS and elderly persons. It should be noted that while most of these
facilities are located in Buncombe County, services are offered to persons residing
within Transylvania County.

I. CONCLUSIONS/KEY FINDINGS
Recent county economic trends have been positive and overall demographic trends are
projected to be positive within Transylvania County over the next five years, which
are expected to contribute to the continued strength of the housing market within the
county during for the foreseeable future. Some key findings based on our research of
Transylvania County are summarized as follows.

Transylvania-39

 

Population & Households – Between 2015 and 2020, the population is projected
to grow by 982 (2.9%), which is just over one half the growth rate (5.5%) of the
overall region. During this same time, household growth of 511 (3.4%) is
projected to occur in the county, which is slightly more than half the region’s
projected growth rate of 5.9%.



Household Heads by Age – Transylvania County’s senior households age 65 and
older will increase by 663 (9.6%) between 2015 and 2020, adding to its anticipated
need for senior-oriented housing. While modest, it is projected that households
between the ages of 25 and 44 will increase by approximately 44 households,
which will likely lead to a need for additional family-oriented and/or workforce
housing.



Households by Income and Tenure – While the greatest projected renter
household growth between 2015 and 2020 will be among those with incomes
between $35,000 and $50,000, the largest share of renter households will be
among those making less than $35,000 by 2020. The greatest owner household
growth during this time is projected to occur among those making between
$50,000 and $75,000. As such, the county will have diverse housing needs.



Rental Housing – Transylvania County has a well-balanced supply of rental
alternatives. However, it is noteworthy that the multifamily rental housing supply
is operating at an overall 99.2% occupancy rate, which is very high. More
importantly, there are no vacancies among the 482 surveyed affordable (Tax Credit
and government-subsidized) rental units in the county. This occupancy rate and
the long wait lists maintained at these projects indicate that there is pent-up
demand for affordable housing in the county. Based on the housing gap estimates,
it appears that the greatest projected rental housing needs will be for those with
incomes between 50% and 80% of AMHI.



Owner Housing (for-sale) – For-sale housing prices have remained generally
stable over the past three years, while the number of homes sold annually has
increased in each of the past three years. The for-sale housing market is
considered to be strong. While the largest share of available for-sale housing is
among product priced over $500,000, nearly half of all available product is priced
between $100,000 and $300,000. These shares of available supply are similar to
the entire region. Based on the housing gap estimates, it appears that the greatest
housing gap for owner housing will be for households with incomes between 50%
and 80% of AMHI for family households and between 80% and 120% of AMHI
for senior households.



Senior Care Facilities – Senior housing reported an overall occupancy rate of
95.0% (5.0% vacant). This is a relatively high occupancy rate. As shown in the
housing needs estimates, it is believed that an additional 678 senior care beds will
be needed to meet the future needs of are seniors.

Transylvania-40

 

Special Needs Populations - While there are many special needs populations
within the county that likely require housing assistance, it appears that the largest
special needs populations in the county are the elderly (age 62+), those with
disabilities, veterans, persons with mental illness and multi-generational
households.

J. SOURCES
See the Asheville, North Carolina Region Housing Needs Assessment for a full listing
of all sources used in this report.

Transylvania-41

 City of Asheville
Housing Needs Assessment

Author: Patrick M. Bowen, President & Lead Contact
155 E. Columbus Street, Ste. 220   Pickerington, Ohio 43147
Phone: (614) 833-9300   patrickb@bowennational.com
www.bowennational.com

 ASHEVILLE
A. Introduction
The focus of this analysis is to assess the market characteristics of, and to determine
the housing needs for the city of Asheville, North Carolina. To accomplish this task,
Bowen National Research evaluated various socio-economic characteristics,
inventoried and analyzed the housing supply (rental and owner/for-sale product),
conducted stakeholder interviews, evaluated special needs populations and provided
housing gap estimates to help identify the housing needs of the city.
To provide a base of comparison, various metrics of Asheville were compared with
overall four-county region that includes the counties of Buncombe, Henderson,
Madison and Transylvania. A detailed comparison of the city of Asheville in relation
with four subject counties is provided in the region analysis portion of the Asheville
Overall Housing Needs Assessment.
B. City Overview
Asheville is located within Buncombe County and is the county seat. The city is the
region’s largest city and the 11th largest city in the state, and serves as the
employment, retail, and cultural center of the overall region. It encompasses a total of
45.3 square miles. Primary thoroughfares within or near the city include U.S.
Highways 23, 25 and 74,
and Interstate Highways
26, 40 and 240. Notable
city attractions include
the Asheville Central
Business District, U.S.
Cellular Center (Civic
Center), Grove Arcade,
Asheville
Community
Theatre, Pack Square
Cultural
District,
Botanical Gardens at
Asheville, University of
North Carolina-Asheville
as well as numerous
parks,
entertainment
venues and museums.
The county had a 2010 total population of 83,393 and 37,380 total households. The
primary employment sectors and their corresponding shares of the city’s total
employment are Retail Trade (13.0%), Health Care & Social Assistance (9.9%), and
Public Administration (9.0%). Additional details regarding demographics, economics,
housing, and other pertinent research and findings are included on the following
pages.

Asheville-1

 C. Demographics
This section of the report evaluates key demographic characteristics for Asheville.
Through this analysis, unfolding trends and unique conditions are revealed regarding
populations and household income data. Demographic comparisons provide insights
into the human composition of housing markets.
This section is comprised of three major parts: population characteristics, household
characteristics, and household income data. Population characteristics describe the
qualities of individual people, while household characteristics describe the qualities of
people living together in one residence.
It is important to note that 2000 and 2010 demographics are based on U.S. Census data
(actual count), while 2015 and 2020 data are based on calculated projections provided
by ESRI, a nationally recognized demography firm, and the American Community
Survey. The accuracy of these projections depends on the realization of certain
assumptions:


Economic projections made by secondary sources materialize;



Governmental policies with respect to residential development remain consistent;



Availability of financing for residential development (i.e. mortgages, commercial
loans, subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) remains consistent;



Sufficient housing and infrastructure is provided to support projected population
and household growth.

Significant unforeseen changes or fluctuations among any of the preceding
assumptions could have an impact on demographic projections.
Population and household numbers for selected years within Asheville and the region
are shown in the following table:

2000 Census
2010 Census
Change 2000-2010
Percent Change 2000-2010
2015 Projected
Change 2010-2015
Percent Change 2010-2015
2020 Projected
Change 2015-2020
Percent Change 2015-2020

Total Population
Asheville
Region
73,909
344,472
83,393
398,912
9,484
54,440
12.8%
15.8%
89,571
421,899
6,178
22,987
7.4%
5.8%
95,945
445,283
6,374
23,384
7.1%
5.5%

Total Households
Asheville
Region
32,957
143,510
37,380
168,748
4,423
25,238
13.4%
17.6%
40,503
179,521
3,123
10,773
8.4%
6.4%
43,589
190,027
3,086
10,506
7.6%
5.9%

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Asheville-2

 Asheville/Region Population & Household Trends
Asheville Population

Region Population

Asheville Households

Region Households

18.0%

17.6%

Percent Change

16.0%

15.8%

14.0%
12.0%

12.8%

13.4%

10.0%
8.0%
6.0%

8.4%

7.4%
5.8%

4.0%

6.4%

7.6%

7.1%

5.9%

5.5%

2.0%
0.0%
2000-2010

2010-2015

2015-2020

Year

Asheville experienced an increase in both population and households between 2000
and 2010. They are projected to increase by 6,178 (7.4%) and 3,123 (8.4%),
respectively, between 2010 and 2015. Between 2015 and 2020, it is projected that
they will increase by 6,374 (7.1%) and 3,086 (7.6%), respectively. These positive
projected demographic trends are expected to be faster than the projected trends within
the region.
The distribution of households by age for Asheville is compared with the overall
region in the table below.

2010
2015
Asheville
2020
Change
2015-2020
2010
2015
Region
2020
Change
2015-2020

<25
2,410
(6.4%)
2,441
(6.0%)
2,446
(5.6%)
5
(0.2%)
6,352
(3.8%)
6,281
(3.5%)
6,226
(3.3%)
-55
(-0.9%)

25 to 34
6,833
(18.3%)
7,102
(17.5%)
7,343
(16.8%)
241
(3.4%)
22,274
(13.2%)
22,772
(12.7%)
23,091
(12.2%)
319
(1.4%)

Household Heads by Age
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
6,355
6,468
6,499
(17.0%)
(17.3%)
(17.4%)
6,736
6,529
7,187
(16.6%)
(16.1%)
(17.7%)
6,907
6,759
7,783
(15.8%)
(15.5%)
(17.9%)
171
230
596
(2.5%)
(3.5%)
(8.3%)
27,174
31,960
33,116
(16.1%)
(18.9%)
(19.6%)
27,357
31,366
35,669
(15.2%)
(17.5%)
(19.9%)
27,543
31,080
37,629
(14.5%)
(16.4%)
(19.8%)
186
-286
1,960
(0.7%)
(-0.9%)
(5.5%)

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Asheville-3

65 to 74
4,151
(11.1%)
5,422
(13.4%)
6,526
(15.0%)
1,104
(20.4%)
24,596
(14.6%)
30,438
(17.0%)
35,434
(18.6%)
4,996
(16.4%)

75+
4,663
(12.5%)
5,086
(12.6%)
5,826
(13.4%)
740
(14.5%)
23,276
(13.8%)
25,638
(14.3%)
29,024
(15.3%)
3,386
(13.2%)

 It is projected that by 2015, the largest share (17.7%) of households by age in
Asheville will be within the 55 to 64 age cohort, with a notable share (17.5%) also
among households between the ages of 25 and 34. Between 2015 and 2020, it is
projected that greatest increase in the number of households will be among those
between the ages of 65 and 74, increasing by 1,104 (20.4%) households during this
time. With the exception of households under the age of 25, Asheville is projected to
add a notable number of households among all age segments from 2015 to 2020. This
broad growth will add to a diverse need of product over the next few years.

Asheville/Region Household Heads by Age (2015)

Share

Asheville

Region

22.0%
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
<25

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

Age Range

Asheville-4

55 - 64

65 - 74

75+

 Households by income for selected years are shown in the following table:

2015
Asheville

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
7,403
(18.3%)
7,775
(17.8%)
372
(5.0%)
26,973
(15.0%)
27,648
(14.5%)
674
(2.5%)

Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999 $150,000+
4,887
5,091
6,234
7,462
3,799
3,508
2,120
(12.1%)
(12.6%)
(15.4%)
(18.4%)
(9.4%)
(8.7%)
(5.2%)
5,462
5,305
6,705
8,064
3,818
4,060
2,401
(12.5%)
(12.2%)
(15.4%)
(18.5%)
(8.8%)
(9.3%)
(5.5%)
574
214
471
602
19
552
281
(11.8%)
(4.2%)
(7.6%)
(8.1%)
(0.5%)
(15.7%)
(13.2%)
22,124
23,236
28,217
34,090
19,434
16,434
9,012
(12.3%)
(12.9%)
(15.7%)
(19.0%)
(10.8%)
(9.2%)
(5.0%)
23,576
24,058
30,943
35,461
20,226
18,169
9,954
(12.4%)
(12.7%)
(16.3%)
(18.7%)
(10.6%)
(9.6%)
(5.2%)
1,453
823
2,725
1,371
792
1,734
942
(6.6%)
(3.5%)
(9.7%)
(4.0%)
(4.1%)
(10.6%)
(10.5%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

In 2015, it is projected that approximately 43% of Asheville households will have
annual incomes below $35,000, with the largest share (18.4%) of households having
incomes between $50,000 and $74,999. It is projected that between 2015 and 2020,
most income segments will experience notable growth, with the greatest increase in
households by income level expected to occur among those with incomes between
$50,000 and $74,999. Based on these demographic projections, it is anticipated that
the housing needs by household income segment will be diverse and likely contribute
to a broad range of housing product that will be needed to meet the needs of
Asheville’s residents.

Asheville/Region Households by Income (2015)
Asheville

Region

20.0%
18.0%
16.0%

Share

14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
<$15,000

$15,000 $24,999

$25,000 $34,999

$35,000 $49,999

$50,000 $74,999

Household Income

Asheville-5

$75,000 $99,999

$100,000 $149,999

$150,000+

Total
40,504
(100.0%)
43,590
(100.0%)
3,086
(7.6%)
179,521
(100.0%)
190,035
(100.0%)
10,514
(5.9%)

 Households by income and tenure for selected years are shown below:

2015
Asheville

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
5,588
(27.2%)
5,929
(26.6%)
341
(6.1%)
15,446
(26.5%)
15,532
(25.0%)
86
(0.6%)

Renter Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999 $150,000+
Total
3,202
3,086
3,121
3,323
1,208
793
227
20,548
(15.6%)
(15.0%)
(15.2%)
(16.2%)
(5.9%)
(3.9%)
(1.1%)
(100.0%)
3,525
3,525
3,641
3,571
1,221
963
395
22,296
(15.8%)
(15.8%)
(16.3%)
(16.0%)
(5.5%)
(4.3%)
(1.8%)
(100.0%)
323
-35
519
248
13
170
168
1,748
(10.1%)
(-1.1%)
(16.6%)
(7.5%)
(1.1%)
(21.5%)
(74.2%)
(8.5%)
10,300
9,758
8,525
8,674
2,908
1,919
656
58,185
(17.7%)
(16.8%)
(14.7%)
(14.9%)
(5.0%)
(3.3%)
(1.1%)
(100.0%)
11,262
11,262
10,165
8,767
3,070
2,135
910
62,011
(18.2%)
(18.2%)
(16.4%)
(14.1%)
(5.0%)
(3.4%)
(1.5%)
(100.0%)
962
411
1,641
93
161
216
255
3,826
(9.3%)
(4.2%)
(19.2%)
(1.1%)
(5.5%)
(11.2%)
(38.8%)
(6.6%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

2015
Asheville

2020
Change
2015

Region

2020
Change

<$15,000
1,815
(9.1%)
1,846
(8.7%)
31
(1.7%)
11,528
(9.5%)
12,116
(9.5%)
588
(5.1%)

Owner Households by Income
$15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $50,000 - $75,000 - $100,000$24,999
$34,999
$49,999
$74,999
$99,999 $149,999 $150,000+
Total
1,685
2,005
3,112
4,139
2,592
2,715
1,893
19,956
(8.4%)
(10.0%)
(15.6%)
(20.7%)
(13.0%)
(13.6%)
(9.5%)
(100.0%)
1,937
2,254
3,064
4,493
2,598
3,097
2,005
21,294
(9.1%)
(10.6%)
(14.4%)
(21.1%)
(12.2%)
(14.5%)
(9.4%)
(100.0%)
251
249
-48
354
6
382
112
1,338
(14.9%)
(12.4%)
(-1.6%)
(8.6%)
(0.2%)
(14.1%)
(5.9%)
(6.7%)
11,824
13,478
19,692
25,417
16,526
14,515
8,357
121,336
(9.7%)
(11.1%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.6%)
(12.0%)
(6.9%)
(100.0%)
12,314
13,889
20,777
26,694
17,156
16,033
9,044
128,024
(9.6%)
(10.8%)
(16.2%)
(20.9%)
(13.4%)
(12.5%)
(7.1%)
(100.0%)
491
411
1,085
1,278
630
1,519
687
6,688
(4.1%)
(3.1%)
(5.5%)
(5.0%)
(3.8%)
(10.5%)
(8.2%)
(5.5%)

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The largest share (27.2%) of renter households in 2015 is projected to be among
households with incomes less than $15,000, while the largest share (20.7%) of owneroccupied households at this same time will be among those with incomes between
$50,000 and $74,999. Between 2015 and 2020, the greatest renter household growth
is projected to occur among households with incomes between $35,000 and $49,000,
though all household income segments below $25,000 are projected to have notable
growth. The greatest owner-occupied household growth is projected to occur among
homeowners with incomes between $100,000 and $149,999, as well as among
households with incomes between $50,000 and $74,999.

Asheville-6

 Given the large and growing base of older adult households in the region, it is
important to evaluate Asheville’s demographic trends of senior households by income
and tenure for 2015 and 2020.

Ages 55 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
1,656
27.2%
1,781
25.3%
949
15.6%
1,178
16.7%
914
15.0%
1,073
15.2%
925
15.2%
1,206
17.1%
985
16.2%
1,023
14.5%
358
5.9%
380
5.4%
235
3.9%
280
4.0%
67
1.1%
126
1.8%
6,088
100.0%
7,046
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
940
9.1%
997
8.8%
872
8.4%
1,022
9.0%
1,038
10.0%
1,227
10.9%
1,611
15.6%
1,795
15.9%
2,143
20.7%
2,364
20.9%
1,342
13.0%
1,449
12.8%
1,406
13.6%
1,515
13.4%
980
9.5%
927
8.2%
10,332
100.0%
11,296
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Ages 62 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
1,190
27.2%
1,299
25.3%
682
15.6%
859
16.7%
657
15.0%
782
15.2%
664
15.2%
879
17.1%
707
16.2%
746
14.5%
257
5.9%
277
5.4%
169
3.9%
204
4.0%
48
1.1%
92
1.8%
4,374
100.0%
5,137
100.0%

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
666
9.1%
707
8.8%
619
8.4%
724
9.0%
736
10.0%
870
10.9%
1,143
15.6%
1,273
15.9%
1,520
20.7%
1,676
20.9%
952
13.0%
1,027
12.8%
997
13.6%
1,074
13.4%
695
9.5%
657
8.2%
7,328
100.0%
8,009
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Ages 75 and Older
Household Income
< $15,000
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000+
Total

Renter Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
524
27.2%
542
25.3%
300
15.6%
359
16.7%
289
15.0%
327
15.2%
293
15.2%
367
17.1%
312
16.2%
311
14.5%
113
5.9%
116
5.4%
74
3.9%
85
4.0%
21
1.1%
38
1.8%
1,927
100.0%
2,146
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Asheville-7

Owner Households
2015
2020
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
278
9.1%
281
8.8%
258
8.4%
288
9.0%
307
10.0%
346
10.9%
476
15.6%
506
15.9%
634
20.7%
667
20.9%
397
13.0%
409
12.8%
416
13.6%
427
13.4%
290
9.5%
261
8.2%
3,055
100.0%
3,187
100.0%

 Based on the data from the preceding page, the primary older adult household growth
between 2015 and 2020 is projected to occur among most household income segments.
As a result, there will likely be a growing need through at least 2020 for additional
renter and owner housing at a variety of price points that meets the needs of the city’s
senior population.
Population by race for 2010 (latest race data available) is shown below:

Asian
Alone

Some
Other
Race
Alone

Two or
More
Races

Total

Region

Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Black or
African
America
n Alone

Asheville

White
Alone

Population by Race

66,355
79.6%
353,718
88.7%

10,941
13.1%
19,967
5.0%

1,108
1.3%
3,653
0.9%

2,820
3.4%
13,732
3.4%

2,168
2.6%
7,842
2.0%

83,392
100.0%
398,912
100.0%

Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

The largest share of population by race within Asheville is among the “White Alone”
segment, which represents 79.6% of the city’s population, lower than the overall
region.
Population by poverty status for years 2006-2010 is shown in the following table:

Asheville
Region

Number
Percent
Number
Percent

Population by Poverty Status
Income below poverty level:
Income at or above poverty level:
<18
18 to 64
65+
<18
18 to 64
65+
4,775
10,565
1,637
11,641
43,787
10,989
5.7%
12.7%
2.0%
14.0%
52.5%
13.2%
17,106
33,329
6,304
65,171
212,420
64,583
4.3%
8.4%
1.6%
16.3%
53.2%
16.2%

Total
83,393
100.0%
398,912
100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Over 20.4% of the city’s population lives in poverty. Nearly one in three children
(under the age of 18) within the city lives in poverty. Approximately 19.4% of the
city’s population between the ages of 18 and 64 lives in poverty, while only 13.0% of
seniors age 65 and older live in poverty.

Asheville-8

 The following graph compares the share of population by age group with incomes
below the poverty level for the city and region:

Population Below Poverty Level by Age (2006-2010)
Asheville

Region

14.0%
12.0%

12.7%

Share

10.0%
8.0%

8.4%
6.0%
4.0%

5.7%
4.3%

2.0%

2.0%

0.0%
Under 18

18 to 64

1.6%

65 & Over

Age

Households by tenure for selected years for the city and region are shown in the
following table:

Asheville

Region

Household Type
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total
Owner-Occupied
Renter-Occupied
Total

2000
Number
Percent
18,692
56.7%
14,265
43.3%
32,957
100.0%
105,693
73.6%
37,817
26.4%
143,510
100.0%

Households by Tenure
2010
2015
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
19,270
51.6%
19,956
49.3%
18,110
48.4%
20,548
50.7%
37,380
100.0%
40,503
100.0%
117,511
69.6%
121,336
67.6%
51,237
30.4%
58,185
32.4%
168,748
100.0%
179,521
100.0%

2020
Number Percent
21,294
48.9%
22,296
51.1%
43,589
100.0%
128,018
67.4%
62,009
32.6%
190,027
100.0%

Source: 2000 Census; 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Within the city of Asheville, the share of owner-occupied households was slightly
more than one-half of all occupied units in 2000 and 2010, while the share of renteroccupied households has been under 50%. It is projected that in 2015 and 2020, the
share of units by tenure will be split nearly evenly between renters and owners.
Between 2015 and 2020, 1,338 (6.7%) owner households and 1,748 (8.5%) renter
households will be added to the market. This projected growth will add to the need for
both for-sale and rental product over the next few years.

Asheville-9

 The following graph compares household tenure shares for 2000, 2010, 2015 and
2020:

Asheville/Region Households by Tenure
Asheville Owner

Region Owner

Asheville Renter

Region Renter

80.0%
70.0%

Share

60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2000

2010

2015

2020

Year

Renter households by size for selected years are shown in the following table:
Persons Per Renter Household

2010
Asheville

2015
2020
2010

Region

2015
2020

1-Person
8,081
(44.6%)
9,295
(45.2%)
10,207
(45.8%)
20,359
(39.7%)
23,427
(40.3%)
25,224
(40.7%)

2-Person
5,405
(29.8%)
6,052
(29.5%)
6,504
(29.2%)
14,680
(28.7%)
16,488
(28.3%)
17,416
(28.1%)

3-Person
2,451
(13.5%)
2,789
(13.6%)
3,022
(13.6%)
7,554
(14.7%)
8,593
(14.8%)
9,175
(14.8%)

4-Person
1,324
(7.3%)
1,466
(7.1%)
1,561
(7.0%)
4,965
(9.7%)
5,537
(9.5%)
5,806
(9.4%)

5-Person
850
(4.7%)
945
(4.6%)
1,002
(4.5%)
3,679
(7.2%)
4,140
(7.1%)
4,387
(7.1%)

Total
18,110
(100.0%)
20,548
(100.0%)
22,296
(100.0%)
51,237
(100.0%)
58,185
(100.0%)
62,009
(100.0%)

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

In 2015, nearly 75% of all renter households have one or two persons. Note that oneperson households are projected to experience the greatest growth between 2015 and
2020, increasing by 912, or 9.8%. This coincides with the projected decrease in the
median household size from 1.32 in 2010 to 1.29 in 2020.

Asheville-10

Median
Household
Size
1.36
1.32
1.29
1.72
1.69
1.66

 The following graph compares renter household size shares for the city and the region
in 2015:

Asheville/Region Persons per Renter Household (2015)
Asheville

Region

45.0%
40.0%
35.0%

45.2%
40.3%

Share

30.0%

29.5% 28.3%

25.0%
20.0%
15.0%

13.6% 14.8%

10.0%
5.0%

7.1%

9.5%

0.0%
1-Person

2-Persons

3-Persons

4-Persons

4.6%

7.1%

5-Persons

Household Size

Owner households by size for selected years are shown on the following table:
Persons Per Owner Household

2010
Asheville

2015
2020
2010

Region

2015
2020

1-Person
5,756
(29.9%)
6,101
(30.6%)
6,629
(31.1%)
29,657
(25.2%)
31,101
(25.6%)
33,231
(26.0%)

2-Person
7,507
(39.0%)
7,679
(38.5%)
8,131
(38.2%)
50,304
(42.8%)
51,336
(42.3%)
53,736
(42.0%)

3-Person
2,891
(15.0%)
3,002
(15.0%)
3,206
(15.1%)
17,419
(14.8%)
18,195
(15.0%)
19,298
(15.1%)

4-Person
2,026
(10.5%)
2,057
(10.3%)
2,154
(10.1%)
12,690
(10.8%)
12,962
(10.7%)
13,538
(10.6%)

5-Person
1,090
(5.7%)
1,115
(5.6%)
1,174
(5.5%)
7,441
(6.3%)
7,742
(6.4%)
8,216
(6.4%)

Total
19,270
(100.0%)
19,956
(100.0%)
21,294
(100.0%)
117,511
(100.0%)
121,336
(100.0%)
128,018
(100.0%)

Source: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Generally, one- and two-person owner-occupied households are projected to represent
a combined two-thirds of the owner-occupied household base within the city in 2015.
At the same time, approximately one-third of all owner households are projected to
contain three or more persons. These shares are not expected to change much through
2020.

Asheville-11

Median
Household
Size
2.03
2.01
1.99
2.16
2.15
2.15

 The following graph compares owner household size shares for the city and region in
2015:

Asheville/Region Persons per Owner Household (2015)
Asheville

Region

45.0%
40.0%

42.3%
38.5%

35.0%

Share

30.0%
25.0%
20.0%

30.6%
25.6%

15.0%

15.0% 15.0%

10.0%

10.3% 10.7%

5.0%

5.6% 6.4%

0.0%
1-Person

2-Persons

3-Persons

4-Persons

5-Persons

Household Size

Residents of the city face a variety of housing issues that include such things as
lacking complete kitchen and/or indoor plumbing, overcrowding (1.01 or more
persons per room), severe overcrowding (1.51 or more persons per room), cost
burdened (paying over 30% of their income towards housing costs), severe cost
burdened (paying over 50% of their income towards housing costs), and potentially
containing lead paint (units typically built prior to 1980).
The following table summarizes the housing issues by tenure for Asheville. It is
important to note that some occupied housing units have more than one housing issue.
Housing Issues by Tenure
Housing Issue
Incomplete Plumbing
Overcrowded
Severe Overcrowded
Cost Burdened
Severe Cost Burdened

Renter-Occupied
Number
Percent
115
0.6%
644
3.6%
229
1.3%
7,892
43.6%
3,819
21.1%

Owner-Occupied
Number
Percent
37
0.2%
211
1.1%
119
0.6%
5,663
29.6%
2,208
11.5%

Sources: 2000, 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research

Notes: Some housing issues overlap with other issues

The greatest housing issue facing residents appears to be associated with cost burden.
The high share of cost burdened households indicates that many area residents are
paying a disproportionately high share of their income towards housing costs, which is
likely due to a lack of affordable housing.

Asheville-12

 D. Economics
As economic conditions and trends can influence the need for housing within a
particular market, the following is an overview of various economic characteristics
and trends within Asheville.
The distribution of employment by industry sector in Asheville is compared with the
region in the following table.

NAICS Group
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation & Warehousing
Information
Finance & Insurance
Real Estate & Rental & Leasing
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services
Management of Companies & Enterprises
Administrative, Support, Waste Management & Remediation Services
Educational Services
Health Care & Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation
Accommodation & Food Services
Other Services (Except Public Administration)
Public Administration
Nonclassifiable
Total

Employment by Industry (Employees)
Asheville
Region
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
148
0.2%
2,090
1.0%
70
0.1%
145
0.1%
114
0.1%
549
0.3%
2,407
2.9%
11,460
5.2%
5,320
6.3%
18,891
8.6%
2,719
3.2%
7,349
3.4%
10,942
13.0%
24,464
11.2%
1,363
1.6%
4,359
2.0%
1,320
1.6%
2,671
1.2%
2,330
2.8%
5,054
2.3%
2,365
2.8%
5,922
2.7%
5,207
6.2%
10,754
4.9%
97
0.1%
218
0.1%
7,055
8.4%
16,789
7.7%
4,262
5.0%
10,852
5.0%
8,379
9.9%
17,371
7.9%
821
1.0%
2,526
1.2%
5,981
7.1%
14,188
6.5%
4,006
4.7%
11,453
5.2%
7,561
9.0%
13,768
6.3%
11,962
14.2%
37,742
17.3%
84,429
100.0%
218,615
100.0%

*Source: 2010 Census; ESRI; Urban Decision Group; Bowen National Research
E.P.E. - Average Employees Per Establishment
Note: Since this survey is conducted of establishments and not of residents, some employees may not live within the city. These
employees, however, are included in our labor force calculations because their places of employment are located within the city.

The labor force within the city is very diversified and balanced with no industry sector
representing more than 13.0% of the overall city’s employment base. The largest
employment sectors in the city are within Retail Trade (13.0%), Health Care & Social
Assistance (9.9%), and Public Administration (9.0%). Overall, Asheville has a
distribution of employment by job sector that is higher than, but similar to, the region.

Asheville-13

 The following illustrates the total employment base for Asheville, the region, North
Carolina and the United States.

Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Total Employment
Region
North Carolina
Total
Percent
Total
Percent
Number
Change
Number
Change
173,140
4,031,081
176,817
2.1%
4,123,857
2.3%
183,324
3.7%
4,261,325
3.3%
184,292
0.5%
4,283,826
0.5%
185,863
0.9%
4,280,355
-0.1%
179,061
-3.7%
4,107,955
-4.0%
181,324
1.3%
4,138,113
0.7%
182,849
0.8%
4,183,094
1.1%
186,023
1.7%
4,271,315
2.1%
188,921
1.6%
4,318,319
1.1%
191,285
1.3%
4,368,455
1.2%

Asheville
Total
Percent
Number
Change
34,972
35,603
1.8%
36,641
2.9%
36,573
-0.2%
36,859
0.8%
36,163
-1.9%
38,874
7.5%
39,335
1.2%
40,252
2.3%
40,925
1.7%
41,449
1.3%

United States
Total
Percent
Number
Change
139,967,126
142,299,506
1.7%
145,000,043
1.9%
146,388,369
1.0%
146,047,748
-0.2%
140,696,560
-3.7%
140,457,589
-0.2%
141,727,933
0.9%
143,566,680
1.3%
144,950,662
1.0%
146,735,092
1.2%

Source: Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics
*Through August

Asheville Total Employment
42,000

Total Employed

41,000
40,000
39,000
38,000
37,000
36,000
35,000
34,000
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014*

Year

Asheville lost approximately 696 jobs representing 1.9% of its employment base in
2009, which is significantly less than the decrease experienced in the overall region
during this same time. The city’s employment base has increased by 5,286 jobs, an
increase of 4.6% since 2009.

Asheville-14

 Unemployment rates for Asheville, the region, North Carolina and the United States
are illustrated as follows:
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Unemployment Rate
Region
North Carolina
4.5%
5.5%
4.4%
5.3%
3.8%
4.8%
3.6%
4.8%
4.9%
6.3%
8.4%
10.4%
8.8%
10.8%
8.2%
10.2%
7.5%
9.2%
6.2%
8.0%
5.1%
6.5%

Asheville
5.5%
4.2%
3.5%
3.4%
4.6%
7.3%
7.5%
7.2%
6.6%
5.6%
4.6%

United States
5.6%
5.2%
4.7%
4.7%
5.8%
9.3%
9.7%
9.0%
8.1%
7.4%
6.5%

Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
*Through August

The unemployment rate in Asheville has remained between 3.4% and 7.5%, well
below the state average, since 2004. After reaching a decade high unemployment rate
of 7.5% in 2010, the unemployment rate has declined in the city in each of the past
five years. This decline in the unemployment rate and the job growth that has
occurred over the past few years are very positive signs and clear indications of a
healthy and expanding economy. This job growth trend combined with projected
demographic growth will lead to greater demand for housing over the foreseeable
future.

Asheville/Region Unemployment Rate
Asheville

Region

Unemployment Rate

9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Year

Asheville-15

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014*

 The 14 largest employers within the Asheville/Buncombe County are summarized in
the following table with the employers headquartered in Asheville denoted with an
asterisk (*). The others are located in cities/towns that are in Buncombe County.
Employer Name
Business Type
Memorial Mission Hospital*
Health Care
Buncombe County Board of Education
Education
Ingles Markets, Inc.*
Grocery
Charles George Veterans Administration Medical Center*
Federal Government/Health Care
County of Buncombe
County Government
Walmart
Retail/Grocery
City of Asheville*
City Government
Eaton Corporation
Power Management Company
Asheville Buncombe Technical*
Education
Community CarePartners, Inc.*
Health Services
The Biltmore Company*
Leisure and Hospitality
Omni Hotels Management Corporation*
Leisure and Hospitality
Asheville City Schools*
Education
University of North Carolina, Asheville*
Education
Source: ACESSNC, North Carolina Economic Data and Site Information, 2014 1st quarter

According to the representative with the Asheville Chamber of Commerce and
Economic Development Coalition of Asheville/Buncombe County, the area economy
is healthy and growing. Employment has grown over the past few years at a notable
rate and is expected to do so for the foreseeable future.
The Downtown Asheville Historic District is reminiscent of late 19th and early 20th
century architecture. The downtown draws tourists due to its cultural diversity,
preservation efforts and rich heritage. Plans have been made for additional hotels and
lodging in the area to accommodate tourists. In April of 2014, owners of the BB&T
building in downtown Asheville announced that they will build a 120-room hotel on
the site of the current building's parking garage. After the hotel is completed in about
18 months, work will begin on the conversion of the main building into an upscale
hotel with 150 to 170 rooms. Six floors with vacation rentals and condominiums for
sale will be located above the hotel in the BB&T building. Officials say that the new
hotel will be an AC Hotel by Marriott, which is considered an upper moderate tier
hotel. The building will be at least nine stories tall and will offer ground-floor retail
and parking space. There are at least four other downtown hotel projects in different
stages of development. One of the new hotels that opened in 2012 is the Aloft Hotel
by the McKibbon Hotel Group. It is a 63,521 square-foot hotel that features 115 loftstyle rooms including a third floor outdoor pool and hotel dining.
Located along the French Broad River, the River Arts District (RAD) offers artist
studios in 22 former factories and historical buildings. There are more than 180
working studios with showrooms and galleries open every day, all year round. The
area serves as an employment center within the city.

Asheville-16

 In October of 2014, Linemar Corporation announced plans to invest $115 million in its
Arden plant near Asheville with plans to add 150 positions. The expansion stems
from a new product line for the plant. A building renovation will start this year with
hiring expected to begin early 2015.Linamar plans to make transmission gears for the
automotive industry at the plant, which now employs about 200 people.
GE Aviation, a global leader in jet engine and aircraft system production, hosted a
grand opening ceremony on October 15, 2014 at the site of its new advanced
composites factory near Asheville. The new 170,000 square-foot facility will be the
first in the world to mass produce engine components made of advanced ceramic
matrix composite (CMC) materials. The plant’s current workforce of 300 will be
expanded by 52 new jobs.
Highland Brewing Company announced expansion plans in September 2014 to add 15
jobs and invest $5 million in new equipment and facilities over the next three years.
The expansion, which includes tanks and a new bottling line, will increase its brewing
capacity to over 60,000 barrels or 828,000 cartons and enable the company to expand
their distribution over time. Highland Brewery Company is Asheville’s oldest
brewery.
BorgWarner, a global technology leader and top automotive industry supplier,
announced in May 2014 a plan to expand its turbo systems manufacturing facility in
Arden. The expansion will create 154 new engineering and manufacturing jobs in
Buncombe County and will invest $55 million in facilities and equipment over the
next five years.
Also in May 2014, the W.P. Hickman Company announced the expansion of its
Asheville-based operations with a $3 million investment in a new production facility.
The third generation family-owned and operated company is the premier American
manufacturer of metal root edge systems for commercial construction. The company
moved its headquarters and manufacturing facilities to the newly renovated facility in
Arden. The 80,000 square feet allows the facility to increase its production. The
expansion will also enable the company to add additional positions to the existing staff
of 52.
In February 2014, Sport Hansa LLC, a premier importer and distributor of European
outdoor product brands, announced its relocation to Asheville. The firm’s expanded
distribution center will allow for continued growth and expansion of product lines that
include Helle knives of Norway, Kupika camping dishware of Finland, Montana
technical outwear, Terra Nova tents of the United Kingdom, and Wetterlings Axe
Works of Sweden. The company is relocating its headquarters and distribution
operations from Longmont, Colorado.
Also in February 2014, Jacob Holm Industries, a global nonwoven manufacturer,
announced the expansion of its manufacturing facility in Candler with over $45.9
million investment in facilities and equipment. The total project could exceed $60
million when it is complete. The investment will bring 66 new positions to

Asheville-17

 accommodate the addition of a new product line. The company originally located to
Buncombe County in 2005 and currently employs 82 workers. Jacob Holm Industries
offers high quality products for personal care, home care, hygiene, packaging and
industrial markets.
Tourism:
According to North Carolina Tourism Department of Commerce, domestic tourism in
Buncombe County generated an economic impact of $901.28 million in 2013. This
was an 8.04% change from 2012. Also in 2013, Buncombe County ranked 5th in
travel impact among North Carolina’s 100 counties. More than 9,700 jobs in
Buncombe County were directly attributable to travel and tourism. Travel generated a
$190.21 million payroll in 2013.
The Buncombe County Tourism Development Authority, through the Tourism Product
Development Fund (TPDF), has awarded $15 million for sixteen community tourism
projects since 2001 when the occupancy tax rate in Buncombe County was increased
from three cents to four cents. The additional cent generates approximately $1.8
million of room tax revenue per year, of which 100 percent is dedicated to the TPDF.
The purpose of the TPDF is to provide financial assistance for major tourism projects
in order to substantially increase patronage of lodging facilities in Buncombe County.
TDPF funds can be awarded to for-profit and non-profit entities as a grant, pledge of
debt service or loan guaranty.
In October of 2014, the Buncombe County Tourism Development Authority (BCTDA)
voted to award five grants, totaling $4,825,000 to five community projects. The grants
are made from the TPDF and mark the largest amount awarded since the Fund’s
inception in 2001. The recipients of the 2014 funding cycle were:







The Enka Center Ball Fields project was awarded $2 million (the largest single
amount ever awarded to one project in the history of the fund) to construct seven
new ball fields and facilities in the Enka-Candler area that will enable the region to
host traveling youth baseball and college softball tournaments and provide space
for local youth sports.
Highland Brewing Company will receive $850,000 for expansion and
improvements that will enhance the guest experience, including roof top access,
event space and upgraded tour amenities.
The Riverfront Destination Development Project in the city of Asheville was
granted $1.8 million for capital improvements along the French Broad River,
including a network of visitor amenities such as a Riverfront Arts and Culture
Dispensary, pedestrian walkway connections, greenways, boat ramps and trainviewing platform.
Riverlink will receive $25,000 for establishment of commercial-grade river access
at the Pearson Bridge to facilitate usage of river experiences and activities.

Asheville-18

 

The Collider, a project of the Asheville-Buncombe Sustainable Community
Initiatives, was awarded $150,000 for creation of a state-of-the-art business and
conference facility in downtown which will host primarily mid-week corporate
events and leverage the growing demand for expertise from the nearby National
Climatic Data Center.

Much of the tourism in Buncombe County is in the Asheville area with one of the
biggest tourist attractions being the Biltmore Estate. The Biltmore House, the main
house on the estate, is a mansion built by George Washington Vanderbilt II between
1889 and 1895 and it is the largest privately owned house in the United States with
135,280 square feet of living space and 205 rooms. It is still owned by one of
Vanderbilt’s descendents and it stands today as one of the most prominent remaining
examples of the Gilded Age and English Landscape garden styles in the United States.
The Biltmore House was opened to the public in March 1930, then in 1956 the home
was opened permanently as a house museum. Visitors can see the 70,000 gallon
indoor swimming pool, bowling alley, early 20th century exercise equipment, twostory library, and other rooms filled with artworks, furniture and antiques. The
grounds include 75 acres of formal gardens, a winery and the Inn on Biltmore Estate,
which is a luxury 210-room hotel. The estate remains a major tourist attraction and
has almost one million visitors each year. The estate is owned by the Biltmore
Company, which is listed in the top area employers above, and is controlled by
Vanderbilt’s grandson. In 1964, the Biltmore Estate was designated a National
Historic Landmark.
The Omni Grove Park Inn is a 101 year old historic resort hotel in Asheville. The Inn
features 55,000 square feet of event, banquet, convention and meeting space. This
includes an 18,000-square-foot Grand Ballroom and an 8,800-square-foot Heritage
Ballroom. The inn has 510 guest rooms, 42 meeting rooms and suites, as well as prefunction areas, outdoor terraces, patios and balconies. The resort has been expanded
over the years under the direction of the owners, and continues to be a popular tourist
attraction. KSL Resorts acquired The Grove Park Inn in 2012 for $120 million. They
sold it to Omni Hotels in 2013, and it was renamed The Omni Grove Park Inn and it is
one the larger employers in the area.
The Omni Grove Park Inn Golf Course is surrounded by the Blue Ridge Mountains
and is considered one of the top golf courses in North America. The par-70 course
was designed in 1926 out of rolling hills with tree-lined fairways. The course was
restored in 2001. Also at the Omni Grove Park Inn, is the Nantahala Outdoor Center,
which offers white river rafting, kayak and canoe trips, mountain biking, hiking,
climbing and fishing opportunities. There are tour guided and self guided activities
and lessons for all of the outdoor activities.
Located next to the Omni Grove Park Inn is the Grovewood Gallery, which showcases
9,000 square feet of handmade American crafts by more than 500 artists. The gallery
is known for its second-floor studio furniture collection and outdoor sculpture gardens.
The property also includes the Estes-Winn Antique Car Museum, the North Carolina
Homespun Museum and the Grovewood Café.

Asheville-19

 The downtown area of Asheville is filled with historic buildings, Art Deco
architecture, restaurants, bookstores, shops and over 30 art galleries. The Grove
Arcade, located downtown, was built in 1920 and features boutiques, craft exhibits,
artist galleries and dining for every taste or preference. It also offers live music, tours
and an outdoor market.
Asheville is in the heart of the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area. Some of the
defining landscapes in this National Heritage Area include the deepest gorge in the
Eastern United States, Linville Gorge; the oldest river in North America, the New
River; the most visited National Park lands in the country, The Great Smoky Mountain
National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway; the highest mountain east of the Rockies,
Mt. Mitchell; and America’s largest home, the Biltmore.
In addition to the outdoor recreation, art and craft galleries, museums, historic inns
and homes, there are many music festivals in the Asheville area. In the summer there
are live concerts at the Biltmore Estate. Also in the summer is the Moogfest which is
held in Asheville for five days. This festival is most certainly held in Asheville
because that is where the Moog Music Factory, which designs and manufactures
Moog synthesizers and other electronic instruments, is located. Other music festivals
are Festival of Native Peoples held every summer at the Cherokee Indian Fairgrounds;
Folkmoot USA, which is a festival of folk music and dance; the Mountain Dance and
Folk Festival is also held in July; and Shindig of the Green, which has featured
bluegrass song and dance for 4 decades in the summer. In November of each year, the
National Gingerbread House Competition is held at the Omni Grove Park Inn and
2015 will be the 22nd year of this popular competition.
WARN (layoff notices):
According to the North Carolina Workforce Development website
(www.nccommerce.com), there have been no WARN notices of large-scale layoffs or
closures reported for the Asheville area since January 2013.

Asheville-20

 E. Housing Supply
This housing supply analysis considers both rental and owner for-sale housing.
Understanding the historical trends, market performance, characteristics, composition,
and current housing choices provide critical information as to current market
conditions and future housing potential. The housing data presented and analyzed in
this section includes primary data collected directly by Bowen National Research and
from secondary data sources including American Community Survey (ACS), U.S.
Census housing information and data provided by various government entities and real
estate professionals.
While there are a variety of housing alternatives offered in Asheville, we focused our
analysis on the most common alternatives. The housing structures included in this
analysis are:


Rental Housing – Multifamily rentals, typically with three or more units were
inventoried and surveyed. Additionally, rentals with fewer than three units, which
were classified as non-conventional rentals, were identified and surveyed. Other
rentals such as vacation homes, home stays (short-term room rentals), and mobile
homes were evaluated.



Owner For-Sale Housing – We identified attached and detached for-sale housing,
which may be part of a planned development or community, as well as attached
multifamily housing such as condominiums. Both historical (homes sold between
January of 2010 and November of 2014) and available for-sale homes were
evaluated.



Senior Care Housing – Facilities providing housing for seniors requiring some
level of care, such as independent living, multi-unit assisted housing, adult care
homes, and nursing homes, were surveyed and analyzed.

This analysis includes secondary Census housing data, Bowen National Research’s
survey of area rental alternatives and senior care facilities, and owner for-sale housing
data (both historical sales and available housing alternatives) obtained from secondary
data sources (Multiple Listing Service, REALTOR.com, and other on-line sources)
and mobile home parks (Bowen National Research and various secondary sources).
Finally, we contacted local building and planning departments to determine if any
residential units of notable scale were currently planned or under review by local
government. Any such units were considered in the housing gap estimates included
later in this section.

Asheville-21

 The following table summarizes the surveyed/inventoried housing stock in the city.
This is a sample survey/inventory and does not represent all housing in the city.
However, we believe this housing survey/inventory is representative of a majority of
the most common housing categories offered in the city.
Surveyed Housing Supply Overview
Housing Type
Units
Vacant Units
Multifamily Apartments
9,232
82
Non-Conventional Rentals
N/A
35
Home Stays
N/A
46
Vacation Rentals
N/A
227
Mobile Home Rentals
986*
N/A
Owner For-Sale Housing
7,355**
715
Senior Care Housing
1,238
57
Independent Living
364
15
Multi-Unit Assisted Housing
Adult Care Homes
313
11
Nursing Homes
561
31
*Based on 2011-2013 American Community Survey
**Units sold between 2010 and 2014
N/A – Not Available

Vacancy
0.9%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.7*
4.6%
4.1%
3.5%
5.5%

Price Range
$222-$2,550
$575-$3,200
$475
$1,620-$75,705
$595-$795
$9,500-$4.9 Mil.
$1,189+
$1,189+
$1,975+
$6,083+

All housing segments appear to have vacancy rates of 5.5% or lower. This indicates
that these housing segments are in high demand. Overall, the city’s housing market is
performing well, as demand is strong for virtually all housing alternatives. The 0.9%
vacancy rate of surveyed multifamily rental housing likely indicates that there is a
shortage of such housing within the city.
a. Rental Housing
Multifamily Rental Housing
We identified and personally surveyed 80 conventional housing projects
containing a total of 9,232 units within the city of Asheville. This survey was
conducted to establish the overall strength of the rental market and to identify
trends in the rental housing supply. These rentals have a combined occupancy rate
of 99.1%, an extremely high rate for rental housing. Among these projects, 58 are
non-subsidized (market-rate and Tax Credit) projects containing 6,541 units. These
non-subsidized units are 98.7% occupied. The remaining 22 projects contain
2,691 government-subsidized units, which are 100.0% occupied. It is important to
note that our survey illustrates occupancy rates that only factor in physical
vacancies, which are vacant units that are currently ready to rent and does not
account for economic vacancies, which are vacant units that cannot be rented due
to a variety of factors (e.g. units being renovated or prepared for future occupants,
uninhabitable units, etc.). Definitions of each housing program are included in
Addendum D: Glossary of the Asheville, North Carolina Region Housing Needs
Assessment.

Asheville-22

 Managers and leasing agents for each project were surveyed to collect a variety of
property information including vacancies, rental rates, design characteristics,
amenities, utility responsibility, and other features. Projects were also rated based
on quality and upkeep, and each was mapped as part of this survey.
The distribution of surveyed rental housing supply by product type is illustrated in
the following table:
Surveyed Multifamily Apartments
Projects
Total
Project Type
Surveyed
Units
Market-rate
44
5,790
Market-rate/Tax Credit
1
160
Market-rate/Government-Subsidized
1
123
Tax Credit
13
586
Tax Credit/Government-Subsidized
2
200
Government-Subsidized
19
2,373
Total
80
9,232

Vacant
Units
82
0
0
0
0
0
82

Occupancy
Rate
98.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.1%

As the preceding table illustrates, these rentals have a combined occupancy rate of
99.1%. This is an extremely high occupancy rate and an indication that there is
very limited availability among larger multifamily apartments in Asheville. In
fact, 58 of these projects are fully occupied with wait lists of up to 200 households
and up to eight years in duration, which provides evidence that there is pent up
demand for multifamily rental housing in the Asheville area.
The following tables summarize the breakdown of non-subsidized units surveyed
by program within the city.
Market-rate
Bedroom
Studio
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Total Market-rate

Baths
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.5
2.0

Units
117
1,897
895
314
1,769
65
146
626
19
6
16
5,870

Distribution
2.0%
32.3%
15.2%
5.3%
30.1%
1.1%
2.5%
10.7%
0.3%
0.1%
0.3%
100.0%

Asheville-23

Vacancy
2
24
16
2
32
0
0
6
0
0
0
82

% Vacant
1.7%
1.3%
1.8%
0.6%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.4%

Median Gross
Rent
$720
$836
$800
$915
$1,008
$795
$1,000
$1,225
$1,720
$711
$1,005
-

 Tax Credit, Non-Subsidized
Bedroom
Baths
Studio
1.0
One-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
1.0
Three-Bedroom
1.0
Three-Bedroom
2.0
Four-Bedroom
1.5
Four-Bedroom
2.0
Total Tax Credit

Units
15
298
250
58
38
10
2
671

Distribution
2.2%
44.4%
37.3%
8.6%
5.7%
1.5%
0.3%
100.0%

Vacancy
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Median Gross
Rent
$222
$467
$536
$658
$539
$706
$335
-

The market-rate units are 98.6% occupied and the Tax Credit units are 100.0%
occupied. While both occupancy rates are high, the 100.0% occupancy rate among
the Tax Credit units and the wait lists for these units indicate that there is pent-up
demand for such units.
Median collected rents by bedroom type range from $711 to $720 for the marketrate units and from $222 to $706 for Tax Credit units. It is important to note that
very few of the identified multifamily projects offer four-bedroom or larger units.
As such, there appear to be no multifamily rental options for larger family
households seeking housing within Asheville. As a result, family households
seeking four-bedroom rental alternatives in Asheville most likely must choose
from non-conventional rentals, which typically have higher rents, fewer amenities
and are of lower quality than many multifamily options.
There are 22 multifamily projects that were surveyed in Asheville that operate with
a government-subsidy. The distribution of units and vacancies by bedroom type
among government-subsidized projects (both with and without Tax Credits) in
Asheville is summarized as follows.
Bedroom
Baths
One-Bedroom
1.0
Two-Bedroom
1.0
Three-Bedroom
1.0
Four-Bedroom
1.5
Total Subsidized Tax Credit

Subsidized Tax Credit
Units
Distribution
37
18.5%
89
44.5%
54
27.0%
20
10.0%
200
100.0%

Asheville-24

Vacancy
0
0
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

 Bedroom
Studio
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Five-Bedroom
Total Subsidized

Baths
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.5

Government-Subsidized
Units
Distribution
442
17.7%
773
31.0%
577
23.2%
49
2.0%
426
17.1%
56
2.2%
92
3.7%
50
2.0%
4
0.2%
22
0.9%
2,491
100.0%

Vacancy
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

% Vacant
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

The subsidized Tax Credit units and the government-subsidized units are 100.0%
occupied. The 22 surveyed government-subsidized projects in Asheville operate
under a variety of HUD and Rural Development programs. Overall, there are no
vacant units among the 2,691 surveyed government-subsidized units in Asheville.
The lack of vacant units and long wait lists at most government-subsidized
properties indicate that there is pent-up demand for rental housing affordable to
very low-income households in Asheville.
The following is a distribution of multifamily rental projects and units surveyed by
year built for Asheville:
Year Built
Before 1970
1970 to 1979
1980 to 1989
1990 to 1999
2000 to 2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Projects
21
14
12
7
13
1
0
0
3
1
2
2
1
2

Units
1,514
2,366
1,888
728
1,451
50
0
0
412
60
352
317
52
22

Vacancy Rate
0.6%
0.4%
0.6%
1.6%
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

*As of December

The largest share of apartments surveyed was built between 1970 and 1979. These
older apartments have a vacancy rate of 0.4%. More than 1,000 multifamily
apartment units have been added to the market during the past five years. It should
be noted that there are few vacancies among the newest projects built in Asheville.
Overall, product at all development periods is performing well with low vacancy
rates.

Asheville-25

 Representatives of Bowen National Research personally visited each of the
surveyed rental projects within Asheville and rated the quality of each property.
We rated each property surveyed on a scale of "A" (highest) through "F" (lowest).
All properties were rated based on quality and overall appearance (i.e. aesthetic
appeal, building appearance, landscaping and grounds appearance).
The following is a distribution by quality rating, units, and vacancies for all
surveyed rental housing product in Asheville.
Quality Rating
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CQuality Rating
A
AB+
BC
Quality Rating
B+
B
BC+
C
C-

Market-rate
Projects
Total Units
2
377
9
1,791
2
56
10
1,776
10
1,467
4
215
2
64
3
72
2
52
Non-Subsidized Tax Credit
Projects
Total Units
2
132
5
279
3
140
1
96
2
24
Government-Subsidized
Projects
Total Units
2
302
5
444
4
445
2
128
6
736
3
616

Vacancy Rate
0.0%
2.1%
0.0%
0.8%
1.2%
3.3%
4.7%
0.0%
1.9%
Vacancy Rate
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Vacancy Rate
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Vacancies are generally low among all program types and quality levels. More
importantly, there does not appear to be a direct correlation between quality level
and vacancy rates. This is not unusual in markets with limited available product.

Asheville-26

 Non-Conventional Rental Housing
Asheville has a large number of non-conventional rentals which can come in the
form of detached single-family homes, duplexes, units over storefronts, etc. As a
result, we have conducted a sample survey of non-conventional rentals within the
city. Overall, a total of 35 individual units were identified and surveyed. While
this does not include all non-conventional rentals in the market, we believe these
properties are representative of the typical non-conventional rental housing
alternatives in the market.
The following table aggregates the 35 non-conventional rental units surveyed in
Asheville by bedroom type.
Surveyed Non-Conventional Rental Supply

Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom+
Total

Units
3
9
17
6
35

Rent
Range
$575 - $1,000
$800 - $1,600
$975 - $2,500
$1,295 - $3,200

Median
Rent
$950
$950
$1,200
$2,225

Median
Rent Per
Square Foot
$0.80
$1.04
$0.92
$0.93

As the preceding table illustrates, the rents for non-conventional rentals identified
range from $575 to $3,200. The median rents are $950 for a one-and two-bedroom
units, $1,200 for a three-bedroom unit and $2,225 for a four-bedroom unit. The
median rent per square foot by bedroom type ranges from $0.80 to $1.04.
The rental rates of non-conventional rentals are generally higher than most marketrate multifamily apartments surveyed in the market. The rent differential is even
greater when utilities are considered, as most non-conventional rentals require
tenants to pay all utilities. When also considering the facts that a much larger
share of the non-conventional product was built prior to 1970 and their amenity
packages are relatively limited, it would appear the non-conventional rentals
represent less of a value than most multifamily apartments in the market. However,
given the relatively limited number of vacant units among the more affordable
multifamily apartments, many low-income households are likely forced to choose
from the non-conventional housing alternatives.

Asheville-27

 Vacation Rental Housing
The city of Asheville has a large number of vacation rentals which can come in the
form of cabins, detached single-family homes, condominiums, etc. As a result, we
have conducted a sample survey of vacation rentals within the city. Overall, a
total of 227 individual units were identified and surveyed. While this does not
include all vacation rentals in the market, we believe these properties are
representative of the typical vacation rental housing alternatives in the market.
The following table aggregates the 277 vacation rental units surveyed in the city
by bedroom type.
Bedroom
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom+
Total

Surveyed Vacation Rental Supply
Units
Rent Range*
58
$1,620 - $28,500
67
$2,400 - $12,720
61
$3,750 - $16,260
41
$4,320 - $75,705
227

Median Rent
$4,575
$5,250
$6,300
$10,965

Source: www.homeaway.com; Bowen National Research
*Monthly Rents (most rentals are rented on a daily or weekly rate, but were converted to a monthly rent for an
easier comparison with long-term rentals)

As the preceding table illustrates, the rents for vacation rentals identified range
from $1,620 to $75,705. The median rents were $4,575 for a one-bedroom unit,
$5,250 for a two-bedroom unit, $6,300 for a three-bedroom unit, and $10,965 for a
four-bedroom or larger unit.
The rental rates of vacation rentals are significantly higher than most conventional
multifamily apartments and non-conventional rentals surveyed in the city.
Generally, such rentals are at least four times higher than conventional rentals,
essentially eliminating this type of housing as a viable long-term housing
alternative to most area renters. However, due to this rent differential, such
housing may appeal to owners of traditional, long-term conventional rentals who
may want to convert their housing to vacation rentals. This is addressed in the
case study portion of the Asheville, North Carolina Region Housing Needs
Assessment.

Asheville-28

 Home Stay Rentals
A home stay rental is generally considered a bedroom that are rented to tenants and
typically excludes a full rental unit. Tenants in the home stay rental often have
shared access to common areas such as bathrooms and kitchens. The city of
Asheville has a large number of home stay rentals which can come in the form of
apartments, detached single-family homes, duplexes, condominiums, etc. As a
result, we have conducted a sample survey of home stay rentals within the city.
Overall, a total of 46 individual home stay rental “units” were identified and
surveyed. While this likely does not include all home stay rentals in the market,
we believe these properties are representative of the typical home stay rental
housing alternatives in the market.
The following table aggregates the 46 home stay rental units surveyed in the city.
Units
46

Surveyed Home Stay Rental Supply
Rent Range
$300 - $710

Median Rent
$475

As the preceding table illustrates, the rents for home stay rentals identified range
from $300 to $710. The median rent is $475.
The rental rates of home stay rentals are generally lower than most multifamily
apartments surveyed in the city, which is not surprising since such rentals are
limited to a single room with shared access to common areas (e.g. bathrooms,
kitchens, etc.). Most home stay rentals are roommate situations where residents
have their own bedroom but must share kitchen, living and bathroom areas. Most
rentals include all basic utilities in the rent, with many rentals also offering cable
television and Internet as part of the rent. A large number of the rentals are fully
furnished, but offer few project amenities such as swimming pools or other
recreational features. Most rentals allow residents access to laundry facilities.
Leases are often flexible, typically month to month in duration. Unlike most
conventional apartment or private non-conventional rentals, home stays have the
unique element of matching personal preferences with roommates. For example,
many properties advertise that they are looking for smoke-free/smokers, pet
friendly/no pet, male/female or other types of tenants. Such preferences or
restrictions likely limit the type of residents that can be accommodated at such
rentals. Given these preferences and restrictions, along with the fact that the home
stay rentals can typically only accommodate one- or two-person households, home
stays likely have a limited ability to meet the needs of most area renters.

Asheville-29

 Mobile Home Parks
Bowen National Research identified 34 mobile home parks in Asheville through
secondary resources, such as www.mhvillage.com, the county tax
department/assessor, and CraigsList. Upon identification of these parks, which is
not a comprehensive list, we conducted a sample windshield survey to evaluate the
quality of select parks and their neighborhoods, and we attempted to conduct
telephone interviews with park operators to gather rental property data.
Surveyed park operators stated that lot rents range from $265 to $410 per month.
Lot rents vary dependent upon the need for a single-, double- or triple-wide lot.
One mobile home park leases mobile homes on the lot as well, ranging from $595
to $795 per month, depending on size. Park operators reported that lot rents and
occupancies have increased or stayed the same in recent years. Respondents
reported typical occupancy rates of 80% to 90%, with one park reporting a 100%
occupancy rate. Park operators commented that the quality varies based on the
ownership/management of the park, but that typically the parks are in fair
condition. A windshield survey of select mobile home parks in the city yielded “B"
to “C-” quality and neighborhood ratings, indicating that these mobile home parks
and their neighborhoods are in good to fair condition.
When asked if there are any issues or problems associated with operating or
maintaining a mobile home park in the area, or what recommendations the
respondents may have that the local government could do to aid in mobile home
park living, Bowen National Research received a variety of responses. Responses
included that the city of Asheville does not allow mobile home parks within the
city limits, creating a negative stigma of parks. Better zoning and rules and
regulations should be put into place for the maintenance and beautification of
mobile home parks, similar to a homeowner’s association. Respondents stated that
mobile home living is some of the most affordable to area residents and that more
should be done to promote this type of housing.

Asheville-30

 b. Owner For-Sale Housing
Bowen National Research, through a review of the Multiple Listing Service
information for Asheville, identified both historical (sold since 2010) for-sale
residential data and currently available for-sale housing stock.
There were 7,355 homes sold since January 2010 and 715 homes currently
available in Asheville. The 715 available homes in Asheville represent 19.5% of
all identified available for-sale homes in the region. The following table
summarizes the available and recently sold housing stock for Asheville.
Type
Available
Sold

Owner For-Sale/Sold Housing Supply
Homes
715
7,355

Median Price
$325,000
$205,000

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

The median homes sales price since 2010 is $205,000, while the median price
among available homes is $325,000. It should be noted that the region wide
average difference between list price and actual sales price is around 6.3%,
representing the typical discount in list prices.
The sales trends from 2010 to 2014 are summarized below.

Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014*

Owner For-Sale Housing by Year Sold
Units Sold
Median Price Sold
Number
Change
Price
Change
1,185
$202,000
1,231
3.9%
$190,000
-5.9%
1,482
20.4%
$195,000
2.6%
1,819
22.7%
$210,230
7.8%
1,638
-10.0%
$218,000
3.7%

Source: Multiple Listing Service-NNEREN and Bowen National Research
*Through Nov. 21, 2014

Excluding the partial year of 2014, the number of homes that have sold per year in
Asheville has increased in each of the past three years, with increases of over 20%
in each of the past two years. The median sales prices have increased in each of
the past two full years. The increases in sales volume and sales prices are positive
indications of the strength of Asheville’s for-sale housing market.

Asheville-31

 The following graphs illustrate the overall annual number of homes sold and
median sales prices over the past four years for Asheville from 2010 to 2013 (2014
was excluded due to the fact that only partial year data is available):

Asheville Annual Home Sales (2010-2013)
1,850

1,819
1,750

Homes Sold

1,650
1,550

1,482

1,450
1,350

1,231
1,250

1,185

1,150

2010

2011

2012

2013

Year

Asheville Annual Median Sales Price (2010-2013)
$215,000

$210,230

$210,000

Price

$205,000

$202,000

$200,000

$195,000
$195,000
$190,000

$190,000
$185,000

2010

2011

2012
Year

Asheville-32

2013

 The following table summarizes the distribution of Asheville homes sold by year
built.

Year Built
1939 or earlier
1940 to 1950
1951 to 1960
1961 to 1970
1971 to 1980
1981 to 1990
1991 to 2000
2001 to present
Total

Sales History by Year Built – (Sold Between January 1, 2010 to November 21, 2014)
Average
Number
Bedrooms/Bath
Average
Price
Median
Sold
s
Square Feet
Range
Sales Price
1,404
3/1.75
1,780
$17,500 - $4,200,000
$197,629
402
3/1.5
1,425
$20,500 - $1,000,000
$160,000
650
3/2.0
1,630
$20,000 - $1,825,000
$181,450
742
3/2.0
1,702
$43,900 - $1,250,000
$178,000
446
3/2.25
1,911
$9,500 - $920,000
$189,900
803
3/2.5
1,887
$15,000 - $1,350,000
$187,250
852
3/2.5
2,229
$24,900 - $2,225,000
$240,000
2,056
3/2.5
1,947
$30,000 - $3,400,000
$239,900
7,355
3/2.25
1,858
$9,500 - $4,200,000
$205,000

Average Days
on Market
126
106
126
131
142
168
163
176
149

While the historical sales have included product from a broad range of
development periods, over one-fourth of all homes sold since 2010 have been built
since 2001. The median home price for this newer product is $239,900,
significantly higher than the overall market’s sales price of $205,000. It is worth
noting that the older product built prior to 1970 is selling on average a shorter
period of time than newer product. This is likely due, in part, to the affordability
of these older homes.
The following table illustrates the distribution of historical sales by price range.
Summary of Home Sales by Price
(January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2013)
Number of
Percent of
Sale Price
Homes
Supply
Up to $99,999
712
9.7%
$100,000 to $199,999
2,850
38.8%
$200,000 to $299,999
1,827
24.8%
$300,000 to $399,999
928
12.6%
$400,000 to $499,999
436
5.9%
$500,000+
602
8.2%
Total
7,355
100.0%

Average
Days on Market
146
136
144
140
162
237
149

As the preceding table demonstrates, nearly 40% of the homes sold since 2010 are
priced between $100,000 and $199,999, and nearly one-quarter of the sold homes
were priced between $200,000 and $299,999. Clearly, these ranges appear to be
where the majority of Asheville’s home sales activity is occurring.

Asheville-33

 The following table summarizes the inventory of available for-sale housing in
Asheville and the region.
Available Owner For-Sale Housing
Total
Units
425
8,691

Asheville
Region

% Share
of State
4.9%
100.0%

Low
List Price
$40,000
$7,900

High
List Price
$2,650,000
$12,500,000

Average
List Price
$354,715
$355,875

Median
List Price
$269,000
$245,000

Average
Days
On Market
203
208

Source: Multiple Listing Service and Bowen National Research

Within Asheville, the available homes have a median list price of $269,000, which
is more than the region median list price of $245,000. The average number of days
on market for available product in Asheville is 203, which is nearly identical to the
region average of 208. As such, the city of Asheville’s available supply is in line
with the region’s available inventory.
Asheville’s available for-sale supply by bedroom type is illustrated as follows:

Bedrooms
One-Br.
Two-Br.
Three-Br.
Four-Br.
Five+-Br.
Total

Number
of Homes
Listed
10
117
378
157
53
715

Summary of Available For-Sale Housing Supply by Bedrooms
Average Average
Average
Square
Year
Price
Median
Baths
Feet
Built
Range
List Price
1.0
758
1978
$62,000 - $359,000
$108,000
1.5
1,244
1968
$45,000 - $1,100,000
$177,500
2.25
2,034
1985
$31,999 - $2,895,000
$279,900
3.0
3,378
1981
$123,000 - $3,800,000
$528,000
4.25
5,613
1977
$259,000 - $4,979,000
$995,000
2.5
2,447
1981
$31,999 - $4,979,000
$325,000

Median
Price
Sq. Ft.
$142.48
$142.68
$137.61
$156.31
$177.27
$132.82

Average Days
on Market
76
145
187
186
236
182

The largest number of available homes is among the three-bedroom units, which is
typical for most markets. As expected, the median home prices increase as
additional bedrooms, bathrooms and square footage is included. It is worth noting,
however, that the median list price for four-bedroom units is significantly higher
than the three-bedroom units. This may pose a challenge for larger, lower income
families.
The available inventory of for-sale housing by price point is as follows:
Summary of Available For-Sale Housing Supply by Price
Number of
Percent of
Average
Sale Price
Homes
Supply
Days on Market
Up to $99,999
22
3.1%
163
$100,000 to $199,999
178
24.9%
172
$200,000 to $299,999
146
20.4%
126
$300,000 to $399,999
106
14.8%
237
$400,000 to $499,999
65
9.1%
129
$500,000+
198
27.7%
222
Total
715
100.0%
182

Asheville-34

 As the preceding table illustrates, the largest share (27.7%) of the available forsale housing stock is priced over $500,000. However, notable shares of for-sale
product are priced between $100,000 and $199,999 and between $200,000 and
$299,999, representing shares of 24.9% and 20.4%, respectively. As such, the
Asheville for-sale housing market has a diverse inventory of available product by
price point. The shortest days on market is among product priced between
$200,000 and $299,999, which likely indicates the high level of demand for
product at this price point.
Asheville Available For-Sale Housing by Price
200

198

175

178

Homes

150

146

125
100

106

75

65

50
25

22
0
Less than $100K

$100k-$199,999

$200k-$299,999

$300k-$399,999

Price Range

Asheville-35

$400k-$499,000

$500,000+

 c.

Senior Care Facilities
The subject city, like areas throughout the country, has a large senior population
that requires a variety of senior housing alternatives to meet its diverse needs.
Among seniors, generally age 62 or older, some individuals are either seeking a
more leisurely lifestyle or need assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs).
As part of this analysis, we evaluated four levels of care that typically respond to
older adults seeking, or who need, alternatives to their current living environment.
They include independent living, multi-unit assisted housing, adult care homes,
and nursing care. These housing types, from least assisted to most assisted, are
summarized below.
Independent Living is a housing alternative that includes a residential unit,
typically an apartment or cottage that offers an individual living area, kitchen, and
sleeping room. The fees generally include the cost of the rental unit, some utilities,
and services such as laundry, housekeeping, transportation, meals, etc. This
housing type is also often referred to as congregate care. Physical assistance and
medical treatment are not offered at such facilities.
Multi-unit Assisted Housing With Services (referred to as multi-unit assisted
throughout this report) is a housing alternative that provides unlicensed care
services along with the housing. Such housing offers residents the ability to obtain
personal care services and nursing services through a home care or hospice agency
that visit the subject site to perform such services. Management at the subject
project arrange services that correspond to an individualized written care plan.
Adult Care Homes are state licensed residences for aged and disabled adults who
may require 24-hour supervision and assistance with personal care needs. People
in adult care homes typically need a place to live, with some help with personal
care (such as dressing, grooming and keeping up with medications), and some
limited supervision. Medical care may be provided on occasion but is not routinely
needed. Medication may be given by designated, trained staff. This type of facility
is very similar to what is commonly referred to as “assisted living.” These
facilities generally offer limited care that is designed for seniors who need some
assistance with daily activities but do not require nursing care.
Nursing Homes provide nursing care and related services for people who need
nursing, medical, rehabilitation or other special services. These facilities are
licensed by the state and may be certified to participate in the Medicaid and/or
Medicare programs. Certain nursing homes may also meet specific standards for
sub-acute care or dementia care.
We referenced the Medicare.com and North Carolina Division of Health Service
Regulation websites for all licensed senior care facilities and cross referenced this
list with other senior care facility resources. As such, we believe that we identified
most, if not all, licensed facilities in the city.

Asheville-36

 Within the city of Asheville, a total of 13 senior care facilities were surveyed
containing a total of 1,238 beds. These facilities are representative of the typical
housing choices available to seniors requiring special care housing. It should be
noted that family adult care homes of six units or less were not included in this
inventory. The following table summarizes the surveyed facilities by property
type.
Surveyed Senior Care Facilities
Project Type
Projects
Beds
Independent Living
1
364
Multi-Unit Assisted Housing
Adult Care Homes
6
313
Nursing Homes
6
561
Total
13
1,238

Vacant
15
11
31
57

Vacancy Rate
4.1%
3.5%
5.5%
4.6%

The Asheville senior care market is reporting overall vacancy rates between 3.5%
(adult care homes) to 5.5% (nursing homes). All of the vacancy rates among
surveyed senior housing are relatively low. Overall, demand for senior care
housing in the city appears to be strong and indicates that there may be an
opportunity to develop additional senior care housing in the city, particularly when
considering the projected senior household growth for the next few years.
The base monthly fee for independent living units is $1,189 a month, adult care
homes start at $1,975, and nursing care facilities have a base monthly fee starting
near $6,083. These fees are slightly lower than most senior care housing fees in
the region.

Asheville-37

 d. Planned & Proposed Residential Development
In order to access housing development potential, we evaluated recent residential
building permit activity and identified residential projects in the development
pipeline for the city of Asheville. Understanding the number of residential units
and the type of housing being considered for development in the city can assist in
determining how these projects are expected to meet the housing needs of the area.
Based on our interviews with local building and planning representatives, it was
determined that there are multiple housing projects planned within the city of
Asheville. It should also be noted that there are no large single-family home
subdivisions in planned Asheville as there is not much land available for large
subdivisions. Most subdivisions appear to be less than 20 lots. These planned
developments, by location, are summarized as follows:
Project Name & Location
Biltmore Village Apts.
Fairview Road
White Oak Apts.
275 Hazel Mill
Greystone Village Apts.
Sardis Road
Chrysler Lofts
150 Coxe Ave.
Dillingham Woods
Dillingham rd./Thrones Ln.
Haywood Village
919 Haywood Rd.
182 Cumberland Group
Home
182 Cumberland
Klepper Drive Subdivision
Klepper Drive
Mountain Song Lane
Subdivision
Mountain Song Lane
Bridle Path Subdivision
Bridle Path
Brynne Drive Subdivision
Brynne Drive
Burk Street Subdivision
Burk Street
Palisades Apartments
15 Mills Gap Road
Givens Gerber Park Apts.
40 Gerber Road
Carmel Ridge
711 Leichester Way
Retreat at Hunt Hill
32 Ardmion Park

City

Units/Lots

Type

Developer

Status

Asheville

N/A

Fairview Land, LLC

Under Review

Asheville

104
108

Asheville

48

White Oak Grove, LLC
Winston-Salem Industry
for the Blind
Coxe Avenue Properties,
LLC

Under Review

Asheville

Asheville

22

Asheville

12

Rental
Rental
Garden-Style
Rental,
Affordable
Rental,
Market-Rate
For-Sale,
Townhomes
For-Sale,
Townhomes

Asheville

N/A

Asheville

6

Asheville

2

Asheville

7

Asheville

14

Asheville

10

Asheville

224

Asheville

120

Asheville

80

Asheville

180

Supportive
Housing
For-Sale,
Single-Family
For-Sale,
Single-Family
For-Sale,
Single-Family
For-Sale,
Single-Family
For-Sale,
Single-Family
Rental,
Market-Rate
Rental,
Affordable
Rental,
Affordable
Rental,
Market-Rate

Asheville-38

Hill Ventures, LLC
Village of Haywood
Developers

Under Review
Under Review
Under Review
Under Review

Flynn Christian Fellowship
Homes

Under Review

N/A

Under Review

N/A

Under Review

N/A

Under Review

N/A

Under Review

Farmbound Holdings, LLC

Under Review

Southwood Realty

Under Construction
Begin Construction
3/2015

Opportunities South, LLC
Greenway Residential
Development
Kassinger Development

Under Construction
Under Construction

 (Continued)
Project Name & Location
Creekside Apartments II
Wesley Drive
Aventine Apartments
Long Shoals Road
Villas at Fallen Spruce
15 Fallen Spruce
Eagle Market Place Apts.
19 Eagle Street
RAD Lofts
Roberts St./Clingman Ave.

City

Units/Lots

Asheville

24

Asheville

312

Asheville

55

Asheville

62

Asheville

209

Type
Rental,
Senior Living
Rental,
Market-Rate
Rental,
Affordable
Rental,
Affordable
Rental,
Market-Rate

Developer

Status

Givens Estates

Planned

Flournoy Construction
Mountain Housing
Opportunities
Mountain Housing
Opportunities

Under Construction

Delphi Development

Under Construction
Under Construction
Begin Construction
Spring 2014

SFH – Single-Family Homes
TH – Townhomes

F. HOUSING GAP ESTIMATES
Bowen National Research conducted housing gap analyses for rental and for-sale
housing for the subject city. The housing gap estimates include new household
growth, units required for a balanced market, households living in substandard
housing (replacement housing), and units in the development pipeline. This estimate
is considered a representation of the housing shortage in the market and indicative of
the more immediate housing requirements of the market. Our estimates consider four
income stratifications. These stratifications include households with incomes of up to
30% of Area Median Household Income (AMHI), households with incomes between
31% and 50% of AMHI, between 51% and 80% of AMHI, and between 80% and
120% of AMHI. This analysis was conducted for family households and seniors (age
55+) separately. This analysis identifies the housing gap (the number of units that
could potentially be supported) for the city between 2015 and 2020. Broader housing
needs estimates, which include household growth, cost burdened households,
households living in substandard housing, and units in the development pipeline, were
provided for the overall region and is included in the Asheville, North Carolina
Region Housing Needs Assessment.
The demand components included in the housing gap estimates for each of the two
housing types (rental and for-sale) are listed as follows:






Housing Gap Analysis Components
Owner Housing
Rental Housing
Renter Household Growth
 Owner Household Growth
Units Required for a Balanced Market
 Units Required for a Balanced Market
Replacement of Substandard Housing
 Replacement of Substandard Housing
Pipeline Development*
 Pipeline Development*

*Includes units that lack complete indoor plumbing and overcrowded housing
**Units under construction, permitted, planned or proposed

Asheville-39

 The demand factors for each housing segment at the various income stratifications are
combined. Any product confirmed to be in the development pipeline is deducted from
the various demand estimates, yielding a housing gap estimate. This gap analysis is
conducted for both renters and owners, as well as for seniors (age 55+) and family
households. These gaps represent the number of new households that may need
housing and/or the number of existing households that currently live in housing that
needs replaced to relieve occupants of such things as overcrowded or substandard
housing conditions. It is important to note that because Asheville represents a large
portion of Buncombe County and serves as the county seat and the center for
employment, entertainment, and culture for the entire county, housing demand within
the city of Asheville is impacted by the overall county’s housing supply and
demographics. As a result, we have used demographic and housing supply data from
Buncombe County in the following housing gap estimates. The data for these
estimates can be found in the Buncombe County chapter of the Region Housing
Analysis.
Rental Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below summarize the rental housing gap estimates by the various income
segments for family and senior households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

<30%
(<$15,000)
59
381
251
-102
589

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
243
19
1,020
251
260
362
166
172
314
-102
-102
-856
558
349
840

Total
1,341
1,254
903
-1,162
2,336

<30%
(<$15,000)
118
152
100
-39
331

Rental Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
158
64
515
101
91
144
66
60
125
-40
-40
-331
285
175
453

Total
855
488
351
-450
1,244

Asheville-40

 Asheville/Buncombe County Rental Housing Gap by Income
Family Households

Senior Households

900
800

840

Housing Gap

700
600
500

589

558

400
300

453
331

200

349
285
175

100
0
<30%

30% - 50%

50% - 80%

80% - 120%

Percent of Median Household Income

Based on the preceding analysis, the largest rental housing gap by income level is
within the 80% to 120% AMHI level among both families and seniors. However,
notable housing gaps exist within the under 30% AMHI level and between the 30%
and 50% AMHI level. The overall rental housing gap for families is nearly double the
senior housing gap. As shown in this analysis, there is a notable housing gap among
all income segments, both among seniors and families. As such, Asheville will require
a variety of housing products by various price points that target families and seniors.

Asheville-41

 Owner Housing Gap Analysis
The tables below summarize the owner housing gap estimates by the various income
segments for family and senior households.

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

Demand Component
New Households (2015-2020)
Balanced Market
Substandard Housing
Development Pipeline
Total Housing Gap

<30%
(<$15,000)
-32
61
38
0
67

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Family Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
67
146
-18
62
76
257
39
47
159
0
0
0
168
269
398

Total
163
456
283
0
902

<30%
(<$15,000)
209
73
45
0
327

Owner Housing Gap Estimates – Senior Households
Percent Of Median Household Income
30%-50%
50%-80%
80%-120%
($15,000-$24,999) ($25,000-$34,999) ($35,000-$75,000)
324
465
1,006
75
91
307
46
56
190
0
0
0
445
612
1,503

Total
2,004
546
337
0
2,887

Asheville/Buncombe County Owner Housing Gap by Income
Family Households

Senior Households

1,600
1,400

1,503

Housing Gap

1,200
1,000
800
600

612

400
200

445
67

327
168

398
269

0
<30%

30% - 50%

50% - 80%

Percent of Median Household Income

Asheville-42

80% - 120%

 As shown in the preceding owner housing gap analysis, while each income segment
has a notable housing gap, the greatest housing gap for families and seniors with
incomes between 80% and 120% of AMHI. While the housing gap estimates show a
larger gap for housing for seniors, this is primarily attributed to seniors aging in place.
This likely indicates that many senior households aging in place will ultimately require
housing that would enable them to downsize at some point.
Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior care housing encompasses a variety of alternatives including multi-unit assisted
housing, adult care homes, and nursing homes. Such housing typically serves the
needs of seniors requiring some level of care to meet their personal needs, often due to
medical or other physical issues. While this study focuses on the housing
characteristics and needs of the city of Asheville, demand estimates for senior care
housing must take into consideration the entire Buncombe County area, as senior care
housing facilities typically draw support from broad areas such as a county. As a
result, we have included both the potential demographic support and the existing
senior care housing supply (both surveyed and non-surveyed) of the entire Buncombe
County area in our demand estimates. The following attempts to quantify the
estimated senior care housing need in Asheville/Buncombe County.
Senior Care Housing Need Estimates
Senior Care Housing Demand Component
Demand Estimates
Elderly Population Age 62 and Older by 2020
66,476
Times Share* of Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
X 7.4%
Equals Elderly Population Requiring ADL Assistance
= 4,919
Plus External Market Support (20%)
+ 984
Equals Total Senior Care Support Base
= 5,903
Less Existing Supply
- 3,803
Less Development Pipeline
- 123
Potential Senior Care Beds Needed by 2020
= 1,977
ADL – Activities of Daily Living
*Share of ADL was based on data provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Population National Health Interview Survey 2011

Based upon age 62 and older population characteristics and trends, and applying the
estimated ratio of persons requiring ADL assistance and taking into account the
existing and planned senior housing supply, we estimate that there will be 1,977
households with a person requiring assisted services that will not have their needs met
by existing or planned senior care facilities by the year 2020. Not all of these
estimated households with persons age 62 and older requiring ADL assistance will
want to move to a senior care facility, as many may choose home health care services
or have their needs taken care of by a family member. Additionally, some will seek
senior care housing within the city of Asheville, while others may prefer locations
outside of Asheville but within Buncombe County. Regardless, the 1,977 seniors
estimated above represent the potential need for additional senior care housing in the
city and county.

Asheville-43

 G. STAKEHOLDER SURVEY & INTERVIEWS
Associates of Bowen National Research solicited input from nearly more than 40
stakeholders throughout the study region. Their input was provided in the form of an
online survey and telephone interviews. Of these respondents, 32 serve the Buncombe
County/Asheville area. Considered leaders within their field and active in the
community, they represent a wide range of industries, including government,
economic development, real estate, and social assistance. The purpose of these
interviews was to gather input regarding the need for the type and styles of housing,
the income segments housing should target, and if there is a lack of housing or housing
assistance within the county/Asheville area. The following is a summary of the key
input gathered.
Stakeholders were asked is there is a specific area of the county where housing should
be developed. Respondents indicated that housing should be developed within the city
limits of Asheville, and along major transit corridors or close to transit with access to
the downtown for employment. Rental housing was overwhelmingly ranked as the
type of housing having the greatest need, followed by housing for the homeless and
single-person/young professionals. Respondents indicated that the housing style most
needed in the area is apartments, followed by single-family homes and duplex/triplex/
townhome development. Respondents also believe that adaptive reuse should be
prioritized over new construction and renovation/revitalization. When asked to rank
the need for housing for each income level, respondents evenly ranked incomes of less
than $25,000 and incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 as the household segments
with the greatest need. The most significant housing issue within the county, as
indicated by respondents, was rent burdened/affordability, followed by limited
availability, substandard housing, and lack of public transportation.
Respondents were asked to prioritize funding types that should be utilized or explored
in the county. “Other” homeowner assistance was given the highest priority, followed
by “other” rental housing assistance (such as Vouchers) and homebuyer assistance.
Respondents indicated that housing development programs that should be explored
include emergency repair, and property tax incentives and support for home owners, as
well as increased LIHTC and other affordable housing options, such as CDBG
funding. When asked what common barriers or obstacles exist as it relates to housing
development in the county, the cost of land and availability of land were most
commonly cited, followed by financing. Respondents provided various ways to
overcome these barriers, including increased collaboration between the local
government and developers, creating a land bank, a better zoning and permitting
process, improvements to public transit and infrastructure, and tax abatements. One
respondent suggested that a committee of both public and private housing
professionals should be created that is dedicated to the process of developing
affordable housing for all housing sectors.

Asheville-44

 If a respondent was knowledgeable about homelessness in the county, they were asked
to rank the need for housing for various homeless groups. The most commonly
indicated groups were homeless individuals and families. Respondents indicated that
the most needed type of housing to serve the homeless population is increased
Voucher assistance, followed by emergency shelters and Single Room Occupancy
(SRO). The most commonly cited obstacles to developing homeless housing were
public perception/NIMBYism, and the high cost and lack of funding for development.
Respondents believe that collaboration of homeless services and housing providers is
necessary, and homeless housing should be developed closer to transit and job cores to
reduce the burden of a family having to maintain a vehicle in order to access their
employment.
If a respondent was knowledgeable about special needs groups in the county, they
were asked to rank the need for housing for various special needs groups. The most
commonly indicated groups were persons with mental illness, persons suffering from
alcohol/ substance abuse, and persons with physical/developmental disabilities. One
group receiving special note by respondents as being in need of housing is domestic
violence victims. Respondents believe that transitional housing and group homes
would best serve these populations. The lack of community support and funding were
cited as the most common obstacles to developing special needs housing.
Respondents were asked how frequently they believe area rentals are being rented to
vacationers rather than as permanent housing. The majority of respondents (54.0%)
believe that this is happening occasionally, while only 19.0% believe this is happening
often. The most commonly cited reason as to why this is happening occasionally is the
prospect of increased rental income/profit for the owner/landlord. Respondents were
asked to what degree they believe individual rooms rented out in the area. More than
half (53.0%) believe this is an occasional event, while only 12.0% believe this is
happening often. Respondents estimate that a room in the area rents from between
$300 and $2,000 per month, with the most commons responses falling in the $300 to
$600 per month range.
Respondents were asked to rank the importance of having access to public transit for
various populations and groups. Respondents ranked renters, special needs groups and
low-income households as having the greatest need for proximity to public transit,
followed by seniors and families. When asked the farthest distance a resident could
live from an access point for public transportation before it becomes inconvenient,
typical responses were 0.25 to 0.5 miles for families, 0.25 miles for seniors and 0.25 to
0.5 miles for special needs/homeless. In regard to what strategies the city of Asheville
should consider in an effort to reduce transportation cost burdens for residents,
respondents ranked providing additional access points to public transit and
encouraging residential development near public transit access points as the highest.

Asheville-45

 H. SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
Because Asheville is located within Buncombe County and the special needs
populations and the services provided to them are throughout the county, we have
primarily evaluated the special needs population on a county level. Besides the
traditional demographics and housing supply evaluated earlier in this report, we also
identified special needs populations within Buncombe County. This section of the
report addresses demographic and housing supply information for the homeless
population and the other special needs populations within the county.
Asheville is located within HUD’s designated Continuum of Care (CoC) area known
as Asheville/Buncombe County CoC. CoCs around the United States are required to
collect data for a point-in-time during the last week of each year. The last published
Asheville/Buncombe County point-in-time survey was conducted in January 2014.
This includes count of persons who are classified as homeless, as well as an inventory
of the housing specifically designated for the homeless population.
According to the 2014 point-in-time survey for Asheville/Buncombe County there are
approximately 3,801 persons who are classified as homeless on any given day in
Asheville and Buncombe County. The following tables summarize the sheltered and
unsheltered homeless population, as well as the homeless housing inventory within the
county.
Homeless Population & Subpopulation– Asheville/Buncombe County
Permanent
Emergency
Transitional
Supportive
Rapid
Population Category
Shelter
Housing
Housing
Re-Housing
200
211
538
52
Persons in Households without Children
37
15
59
105
Persons in Households with 1 Adult & 1 Child
3
2
0
0
Persons in Household with only Children
# of Persons Chronically & Formerly
7
0
10
430
Chronically Homeless
76
104
326
23
Persons with Serious Mental Illness
53
141
336
25
Persons with Substance Abuse Disorder
1
0
12
0
Persons w/ AIDS/HIV
38
41
103
27
Victims of Domestic Violence
35
184
239
3
Veterans
15
4
29
1
Ex-Offenders
Persons exiting Behavioral Health/Healthcare
27
37
51
3
System

Total

492

739

Asheville-46

1,703

669

Unsheltered

Total
Population

65
0
5

1,066
216
10

40
35
24
0
5
7
9

487
564
579
13
214
468
58

8
198

126
3,801

 *Overflow
Beds

0
0
371
0
0
371

19
0
0
0
0
19

6
6
3
3
0
18

0
0
0
0
0
0

15
0
0
0
0
15

21
0
0
0
0
21

Source: North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness (1-2014)

Based on the 2014 Asheville/Buncombe County CoC Housing Inventory Count
Summary, the utilization (occupancy) rate for homeless housing beds in
Asheville/Buncombe County CoC is 92.7%. This utilization rate and the fact that 198
persons remain unsheltered on a given night indicate that there still remains a need for
housing that meets the special needs of the homeless population. Homeward Bound of
Asheville and other local service providers appear to be actively engaged in assisting
the homeless population in Asheville/Buncombe County through various outreach and
housing programs.
Specifically, within Asheville/Buncombe County one area service provider noted, on
average there are approximately 500 to 550 individuals living in emergency shelters or
transitional housing on any given night. There are enough emergency shelters in
Asheville/Buncombe County to meet the demand as with plenty of seasonal and
overflow beds in the winter months. However it was mentioned that there is a
significant need for transitional housing for families. Additionally, there needs to be
more permanent housing options available to the homeless population in Asheville/
Buncombe County. The current affordable housing developments available in
Asheville are not accessible to the homeless population due to stringent credit
restrictions and high AMHI income qualifications. It was also noted that the rate of
current affordable housing development in the area is not keeping up with the demand
as another 50 to 100 units could be developed and still not meet the housing need.
Regardless, with an estimated population of 3,801 and over a hundred homeless
persons unsheltered, homelessness remains a challenge in Asheville/Buncombe
County and is an ongoing housing need.

Asheville-47

Total
Beds

Seasonal
Beds

Veteran
0
109
0
0
0
109

AIDS/HIV

Single
Male &
Female
73
208
68
0
0
349

Youth

Households with
Children
102
46
72
16
0
236

Domestic
Violence

Project
Type
Emergency Shelter
Transitional Housing
Permanent Supportive Housing
Rapid Re-housing
Safe Haven
Total Beds By Population

Chronically
Homeless

Homeless Housing Inventory – Asheville/Buncombe County
Beds by Population Category

236
369
514
19
0
1,138

 The following table summarizes the various special needs populations within the
county that were considered in this report. It should be noted that city level data was
available for certain special needs groups, which is denoted as “*” in the following
table.
Special Needs Populations
Special Needs Group
Persons
HIV/AIDS
542
Victims of Domestic Violence (VDV)
1,368
Persons with Substance Abuse (PSA)
371
Adults with Mental Illness (MI)
10,794
Adults with Severe Mental Illness (SMI)
200
Co-Occurring Disorders (COD)
5,068
*Multi-Generational Households (MGH)
658
*City level data (all other data shown for Buncombe County)

Special Needs Group
*Persons with Disabilities (PD)
Elderly (Age 62+) (E62)
Frail Elderly (Age 62+) (FE62)
Ex-offenders (Parole/Probation) (EOP)
Unaccompanied Youth (UY)
*Veterans

Persons
11,324
22,320
1,652
622
67
6,836

Excluding the homeless population, the largest number of special needs persons is
among the elderly (age 62+), those with disabilities, persons with a mental illness and
veterans. According to our interviews with area stakeholders, housing alternatives
that meet the distinct demands of the special needs population are limited. Notable
facilities are offered by Homeward Bound, Disability Partners, Western North
Carolina AIDS Project, Helpmate, Eliada Homes Black Mountain Home for Children
& Youth, Asheville Re-Entry Network, NC TASC Services-Asheville, Western
Highland LME, Oxford House Asheville-Buncombe Christian Ministry, Buncombe
County Council on Aging, and various mental health facilities as well as senior care
housing.
It should also be noted that there are several community initiatives that serve persons
experiencing homelessness in the Asheville area such as: a) discounted bus
tickets/passes, b) crisis intervention training and crisis stabilization units c) Buncombe
County Human Services Wet Shelters, d) SOAR and e) Spare Change for Real
Change. More information regarding these programs can be found on the city of
Asheville’s Community Development website:
http://www.asheville.gov/departments/communitydevelopment

Asheville-48

 I. Conclusions
Recent city economic trends have been positive and overall demographic trends are
projected to be positive within the city of Asheville over the next five years, which are
expected to contribute to the continued strength of the housing market within the city
during the foreseeable future. Some key findings based on our research of Asheville
are summarized as follows:


Population & Households – Between 2015 and 2020, the population is projected
to grow by 6,371 (7.1%), which is faster than the growth rate (5.5%) of the overall
region. During this same time, household growth of 3,086 (7.6%) is projected to
occur in the city, which is also faster than the region’s projected growth rate of
5.9%.



Household Heads by Age –The city’s senior households age 55 and older will
increase by 2,440 (12.1%) between 2015 and 2020, adding to its anticipated need
for senior-oriented housing. It is projected that households between the ages of 25
and 54 will increase by approximately 642 (3.1%) households, which will likely
lead to a need for additional family-oriented and/or workforce housing.



Households by Income and Tenure – Between 2015 and 2020, the greatest renter
household growth is projected to occur among households with incomes between
$35,000 and $49,000, though all household income segments below $25,000 are
projected to have notable growth. The greatest owner-occupied household growth
is projected to occur among homeowners with incomes between $100,000 and
$149,999, as well as among households with incomes between $50,000 and
$74,999. As such, the city will have diverse housing needs.



Rental Housing – Asheville has a well-balanced supply of rental alternatives.
However, it is noteworthy that the multifamily rental housing supply is operating
at an overall 99.1% occupancy rate, which is very high. More importantly, there
are no vacancies among the 3,362 surveyed affordable (Tax Credit and
government-subsidized) rental units in the city. This occupancy rate and the long
wait lists maintained at these projects indicate that there is pent-up demand for
affordable housing in the city. Based on the housing gap estimates, the largest
rental housing gap by income level is within the 80% to 120% AMHI level among
both families and seniors. However, notable housing gaps exist within the under
30% AMHI level and between the 30% and 50% AMHI level. The overall rental
housing gap for families is nearly double the senior housing gap.

Asheville-49

 

Owner Housing (for-sale) – The number of homes that have sold per year in
Asheville has increased in each of the past three years, with increases of over 20%
in each of the past two years. The median sales prices have increased in each of
the past two full years. The for-sale housing market is considered to be strong.
The largest share (27.7%) of the available for-sale housing stock is priced over
$500,000. However, notable shares of for-sale product are priced between
$100,000 and $199,999 and between $200,000 and $299,999, representing shares
of 24.9% and 20.4%, respectively. As such, the Asheville for-sale housing market
has a diverse inventory of available product by price point. Based on the housing
gap estimates, it appears that the greatest housing gap for owner housing will be
for households with incomes between 80% and 120% of AMHI.



Senior Care Facilities – Senior housing reported an overall occupancy rate of
95.4% (4.6% vacant). This is a relatively high occupancy rate. As shown in the
housing needs estimates, it is believed that an additional 1,977 senior care beds
will be needed to meet the future needs of are seniors. It should be noted that this
estimate includes all of Buncombe County.



Special Needs Populations: While there are many special needs populations
within the city that likely require housing assistance, it appears that the largest
special needs populations in the city are the elderly (age 62+), those with
disabilities, persons with a mental illness and veterans.

J. SOURCES
See the Asheville, North Carolina Region Housing Needs Assessment for a full listing
of all sources used in this report.

Asheville-50

 Addendum A: Sources
Bowen National Research uses various sources to gather and confirm data used in each
analysis. These sources include the following:










































2000 and 2010 U.S. Census 
2007-2011 CHAS
2009 FBI Uniform Crime Reports
American Community Survey
American Seniors Housing Assn.: The State of Seniors Housing 2011
Asheville Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development Coalition of
Buncombe County
Asheville Re-Entry Network
Asheville/Buncombe County Continuum of Care 
Brevard Housing Authority
Council on Aging
Craigs List: www.CraigsList.com
Disability Partners of Asheville
ESRI Demographics
Helpmate
Henderson County Partnership for Economic Development
Hendersonville Housing Authority
Home Away: www.HomeAway.com
Homeward Bound
Housing Authority of Asheville
InfoGroup
Madison County Housing Authority
Madison County Visitor Center/Madison County Economic Development Board
Mainstay
Management for each property included in the survey
Medicare: www.Medicare.com
MH Village: www.mhvillage.com
Multiple Listing Service
My Sister’s Place
North Carolina Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment Centers
North Carolina Balance of the State Continuum of Care
North Carolina Coalition to End Homelessness
North Carolina Council for Women
North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services
North Carolina Department of Public Safety Rehabilitative Programs & Services
North Carolina Division of Adult Correction and Rehabilitate Programs
North Carolina Division of Health Service Regulation
North Carolina Division of Mental Health
North Carolina LINKS Program

A-1

 

















Novogradac, Inc.
Planning Representatives for each Planning Jurisdiction
Realty Trac: www.realtytrac.com
Ribbon Demographics HISTA Data
SAFE of Transylvania County
Senior Housing Facility Representatives
SOCDS Building Permits Database
Technical Assistance Collaborative (TAC); Priced Out in 2012
Transylvania County Planning and Economic Development/Brevard/Transylvania
Chamber of Commerce and Transylvania Tourism Development Authority
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Rural Development Multi-Family Housing Rentals
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Urban Decision Group (UDG)
Various Stakeholders
Western Carolina Community Action
Western Highlands Local Management Entity (LME)
Western North Carolina AIDS Project (WNCAP)

A-2

 Addendum B: Qualifications
Patrick Bowen is the President of Bowen National Research. He has prepared and
supervised thousands of market feasibility studies for all types of real estate products,
including affordable family and senior housing, multifamily market-rate housing and
student housing, since 1996. He has also prepared various studies for submittal as part of
HUD 221(d)(3) & (4), HUD 202 developments and applications for housing for Native
Americans. He has also conducted studies and provided advice to city, county and state
development entities as it relates to residential development, including affordable and
market rate housing, for both rental and for-sale housing. Mr. Bowen has worked closely
with many state and federal housing agencies to assist them with their market study
guidelines. Mr. Bowen serves on the Standards Committee of the National Council of
Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA) and has his bachelor’s degree in legal
administration (with emphasis on business and law) from the University of West Florida.
Benjamin J. Braley, Vice President and Market Analyst, has conducted market research
since 2006 in more than 550 markets throughout the United States. He is experienced in
preparing feasibility studies for a variety of applications, including those that meet
standards required by state agency and federal housing guidelines. Additionally, Mr.
Braley has analyzed markets for single-family home developments, commercial office
and retail space, student housing properties and senior housing (i.e. nursing homes,
assisted living, continuing care retirement facilities, etc.). Mr. Braley is a member of the
National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA) and graduated from Otterbein
College with a bachelor’s degree in Economics.
Craig Rupert, an Associate Project Director, has conducted on-site market analysis in
both urban and rural markets throughout the United States. Mr. Rupert is experienced in
the evaluation of multiple types of housing programs, including market-rate, Tax Credit
and various government subsidies and uses this knowledge and research to provide both
qualitative and quantitative analysis. Mr. Rupert has a degree in Hospitality Management
from Youngstown State University.
Jack Wiseman, an Associate Project Director, has conducted extensive market research
in over 200 markets throughout the United States. He provides thorough evaluation of
site attributes, area competitors, market trends, economic characteristics and a wide range
of issues impacting the viability of real estate development. He has evaluated market
conditions for a variety of real estate alternatives, including affordable and market-rate
apartments, retail and office establishments, educational facilities, marinas and a variety
of senior residential alternatives. Mr. Wiseman has a Bachelor of Arts degree in
Economics from Miami University.

B-1

 Stephanie Viren is the Field Research Director at Bowen National Research. Ms. Viren
focuses on collecting detailed data concerning housing conditions in various markets
throughout the United States. Ms. Viren has extensive interviewing skills and experience
and also possesses the expertise necessary to conduct surveys of diverse pools of
respondents regarding population and housing trends, housing marketability, economic
development and other socioeconomic issues relative to the housing industry. Ms. Viren's
professional specialty is condominium and senior housing research. Ms. Viren earned a
Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration from Heidelberg College.
Christine Atkins, In-House Research Coordinator, has more than three years of
experience in the property management industry and has managed a variety of rental
housing types. With experience in conducting site-specific analysis, she has the ability to
analyze market and economic trends and conditions. Ms. Atkins holds a Bachelor of Arts
in Communication from the University of Cincinnati.
Desireé Johnson is the Executive Administrative Assistant at Bowen National Research.
Ms. Johnson is involved in the day-to-day communication with clients. She has been
involved in extensive market research in a variety of project types for more than five
years. Ms. Johnson has the ability to research, find, analyze and manipulate data in a
multitude of ways. Ms. Johnson has an Associate of Applied Science in Office
Administration from Columbus State Community College.
Greg Gray, Market Analyst, has more than twelve years of experience conducting sitespecific analysis in markets throughout the country. He is especially trained in the
evaluation of condominium and senior living developments. Mr. Gray has the ability to
provide detailed site-specific analysis as well as evaluate market and economic trends and
characteristics.
Lisa Wood, Market Analyst, has conducted site-specific analyses in both rural and urban
markets throughout the country. She is also experienced in the day-to-day operation and
financing of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and subsidized properties, which gives her
a unique understanding of the impact of housing development on current market
conditions.
Tyler Bowers, Market Analyst, has travelled the country and studied the housing
industry in both urban and rural markets. He is able to analyze both the aesthetics and
operations of rental housing properties, particularly as they pertain to each particular
market. Mr. Bowers has a Bachelor Degree of Arts in History from Indiana University.
June Davis, Office Manager of Bowen National Research, has 24 years experience in
market feasibility research. Ms. Davis has overseen production on over 15,000 market
studies for projects throughout the United States.

B-2

 In-House Researchers – Bowen National Research employs a staff of in-house
researchers who are experienced in the surveying and evaluation of all rental and for-sale
housing types, as well as in conducting interviews and surveys with city officials,
economic development offices and chambers of commerce, housing authorities and
residents.
All analysts of Bowen National Research undergo continuous education through
programs and seminars provided by the National Council of Housing Market
Analysts (NCHMA) and at various state finance agency conferences throughout the
year.

B-3

 Addendum C: Stakeholder Interview Instrument
Asheville Housing Study & Analysis-Stakeholder Interview
Bowen National Research has been retained by the City of Asheville's Community Development
Division to conduct a study of the region's housing needs. Specifically, our analysis is being
conducted for Buncombe, Henderson, Madison and Transylvania counties. As part of this study,
we are conducting interviews with community leaders and organizations to gather valuable data
and insight into the regional area and the factors that impact housing. Your responses will remain
confidential and only aggregate results will be presented in our report.
1. Please provide your contact information, should we need to follow up with this response.
Response
Percent
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
answered question
skipped question

Answer Options
Name
Organization
Email Address
Phone Number

Response
Count
41
41
41
41
41
1

2. What type of organization do you represent (select all that apply)?
Response
Percent
7.5%
2.5%
15.0%
15.0%
12.5%
12.5%
40.0%
10.0%
32.5%
7.5%
2.5%
answered question
skipped question

Answer Options
Agency on Aging/Senior Services
Community Action Agency
Disabled/Special Needs Service Provider
Economic Development Organizations
Homeless Service Provider
Housing Authority
Housing Developer
Landlord
Local Government/Municipal Official
Property Management Company
Realtor Association/Board of Realtors

Response
Count
3
1
6
6
5
5
16
4
13
3
1
40
2

3. What county(ies) does your entity serve or operate within (select all that apply)?
Response
Percent
76.2%
23.8%
23.8%
23.8%
answered question
skipped question

Answer Options
Buncombe
Henderson
Madison
Transylvania

C-1

Response
Count
32
10
10
10
42
0

 Housing Needs & Issues
4. On a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest), rank the degree of overall housing demand in each
of the areas below, regardless of style and type.
Answer Options
Asheville
Black Mountain
Brevard
Hendersonville
Buncombe County (excluding
Asheville and Black Mountain)
Henderson County
(excluding Hendersonville)
Madison County
Transylvania County
(excluding Brevard)

1 (Low
Demand)

2 (Moderate
Demand)

3 (High
Demand)

0
0
1
1

3
14
9
6

33
13
8
12

I am not
knowledgeable
of this area
4
13
23
22

0

9

26

1

11

3
3

Rating
Average

Response
Count

3.03
2.98
3.29
3.34

40
40
41
41

5

2.90

40

6

23

3.24

41

9

5

23

3.20

40

7

4

26

3.33

40

answered question
skipped question

42
0

5. If there is a specific area within one of the cities or county areas noted in the above question
where housing development should be focused, please specify it in the box below. Please be
as specific as possible.
See stakeholder summaries for results of this question.
6. On a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest), rank the degree of need for each of the following
housing types in your service area.
Answer Options
Rental
For-Sale (Homeowner)
Single-Person/Young Professionals
Student
Senior Apartments
(Independent Living)
Senior Care Facilities
(Assisted and Nursing)
Homeless
Special Needs (Disabled, AIDS/HIV,
Ex-Offenders, Etc.)

1 (Low
Demand)
1
1
3
18

2 (Moderate
Demand)
9
23
16
15

3 (High
Demand)
32
16
19
5

Rating
Average
2.74
2.38
2.42
1.66

Response
Count
42
40
38
38

5

17

17

2.31

39

7

16

14

2.19

37

7

12

20

2.33

39

7

12

17

2.28

36

answered question
skipped question

C-2

42
0

 7. On a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest), rank the degree of need for each of the following
housing styles in your service area.
Answer Options
Apartments
Duplex/Triplex/Townhomes
Condominiums
Detached Houses
(Single-Family Homes)
Mobile Homes/
Manufactured Housing
Individual Rooms
(aka Home Stays)

1 (Low
Demand)
3
8
16

2 (Moderate
Demand)
8
18
20

3 (High
Demand)
29
14
3

Rating
Average
2.65
2.15
1.67

Response
Count
40
40
39

3

19

19

2.39

41

15

19

6

1.78

40

15

17

2

1.62

34

answered question
skipped question

41
1

8. On a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest), rank the need for housing in your service area for
each household income level.
Answer Options
$0 - $25k
$26k - $50k
$51k - $75k
$76k - $100k
$101k or More

1 (Low
Demand)
3
1
4
14
23

2 (Moderate
Demand)
1
6
17
16
11

3 (High
Demand)
38
35
21
11
7

Rating
Average
2.83
2.81
2.40
1.93
1.61
answered question
skipped question

Response
Count
42
42
42
41
41
42
0

9. On a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest), rank the degree to which each of the following
housing issues are experienced in your service area.
Answer Options
Foreclosure
Limited Availability
Overcrowded Housing
Lack of Community Services
(grocery, doctor, etc.)
Rent Burdened/Affordability
Substandard Housing (quality/condition)
Lack of Public Transportation

3
31
15

Rating
Average
2.05
2.74
2.12

Response
Count
41
42
41

17

13

2.02

42

7
24
16

35
16
22

1 (Not at All)

2 (Somewhat)

3 (Often)

1
0
10

37
11
16

12
0
2
3

C-3

2.83
2.33
2.46
answered question
skipped question

42
42
41
42
0

 10. Rank the priority that should be given to each of the following construction types of housing
in your service area. (Note: As you make a selection, the list will reprioritize itself)
Answer Options
Adaptive Resuse
(i.e. Warehouse Conversion)
Renovation/Revitalization
New Construction

1

2

3

Rating
Average

Response
Count

2

12

28

2.62

42

17
23

20
10

5
9

1.71
1.67
answered question
skipped question

42
42
42
0

11. Rank the priority that should be given to each of the funding types for housing development
in your area. (Note: As you make a selection, the list will reprioritize itself)

6
3
2

Rating
Average
2.78
2.50
2.40

Response
Count
40
40
40

14

5

3.15

40

7

24
4.18
answered question
skipped question

Answer Options

1

2

3

4

5

Homebuyer Assistance
Project-Based Rental Subsidy
Tax Credit Financing
Other Rental Housing Assistance
(i.e. Vouchers)
Other Homeowner Assistance

9
10
15

10
12
4

8
9
13

7
6
6

4

10

7

2

4

3

12. Are there any specific housing development programs that should be given priority as it
relates to housing development in your service area?
See stakeholder summaries for results of this question.
13. Are there are specific housing development programs (local or state level) that are not
currently offered in your service area and should be explored?
See stakeholder summaries for results of this question.

C-4

40
40
2

 Barriers to Housing Development
14. What common barriers or obstacles exist in your service area that you believe limit
residential development (select all that apply)?
Response
Percent
73.8%
45.2%
95.2%
33.3%
61.9%
45.2%
54.8%
21.4%
47.6%

Answer Options
Availability of Land
Cost of Labor/Materials
Cost of Land
Community Support
Financing
Lack of Infrastructure
Lack of Transportation
Lack of Community Services
Local Government Regulations ("red tape")
Other (please specify)

Response
Count
31
19
40
14
26
19
23
9
20
7

answered question
skipped question

42
0

15. How do you believe these obstacles/barriers could be reduced or eliminated? (Responses will
be limited to 500 characters)
See stakeholder summaries for results of this question.

Homelessness
16. Are you knowledgeable about homeless housing needs in your service area?
Response
Percent
56.1%
43.9%
answered question
skipped question

Answer Options
Yes
No

Response
Count
23
18
41
1

17. On a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest), rank the need for housing in your service area for
each homeless group below.
Answer Options
Homeless Individuals
Homeless Families
Homeless Veterans
(and their families)
Homeless Youth
Chronically Homeless

1 (Low
Demand)
2
3

2 (Moderate
Demand)
15
13

3 (High
Demand)
16
17

Rating
Average
2.42
2.42

Response
Count
33
33

6

14

13

2.21

33

7
7

17
15

9
11

C-5

2.06
2.12
answered question
skipped question

33
33
33
9

 18. Rank the types of housing for the homeless you believe are most needed in your service area.
(Note: As you make a selection, the list will reprioritize itself)
Answer Options

1

2

3

4

Emergency Shelters
Permanent Supportive Housing
Single-Room Occupancy
Transitional Housing
Voucher Assistance

5
18
3
7
1

6
7
6
9
6

6
5
8
6
9

7
2
9
8
8

Rating
Average
10
3.32
2
1.91
8
3.38
4
2.79
10
3.59
answered question
skipped question
5

Response
Count
34
34
34
34
34

19. What are the obstacles to the development of housing for homeless populations in your
service area?
See stakeholder summaries for results of this question.
20. Provide any recommendations on ways to address the needs of the homeless populations in
your service area?
See stakeholder summaries for results of this question.
21. Is there anything specific that we should be aware of regarding homelessness or homeless
housing needs in your service area? (Responses will be limited to 500 characters)
See stakeholder summaries for results of this question.

C-6

34
8

 Special Needs
22. Are you knowledgeable about special needs housing in your service area?
Response
Percent
45.0%
55.0%
answered question
skipped question

Answer Options
Yes
No

Response
Count
18
22
40
2

23. On a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest), rank the need for housing in your service area for
each special needs group below.
Answer Options
AIDS/HIV
Alcohol/Substance Abuse
Ex-Offenders
Physical/Development Disabilities
Mental Illness
Unaccompanied Youth/
Youth Aging Out of Foster Care
Other* (Specify group below)
*If Other, please specify group:

1 (Low
Demand)
8
1
4
1
1

2 (Moderate
Demand)
15
9
12
11
10

3 (High
Demand)
2
15
9
13
15

Rating
Average
1.76
2.56
2.20
2.48
2.54

Response
Count
25
25
25
25
26

2

15

8

2.24

25

1

4

4

2.33

9
4

answered question
skipped question

26
16

24. Rank the types of housing for special needs you believe are most needed in your service area.
(Note: As you make a selection, the list will reprioritize itself)
Answer Options

1

2

3

4

Emergency Shelter
Group Homes
Permanent Supportive Housing
Transitional Housing

9
3
14
2

4
8
5
11

7
10
4
7

8
7
5
8

Rating
Average
2.50
2.75
2.00
2.75
answered question
skipped question

Response
Count
28
28
28
28

25. What are the obstacles to the development of housing for special needs populations in your
service area?
See stakeholder summaries for results of this question.
26. Provide any recommendations on ways to address the needs of the special needs populations
in your service area?
See stakeholder summaries for results of this question.

C-7

28
14

 27. Is there anything specific that we should be aware of regarding special needs populations
or special needs housing in your service area? (Responses will be limited to 500 characters)
See stakeholder summaries for results of this question.

Vacation Rentals and Home Stays
28. In your opinion, how frequently do you believe area rentals (apartments, single-family
homes, etc.) are being rented to vacationers (AirBnB, etc.) rather than as permanent housing?
Response
Percent
0.0%
25.6%
53.8%
20.5%
answered question
skipped question

Answer Options
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
Often

Response
Count
0
10
21
8
39
3

29. Why do you believe people are renting their accessory units and apartments as vacation
rentals? (Select all that apply)
Answer Options
Prospect of Increased Rental Income Profit
Prospect of Increased Rental Income Needed to Afford Their
Primary Residence
Fewer Problems than with Permanent Tenants
More Demand
Other (please specify)

Response
Percent
57.9%

Response
Count
22

15.8%

6

15.8%
10.5%

6
4
5

answered question
skipped question

38
4

30. In your opinion, to what degree are individual rooms (often referred to as "home stays")
rented out in the area?
Response
Percent
2.7%
32.4%
51.4%
13.5%
answered question
skipped question

Answer Options
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
Often

Response
Count
1
12
19
5

31. In your opinion, what monthly rent do you estimate is typical for a home stay rental?
See stakeholder summaries for results of this question.

C-8

37
5

 Transportation
32. On a scale of 1 to 3 (3 being the highest), indicate your opinion on how important having
access to public transportation is for the following groups.
Answer Options
Renters
Homeowners
Families
Seniors
Single-Persons/Young Professionals
Low-Income Households
Moderate-Income Households
High-Income Households
People Currently Living in Asheville
People Currently Living Outside of
Asheville and Commuting In
Special Needs Populations (homeless,
disabled, etc.)

1 (Not
Important)
1
9
3
2
4
0
2
29
2

2 (Somewhat
Important)
9
23
21
10
25
2
33
9
14

3 (Very
Important)
29
7
15
27
10
37
4
1
20

Rating
Average
2.72
1.95
2.31
2.64
2.15
2.95
2.05
1.28
2.50

Response
Count
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
36

5

18

13

2.22

36

0

5

34

2.87

39

answered question
skipped question

39
3

33. Provide your opinion on the farthest distance a resident of each type below could live from an
access point (e.g. bus stop) for public transportation before it becomes inconvenient. Enter
the distance in miles, using 1/4 mile increments (e.g. 1.50, 2.25, 3.00, etc.)
Response
Percent
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
answered question
skipped question

Answer Options
Family Households
Senior Households
Special Needs/Homeless Households

Response
Count
37
37
37
37
5

34. What strategies do you believe the city of Asheville should consider in an effort to reduce
transportation cost burdens for residents? (Select all that apply)
Answer Options
Provide additional access points for public transit
Create/expand ride share programs
Create/expand senior dial-a-ride programs
Encourage residential development near public transit access
points
Increase "bikeability" within the city
Increase "walkability" within the city
Provide lower-cost parking options
Other (please specify)

Response
Percent
88.6%
65.7%
65.7%

Response
Count
31
23
23

82.9%

29

57.1%
65.7%
37.1%

20
23
13
3

answered question
skipped question

C-9

35
7

 Addendum D: Glossary
Various key terms associated with issues and topics evaluated in this report are used
throughout this document. The following provides a summary of the definitions for these
key terms. It is important to note that the definitions cited below include the source of
the definition, when applicable. Those definitions that were not cited originated from the
National Council of Housing Market Analysts (NCHMA).
Area Median Household Income (AMHI) is the median income for families in
metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, used to calculate income limits for eligibility in
a variety of housing programs. HUD estimates the median family income for an area in the
current year and adjusts that amount for different family sizes so that family incomes may
be expressed as a percentage of the area median income. For example, a family's income
may equal 80 percent of the area median income, a common maximum income level for
participation in HUD programs. (Bowen National Research, Various Sources)
Available rental housing is any rental product that is currently available for rent. This
includes any units identified through Bowen National Research survey of over 100
affordable rental properties identified in the study areas, published listings of available
rentals, and rentals disclosed by local realtors or management companies.
Basic Rent is the minimum monthly rent that tenants who do not have rental assistance
pay to lease units developed through the USDA-RD Section 515 Program, the HUD
Section 236 Program and the HUD Section 223 (d) (3) Below Market Interest Rate
Program. The Basic Rent is calculated as the amount of rent required to operate the
property, maintain debt service on a subsidized mortgage with a below-market interest
rate, and provide a return on equity to the developer in accordance with the regulatory
documents governing the property.
Contract Rent is (1) the actual monthly rent payable by the tenant, including any rent
subsidy paid on behalf of the tenant, to the owner, inclusive of all terms of the lease
(HUD & RD) or (2) the monthly rent agreed to between a tenant and a landlord (Census).
Co-Occurring Disorders is the presence of two or more disabling conditions such as
mental illness, substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, and others.
Cost overburdened households are those renter households that pay more than 30% or
35% (depending upon source) of their annual household income towards rent. Typically,
such households will choose a comparable property (including new affordable housing
product) if it is less of a rent burden.
Elderly Person is a person who is at least 62 years of age as defined by HUD.

D-1

 Elderly or Senior Housing is housing where (1) all the units in the property are restricted
for occupancy by persons 62 years of age or older or (2) at least 80% of the units in each
building are restricted for occupancy by households where at least one household
member is 55 years of age or older and the housing is designed with amenities and
facilities designed to meet the needs of senior citizens.
Extremely low-income is a person or household with income below 30% of Area Median
Income adjusted for household size.
Fair Market Rent (FMR) are the estimates established by HUD of the gross rents
(contract rent plus tenant paid utilities) needed to obtain modest rental units in acceptable
condition in a specific county or metropolitan statistical area. HUD generally sets FMR so
that 40% of the rental units have rents below the FMR. In rental markets with a shortage
of lower priced rental units HUD may approve the use of Fair Market Rents that are as
high as the 50th percentile of rents.
Frail Elderly is a person who is at least 62 years of age and is unable to perform at least
three “activities of daily living” comprising of eating, bathing, grooming, dressing or
home management activities as defined by HUD.
Garden apartments are apartments in low-rise buildings (typically two to four stories) that
feature low density, ample open-space around buildings, and on-site parking.
Gross Rent is the monthly housing cost to a tenant which equals the Contract Rent
provided for in the lease plus the estimated cost of all tenant paid utilities.
Household is one or more people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of
residence.
Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8 Program) is a Federal rent subsidy program under
Section 8 of the U.S. Housing Act, which issues rent vouchers to eligible households to
use in the housing of their choice. The voucher payment subsidizes the difference between
the Gross Rent and the tenant’s contribution of 30% of adjusted gross income, (or 10% of
gross income, whichever is greater). In cases where 30% of the tenant’s income is less
than the utility allowance, the tenant will receive an assistance payment. In other cases, the
tenant is responsible for paying his share of the rent each month.
Housing unit is a house, apartment, mobile home, or group of rooms used as a separate
living quarters by a single household.
HUD Section 8 Program is a Federal program that provides project based rental
assistance. Under the program HUD contracts directly with the owner for the payment of
the difference between the Contract Rent and a specified percentage of tenants’ adjusted
income.

D-2

 HUD Section 202 Program is a Federal program, which provides direct capital assistance
(i.e. grant) and operating or rental assistance to finance housing designed for occupancy by
elderly households who have income not exceeding 50% of the Area Median Income. The
program is limited to housing owned by 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations or by limited
partnerships where the sole general partner is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Units
receive HUD project based rental assistance that enables tenants to occupy units at rents
based on 30% of tenant income.
HUD Section 236 Program is a Federal program which provides interest reduction
payments for loans which finance housing targeted to households with income not
exceeding 80% of Area Median Income who pay rent equal to the greater of Basic Rent or
30% of their adjusted income. All rents are capped at a HUD approved market rent.
HUD Section 811 Program is a Federal program, which provides direct capital assistance
and operating or rental assistance to finance housing designed for occupancy by persons
with disabilities who have income not exceeding 50% of Area Median Income. The
program is limited to housing owned by 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations or by limited
partnerships where the sole general partner is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
Income Limits are the Maximum Household Income by county or Metropolitan Statistical
Area, adjusted for household size and expressed as a percentage of the Area Median
Income for the purpose of establishing an upper limit for eligibility for a specific housing
program. Income Limits for federal, state and local rental housing programs typically are
established at 30%, 50%, 60% or 80% of AMI.
Low-Income Household is a person or household with gross household income between
50% and 80% of Area Median Income adjusted for household size.
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit is a program to generate equity for investment in
affordable rental housing authorized pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code,
as amended. The program requires that a certain percentage of units built be restricted for
occupancy to households earning 60% or less of Area Median Income, and that the rents
on these units be restricted accordingly.
Market vacancy rate (physical) is the average number of apartment units in any market
which are unoccupied divided by the total number of apartment units in the same market,
excluding units in properties which are in the lease-up stage. Bowen National Research
considers only these vacant units in its rental housing survey.
Mixed income property is an apartment property containing (1) both income restricted
and unrestricted units or (2) units restricted at two or more income limits (i.e. low-income
tax credit property with income limits of 30%, 50% and 60%).
Moderate Income is a person or household with gross household income between 40%
and 60% of Area Median Income adjusted for household size.

D-3

 Multifamily are structures that contain more than two housing units.
New owner-occupied household growth within a market is a primary demand component
for demand for new for-sale housing. For the purposes of this analysis, we have evaluated
growth between 2015 and 2020. The 2010 households by income level are based on ESRI
estimates applied to 2010 Census estimates of total households for each study area. The
2015 and 2020 estimates are based on growth projections by income level by ESRI. The
difference between the two household estimates represents the new owner-occupied
households that are projected to be added to a study area between 2015 and 2020. These
estimates of growth are provided by each income level and corresponding price point that
can be afforded.
Overcrowded housing is often considered housing units with 1.01 or more persons per
room. These units are often occupied by multi-generational families or large families that
are in need of more appropriately-sized and affordable housing units. For the purposes of
this analysis, we have used the share of overcrowded housing from the American
Community Survey.
Pipeline housing is housing that is currently under construction or is planned or
proposed for development. We identified pipeline housing during our telephone
interviews with local and county planning departments and through a review of published
listings from housing finance entities such as IHFA, HUD and USDA.
Population trends are changes in population levels for a particular area over a specific
period of time which is a function of the level of births, deaths, and net migration.
Potential support is the equivalent to the housing gap referenced in this report. The
housing gap is the total demand from eligible households that live in certain housing
conditions (described in Section VIII of this report) less the available or planned housing
stock that was inventoried within each study area.
Project-based rent assistance is rental assistance from any source that is allocated to the
property or a specific number of units in the property and is available to each income
eligible tenant of the property or an assisted unit.
Public Housing or Low-Income Conventional Public Housing is a HUD program
administered by local (or regional) Housing Authorities which serves Low- and VeryLow-Income households with rent based on the same formula used for HUD Section 8
assistance.
Rent burden is gross rent divided by adjusted monthly household income.
Rent burdened households are households with rent burden above the level determined
by the lender, investor, or public program to be an acceptable rent-to-income ratio.

D-4

 Replacement of functionally obsolete housing is a demand consideration in most
established markets. Given the limited development of new housing units in the study
area, homebuyers are often limited to choosing from the established housing stock, much
of which is considered old and/or often in disrepair and/or functionally obsolete. There
are a variety of ways to measure functionally obsolete housing and to determine the
number of units that should be replaced. For the purposes of this analysis, we have
applied the highest share of any of the following three metrics: cost burdened households,
units lacking complete plumbing facilities, and overcrowded units. This resulting
housing replacement ratio is then applied to the existing (2013) owner-occupied housing
stock to estimate the number of for-sale units that should be replaced in the study areas.
Restricted rent is the rent charged under the restrictions of a specific housing program or
subsidy.
Single-Family Housing is a dwelling unit, either attached or detached, designed for use by
one household and with direct access to a street. It does not share heating facilities or other
essential building facilities with any other dwelling.
Special needs population is a specific market niche that is typically not catered to in a
conventional apartment property. Examples of special needs populations include:
substance abusers, visually impaired person or persons with mobility limitations.
Standard Condition: A housing unit that meets HUD’s Section 8 Housing Quality
Standards.
Subsidized Housing is housing that operates with a government subsidy often requiring
tenants to pay up to 30% of their adjusted gross income toward rent and often limiting
eligibility to households with incomes of up to 50% or 80% of the Area Median
Household Income. (Bowen National Research)
Subsidy is monthly income received by a tenant or by an owner on behalf of a tenant to
pay the difference between the apartment’s contract rent and the amount paid by the
tenant toward rent.
Substandard housing is typically considered product that lacks complete indoor
plumbing facilities. Such housing is often considered to be of such poor quality and in
disrepair that is should be replaced. For the purposes of this analysis, we have used the
share of households living in substandard housing from the American Community
Survey.
Substandard conditions are housing conditions that are conventionally considered
unacceptable which may be defined in terms of lacking plumbing facilities, one or more
major systems not functioning properly, or overcrowded conditions.
Tenant is one who rents real property from another.

D-5

 Tenant paid utilities are the cost of utilities (not including cable, telephone, or internet)
necessary for the habitation of a dwelling unit, which are paid by the tenant.
Tenure is the distinction between owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing units.
Townhouse (or Row House) is a single-family attached residence separated from another
by party walls, usually on a narrow lot offering small front and back-yards; also called a
row house.
Unaccompanied Youth persons under 25 years of age, or families with children and
youth, who do not qualify as homeless under this definition, but who are homeless under
section 387 of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, Violence Against Women Act, or
McKinney-Vento homeless Assistance Act as defined by HUD.
Vacancy Rate – Economic Vacancy Rate (physical) is the maximum potential revenue
less actual rent revenue divided by maximum potential rent revenue. The number of total
habitable units that are vacant divided by the total number of units in the property.
Very Low-Income Household is a person or household with gross household income
between 30% and 50% of Area Median Income adjusted for household size.

D-6