This dashboard was created by CommunityScale for the City of Greenfield. The objective of this dashboard is to outline the plan's objectives and priorities, share key observations and findings about the local housing landscape, and highlight recommended strategies to increase housing production and address affordability challenges.
This housing needs assessment combines extensive quantitative data analysis with consideration of the community’s goals for its future to produce a 10-year housing production target.
The Housing Plan builds on progress made over the past several years, including the Greenfield Housing Study (2014), Sustainable Master Plan Housing Element (2014), Downtown Revitalization Plan (2023), and Community Preservation Plan (2023).
This website version of the study highlights key observations and findings. The Housing Plan document is also available in a much more detailed, downloadable pdf format:
The People and Place sections of this report were presented at a public meeting on May 22, 2024. A video of this presentation is available here.
PROGRESS TRACKER
This tracker was launched in September 2024 to monitor progress toward the City's housing production goals.
More indicators will be added to this dashboard over time as the City implements this Housing Plan.
🚧
200
Units currently in the pipeline
🧱
675 - 1,000
Units to build by 2034 to meet City goals
A primary focus of this - and any - housing plan is the degree to which the community has adequate access to “attainable housing” options. In other words, can local residents attain housing within their community that meets their needs at price points they can reasonably afford given their incomes? In this way, “attainable housing” and “affordable housing” are synonymous. The following concepts are involved in this determination:
💸 Household income
Combines wages and other earnings across all members of the household, including income from employment as well as pensions, social security, disability benefits, etc. (about 69% of Greenfield residents report employment earnings).
🔑 Affordable
Defined as housing which costs no more than 30% of a household’s income.
🏠 Housing costs
Includes primary expenses such as rent and mortgage payments as well as other fundamental expenses including property tax, insurance, and utilities.
AMI level | Income range | Attainable rent | Attainable purchase | Greenfield households |
---|---|---|---|---|
<30% | <$28k | $670 | $70k | 2,025 |
30-60% | $28-56k | $1,345 | $155k | 1,921 |
60-80% | $56-74k | $1,775 | $210k | 1,139 |
80-100% | $74-93k | $2,255 | $271k | 689 |
100-120% | $93-112k | $2,690 | $326k | 565 |
>120% | >$112k | >$2,690 | >$326k | 1,849 |
loading... change to the gap since loading....
loading... change to the gap in the last twelve months.
This plan provides a detailed picture of housing needs and opportunities in Greenfield followed by recommendations and an action plan to guide the City’s housing policy and investment strategies over the next 10 years. The following provides context for how the City fits into the housing production process and what it can and cannot do to promote development. The City’s role and responsibilities related to housing production include:
⚖️ Regulation
Shaping, administering, and enforcing regulations like zoning and building codes
✅ Permitting
Reviewing and approving new development proposals and construction
📑 Long-range planning
Setting goals and land use plans to guide future development
🏆 Grant administration
Applying for grant funding and managing state and federal grant allocations within funding guidelines
🏦 Economic development
Promoting Greenfield’s assets and opportunities to potential investors like employers and developers
What the City can do to promote new housing:
What the City cannot do:
Attainability gaps: The households that are currently paying more than 30% of their income for housing.
Potential downsizers: Households age 65+ who would prefer a smaller, more accessible unit without leaving town.
Organic growth: The households expected to move to Greenfield based on recent growth trends.
Essential workforce: Middle-income employees who work in Greenfield but can’t find adequate or attainable housing to live in town too.
Market-rate housing: Higher-income households who would support new, largely unsubsidized development.
Based on the housing needs assessment analysis and the community’s stated housing policy goals and priorities, the charts at right summarize the housing production opportunity the community should plan for over the next 10 years in terms of lead development entity (top) and affordability level (bottom)
The production opportunity is presented as a range, from a lower, more achievable number to a higher, more aspirational goal. This provides flexibility to set baseline expectations at a realistic level but also support a more aggressive vision that may be possible with strong proactive action and successful collaboration with stakeholders and partners.
Affordabilty level | New units |
---|---|
<30% AMI | 50-60 units |
30-60% AMI | 190-245 units |
60-80% AMI | 75-125 units |
80-100% AMI | 60-155 units |
100-120% AMI | 50-105 units |
>120% AMI | 50-110 units |
Total | 475-800 units |
Including pipeline development: | 675-1000 units |
Strategy | Action |
---|---|
Revise zoning to promote more housing production | Update the zoning ordinance to enable more housing throughout the city, addressing dimensional requirements, allowable uses, parking provisions, and other regulating factors. |
Update ADU ordinance | Remove provisions that limit or slow ADU production and comply with new state legislation as applicable. |
Introduce inclusionary zoning and density bonuses to zoning code | Add an inclusionary zoning provision that provides incentives for developers to include affordable units in market-rate projects. Consider density bonuses that are significant to truly unlock development opportunities in suitable locations such as in and around downtown. |
Position the Hope Street lot for housing development | Perform or commission a feasibility study to inform next steps including readying the site, preparing development scenario, crafting incentives as needed, and seeking a development partner. |
Establish a housing trust fund | Create a housing trust fund and capitalize it with CPA funds. |
Explore UCH-TIF to support downtown development | Study the potential use of Urban Center Housing Tax Increment Financing (UCH-TIF) as an incentive to improve the development feasibility of housing projects downtown, such as a market- or mostly market-rate development on the Hope Street lot. |
Market Greenfield to the regional and national development community | Begin outreach to regional and national developers, promoting Greenfield as a promising place to invest and discussing incentives and partnerships that might catalyze new development in line with City goals. |
This chart illustrates trends in population by age cohort, both historic and projected. The projection is based on recent trends extended. Depending on economic, policy, and other conditions, the actual future age distribution may vary over time.
Greenfield’s population includes a much higher proportion of seniors than the state overall. More specifically, Greenfield has much higher rates of 1-person senior households, including nearly 4 times the rate of renters. Many households in this group might be interested in alternative housing options more tailored to a single seniors’ needs, incomes, and lifestyle preferences.
Household group | Share of total Greenfield households | Share of total Massachusetts households |
---|---|---|
Age 65+ | 36.0% | 25.0% |
Age 65+ 1-person | 20.5% | 9.8% |
65+ 1–2 person in 3+ bedroom units | 26.0% | 18.6% |
These households earn 80-120% AMI and typically represent a community’s “middle class” workforce, including public safety officers, skilled nurses, educators, and municipal employees. Greenfield’s low proportion of 80-120% AMI households is likely a result of limited available housing options at price points this group can afford, requiring they live elsewhere.
AMI level | Total households | Household income range | Monthly affordable housing costs |
---|---|---|---|
Below 30% | 2,025 | Below $27,930 | Below $700 |
30-60% | 1,921 | $27,930-55,860 | $700-1,400 |
60-80% | 1,139 | $55,860-74,480 | $1,400-1,850 |
80-100% | 689 | $74,480-93,100 | $1,850-2,350 |
100-120% | 56 | $93,100-111,720 | $2,350-2,800 |
Above 120% | 1,849 | Above $111,720 | Above $2,800 |
AMI Group | 2022 | 2034 | Change |
---|---|---|---|
Below 30% | 2,063 | 2,444 | +23.0% |
30-60% | 1,948 | 2,210 | +16.6% |
60-80% | 1,135 | 1,099 | -3.9% |
80-100% | 678 | 569 | -18.7% |
100-120% | 550 | 403 | -30.4% |
Above 120% | 1,856 | 1,922 | +4.3% |
Greenfield’s lowest income groups are its most racially diverse, especially the <30% AMI group. Other income levels are relatively consistent in their ratios of white and non-white households.
Families with children are concentrated in the >120% and <80% AMI groups. Nonfamily households are predominantly low-income (this group includes one-person households). Families without children (such as couples) are most common at the >120% AMI level.
Most households in the >65 age group have incomes below 60% AMI. Households between 25-64 are most prevalent in the >120% AMI but also particularly numerous in the 30-60% and <30% AMI groups. The small group of youngest households (<25 years) are relatively evenly distributed across all AMI levels.
Greenfield’s resident population includes many people with disabilities that may restrict their housing choices. Lower-income households are more likely to include people with one or more of these disabilities but there are significant numbers across the income spectrum. This chart summarizes people with disabilities by income level. People with multiple disabilities are counted multiple times in this dataset.
In Greenfield, most low-income households are cost burdened. Most households earning >80% AMI are not cost burdened. This pattern applies to both homeowners and renters alike.
The local housing stock includes a mix of committed affordable housing supported by federal programs such as Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and Housing Choice Vouchers. For households with particularly low incomes, these units may represent one of the only housing options available to them.
This graph inventories the local housing stock in terms of each unit's structure type, a characteristic defined as the number of units in the building that contains a given unit.
This graph inventories the local housing stock in terms of bedroom count by unit by tenure. The majority of Greenfield’s housing units are two bedroom or larger, especially among ownership units.
This chart compares the median listing price in Greenfield with the home value affordable to a household earning the median household income. A wider gap means higher barrier to entry for first-time homebuyers and increased risk that an existing resident might be priced out of the community if they choose or need to move to a different house.
This chart tracks the typical market value for single family homes and condos over the past several years. The adjacent table translates these values into monthly costs (mortgage + tax and other costs).
This chart summarizes the distribution of costs across all ownership units in the area, most of which last transacted years ago. About 45% of Greenfield homeowners pay below $1,850/mo compared to the $2,213 and $2,763 required to afford a condo and single family on today’s market.
Unit size | Greenfield asking rent | Recently built developments asking rent |
---|---|---|
Studio | $856 | $1,919 |
1 bed | $1,406 | $1,804 |
2 beds | $1,764 | $2,188 |
3 beds | $2,179 | N/A |
The rents indicated at right compare recent listings in Greenfield with recently built market rate rental housing within an hour drive from Greenfield (13 properties with 10+ units built since 2018). The gap between these contemporary benchmarks and prevailing local rents help explain why developers seem to be passing over Greenfield for the time being. However, this gap may be narrowing, improving the prospects for new construction in Greenfield.
The average asking rent should be understood as the typical cost to a household signing a new lease under current conditions. In reality, because this is a single average value, actual asking rents may vary depending on characteristics such as size, location, and property features but they will collectively track along this trendline. The “Current renter costs” total includes newly occupied units along with units that have been occupied for longer (and where rent may have been set at a much lower rate than today’s asking price).
This chart simulates the unit mix today’s local population would choose if all households could move into units that match their likely bedroom preferences and willingness to pay.
Monthly cost | Need | Supply | Gap |
---|---|---|---|
Below $700 | 2252 | 2063 | 189 |
$700-$1,400 | 2285 | 1948 | 337 |
$1,400-$1,850 | 1207 | 1135 | 72 |
$1,850-$2,350 | 703 | 678 | 25 |
$2,350-$2,800 | 506 | 550 | -44 |
Above $2,800 | 1276 | 1855 | -579 |
Nearly three quarters of Greenfield’s housing production took place before 1970 with very little new construction in recent years. This table chronicles the community's development history, indicating decades with relatively more or less construction activity. 2020 or later is approximate as new housing units are completed.
Building permitting history is a proxy for construction activity over time. Greenfield has seen very little new permits during the past decade. While there are some proposed developments on the horizon, none have reached the building permit stage yet.
Project | Units | Developer | City funding | Other support |
---|---|---|---|---|
Wilson’s redevelopment | 61 apartments | Community Builders | ARPA and HoDAG | Mass Development |
60 Wells Street shelter | 36 apartments + 30 shelter beds | CSO | CDGB and CPA | EOHLC funding |
156-176 Main Street | 20-70 apartments (TBD) | Tim Grader, Rural Development Inc. | CPA | Mass Housing Partnership funding |
184 Petty Plain Rd | 1 single family | Habitat for Humanity | CPA | N/A |
187 Hope St | 2-3 duplex/triplex | Oxbow Design | CPA | N/A |
71 Montague City Road | 13 apartments | Olive Street Development | N/A | N/A |
107 Fairview Street | 6 duplexes | N/A | N/A | N/A |
277 Silver Street | 2 triplexes | R.G. Penfield and Sons | N/A | N/A |
TOTAL | Approximately 200 or more | |||
Scroll to the right for development details |
Based on the analyses contained within the People and Place sections of this report, Greenfield’s housing demand is driven by a number of factors that include both unmet demand among existing residents and new growth among projected and potential future residents. This chart illustrates demand origins on the left and demand drivers on the right.
Each demand driver in more detail below followed by an estimated quantification of total demand by income level.
The gap analysis compares Greenfield’s distribution of household incomes to its mix of housing options by cost to uncover potential supply shortages at different price points. The analysis identified a shortage of 623 units across a range of price points below $2,350 per month.
Adding units at these price points would help take pressure off existing residents currently experiencing cost burden.
65+ households of 1-2 people in 3+ bedroom units | 1,560 |
Potential annual downsizing rate | 3% |
Units needed to accommodate downsizers over 10 years | 468 |
While the future growth rate could change and the City could choose to expand production to induce demand or tap sources of latent demand, this represents a baseline minimum target to aim for.
Driver | Units needed | Details |
---|---|---|
Household growth | 417 | Forecasted from 2024 to 2034. |
Overcrowding adjustment | 0 | Local rate of 1.3% is below the national average of 3.4%. |
Replacement housing | 43 | 0.05% of the housing stock is replaced annually |
Vacancy adjustment | 0 | Local rate of 5.3% is above the healthy market minimum of 5% |
Substandard adjustment | 0 | Local rate of 0.1% is below the national average of 0.4% |
Total units needed | 460 | To keep up with growth and maintain a healthy housing stock |
To meet the trends extended growth projection, Greenfield would need to add 460 housing units over the next decade. This production target combines demand driven by net household growth as well as other factors which also contribute to maintaining a suitable housing supply over time.
Jobs in Greenfield | 9,138 |
Workers that live and work in Greenfield | 2,175 |
Portion of local workforce that live in Greenfield | 24% |
Additional workforce households (and units) target by 2034 | 496 |
As a regional employment hub, Greenfield contains more jobs than housing units. However, only about 24% of the people working in Greenfield live in the city as well. While many of the workers who commute into the city simply choose to live somewhere else, a portion of these workers may prefer to live in the city if the right housing options were available.
Region size | 152,894 renter households |
Greenfield size | 4,499 renter households |
Greenfield share of the market | 2.9% of the region |
Regional market rate unit potential | 1,873 units/year |
Greenfield's potential share | 55 units/year |
Greenfield could consider positioning to attract a larger share of the Western Mass market rate housing demand. These units could be added on top of those intended to address local housing needs.
Household structures have changed significantly since much of Greenfield’s housing supply was built. Today, households are smaller, less likely to have one or more children, and more likely to include non-family or multi generational cohabitants. Future development should be designed to reflect the current diversity of household structures and wider range of housing needs and preferences.
🛌 Smaller units
Fewer bedrooms for smaller households.
🅿️ Parking optional
Enabling a car-free or car-lite lifestyle.
🪴 Green building
Efficient, low-impact design and systems.
👵🏻 Multigenerational
Space for adult children or elderly parents.
“Workforce housing” is typically oriented to middle-income households that often consist of singles, couples, or young families. Jobs typically attributed to this group include public safety officers, educators, municipal employees, skilled nurses, and other occupations that often require some level of higher education and pay wages equating to 80-120% AMI.
👨👩👧💰 Moderate cost for families
Workforce families can afford units that cost $1,700 - 2,500 per month.
🧍🏽💵 Lower cost for singles
One-person workforce households cannot afford as much as dual-earner families.
🛏️ Fewer bedrooms
Workforce-oriented housing should include mostly 0-2 bedroom units.
🔨 Well-maintained
Workforce can afford rent/mortgage but large capital costs can be destabilizing.
📍 Near job centers
Households can save money by living close to work and commuting without a car.
Recent years have seen growing demand for housing in walkable, downtown or compact neighborhood environments. This can include both dense urban places as well as small town downtowns. Increasingly, the most desirable and competitive housing markets are those with access to the qualities and amenities of a downtown environment within walking distance.
🚶🏼 Walkability
More daily needs and wants accessible on foot.
🚌 Transit
Close to bus lines and train connections.
🏪 Amenities
Near restaurants, shops, and cultural destinations.
🏥 Services
Access to health and community services without a car.
🏘️️ Activity
Located in a lively and vibrant neighborhood.
Many people 65 and older explore transitions to housing units that allow them to age-in-place, offering accessible design, enabling lower-cost living, and supporting an active, community-oriented lifestyle.
While some seniors are attracted to purpose-built, age-restricted housing developments, others prefer housing in more conventional settings that is designed or retrofit to accommodate aging people.
👨👩👧 Universal design
Accommodating to people with limited mobility.
🧹 Low maintenance
Less space and less work to keep up.
💲 Energy efficient
Lower utility costs affordable on fixed income.
♿ Accessible
Single-level with ADA-compliant doors, baths, etc.
🤗 Social
Designed and located to promote an active community life.
Greenfield has a lower rate of homeownership than the rest of the state or the national average. While it is important to maintain a significant rental housing supply to provide options for people not interested in or ready to buy, a majority of people prefer homeownership for at least certain periods of their lives, such as starting and raising a family.
The Greenfield community has expressed interest in stronger pathways to homeownership, especially among middle-income households. Adding more ownership units will contribute to this goal, along with other support such as financial assistance to overcome high down payment and financing costs.
Distinct from demand, the production opportunity represents the number of units that realistically could be developed over the next 10 years based on this plan’s analysis, stakeholder interviews, and recommendations.
The chart at right organizes the housing production opportunity by development entity to illustrate the affordability levels each delivers and in what quantity relative to others.
The table below translates AMI levels into the rents and purchase prices households earning these incomes can afford without incurring cost burden.
AMI | Attainable Rent | Attainable Purchase |
---|---|---|
<30% | $670 | $70,000 |
30-60% | $1,345 | $155,000 |
60-80% | $1,775 | $210,000 |
80-100% | $2,255 | $271,000 |
100-120% | $2,690 | $326,000 |